Origen

[Iosias]

What are your thoughts upon Origen?

 

[BrendanMark]

Brilliant if somewhat overly Hellenic theologian. The pre-existence of souls and other such notions excludes him from orthodoxy, yet his output was so vast and so influential that much of his thought (often via orthodox "fans" such as Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor) remains in Christianity to this day.

The scope of his output is intimidating, and by no means all of it is readily available. I keep meaning to give what I have a tilt one of these days, but find Nyssa and the Confessor easier to read and more enjoyable to contemplate.

 

[Kristos]

Well, he was never sainted by the church, so that should tell you something. But, like Tertullian, he did have some very good things to say and is often quoted by other ancient writers who did become saints.

 

[Grigorii]

One of the greatest theologians of the Church who ever walked this earth as well as one of the greatest pastors. Origen put a permanent stamp on Eastern theology by his emphasis on the reality of the hypostases ("persons") of God, on the sharp disctinction between creation and Creator (creation exists by the will of God), his strong emphasis on free-will, and his constant combat against Gnosticism and Hellenist philosophy. Origen is also the first theologian to give a full rationale for reading the Old Testament as Christian Scripture, this is perhaps the most important aspect concerning Origen; his love for Scripture.

Origen's enormous output and authority in the early Church was interpreted differently by different groups. The Nicene and post-Nicene Orthodox developed the tendency in Origen to overcome radical subordinationism, whereas the Arians their ilk chose to develop Origen's weaknesses in not having overcome subordinationism.

This is the beginning of the great misunderstanding of Origen's theology. Perhaps two of the most serious misrepresentations to be encountered concerning Origen is that his Scriptural exegesis denigrates "the literal sense" of Scripture and the idea that Origen taught that souls pre-existed and fell into bodies. Both of these ideas are hostile misrepresentations of Origen's actual theology. Many, many wrong ideas float around concerning Origen that originate from a few main sources:

1. St. Methodius of Olympos
Seems to have been the first to interpret Origen as teaching a fall of pre-existing souls into bodies and as denying the reality of the bodily resurrection.

2. St. Epiphanius of Salamis
Seems to be the first to launch a consistent campaign against Origen without having significant first-hand knowledge of Origen's writings. Blames Origen for a number of heresies, most significantly Arianism.

3. Theodore of Mopsuestia (and other Antiochene/Nestorianizing exegetes)
Blames Origen for not understanding Scripture historically that is, according to it's literal meaning thereby distorting the message of Scripture.

4. St. Justinian the Great
Blames Origen for several 6-th century heresies, again without having direct access to Origen's works but relying on florilegia of Origen's works. Wrote (at least) two sets of anathemas against Orgenism that have been erroneously believed to be the work of the 5-th Ecumenical Council.

St. Cyril of Scythopolis
Wrote lives of monastic saints and in these lives has his heroes combat Origenism. Cyril is the only source which speaks of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrios as having been condemned by the 5-th Ecumenical Council, but does so to divert attention from the Council's actual work which condemned the Antiochene tradition in which Cyril himself stood. Cyril's claim of the anathematization of these three figures is most likely a polemical jibe at the non-Chalcedonians and Neo-Chalcedonians (the latter have shaped the christology that would be ratified in the East by the 6-th Ecumenical Council).

5. Koetschau's critical text of Origen's Peri Archoon
Uncritically synthesizes summary statements of different anti-Origenist patristic authors concerning Origen;s doctrine into the latin text of the Peri Archoon which is where we derive the only text from where Origen speaks of a fall from pre-existence (fragment 15). So that the only text where Origen clearly speaks about a fall from pre-existence is a text not of Origen, but is a theoretical construct of a modern editor of his text.

I write this in haste and from the top of my head, having been immersed in this stuff for months for a presentation on Evagrios and patristic papers for my classes. So what I wrote are merely pointers for further reading, they are not infallible summaries. In fact each statement would need much more grounding in fact and research and also much more detail than I can provide right now.


Standard works to consult:

Origen On Prayer
Hans Urs von Balthasar Spirit and Fire (selections from Origen's works)
Fr. John Behr The Way to Nicea
Henri de Lubac History and the Spirit
Henri Crouzel Origen
Mark Julian Edwards Origen Against Plato
Daniel Hombergen The Second Origenist Controversy

Gregorios

 

[simonthezealot]

Love his attachment/reference to scripture in nearly everything he covered.

 

[Kristos]

Origen on Prayer: pg.22

But these pray along with those who genuinely pray—not only the high priest but also the angels
who “rejoice in heaven over one repenting sinner more than over ninety-nine righteous that need
not repentance,.” and also the souls of the saints already at rest. Two instances make this plain. The
first is where Raphael offers their service to God for Tobit and Sarah. After both had prayed, the
scripture says, “The prayer of both was heard before the presence of the great Raphael and he was
sent to heal them both,.” and Raphael himself, when explaining his angelic commission at God’s
command to help them, says:
“Even now when you prayed, and Sarah your daughter-in-law, I brought the memorial of your
prayer before the Holy One,.” and shortly after, “I am Raphael, one of the Seven angels who present
the prayers of saints and enter in before the glory of the Holy One. Thus, according to Raphael’s
account at least, prayer with fasting and almsgiving and righteousness is a good thing.
The second instance is in the Books of the Maccabees where Jeremiah appears in exceeding “white
haired glory” so that a wondrous and most majestic authority was about him, and stretches forth
his right hand and delivers to Judas a golden sword, and there witnesses to him another saint already
at rest saying, “This is he who prays much for the people and the sacred city, God’s prophet
Jeremiah.” For it is absurd when knowledge, though manifested to the worthy through a mirror and
in a riddle for the present, is then revealed face to face not to think that the like is true of all other
excellences as well, that they who prepare in this life beforehand are made strictly perfect then.
Now one of these excellences in the strictest sense according to the divine word is love for one’s
neighbor, and this accordingly we are compelled to think of as possessed in a far higher degree by
saints already at rest than by those who are in human weakness and wrestle on along with the
weaker. It is not only here that “if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it and if one
member is glorified, all the members rejoice with it” in the experience of those who love their
brethren, for it beseems the love also of those who are beyond the present life to say “I have anxiety​

for all the churches:

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Origen is my favorite kind of thinker - the kind that writes all of his good ideas down even if he isn't sure how to make them all fit together in a consistent "system".

Too many interesting ideas are lost to the need for systematization.

And note - all interesting and good ideas are worth considering and understanding whether they are right or wrong. It is just as important to fully understand a wrong idea and understand why it is wrong as it is to understand a right idea and understand why it is right.

 

[Korah]

Origen is my favorite kind of thinker - the kind that writes all of his good ideas down even if he isn't sure how to make them all fit together in a consistent "system".
Too many interesting ideas are lost to the need for systematization.
And note - all interesting and good ideas are worth considering and understanding whether they are right or wrong. It is just as important to fully understand a wrong idea and understand why it is wrong as it is to understand a right idea and understand why it is right.

I'm an out-and-out Origenist.
I came into Roman Catholicism as a convert in 1969 pretty orthodox in theology, but quickly came across evidence that reincarnation is true, and to me this seemed to vindicate Purgatory after all. I'm not saying Origen taught reincarnation, but it seems logically necessary after his teaching of the pre-existence of souls. I carry this more radically now to say that the souls of demons and humans existed before God took sovereignty over them (see Eph. 1:3-4), so God is not to blame for evil. It already existed.
Korah.

 

[Kristos]

This logical conclusion is not supported by a correct understaning of evil. It is not a created thing, it is our disobedience.

I'm sure you know that these teachings were condemned as heresy, and many of Origens works did not survive because of this, so why would you claim to be an Origenist?

 

[Korah]

This logical conclusion is not supported by a correct understanding of evil. It is not a created thing, it is our disobedience.
I'm sure you know that these teachings were condemned as heresy, and many of Origens works did not survive because of this, so why would you claim to be an Origenist?

A very "Orthodox" response, Kristos, but I don't regard you less just because of that.
The charge of "heresy" means little to me, because I did not hesitate to abandon my Protestant background and convert to Roman Catholicism Easter 1969. For me and my family, that was real heresy!
During my years 1969 to 1992 as RC, I came to learn that RC is by no means Origenistic, but RC scholars take pains to prove that Origen was never properly labelled heretical. Justinian's condemnation of Origen in the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553 A. D.) was never approved by the Pope. You Eastern Orthodox do regard the anathema as valid, however, as you accept the Trullo Quinisext Council of 681 (approximately, no one knows the true year anymore). Rome does not accept those 102 canons. And they were merely canons, even EO does not observe all of them.
You are aware, are you not, that Origen was the first great Christian theologian, and all Christian theologians thereafter are heavily in his debt? Like all the ECF before Nicaea, he fails to match up to Trinitarian and Chalcodonian dogmas not promulgated until 325 A. D. to 451 A. D. Origen's misfortune was to be so influential that some later heretics tried to cover themselves as Origenists, and got Origen attacked along with "Origenism".
The present Pope Benedict XVI is open to Origen's liberal teachings on Hell--he is a big fan of Urs von Balthasar, the leading RC theologian who failed recognition as a cardinal only by dying too soon.
I (as "Adam") have been in active debate with EO converts over on Theology Web, and I've been doing so well they don't respond to me any more. I am quite disgusted with the cocksure narrowness of the EO there. I hope you're not as bad.
I am now Lutheran (ELCA).
Korah