Origen of Alexandria

[Patristic]

I am curious as to why Origen receives such a bad rap from Christians from virutally all persuasions. I know he was a universalist and believed in the pre-existance of souls, but many of the other things he taught were very sound. I have begun reading his commentary on Romans and have found many of the things contained in it very sound, and I really admire Origen's exegesis. I guess I am curious as to why so many frown upon him or don't regard him as highly as they do other Fathers of the Church. The more I read of him, the more I like what he wrote. Anyone have any thoughts concerning this topic?

 

[Philip]

Much of Origen's writings are quite helpful, and I enjoy them. However, as you pointed out, he fell into the heresy of Universalism. He was condemned by one of the Councils for this.

If I recall correctly, many Protestant writers frown on him because they consider him too "pagan".

 

[Patristic]

I knew he was condemned by the Church, I think it was Ephesus that did that, but I also believe that condemnation softened in the 7th century to more of a censure as people realized that Origen also contributed many positive elements to Christian theology. Besides, I think every Father has some theological skeletons in their closet, so I think Origen receives a unfair rap.

 

[Reader Nilus]

I wonder about Origen, he was honored as a confessor, and then condemned. Origen himself it would seem, as a pioneer was condemned yet revered. His work was destroyed which is a shame. Origen himself never was able to answer, for he was asleep in the Lord for a 100 years before his condemnation. He did get a bad rap if you ask me.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Patristic]

I am convinced that Origen contributed more positives than negatives. His works refuting the claims of the gnostics are simply invaluable and in my opinion, masterpieces of literature.

 

[Juice]

Origen is thought of very highly in the Church and his writings stand equal to any of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church.

Origen is not condemned by the Church because of some of his writings fall are slightly hetreodox, this would also be so for St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas (by-the-way are saints in the Orthodox Church). His is condemned because he castrated himself and thus he has not been canonnized by the Orthodox Church. Without this selfish act, I don't see why Origen would not be listed among the Saints of the Orthodox Church.

 

[Reader Nilus]

this would also be so for St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas (by-the-way are saints in the Orthodox Church).

Thomas Aquinas is NOT a saint in the Orthodox Church, he is one of the reasons why the gulf between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is so huge today. He was born in 1225 and died in 1274 long after the schism.
Jeff the Finn

 

[MariaRegina]

Thomas Aquinas is NOT a saint in the Orthodox Church, he is one of the reasons why the gulf between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is so huge today. He was born in 1225 and died in 1274 long after the schism.
Jeff the Finn

Dear Jeff:

It's true that St. Thomas lived and died after the schism had occurred between the Catholic and the Orthodox. Therefore the Orthodox Church does not honor his feast day in their calendar.

However, St. Thomas Aquinas was on his way to talk with the Orthodox when he died. He had just had a vision of our Lord and realized the deficiencies in all of his work. He was aware than that God is totally indescribable and incomprehensible. In fact, in one biography I read, the Dominicans had to restrain him because he wanted to burn all of his writings.

Since St. Thomas was so humble, if he had been allowed to dialog with the Orthodox, I'm sure things would have turned out differently. But that is history now.

Personally, I honor him as a holy saint of God and look forward to meeting him with all the saints in heaven.

Lovingly yours in Christ our God,
Elizabeth

 

[Reader Nilus]

In the history of thought Aquinas turned the west to rationalism and we are still seeing the results of his work today. The gulf between Western Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant and Orthodoxy is more than just dogma on paper, it is the way Western Christians view the world which is different than that of the East.
It is true that Aquinas renounced his work as straw before he died, but the Catholic Church declared him a doctor of the Church which given the fact the author renounced it is telling in itself. The reformers did not question Aquinas's world view, accepted it whole, so the seeds of the decline of faith spread to the Protestants as well as the Catholics.
The book that did more for me becoming Orthodox than any other was Encounter with God: A Theology of Christian Experience by Morton Kelsey an Episcopal priest. In that book Kelsey describes the effects of Aquinas's world view on the following generations of Christian thought in the west. The point he made was the Orthodox never have left the world view of the Gospels, which did more for me than anything else. The conversations of with the West need to remember that the language may be the same, but it has a totally different connotation
in the west than it does in Orthodoxy. That divide began with Aquinas.
Jeff the Finn