Is Origen "not strictly" monotheistic?

[jeffC]

All right! thanks for taking the time to prepare such well thought out replies. I'll return the favor, but I'm going to try and condence the discussion down as well so that it remains manageable. It's my turn to be moving (though only across town), but I'll try to reply within a reasonable amount of time.

 

[BigNorsk]

Claims have been made elsewhere that the early Christian Fathers did not see the Trinity as we do today. The claims are all similar, and basically it would be that in some sense they saw something closer to a council of gods acting together, perhaps so closely they are considered as one.

Here is Origen on the Trinity and the Nature of God, who lived in the late 2nd century and early third.
All of these quotes are taken from complete manuscripts of the original writings online at newadvent.org.

Couple of things to keep in mind. Origen was declared a heretic by Council and that resulted in the Church destroying many of his writings. Any conclusion you try to draw now is done without all the evidence.

The anathemas are available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ix.html

Many of them do indeed have to do with the Trinity. Only history really knows how much they were the teachings of Origen and how much it was those who claimed to follow him but maybe not him personally. He certainly held to some way out there views.

Marv

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Couple of things to keep in mind. Origen was declared a heretic by Council and that resulted in the Church destroying many of his writings. Any conclusion you try to draw now is done without all the evidence.

The anathemas are available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ix.html

Many of them do indeed have to do with the Trinity. Only history really knows how much they were the teachings of Origen and how much it was those who claimed to follow him but maybe not him personally. He certainly held to some way out there views.

Marv

These points were alluded two earlier as well as the fact we have two versions of his major works. One version far more favorable than the other in regards to areas that later (long after his death) would be the focus of much criticism. Of course the later is written by a friend, the other an adversary.

It should be noted that the debates and this council condemning Origen (or more to the point Origenism) occurs over a hundred years AFTER his death. The point/purpose was to condemn people that were alive holding beliefs they derived from Origen's writings. What is not at all clear is whether Origen actually believed all these points or not, but apparently some people alive when this occurs did.

And there is a second pronouncement separated by another 100 years against Origenism, when some people once again hold heretical views they claim derive from Origen's writings. So it is more accurate to say the Church condemned the ideas of the man (whether actual or not no one could say) who was long since dust, but these ideas held by some people of the day. There were some high level disputes with individuals during Origen's lifetime, but nothing like these two councils, and unclear how much of that was just purely political as opposed to doctrinal. Saint Jerome, alive at this first council you mention, was no champion of Origen, yet even he is said to have stated Origen's problems were not a point of doctrine.

The fact the Church and Fathers not have only preserved Origen's works for us but used them repeatedly in battling heresies, even the same works containing some of the points criticized. These facts should give one pause before assuming anything about a pronouncement (even two) of anathema against a man long dead. Common sense should tell us something else had to be going on there besides a Church just finally getting around to putting another nail in a crumbling coffin.

A good article from the Church's view of Origen
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm

 

[BigNorsk]

These points were alluded two earlier as well as the fact we have two versions of his major works. One version far more favorable than the other in regards to areas that later (long after his death) would be the focus of much criticism. Of course the later is written by a friend, the other an adversary.

It should be noted that the debates and this council condemning Origen (or more to the point Origenism) occurs over a hundred years AFTER his death. The point/purpose was to condemn people that were alive holding beliefs they derived from Origen's writings. What is not at all clear is whether Origen actually believed all these points or not, but apparently some people alive when this occurs did.

And there is a second pronouncement separated by another 100 years against Origenism, when some people once again hold heretical views they claim derive from Origen's writings. So it is more accurate to say the Church condemned the ideas of the man (whether actual or not no one could say) who was long since dust, but these ideas held by some people of the day. There were some high level disputes with individuals during Origen's lifetime, but nothing like these two councils, and unclear how much of that was just purely political as opposed to doctrinal. Saint Jerome, alive at this first council you mention, was no champion of Origen, yet even he is said to have stated Origen's problems were not a point of doctrine.

The fact the Church and Fathers not have only preserved Origen's works for us but used them repeatedly in battling heresies, even the same works containing some of the points criticized. These facts should give one pause before assuming anything about a pronouncement (even two) of anathema against a man long dead. Common sense should tell us something else had to be going on there besides a Church just finally getting around to putting another nail in a crumbling coffin.

A good article from the Church's view of Origen
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm

Well it's really hard to tell exactly what Origen taught isn't it? With much of his writings destroyed, and more rewritten it's quite difficult to know what if anything of his is original and what is rewritten to fit Catholic theology.

I'm a little surprised though in your position. It almost seems to be that the Council didn't really investigate what Origen taught. Do you think the Council bore false witness against Origen? I know it's often disputed if Nestorian held to the heresy named after him or was simply too foolish to understand what was going on or was simply a political victim. But I didn't know it was thought the same of Origen.

How about the others condemned at the same time?

Marv

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Did you read the link?

It does not take much thought to realize that a council convened hundreds of years after a persons death cannot have as it's main goal or purpose to condemn a dead man. It would have to be about something else. And what they could investigate would be people's current teachings and the writings of Origen. They obviously could not investigate Origen himself.

As I read online the mention of his name in that council, it was asking people to renounce beliefs based on a list of men including Origen, that and also a laundry list of things people were teaching and claiming authority from Origen's writings/teachings.

Without even looking to be sure, am pretty certain some (if not most) of the other people specifically mentioned along with Origen were also dead at the time. Major and even minor councils were big deals, dealing with real issues effecting the present day Church.

St Jerome's remarks indicate the first council's ( issues with Origen (399 AD dead 100+ already) were not doctrinal points.

And yes, it would be impossible for us now and probably very difficult if not impossible 100+ years after Origen's death to prove Origen actually held any of these positions. For all we know the "belief" of Origen being criticized could have been speculation, a misunderstanding or corruption by then living people of what Origen actually believed.

My whole point was that the council is condemning real, living people that held these beliefs and presumably were using the writings of a long dead Origen as a champion for their case. So the Church addressed as a response a condemnation Origen(isms).

It is really no different than Jeffcc or others using Origen today to support their own beliefs. My condemning those beliefs of Jeffcc as heretical does not prove Origen believed it or make Origen a heretic.

We should also keep in mind that at the time Origen wrote, many of the things he wrote about were not yet settled issues/doctrine within the Church. So while one could say in hindsight Origen was wrong about this or that, he cannot be called a heretic for something he could not know would be potentially considered heretical in the future.

As we have a two versions of his writings, one pro - one con, it is a safe bet that what he actually wrote is a mixture of both or somewhere in between.


More links to the councils on this issue
Origen died around 254 AD

Second one - 553 AD
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308b.htm
First one - the Alexandria council of 399
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01300a.htm

And note all of that in context of the article on Origen and Origenism.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm