www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Pope Benedict XVI: ORIGEN: MASTER AND EXEMPLARY WITNESS OF CHRIST

I love Pope Benedict's very positive treatment of Origen's use of the quadriga (fourfold method of biblical interpretation).

Enjoy!

Gordo

Dear Gordo,

Well, anyone who can appreciate the great Origen that way certainly has my vote!

(Origen was, in fact, and despite his problems, venerated locally as a saint in Alexandria.).

Alex

What is the debate about Origen? I have the opportunity to read the church Fathers writings but have heard that Origen is extremely controversial,heretical even, so I didn't know if I should read him without guidance.
How does one know who to read to learn more about basic Eastern theology? Who is universally accepted? But if this is hijacking the thread let me know and I'll open a new one.

Peace,
Indigo

I love Origen, he is one of my favorite Fathers. Even though he may have been condemned, he is the greatest theologian and bible scholar of the ancient church. You can learn more standing on the shoulders of giants, even when they are wrong, than you can from lesser men. I am glad the Pope honored him with this reflection.

Indigo, you do have to read him with some guidance. No one of the fathers is infallible, we read them with the mind of the church, and receive the conscensus teaching of the fathers. But Origen is worth the effort.

Lance, Besides asking my priest, which I'll certainly do,does that mean reading the Ecumenical Councils first to find out the mind of the church? How do I acquire this mind of the church so my reading is discerning?
Indigo

other people jump in here too-

I would say Indigo, the first seven ecumenical councils are decisive for they ironed out the doctrine of Christ's Person.

1) The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2) A good book is the Way of Orthodoxy, by Bishop Kallistos Ware, it gives a good flavor for Eastern Christianity, which is based on the Fathers.

3) The Face of God by Joseph Raya.

4) Finally, St. Vladimirs has an excellent series of Patristic books, that are fairly inexpensive, just 11 or 12 dollars each. You can read the fathers for yourself. some of the titles I have are:

a) On the Incarnation by Saint Athanasius
b) On the Unity of Christ, by St. Cyril of Alexandria
c) Catechetical Lectures, by St. Cyril of Jerusalem
d) On the Holy Spirit, by St. Basil
e) On the Divine Images, by St. John of Damascus
f) On Wealth and Poverty, by St. John Chrysostom.

These are again, very inexpensive volumes, easy to read, with good scholarly introductions and commentary provided by the editors.


Anyone else?

Indigo:

I think that to acquire the "mind of the Church" you need to stay away from the temptation of focusing on one Father or one source and trying to see the entire Tradition through the prism of that one Father or source. This, it seems to me, is the source of so many problems. As you read the Fathers and other sources, you may find things that one says that seem to be at odds with others, but the Church has preserved them all because She finds spiritual treasure in them all.

Each new source you read will build up the "mind of the Church" in you. It's also VERY IMPORTANT to keep in touch with your priest and your spiritual father. Don't take the "shotgun" approach: going off in all directions at once. St. Gregory of Nyssa tells us that our pilgrimage here will continue in eternity and we will grow (to use the title of his book) "From Glory to Glory." We will continue to learn more about the great Mystery of the One Who made us. Be mindful of your own limitations. Speaking form my own experience, I can say that as I have aged I have come to the stage where I welcome my own limitations and rejoice in the gifts of others. There was a day when I foolishly thought I had to know all the sources and know all the answers. Thank God He let me crash on that one and come to relish the insights of others. It's made me very appreciative of the fact that God has gifted me with these others--and that giftedness includes you. Thanks for being here.

To acquire the "mind of the Church," will humble you as you realize that we are called to love radically and to bring every bit of learning to this greatest task--to love God with every bit of our strength and being and to love our neighbor as ourselves, seeing God in the neighbor.

If you acquire this, you will have the "mind of the Church."

Your brother in Christ,

BOB

Dear indigo

I am seldom at this forum but I did drop in today and see this thread on Origen. I have deep respect for this father of mystical theology.

There is absolutely no doubt that the foundation of the formal mystical theology of both Easter and Western Churches ... was laid by Origen. If you find him attractive, then go ahead and read him. I have often found it valuable to 'go back to the basics'. Water which has flowed so far from the well (modern theology) is often stale and stagnant. One might find water straight from the source more refreshing.

As regards his work being heretical and such... I investigated and researched this very well. My own finding are that Origen himself nor any of his writings was eever declared heretical. Such a judgment (which was attempted) was actually impossible to make as this attempt was made after Origen�s death. According to the canons which existed at the time - such a judgment can only come after certain prescribed steps which I summarize below.

The accused is called before a tribunal and questioned on the suspected items. The accused has the right and the opportunity to fully explain his meaning - and if his explanation is found wanting - he must then be given the opportunity to retract and accept catechumen (to learn the correct way) - and only if he does not retract he must be given a formal order to cease and desist - and if he continues to teach wrongly after all that - only then can the church declare him a heretic which must (at the time of this fiasco) be signed (approved) by the Pope of Rome. These canon steps must be followed.

Origen was already dead at the time this local council tried to condemn him. Obviously he was not there to be questioned or to explain his meaning. Being already dead no one could issue to him an order to cease. Being already dead - there is no way he could knowingly disregard the order to cease.

When that local council came to the Roman Pope, with a condemnation of Origen himself (and his writings), the Pope of Rome refused to sign it. They then went back into council and returned with a condemnation of certain interpretation of the writings of Origen *as held by the Tall Brothers* - which the Pope of Rome signed.

This trial (minus defendant) took place at a time in which the Byzantine Emperor and the Pope of Rome were in a tug of war over who should be the head of the Church. Politics (on both sides) was the name of the game � and the Emperor was busy confiscating all property (within Byzantium) that had belonged to Rome. The Tall Brothers (Roman affiliation) were condemned and all their property (land and monastery and church) were forfeited to become property of the Emperor. Which confiscation was probably the real goal of this local council � anyway.

One must make a huge difference between error and heretical.

The condition of heresy and heretical is a condition of a man�s will. He must willfully refuse obedience (after formal order to cease teaching error). That is why a non-member of the church can not be declared heretical or a heretic. For example: Buddhist teaching may be in error but they can not be heretical. The church only has authority to judge its own members.

As member of the Church we can all be in error on certain theological things - but that does not make us heretical - it makes us human. No one sits down and immediately learns the entire theology of the church without error. Understanding the theology is a progression. And so we are bound (as humans) to entertain error along the way of progress. I can name several popular theologians who currently present errors as if they were the theology of the church. However I can not imagine them removing their books from the book stores and refunding any one�s money. Can you? Appluase is addicting.

As regarding reading Origen � be forewarned that there are two areas in which you will find modern commentaries accuse Origen of heretical teachings.

1) One item is that Oorigen believed that demonic spirit flew about in the air and feed on the smoke of pagan scarifies.

2) The other is that Origen believed that there was a pre-existent creation - before this creation came to be. That is: that we existed as ethereal spirits before being put into bodies. The extended logic of this is that this creation of matter - is evil. Our bodies are evil.

As regards my defense for Origen�s comment that evil demons flew about in the air � this was a common belief at the time and EVERYONE believed that. From bishops to the person on the street. This belief stayed with the Church right up to the time of Newton. Newton (yup, the guy with the apple) himself held a theory regarding �absolute space�. The question was �Is empty space - really empty??�. Another way to ask it is �Is there any such thing as a true vacuum?� - and Newton�s answer was that empty space is not empty but is occupied by spirits flying about invisible (like ethereal gas). This theory was acceptable to the Church while the theory that the sun was the center of the solar system was not acceptable.

As regards a pre-existing creation - those who interpret Origin in this way misunderstand what Origen is saying. They interpret creation as linear time (a big bang - to - end of time). And that is not what Origen is saying. Origen is speaking of what would later be defined as �essential union� by at least Western theology. And so Origen was the first to conceptualize essential union. To interpret Origen in this way (the wrong way) on this subject automatically makes the interpreter at fault for ignoring the doctrine of Providence (the immediate hand of God at work at every moment in creation) and puts the fate of the world into the power of a mechanical fate and destiny (set at the beginning of creation to click away as a mechanical clock) instead of a living Providence. Without the doctrine of Providence God is either dead (and his creation keeps on ticking) or uninvolved and inactive (which state is entirely against his nature). Essential union is the doctrine that you exist at this moment because God continues (even at this moment) to speak you into be-ing. At the foundation of your exitence (here and now) God keeps continual union with your essence - your own will has nothing to do with it. You do not self-exist. This is different from mystical union in which you come to have knowledge of God and cooperate with his will.

Sorry if I confused you.

Have a go at Origen and enjoy.

By the way. I am not a theologian or priest. I offer this only for your consideration.

I believe that Origen's doctrine of apocatastasis (essentially universal salvation) was condemned as well. Here is a very helpful article in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm

Hans Urs von Bathlthasar was - inacurrately - accused in the Wanderer a number of years ago of resurrecting this heresy in his book Dare We Hope "That All Men Be Saved"?

http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=112&AFID=12&

A good read if you can find it is Jean Danielou's Origen, which was published by Sheed & Ward in 1955. (Quite frankly, anything by Danielou is worth purchasing, IMHO.) I am blessed to have a copy, and have referenced it on several occasions. It is a hard one to find, though. You might check with Loome's Theological Booksellers in Stillwater, MN. THey are the largest used theological bookseller in North America.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Christ is Risen!

Thank you all, I knew this was the place to come for help.You've each been very helpful.
Indigo

Dear ebed melech,

As regards the concept of apokatastasis�

What that article describes � is not Orgen�s concept of apokalastasis. I do not know who that description of apokalstasis belongs to - but certainly not to Origen.

I can only repeat - that Origen and his writing have never ever been condemned by the Church, but it was politically useful for a time, for some unscrupulous bishops to foster that falsehood at a time when Rome and Byzantium were into a tug of war.

What was condemned was certain interpretations of Origen - mostly held by self-styled Origenists - long after Origen�s own death. Such mis-interpretation may be very like the link you provided.

Roman Catholic archives have been thoroughly searched for the official document that condemn either Origen or his writings - and there is none. The archives have also been searched to try and find supporting evidence (some official letter that mentions the fact of a condemnation) and there are none.

You mentioned Balthazar and so maybe you might consider that Hans Von Balthasar gives a few common accusations against Origen � (page 16 of the Intorduction to The Classics of Western Spirituality - Origen) and finds them baseless misunderstandings of Origen.

One of the biggest mistakes made by people who should know better - is that they judge Origen who wrote at a time before the terms of Greek Philosophy were developed in the church. Origen wrote at a time in which the theology of the church was presented in Semitic cosmogony (images, types, allegory, parables, mystical, etc..) the same as Paul did, and John did, and Jesus himself did. In fact it was Origen himself who began the transition to Greek terms. I do not know how such a simple plain fact escapes these �judges� who accuse him. They KNOW that Origen was the first but they expect him to speak in the precision of terms of those who would only come after him and because of him.

The Communists used to teach �if you say a lie long enough - it becomes the truth� and that is what has happened to poor Origen. Perpetuated mistaken opinions take on the air of solid truth. Translations of Origen skewed to faulty assumptions. I suppose Origen will never be free of that. Well, he is dead so he is free of it, but we are not.

The apokatastasis of Origen mostly is in reference to what would later develop to be called the Mystical Marriage. The �restoration of all things in Christ� is not the same thing as �every one will be saved�. These are apples and oranges. The restoration of all things in Christ (as also given in John�s Revelations) is to those who die the �first death� (enter into the mystical marriage) and are not harmed by the �second death� (physical death). Any literal interpretation of John as well as Origen - causes much troubles.

This is how it seems to me.

Peace to you and your church.
-ray

Ray,

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Thank you for your very thorough and interesting post. I will have to read a few of the things you mentioned.

Interestingly enough, I have recently read two works by Christoph Cardinal Scoenborn (don't know how to make an umlaut on the keyboard!) who addresses seperately two accusations against Origen: one of a belief in metensomatosis or reincarnation (in his work From Death to Life: The Christian Journey) and the other pertaining to Georges Florovsky's claim that Oriegn's writings contained the theological premises of iconoclasm (in his work God's Human Face: The Christ Icon). In both of these works, the good Cardinal demonstrates how certain teachings of Origen were (albeit sometimes too easily) misrepresented by various individuals and groups. It seems one almost needs to take the whole of Origen's thinking into account (which is a monumental - if not seemingly impossible - task in and of itself) before ascribing one teaching or another to him!

God bless!

Gordo

Try these on for size:

Hans Urs Von Baltashar said that we are obligated to believe in Hell, but not obligated to believe any one is there.

Bishop Kallistos Ware suggests in his book, the Orthodox Church, that the saved and damned experience the same thing in the afterlife, namely the love of God: the saved experience it as paradise, the damned as torment, because they have not acquired it within themselves. But Ware says we cannot say for sure that everyone will be saved, for that will be to deny free will. But we can hope for it.

Finally, Peter Mohila in his Orthodox Confessions (items #63-#67 in part 1) says that we can help those in a damned states with our prayers and alms and the unbloody sacrifice even if they cannot help themselves.

It is one thing to say that every one WILL be saved, but I do not think it is wrong to HOPE for everyone to be saved. That hope seems to consistent with much of the reflection of the Eastern Church over the centuries.

You are very kind.

Peace to you and your (tiny little) church.
I have not been to it for a long time now.
I do hope the priest still gets down to it from Danbury.