Origen

[Sunny_Seraphim]

I am somewhat confused... I have heard Origen called a heretic before, and yet I have heard him called a Saint. What am I to beleive? Was he a heretic in his teachings, or is he really a Doer of the Word of the Lord?

 

[Christos Anesti]

Some of his speculations were rejected by the Church ( like the pre-existence of souls for example) and some of his later followers took those speculations to even more extream ends. To protect the faithful from being mislead he was anathmatized by the Church long after his death. Many of his writtings still posses a lot of wisdom though and he was often quoted and praphrased by various Saints and Fathers of the Church . His bibilical commentaries were especially influential. It was mainly his work "On First Principles" that had the most grevious errors. He isn't recognized as a saint and has no feast day in either the Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Christos Anesti]

In the Coptic Church he was never anathmatized in a general council that I know of but he also isn't given a feast day as a saint either. I've heard some claim that they do consider him a saint but I have yet to see any evidence of it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ subscribes

 

[a_ntv]

Origen is not venerated as a saint because he physically emasculated (castred) himself in order to literally follow Mt 19:12. The Church thus could never propose him as example.

Nevertheless Origen can be considered a great Church Father, perhaps the greater among the Church Fathers. Actually I considered him as one among many, but after reading the first pages of his "Homilies on Numbers" I realized that no other writer has the strong Origen has: it is a reading that any Christian should do, a wonderful open window of the true meaning of the Bible.

Anyway the later Byzantine Church never liked too much Origen, and invented a lot of falsities on his believes accusing him even of heresy.
That because the Byzantine Church schools were based on the ancient school of Antioch, where the Scripture was read in a very rational and literal way.
On the contrary, Origen belonged to the ancient school of Alexandria, a school still tied with the original Judeo-Christian interpretation of the Bible, which looked to much allegorical for who, like the Byzantines, had lost the Judaic imaginary.
We know the history: the Byzantines first purged the school of Antioch of whichever component they did not liked, and later attacked the supremacy of school of Alexandria: and because they owned the legions and the capital of the Empire, the school of Alexandria died (almost) out: no other Father could later interpreter the Bible as Origen did

 

[buzuxi02]

I am somewhat confused... I have heard Origen called a heretic before, and yet I have heard him called a Saint. What am I to beleive? Was he a heretic in his teachings, or is he really a Doer of the Word of the Lord?

Origen is not considered a saint by any church. The Coptic church does not recognize him, neither do the Assyrians, or the Eatern Orthodox, the same goes for the Roman catholics.

His heretical teachings are as follows: apokatastasis (universal restoration for all including the demons) though the restored sinner may have a distinct appearance to tell them apart from the pious. The pre-existance of souls. And a muddled subordinationist view of the Trinity.

Many of his writings are still important and a witness to formative christianity.