/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21885957]

>influences virtually all of christian theology
>officially a heretic
damn that's pretty harsh isn't it?

[Anonymous No.21885965]

>>21885957
>>officially a heretic

really?

[Anonymous No.21885987]

>>21885957
>officially a heretic
Eh, while the catholic church never officially walked that one back to my knowledge, he's still been very well regarded for the past few centuries. He'll never be canonized as a saint, but he isn't really seen as a heretic/negative figure anymore.

[Anonymous No.21885991]

Did he really cut his nuts off?

[Anonymous No.21885995]

>>21885965
>>21885987
Condemned at 3 Ecumenical councils. If Origen can be rehabilitated then so can every heretic.

[Anonymous No.21886115]

>>21885957
he's literally in hell. you can't have his beliefs and be apart of the Church

[Anonymous No.21886197]

>>21886115
which belief condemned him exactly?

[Anonymous No.21886217]

>>21885991
He did and that's why he's a heretic. There's a very good reason Origen is cited only up to a point.

[Anonymous No.21886320]

>>21886217
you say like it's not heavily disputed

[Anonymous No.21886483]

>>21885991
Yes, but all Christians do that, spiritually. That's why they're all passive agressive housewives

[Anonymous No.21886645]

>>21886115
>apart
the absolute state of literacy on /lit/

[Yusuf Reis !!WJh3Qmu5nf/ No.21886693]

>>21886217
It seems unlikely that the main thinker of allegorizing the Bible would take a verse so drastically literally which no one else would. It seems grossly unlikely. Regardless that isn’t why he was anathematized. He was condemned for teachings such as universal reconciliation and other stuff

[Anonymous No.21886783]

>>21885957
The Oriental Orthodox have never officially condemned him.

[S10241875 No.21886846]

>>21885957
History is full of contradictions. Especially the history of the church.

[Anonymous No.21886978]

Didn't he say something about Satan being saved too? Also another interesting and controversial point was that, if I can remember well, he thought that after universal salvation, souls could be cold again, hence his connection of psyche and psychros (not sure if the term is this exactly) and return to embodiment and the world. So he thought in reincarnation like in a similar way to the Platonic and Oriental philosophy. But maybe I'm missing some subtlety I can't remember, would like someone to confirm or correct me.

[Anonymous No.21887148]

>>21886197
Eastern Orthodoxy is the only way

[Anonymous No.21887163]

He was condemned based on things written by someone else, and the circumstances regarding his condemnation are sketchy, as his name isn't included in earlier versions of the same documents, for example. He's not the only wacko either if you want to talk about shit like universal salvation. Isaac of Nineveh was a universalist and a Nestorian bishop in the Church of the East and he's a saint in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The whole sainthood thing is a load of shit.

[Anonymous No.21887418]

>>21886197
the anathemas against origen were drafted nearly 300 years after origen died, so they may not necessarily represent origen's teachings, but they do represent what people claiming origen's mantle were teaching in the 6th century.

this is my attempt to summarize those teachings based on the anathemas:
https://silouanthompson.net/2019/09/anathemas-against-origen/
1, 2, 14 and 15. all souls pre-existed. all intelligences in the universe were created without bodies in a sort of unity. but, having lost their desire for god, they took on bodies of different types to become angels, men, demons, and evil spirits. at the end of the world, they will again exist in unity.
3. the sun, moon, and stars were originally living beings, but god made them inert to punish them for evil (which is also what i think he claimed would be satan's fate)
6. and 13. christ was the only created being who never fell from his original state. he was not different in substance from other created beings.
7. christ manifested himself in the body of each of the intelligent races (angelic orders, humans, demons) in creation so that he could save all of them from their fallen states
8. the logos united with created intelligence is christ, but the logos itself is not christ
10-11. christ's resurrected body is an ethereal sphere, as will all bodies in the resurrection be, but christ and everyone else will reject these bodies at the end of the world, at which point all matter will cease to exist

>>21886978
i'm certain that he never claimed satan would be saved and that the notion is based on a misreading of his passage on the end of the world from first principles. eusebius attests to a letter origen wrote in which he claimed that not even a madman would believe in such a thing.

[Anonymous No.21887691]

>>21885957
His lack of theological parsimony, his interpretational overzealousness and his problematic stance on a number of things make him incompatible with Christian doctrine, as he was saliently more compatible with Platonism than Christianity, videlicet, his acceptance of the Platonic doctrine that vice is tantamount to ignorance, his speculation on the pre-existence and the transmigration of souls, the cosmic cycles, virtually no distinction between angels and humans, the tenuous distinction between the soul of Christ and the rest of humanity, the clearly subordinationist view of Christ's divinity deriving from Philo, apocatastasis, the list goes on and on and on.

I don't think it is fair to say he was heretic, as he was virtually martyred for his faith. I doubt any of his errors were dictated by deliberate ill will or hubris. Some of his teaching have made its way into the Church's orthodoxy with regard to the interpretation of the Bible. But a lot of his teaching is simply way too eclectic and basically esoteric in nature, brilliant as he was.

[Anonymous No.21888421]

>>21886217
No he didn't

[Anonymous No.21888462]

>>21887418
>>21887691
It all sounds very heretical to me

[Anonymous No.21888621]

>>21888462
In a certain sense, he was basically a trailblazer and was doing what almost nobody else was doing at the time, at least not in the systematic sense, namely expressing religious dogma in philosophical language. The issue is that orthodoxy was still somewhat inchoate at the time. Plus, the issue with determining his genuine position is that we cannot draw any decisive conclusions because most of his voluminous works have been either destroyed or lost. From what we can gather, he was more of a Platonist than a Christian, a bit of a hybrid.

[Anonymous No.21889348]

>>21885957
Yes, imo.

[Anonymous No.21889358]

>>21885957
origen was based. our souls are indeed spherical, i have seen it in a vision.

[Anonymous No.21889453]

>>21888462
it all has basis in scripture though. especially the stuff about pre-existence of souls. like >>21888621 pretty much said, he was one of the first experts in a new field. when his fresh ideas went stale they retroactively became heresies as the orthodox beliefs came to be.

[Anonymous No.21889609]

>>21889453
But didn't orthodoxy develop out of and in contrast with "Origenism"?

[Anonymous No.21889643]

>>21889358
Having them just be solid-looking spheres is weird. I want them to be vaguely-spherical balls of glowing mist.

[Anonymous No.21889734]

Pope Benedict XVI expressed admiration for Origen,[22] describing him in a sermon as part of a series on the Church Fathers as "a figure crucial to the whole development of Christian thought", "a true 'maestro'", and "not only a brilliant theologian but also an exemplary witness of the doctrine he passed on"

[Anonymous No.21889745]

Daily reminder that Origen was a Platonic-Pythagorean reincarnationist and that metempsychosis is NOT in contradiction with scripture

[Anonymous No.21890614]

>>21889609
Sure, orthodoxy gradually emerged out of polemics with various heresies across the centuries. Origenism is more of a loose umbrella term for a number of positions associated with his school of thought and not necessarily held by Origen himself. As I have said, it is difficult to determine the consistency of his thought with orthodoxy by reason of the fragmentary nature of his extant writings. With that being said, Clement of Alexandria, who was somewhat similar in some of his views to Origen and just as learned, exhibited a greater deal of theological parsimony compared to Origen and was very careful to tiptoe the line of the contemporary orthodoxy, firmly emphasizing the consubstantiality of Christ with the Father despite arguing that the Son was created, following Philo and confusing being begotten with being created. Withal, he is basically a paragon of orthodoxy in some sense compared to Origen. With Origen, the distinction is further blurred and it is easy to see why some of his writings could have provoked the Arian crisis. With all that being said, Athanasius, who was the chief proponent of the anti-Arian Christology at the time, invoked the authority of Origen in his strife with Arians, who supposedly had been inspired by Origen himself.

In other words, it is complicated and may be so abstruse and inscrutable that it might be impossible at this point to dispel the controversy and ambiguity surrounding Origen. Even juxtaposing Origen with the more esoteric and Gnostic figures such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen remains a problematic thinker to say the least.

[Anonymous No.21890624]

>>21890614
>firmly emphasizing the consubstantiality of Christ
And co-eternality of Christ, so it further casts a shadow upon Origen who seems to imply that Christ is not co-eternal with the Father. Thus, even by Alexandrian Christological standards of the period, Origen's orthodoxy is quite suspect.

[Anonymous No.21891200]

>>21890624
Before the thread dies, I might add that Origen committed so much to paper (or papyrus, whatever) that two different people could come to completely different conclusions based on the selected writings of Origen which they had chosen to go with. This is why both sides of the Origenist controversy would invoke the authority of Origen trying in an effort to deboonk the other side. From the orthodox standpoint, the reason why it is generally not a good idea to delve into Origen too much is because a lot of it is simply half-Pagan in nature insofar as it makes Eriugena look ultra-orthodox, to put it into perspective. Heck, he sounds kind of like Plotinus at some points and don't get me wrong, I like Plotinus and you can clearly see his influence in Augustine's writings, but one cannot disregard the fact that he is completely removed from Christian mindset and theology.

Origen, as said before, probably good intentions and essayed to expound the Christian doctrine in the way he understood it, but he would so oftentimes allegorize beyond the exoteric meaning of Scripture which it would lead him down these esoteric cul-de-sacs, making his thought largely incompatible with mainstream orthodoxy.

[Anonymous No.21891551]

>>21885957
>officially a heretic
who cares?

[Anonymous No.21891757]

>>21887691
>his speculation on the pre-existence

See Ephesians 1:4:

>According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love

[Anonymous No.21892012]

My view is that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are too expansive to ever be encapsulated within the definitions of a single dogma, and quibbling about what constitutes orthodoxy is counterintuitive to the real Christian work, which is both internal (mysticism, hesychasm), and outward (restorative work in the world). My views are indeed heterodox, but I make no apologies for them. As human wisdom and authority are fallible and fallen, as is the history of the Church in its myriad branches and divisions throughout two thousand years of flawed and chaotic human history. But Christ is eternal, Christ is the truth and light, a light each Christian must reach for on their own, just as He reaches down to all of our souls.

A blessed Easter to all.

[Anonymous No.21892028]

>>21892012
Blessed post

[Anonymous No.21892132]

>>21892012
Mysticism without dogma is mysticism in the worst sense of the word. It is dogma which makes true mysticism possible. Dogma carries an apophatic quality in that it isn't an attempt to reduce the ineffability of God to mere formula, but rather it's what guides us towards the mysteries of God.

"Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." - John 4:22

[Anonymous No.21892138]

>>21885957
Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris (#12), Aug. 4, 1879:
>“After him came Origen, who graced the chair of the school of Alexandria, and was most learned in the teachings of Greeks and Orientals. He published many volumes, involving great labor, which were wonderfully adapted to explain the divine writings and illustrate the sacred dogmas; which, though, as they now stand, not altogether free from error, contain nevertheless a wealth of knowledge tending to the growth and advance of natural truths.”
Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (#7), Nov. 18, 1893:
>“In the Eastern Church, the greatest name of all is Origen – a man remarkable alike for penetration of genius and for persevering labor; from whose numerous works and his great Hexapla almost all have drawn that came after him.”

>Early Church fathers, such as Tertullian and Origen, even though they drifted into heresies later on in their lives, hold such a prominent place in the writings of the early Church fathers that they are often quoted by Catholic authorities. If their teaching conflicts with a Catholic teaching, then it should not be promoted or quoted in a positive fashion. But their other statements are often quoted because they represent a witness to the early Tradition for a particular point or belief. For instance, Origen (185-254) provides us with one of the best early quotes that we’ve seen proving the apostolic tradition of sacramental confession to a priest.
Origen (A.D. 185-254):
>“There were also evil thoughts in men, that were revealed for this purpose, that He might destroy them Who dies for us. As long as they were hidden it was impossible wholly to destroy them. Hence, we also, if we have sinned, must say: My injustice I have not concealed (Ps. Xxxi. 5). For if we have made known our sins, not alone to God, but those who can heal our wounds and sins, our sins shall be wiped out.” (quoted in Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 166.)

[Anonymous No.21892181]

>>21892138
>"Heretics are cool now."
t. Rome

[Anonymous No.21892228]

>>21892132
>salvation is of the Jews
cucked

[Anonymous No.21892253]

>>21886217
real
>>21888421
castrated homo

[Anonymous No.21892322]

>>21889358
>our souls are indeed spherical
im on the fence about this desu

[Anonymous No.21892359]

>souls are preexisten-ACK

[Anonymous No.21892424]

>>21885957
literally who????

[Anonymous No.21892840]

>>21892012
I have sympathy with this. Reminds me of Augustine's Church Invisible which is a heresy now.
>>21892132
I also see where you coming from kinda. I would say that dogma outlines for us where the true mysteries must lie and helps prevent us from engaging in a false, fruitless, and empty mysticism. For instance, you (>>21892012) wouldn't deny the trinity would you? That in itself is mystery enough for one life time of contemplation, Christ's dual natures another. Etc. I guess my question is how far are you willing to let heterodoxy go before it starts to weaken the legitimacy and effectiveness of the faith for achieving salvation. I think we can probably agree that Christ is the Truth and the Truth sets us free. What is the minimum amount of Truth you think is necessary? It's one of the arguments I like from Chesterton that the Church is the only thing that proclaims the fullness of Truth.

[Anonymous No.21893283]

>>21892012
You're correct and are essentially advocating for an esoteric stance, but I would say that orthodoxy is important especially for non-intellectual types to keep them on a straight path. But judging people like Origen by such a standard is ridiculous. Moreover in the end only God has the right to make the final judgment. All that said I have the utmost respect for your stance.
A blessed Easter to you as well.

[Anonymous No.21893375]

>>21885957
>unable to comprehend that people can change

We could write the same thing about Saruman.

>was one of the most powerful forces of good in middle earth
>scorned by Gandalf, Galadriel, and the rest

[Anonymous No.21893385]

>>21892012
a tale of the tub pilled

[Anonymous No.21893423]

>>21893375
What evil did Origen perpetuate, specifically? His condemnation at an ecumenical council isn't even based on anything he wrote, but on the writings of later people claiming to follow him, e.g. Evagrius. Origen was imprisoned and tortured for years for being a Christian until his body gave out and died a few months after he was released, so his legacy is people spit on him for supposedly castrating himself.

[Anonymous No.21893521]

>>21893423
I am not in favor of castration or universalism myself.

[Anonymous No.21893604]

>>21893283
Dogma is useful almost entirely for political control. Even the most heretical cults have no problem keeping low IQs following good behavior.

[Anonymous No.21893759]

>>21885957
Harsh yet they maintained his writings. Origen is, in many ways, the last Christian in the sense that he was a random intellectual, not born Christian, who castrates himself and writes before the first Ecumenical Council and just absolutely demolishes every thought ever in contradiction with Christianity. Origen, to me, is something we miss - it is far better to be a heretic on fire with faith and in communion with the Church than to be a tepid orthodox. I even think, truly, Origen is the first, and maybe only, thinker who ever just looked at Christ with absolutely zero context or orthodoxy and tried to explain the mystery out of raw genius, love, and will. His work on prayer saying that the stars pray and so we should too is... he's on other levels. His thoughts are definitely wrong in areas but the beauty of his genius is such that even St. Augustine would be pale. I love him so much bros. My favorite quote from him: "If there is a single creature in Hell, Christ is still crucified."

[Anonymous No.21894694]

>>21893521
1. Prove he castrated himself. He denied that he did it and it seems probably that it was a calumny created by his enemies.

2. There are actual saints who were universalists. That isn't even the heresy he was condemned for.

[Anonymous No.21895123]

>>21894694
>1. Prove he castrated himself.
If he did, then I disapprove of it immensely. It's like the ultra-asceticism of Marcion or the prophets of Baal who cut themselves as a way of trying to appease their false god.

>2. There are actual saints who were universalists.
Universalism is the false doctrine that all entities will be saved. It goes against the Holy Bible in numerous occasions, for instance where our Lord and Savior said, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (Matthew 25:46).

"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:43-44)

Universalism also goes strongly against the teaching of the book of Revelation, which even explicitly says that the false prophet, the beast and the old serpent, who is the devil and satan, will be thrown into the lake of fire for eternity (Revelation chapter 20). It also says that whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into there as well.

[Anonymous No.21895148]

>>21895123
>It's like the ultra-asceticism of Marcion or the prophets of Baal who cut themselves as a way of trying to appease their false god.
That's not even the reason given by scholars who think he might have done it. They think it would have been because it let him tutor female students without causing controversy. It's also contrary to his own interpretation of the passage in question (Matt. 19:12), which he takes as non-literal.
>Universalism
I'm not endorsing universalism, I'm simply saying that there are highly regarding fathers who are not condemned at all by anyone who were universalists. And Origen was not condemned at Constantinople II for universalism. Origen was condemned for Christological heretic based on the writings on Evagrius Ponticus which were falsely attributed to Origen, 300 years after Origen's death.

[Anonymous No.21895149]

>>21895148
>Origen was condemned for Christological heresy* based on the writings of* Evagrius Ponticus
typos

[Anonymous No.21895161]

>>21895148
>>21895149
Also worth noting that even though Origen was condemned based on the writings of Evagrius, no one has much of a problem with Evagrius. The whole affair is a stupid joke.

[Anonymous No.21895216]

>>21895148
The gnostics were known for their asceticism, and that's what self-mutilation savors of. That is why I'm saying I'm against it. To those who are believers at least, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and should not be defaced.

>I'm simply saying that there are highly regarding fathers
Who cares what the opinion of earthly men think? It's all about what the Bible says. God is the person who decides these things.
>who are not condemned at all by anyone who were universalists.
Anyone who is a universalist goes against what was already mentioned in the Gospels and New Testament though. If Origen taught that, then he went against what was mentioned before in the New Testament. It's as simple as that. The fact you think that some universalists are okay just because someone said they are is troubling, because it suggests you believe that way too. The word of Christ in the Bible should always out-prioritize whether or not someone is considered a good teacher by the world.

[Anonymous No.21895224]

>>21895216
Have you read anything written by Origen?

[Anonymous No.21895231]

>>21895224
Sure. I know he quoted First John 5:7 once, which goes along with what Cyprian wrote in Latin around the same time calling it Scripture.

[Anonymous No.21895237]

>>21895231
>I read Origen cited somewhere in my KJV research
In other words, no. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.21895604]

>>21895231
How embarrassing