Origen - Saint, heretic or just another ECF?

[Paul Yohannan]

One controversial subject among traditional churches is the ecclesiastical status of Origen, who was anathematized by Emperor Justinian in an event connected with but not neccessarily (herein is the controversy) a part of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (which by the way my church doesn't even recognize, although we don't venerate Origen either).

Some Catholic and EO sources reject the validity of his anathema, whereas others adhere to it with much vigour. On the pro-anathema side we have St. Epiphanius of Salamis and St. Jerome, who regarded Origen as a heretic and as the real author of Arianism. On the other hand, the Cappadocians compiled his writings into an anthology, the Philocalia, not to be confused with the later Philokalia, (which is something else entirely), and we have other Patristic figures on record as supporting him.

What do you think?

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't see how he can be a heretic since orthodoxy at the time was still very much fluid and ill-defined. Many of his ideas were later rejected but this is true of other early Christians later accepted as orthodox, as well.

 

[dzheremi]

Origen is a very interesting figure indeed. Of course like the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church also does not recognize him as a saint, but also does not recognize the council that officially anathematized him. For the Copts, however, there is the additional consideration that he actually served as the sixth dean of the catechetical school of Alexandria from 203. So we cannot look at him as though he is someone removed from our own history, and because of that the modern writings of the Coptic Orthodox Church tend to go into considerable depth concerning the man. His article in the Coptic Encyclopedia, for instance, goes on for 20 pages. (By contrast, that on St. Athanasius is only 11 pages.)

I think the final paragraph of that Coptic Encyclopedia entry sums up my feelings on him:

"Controversies have arisen from his writings, as have numerous schools of thought for and against his thought. Even in his lifetime, he was assailed by ecclesiastical authorities for some of his doctrines that the church repudiated. But this should not minimize the immensity of his contributions or reduce his place as the greatest mentor of the Christian faith in classical antiquity. We must remember that Origen the theologian lived in a transitional age, in the formative centuries of theological science. Thus it would be a grave error to judge his labors on the basis of developed theological systems of the modern age. The reader has to remember that Origen was the greatest builder of Christian letters at a time when religious scholarship was still in its infancy."

He may have been cast out at a later time, and even in his own time, but no one can say that he was not still incredibly influential and important.

 

[Philip_B]

I think the final paragraph of that Coptic Encyclopedia entry sums up my feelings on him:

Thank you for that, I have always though that Origen is much undervalued for his significant contribution to the development of Christian Theology. Perhaps my feeling is that he had a go and we are the richer for him having tried and failed than had he not tried at all.

 

[mark46]

"just another ECF" seems closest to the mark, although it understates his importance to the Early Church. He should NOT be consider a doctor of the church. Clearly, he taught errors. In those days, many used the word "heretic" about those who disagreed. In this age, we use the word with a bit more care, or rather, we should.