Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Origen
Why do we refer to the teachings of Origen if he was excommunicated?
Comments
Excommunication by the Church, for whatever reason, can only be undone by the Church.
There is nothing wrong about being excommunicated for violation of canonical law. I didn't say it can be undone without the Church. I'm just saying we should examine the facts we have now, not generalizations.
Origen developed a philosophical framework that many have misconstructed. The first notion is apokatastasis or "restitution". All souls are equal in that a an angel go down and become a devil and a devil can go down to become a human. And each creature can move up when they unite with God. This all happens before you're born. Whatever your soul chooses, you become physically. This in itself is heretical. However, Origen later stated that he never said a devil can be saved, rather that theoretically or potentially a devil can repent and be saved, but they never will. The next notion is subordination of the Trinity. The Son is subordinate to the Father (which is a form of Arianism). However, Origen probably wasn't talking about hypostatic subordination. Rather, heirarchial subordination, which is found in many Ante-Nicene fathers and today (for example, The Son does the will of the Father)
The story should have ended here. However, 50 years or so later, some bishops, expanding on Origen's philosophical anthropology, stated God can't be limited to the physical world. God is incorporeal and cannot become man. 4 of these bishops, known as the Tall Brothers, were the greatest proponents of this "modified" Origenism. Pope Theophilus started out in his paschal letter as an Incorporalist/Origenist proponent, then changed his mind to the anthromorphite position that God was in human form. Then Pope Theophilus used the anthromorphite position to challenge the Tall Brothers, claiming them to be Origenists. All the Incorporalist monks, including Evagarius Ponticus and other famous monks, were forced out of Egypt. They found refuge in Constantinople by St John Chyrsostom. Pope Theophilus then excommunicated St John Chyrsostom. Eventually the Tall Brothers were excommunicated in the 5th Ecumenical Council in Ephesus (Eastern Orthodox) and Origenism was on trial again. But what ended up as Origenism is really different than what Origen stated.
All of this doesn't change the fact that Origen was excommunicated. But it does show that Origen and Origen's teachings were highly misconstrued and manipulated.
I don't know if all of this clarifies the original poster's question or confuses things more.
Let me start by stating that Origen was excommunicated for 2 reasons: 1. Preaching in Palestine against Demetrius' orders and being ordained in Palestine, then returning to Alexandria as priest and 2. Castration is against canonical law. Pope Demetrius did not excommunicate him for his theology or his "heresy".
There is nothing wrong about being excommunicated for violation of canonical law. I didn't say it can be undone without the Church. I'm just saying we should examine the facts we have now, not generalizations.
Origen developed a philosophical framework that many have misconstructed. The first notion is apokatastasis or "restitution". All souls are equal in that a an angel go down and become a devil and a devil can go down to become a human. And each creature can move up when they unite with God. This all happens before you're born. Whatever your soul chooses, you become physically. This in itself is heretical. However, Origen later stated that he never said a devil can be saved, rather that theoretically or potentially a devil can repent and be saved, but they never will. The next notion is subordination of the Trinity. The Son is subordinate to the Father (which is a form of Arianism). However, Origen probably wasn't talking about hypostatic subordination. Rather, heirarchial subordination, which is found in many Ante-Nicene fathers and today (for example, The Son does the will of the Father)
The story should have ended here. However, 50 years or so later, some bishops, expanding on Origen's philosophical anthropology, stated God can't be limited to the physical world. God is incorporeal and cannot become man. 4 of these bishops, known as the Tall Brothers, were the greatest proponents of this "modified" Origenism. Pope Theophilus started out in his paschal letter as an Incorporalist/Origenist proponent, then changed his mind to the anthromorphite position that God was in human form. Then Pope Theophilus used the anthromorphite position to challenge the Tall Brothers, claiming them to be Origenists. All the Incorporalist monks, including Evagarius Ponticus and other famous monks, were forced out of Egypt. They found refuge in Constantinople by St John Chyrsostom. Pope Theophilus then excommunicated St John Chyrsostom. Eventually the Tall Brothers were excommunicated in the 5th Ecumenical Council in Ephesus (Eastern Orthodox) and Origenism was on trial again. But what ended up as Origenism is really different than what Origen stated.
All of this doesn't change the fact that Origen was excommunicated. But it does show that Origen and Origen's teachings were highly misconstrued and manipulated.
I don't know if all of this clarifies the original poster's question or confuses things more.
You did not mention that he believed in the salvation of souls after death and the salvation of the devil himself.
Are you suggesting that the Church was harsh in dealing with Origen?
I am afraid you are making claims that are not true in the statements above. I will address them if anyone is interested.
Correction: The Tall brothers were not bishops but mere monks.
Let me start by stating that Origen was excommunicated for 2 reasons: 1. Preaching in Palestine against Demetrius' orders and being ordained in Palestine, then returning to Alexandria as priest and 2. Castration is against canonical law. Pope Demetrius did not excommunicate him for his theology or his "heresy".
There is nothing wrong about being excommunicated for violation of canonical law. I didn't say it can be undone without the Church. I'm just saying we should examine the facts we have now, not generalizations.
Origen developed a philosophical framework that many have misconstructed. The first notion is apokatastasis or "restitution". All souls are equal in that a an angel go down and become a devil and a devil can go down to become a human. And each creature can move up when they unite with God. This all happens before you're born. Whatever your soul chooses, you become physically. This in itself is heretical. However, Origen later stated that he never said a devil can be saved, rather that theoretically or potentially a devil can repent and be saved, but they never will. The next notion is subordination of the Trinity. The Son is subordinate to the Father (which is a form of Arianism). However, Origen probably wasn't talking about hypostatic subordination. Rather, heirarchial subordination, which is found in many Ante-Nicene fathers and today (for example, The Son does the will of the Father)
The story should have ended here. However, 50 years or so later, some bishops, expanding on Origen's philosophical anthropology, stated God can't be limited to the physical world. God is incorporeal and cannot become man. 4 of these bishops, known as the Tall Brothers, were the greatest proponents of this "modified" Origenism. Pope Theophilus started out in his paschal letter as an Incorporalist/Origenist proponent, then changed his mind to the anthromorphite position that God was in human form. Then Pope Theophilus used the anthromorphite position to challenge the Tall Brothers, claiming them to be Origenists. All the Incorporalist monks, including Evagarius Ponticus and other famous monks, were forced out of Egypt. They found refuge in Constantinople by St John Chyrsostom. Pope Theophilus then excommunicated St John Chyrsostom. Eventually the Tall Brothers were excommunicated in the 5th Ecumenical Council in Ephesus (Eastern Orthodox) and Origenism was on trial again. But what ended up as Origenism is really different than what Origen stated.
All of this doesn't change the fact that Origen was excommunicated. But it does show that Origen and Origen's teachings were highly misconstrued and manipulated.
I don't know if all of this clarifies the original poster's question or confuses things more.
How has his notion of restitution been misconstrued? You said that it was heretical in and of itself. So are you just saying they misunderstood the heresy?
Unworthy, what I am saying and what modern scholars seem to believe now is that Origen set forth a philosophical framework of potentiality of the soul. In other words, a soul can theoretically be saved if it repents, including the devils; just like humans can be saved if they repent. And because the soul in it's pre-life (before it enters a human body) chooses to sin and repent, so to after the body it can sin and repent. He was just trying to get a broad framework. Later on, he explicitly stated that to believe the devil can be saved is such insanity. And later on, in his exegetical works of the Bible, (I believe) he also stated a person cannot be saved after death. So even Origen recognized that salvation of the devil is a heresy of the insane. But he was trying to say more. Yet his opponents only focused on the philosophical framework only, rather than the bigger picture.
It's sort of how an architect puts a very complex building on paper. When construction starts, there are certain things that cannot physically happen they way it was set on paper. But one needs to start with philosophical or theoretical framework first. Then pragmatics (semiotics) or dogma can be refined more accurately.
Here's a pretty interesting article on Origen and Origenism.
St. John Chrysostom got excommunicated!!!!!!!! ??? :-[
He was excommunicated but then was forgiven after his death. He is in the Coptic diptych and is in the Coptic congregation of saints.
does anyone know why that was? was he trying to bring them back into the faith or did he not realise how bad the heretical teaching was?
please give more quotes.
His excommunication does not mean that all his writings are heterodox. That is why we need to be careful when we study patristics so as not to rely on just one writer but our study need to be broad enough to get a consensus.
So why did St Cyril need to remove the anathema from St John Chrysystom to use his teachings?
[quote author=copticuser20 link=topic=12120.msg143709#msg143709 date=1314371461]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg143312#msg143312 date=1313676771]
His excommunication does not mean that all his writings are heterodox. That is why we need to be careful when we study patristics so as not to rely on just one writer but our study need to be broad enough to get a consensus.
So why did St Cyril need to remove the anathema from St John Chrysystom to use his teachings?
Because it would be quite bad for an Orthodox Patriarch like St. Cyril to use the writings of an anathematized Patriarch on an ecumenical level. You see what I mean?
But its ok for everyone else to use the writings and teachings of someone anathematized?
you should rather quote church fathers we accept in our church or your own priest.
severian, i have read the article you pointed me to, but i am confused by this bit:
"ST. EPIPHANIUS IN CONSTANTINOPLE
At the beginning of 403 A.D St. Epiphanius who was about eighty-five years old went to Constantinople, considering this trip an honor to him, for struggling against the most serious heresy, i.e., Origenism.
On his arrival he found things in Constantinople had changed, for the empress hated extremely St. Chrysostom, and desired to get rid of him. St. Epiphanius attacked St. John Chrysostom for receiving those heretics. The Empress Eudoxia who hated St. Chrysostom used Pope Theophilus as a tool for revenge. The council of Oak was held in 403 A.D, under the presidency of Theophilus to condemn St. Chrysostom, who was exiled to Comana (Tokat) where he died on 14 September 407 A.D.
On the demand of the empress, the council was held under the presidency of Theophilus. The problem of the Tall Brothers was not mentioned, and St. Chrysostom was not accused of Origenism, for there was no doubt about his orthodoxy. Besides, the Origenists became almost without leader, for Bishop Dioscorus died shortly before the council was held, and Ammonius who accompanied the Origenist monks died on his arrival at the "Oak." Pope Theophilus mourned exceedingly and praised him, saying that he knows no other monk like him. Herax felt that this problem spoiled his purity and monastic life, therefore he entered the inner desert, devoting his life to worship. In the same year (403 A.D) Isidore also departed from this world. St. John Chrysostom was unable to defend or even to intercede for them, as he was absorbed in his problem with the empress.
It is worthy to mention that on the arrival of the Origenists to the desert, Pope Theophilus sent to them and stretched his arms to them. They apologized to him under the pressure of certain bishops, and the Pope received them without asking them to declare their faith, which meant that the problem in its essence was not doctrinal."
it looks like saint theophilus fell out with saint john chrysostom (who seems to have been wrongly excommunicated) and then, instead of reconciling with him, got reconciled with the tall brothers whose doctrine had been responsible for the controversy in the first place. that sounds strange.
what so you think about that?
[quote author=copticuser20 link=topic=12120.msg143721#msg143721 date=1314384282]
[quote author=Severian link=topic=12120.msg143713#msg143713 date=1314372411]
[quote author=copticuser20 link=topic=12120.msg143709#msg143709 date=1314371461]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12120.msg143312#msg143312 date=1313676771]
His excommunication does not mean that all his writings are heterodox. That is why we need to be careful when we study patristics so as not to rely on just one writer but our study need to be broad enough to get a consensus.
So why did St Cyril need to remove the anathema from St John Chrysystom to use his teachings?
Because it would be quite bad for an Orthodox Patriarch like St. Cyril to use the writings of an anathematized Patriarch on an ecumenical level. You see what I mean?
But its ok for everyone else to use the writings and teachings of someone anathematized?
I am not sure I follow...
Why can we (normal people) use the teachings of someone excommunicated when a Patriarch has to re-communicate (i think) the person to use their teachings (referring to Saint Cyril)
[quote author=Unworthy1 link=topic=12120.msg143751#msg143751 date=1314487040]
But we still refer to the writings of Origen! I think that is what copticuser is getting at.
It is true that on a pastoral level we use Origen's writings. But using some useful writings of a heretic for the education of laymen is different from using the writings of a heretic as an authority to refute a fellow Patriarch. St Cyril was trying to refute Nestorius' heresy, thus he cited St Chrysostom as an authority and he probably wouldn't have been able to pull it off had St John still remained under anathema. But, I could be wrong...
(emphasis mine)
Please elaborate; I don't understand why it one deserves more than the other.
^Think of it this way... If Origen has something insightful to say on the Gospel of John, then great! Use his insight. But, would you use Origen's writings in order to refute a heretic?
EDIT: So with that said, don't you think it would be a discrepancy if St Cyril used St John's writings against Nestorius if he were the one who was involved with his excommunication in the first place?
I don't see why you couldn't use Origen's writings to refute a heretic, if you are going to use his writings to destroy the laymen's own misunderstandings and confusions.
Why afford a laymen any less force in your explanation than you would a heretic? It seems to me that the laymen deserves more.
So do you think it would have been OK for St. Cyril to use John Chrysostom's teachings (while he was anathematized) to correct a young man, and it would be inappropriate for someone like Nestorius? Why is that the case?
But we still refer to the writings of Origen! I think that is what copticuser is getting at.
Yes that is what I meant.