Talk:Origen

From OrthodoxWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Origen and Heresy)
m (Origen's Legitimate Status as an Ordained Priest)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
==Origen's Death==
 +
In looking for information on Origen, I noticed a discrepancy between what is on Orthodoxwiki and Wikipedia. I am not sure which one is correct, but I thought I should point it out. Here is what is on Wikipedia:
 +
 +
"In 250 persecutions of the Church broke out anew, and this time Origen did not escape. He was tortured, pilloried, and bound hand and foot to the block for days without yielding. Though he did not die while being tortured, he died within two years of injuries sustained. Had he died during, he would have been declared a martyr, something that he would have greatly desired. A later legend, recounted by Jerome (De viris illustribus, chapter 54) and numerous itineraries place his death and burial at Tyre, but to this little value can be attached."
 +
--[[User:Spacelord|Spacelord]] 14:21, December 3, 2007 (PST)
 +
 
==Origen and Heresy==
 
==Origen and Heresy==
 
I have some difficulty with the following sentence in this article: "He was anathematized by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 and declared a heretic." First, a heretic is someone who willfully teaches personal opinion ''after'' that opinion has been condemned by the Church. A condemnation of some of Origen's views 300 years after his repose does not make him a heretic. Second, it isn't even clear that II Constantinople anathematized Origen. As one website put it, "Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council." I also read something to this effect in an article by Bishop Kallistos Ware. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 09:45, February 22, 2006 (CST)
 
I have some difficulty with the following sentence in this article: "He was anathematized by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 and declared a heretic." First, a heretic is someone who willfully teaches personal opinion ''after'' that opinion has been condemned by the Church. A condemnation of some of Origen's views 300 years after his repose does not make him a heretic. Second, it isn't even clear that II Constantinople anathematized Origen. As one website put it, "Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council." I also read something to this effect in an article by Bishop Kallistos Ware. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 09:45, February 22, 2006 (CST)
Line 4: Line 10:
  
 
I've tried to clear the matter up.  Origen was anathematized.  This is without doubt.  Likewise, his books were declared heretical.  Both declarations were made in Canon XI of the Council in question.  The specific book from which your quote comes actually does not claim that Origen was not anathematized, it only calls into question the authenticity of 15 additional canons.  That selfsame text does reproduce the 11th Canon that anathematizes Origen by name.[[User:Dogface|Dogface]] 10:55, February 22, 2006 (CST)
 
I've tried to clear the matter up.  Origen was anathematized.  This is without doubt.  Likewise, his books were declared heretical.  Both declarations were made in Canon XI of the Council in question.  The specific book from which your quote comes actually does not claim that Origen was not anathematized, it only calls into question the authenticity of 15 additional canons.  That selfsame text does reproduce the 11th Canon that anathematizes Origen by name.[[User:Dogface|Dogface]] 10:55, February 22, 2006 (CST)
 +
 +
 +
Origen was indeed anathematized. However the only undoubted anathemas against him originate with local synods or letters from anti-Origenist authors such as Jerome and Justinian. The 15 anathemas of Justinian have been erroneously added to the conciliar documents of the 553 Ecumenical Synod, and in fact deal with a perceived Origenism based on what appears to be a selection of quotes from Evagrius Ponticus' "Kephalaia Gnostica". The 11th anathema of the genuine canons of the Ecumenical Synod is also disputed - there is significant evidence that Origen's name is a later addition to the already existing canons. The belief that Origen and Origenism were condemned at the Ecumenical Synod of 553 originates with the polemical hagiography of Cyril of Scythopolis.Cyril, in an attemp to disassociate his hero St. Savas from Theodore of Mopsuestia (whom St. Savas had previously supported) re-creates the 553 synod as an anti-Origenist one barely touching on the Three Chapters.
 +
[[User:Gregorios|Gregorios]] 19:22 (Eastern Pacific Time) August 25, 2007.
 +
 +
== Origen's Legitimate Status as a Priest ==
 +
 +
The first paragraph states that Origen was "a priest, ordained under controversial conditions." I think the historicity of the comment would be much clearer if mention is made of the fact that Origen's own Bishop, Demetrius, invalidated Origen's ordination in two Synods. The first Synod was summoned in AD 231 by Origen's bishop, wherein Origen was declared "unworthy to hold the office of teacher, and excommunicated...from the fellowship of the Church of Alexandria."
 +
 +
A second Synod publicly "degraded" Origen from the office of presbyter, and an encyclical letter was sent out to all the churches. -Frederick Crombie, ANF, IV, Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdmans Pub, ND, p.227.
 +
 +
Gaul, June 17, 8:14 PM

Latest revision as of 18:15, June 17, 2008

Origen's Death

In looking for information on Origen, I noticed a discrepancy between what is on Orthodoxwiki and Wikipedia. I am not sure which one is correct, but I thought I should point it out. Here is what is on Wikipedia:

"In 250 persecutions of the Church broke out anew, and this time Origen did not escape. He was tortured, pilloried, and bound hand and foot to the block for days without yielding. Though he did not die while being tortured, he died within two years of injuries sustained. Had he died during, he would have been declared a martyr, something that he would have greatly desired. A later legend, recounted by Jerome (De viris illustribus, chapter 54) and numerous itineraries place his death and burial at Tyre, but to this little value can be attached." --Spacelord 14:21, December 3, 2007 (PST)

Origen and Heresy

I have some difficulty with the following sentence in this article: "He was anathematized by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 and declared a heretic." First, a heretic is someone who willfully teaches personal opinion after that opinion has been condemned by the Church. A condemnation of some of Origen's views 300 years after his repose does not make him a heretic. Second, it isn't even clear that II Constantinople anathematized Origen. As one website put it, "Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council." I also read something to this effect in an article by Bishop Kallistos Ware. --Fr Lev 09:45, February 22, 2006 (CST)


I've tried to clear the matter up. Origen was anathematized. This is without doubt. Likewise, his books were declared heretical. Both declarations were made in Canon XI of the Council in question. The specific book from which your quote comes actually does not claim that Origen was not anathematized, it only calls into question the authenticity of 15 additional canons. That selfsame text does reproduce the 11th Canon that anathematizes Origen by name.Dogface 10:55, February 22, 2006 (CST)


Origen was indeed anathematized. However the only undoubted anathemas against him originate with local synods or letters from anti-Origenist authors such as Jerome and Justinian. The 15 anathemas of Justinian have been erroneously added to the conciliar documents of the 553 Ecumenical Synod, and in fact deal with a perceived Origenism based on what appears to be a selection of quotes from Evagrius Ponticus' "Kephalaia Gnostica". The 11th anathema of the genuine canons of the Ecumenical Synod is also disputed - there is significant evidence that Origen's name is a later addition to the already existing canons. The belief that Origen and Origenism were condemned at the Ecumenical Synod of 553 originates with the polemical hagiography of Cyril of Scythopolis.Cyril, in an attemp to disassociate his hero St. Savas from Theodore of Mopsuestia (whom St. Savas had previously supported) re-creates the 553 synod as an anti-Origenist one barely touching on the Three Chapters. Gregorios 19:22 (Eastern Pacific Time) August 25, 2007.

Origen's Legitimate Status as a Priest

The first paragraph states that Origen was "a priest, ordained under controversial conditions." I think the historicity of the comment would be much clearer if mention is made of the fact that Origen's own Bishop, Demetrius, invalidated Origen's ordination in two Synods. The first Synod was summoned in AD 231 by Origen's bishop, wherein Origen was declared "unworthy to hold the office of teacher, and excommunicated...from the fellowship of the Church of Alexandria."

A second Synod publicly "degraded" Origen from the office of presbyter, and an encyclical letter was sent out to all the churches. -Frederick Crombie, ANF, IV, Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdmans Pub, ND, p.227.

Gaul, June 17, 8:14 PM

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox