Was Origen always a heretic?

[Jonathan95]

Hi, was Origen always a heretic, or did he become that later (i.e. was he orthodox for a while), like Tertullian?

 

[Jonathan95]

bump.

 

[Resha Caner]

That's an interesting question. Technically, one is orthodox until one is declared to be a heretic. It would be impossible to know if and when the heart changed. So, are you looking for the "official" answer, or an opinion from someone who is an expert on his life?

I am not an expert on Origen, so I can only give you the historical details. He was born into a Christian family in 184. He was controversial in his own lifetime, but wasn't condemned until 543 (long after his death).

There is a story (I believe from Eusebius) that after his father was martyred, the woman who took him in was harboring heretics, and Origen refused to stay with them. If you believe the story, and don't think it might have been contrived to protect his reputation, then he began orthodox.

There were several things about his beliefs I would disagree with:
* His Neo-Platonism came near to Gnosticism
* He believed in the pre-existence of souls
* He believed all are eventually saved (even the angels)

With that said, it's hard to know how many of the heresies attributed to him were things he actually believed. After being declared a heretic, there was an effort to destroy all his writings, and that makes reading Origen himself a bit difficult.

That's the extent of what I know about him.

 

[Unix]

I like Origen, I agree with almost everything he wrote instead of agreeing with today's Christianity:

There were several things about his beliefs I would disagree with:
* His Neo-Platonism came near to Gnosticism
* He believed in the pre-existence of souls
* He believed all are eventually saved (even the angels)

 

[Denys]

I know this is a year old ... but I am a fan of Patristics!

Technically, one is orthodox until one is declared to be a heretic. It would be impossible to know if and when the heart changed.

From his own writings, his heart was always with the Church. He declared that if anything he wrote was considered erroneous, he would retract it without question. So I would say he made errors – what Father didn't? (And I think the answer to that is only St John Nazianzen.) But his heart was always with the Church.

His Neo-Platonism came near to Gnosticism

Yes it did. And Arius followed Origen and pushed that Neo-Platonism even further, with disasterous consequences.

He believed in the pre-existence of souls

Yep. Another Platonic idea.
This was corrected by St Maximus when he reworked the basic ideas of Platonic creation and brought it inline with Christian theology.

He believed all are eventually saved (even the angels)

Again, this was refuted by the Church, but Origen was not alone in that. The doctrine of the Apokatastasis was condemned by Ecumenical Council, but a qualified apokastasis has emerged since the last century in both the Greek and Latin Churches.

 

[Jonathan95]

Again, this was refuted by the Church, but Origen was not alone in that. The doctrine of the Apokatastasis was condemned by Ecumenical Council, but a qualified apokastasis has emerged since the last century in both the Greek and Latin Churches.

What do you mean a qualified apokastasis?

 

[Denys]

Hi Jonathan95 –

The 'condemned' apokatastasis holds that at the end of time the cosmos will be restored to its original perfect state, there then follows a universal conflagration, and then the process starts all over again.

It was condemned on the basis that it assumes that the damned, the demons and even the devil will be purified and raised to the vision of God. In that, it contradicts Scripture.

Without getting into specific debate, a qualified apokatastasis is acceptable if we say we hope that all men will be saved, rather than simply asserting that all will be saved, regardless of their iniquity.

 

[Jonathan95]

Hi Jonathan95 –

The 'condemned' apokatastasis holds that at the end of time the cosmos will be restored to its original perfect state, there then follows a universal conflagration, and then the process starts all over again.

It was condemned on the basis that it assumes that the damned, the demons and even the devil will be purified and raised to the vision of God. In that, it contradicts Scripture.

Without getting into specific debate, a qualified apokatastasis is acceptable if we say we hope that all men will be saved, rather than simply asserting that all will be saved, regardless of their iniquity.

Ok, but to hope that all men will be saved is a vain hope, since Jesus spoke about the broad path to destruction which many walk upon, among other things.

 

[Percivale]

I don't think you can solidly refute universalism without the book of Revelation, which was not accepted as scripture by all orthodox Christians in Origen's time.

 

[Korah]

New Advent stands by the old (1913?) Catholic Encyclopedia, which does NOT hold Origen as a heretic. Besides, Origen the man as a man was never condemned. Rather, three centuries later the Fifth Ecumenical Council raised issues against Origenism, a philosophical system that GREW FROM Origen, but in its pantheistic tendencies was indeed heretical. However, any pronouncements against Origen failed of final approval. The Eastern Orthodox do hold Origen to be a heretic, but based on their flawed understanding of that council. Roman Catholics do not hold Origen the man to be a heretic, and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI holds sympathies for Origen, as do I.

1. The bishops in 553 certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the approbation of the pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked.
2. It is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period for a decree of the actual ecumenical council.
3. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

 

[FireDragon76]

I've never heard Orthodox Christians call Origen a heretic. At least not in the OCA (Orthodox Church in America). His writings are not considered very good reading material to understand Orthodox doctrine, however.

 

[Propianotuner]

Hi, was Origen always a heretic, or did he become that later (i.e. was he orthodox for a while), like Tertullian?

Origen's interpretation methods could be terribly ambiguous, and coupled with these reasons it's impossible to tell to just what he believed: it is difficult to chronologically order several of his commentaries and other various texts, and his works actually contradict one another. Origen clearly contradicted himself at some point with several of his interpretations that were either heretical or entertained a line of thought that could easily lead to heresy.

What's really problematic with the case of Origen is that he thought that literally every part of scripture, however mundane it's subject, had a plain meaning and a symbolic spiritual meaning. The mental gymnastics he would engage in so that he could take very mundane sounding bits of scripture and make them sound spiritual can quickly become inane when you read his work. If you'd like to take a peek at what my job's like some time, and set your head spinning, take a stab at this.

Here is one thing I do know about Origen: several of the influential people in the next few centuries were heavily influenced by him, so the fact that he comes up so much is a pain in my backside. You can literally read about two different bishops during the same period both referencing Origen to come up with practically opposite theological ideas.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I've never heard Orthodox Christians call Origen a heretic. At least not in the OCA (Orthodox Church in America). His writings are not considered very good reading material to understand Orthodox doctrine, however.

He's official anathematized, but he actually contributed enormously to Biblical exegesis, he poured his heart and soul into studying Scripture.

His errors included the belief that creation wasn't created, that the physical realm is ultimately left behind for good and that the fall made us physical, and a number of other issues he got from Platonism. He's basically the Christian version of Philo Judaeus.

 

[FireDragon76]

Origen was not a heretic because at the time orthodoxy was quite fluid and somewhat undefined. Some of his teachings were later rejected, so at best he was a material heretic.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Origen was not a heretic because at the time orthodoxy was quite fluid and somewhat undefined. Some of his teachings were later rejected, so at best he was a material heretic.

"Orthodoxy" meant "what Christ taught and subscribed to," and I wouldn't say that was ever "fluid".

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Origen died in the peace of the church and was not formally anathematized until the sixth century. To my knowledge, since we were not at that time in communion with the EO or RC, neither the Oriental Orthodox nor the Nestorians ever anathematized him, although I've never seen an icon of Origen in one of our churches or found a hymn of praise equivalent to an EO Troparion or Kontakion written for him.

For a time, the Nestorian church appeared to teach Apokotastasis as their official doctrine; one finds it in St. Isaac the Syrian, in the Book of the Bee and elsewhere, so it is interesting that they seem to afford Origen no special veneration. Perhaps because he wrote in ponderous Greek and was not well translated into Syriac.

 

[RevRude]

Ok, but to hope that all men will be saved is a vain hope, since Jesus spoke about the broad path to destruction which many walk upon, among other things.

Does the fact that there is a broad path to destruction preclude the hope that those who go down said path can finally be restored?

 

[Jonathan95]

Does the fact that there is a broad path to destruction preclude the hope that those who go down said path can finally be restored?

It says it leads to destruction, nothing says that the destruction is temporary, and you can't give me any biblical evidence for any temporary punishment for the wicked.
Eternal sins against an eternal God must be punished by eternal punishment.

 

[HowdyDave@]

NO!

According to my understanding of heresy, one must first be a believer and then have "strayed from the path."

Just because some of his writings were heretical, some of his teachings are "theologically sound" and upheld by the church.

Was Origen ever declared to be a heretic or were some of his writings merely heretical?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Here is what the 5th ecumenical council said regarding Origen.

XI

IF anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.

Philip Schaff. The Seven Ecumenical Councils, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900), 314.

The council also made specific anathemas against Origen's theology. Anathema I condemned the pre-existence of souls. Anathema XI condemns the idea of Christ's resurrection body being only ethereal. The anathemas total to 15.

If one's anathematizaion from the church means one is also a heretic then yes Origen is a heretic. Given what I know about Origen and his subsequent influence on those who came after him I find it difficult to accept this anathema. Origen dedicated his life to God and to the Church, going so far as to suffer under torture for it. He was wrong about important things, such as universal reconciliation and perhaps took mystical interpretation too far at times, yet he never seemed to go beyond the bounds set by the Church of his day. While he preferred a spiritual exegesis he also accepted there was a historical narrative to the text of scripture.

Did the fifth ecumenical council wrongly anathamtize Origen? I don't know.