While I am far from a proponent of supporting the idea that there was no problem with Origen's
theology, I do find it difficult to stand how much Eusebias and Origen and others are considered unorthodox, after the fact, and according to rules which did not exist within their own time. Yes, Evagrius needed Maximus the Confessor's correction, but does this mean that Evagrius was a full scale heretic? I think not--I know it is not the case. This is the one area where if one does study the fathers and make it a task to understand each generation on its own terms, that one will fail to see the radical and inspired character of Basil and Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa, in not only protecting the faith from those who would lose track of it's importance, but who also, in many ways were bringing into question the most basic presuppostions of their time. Nicea, wasn't a confession of what had been the case--we see this enough in what Origen outlines as the apostolic and ecclesiastical preaching in the beginning of On first principles--but rather was a reflection of those who knew God reflecting upon what this God called them to proclaim--something rather significant and almost nonsensiccal to the environment of the time--that God was three persons and yet one, that the logos was not an intermediary principle but the Divine God himself. It is tricky ground, no question, in how to adress, the average persons questions about the father's, but in the end, is it not enough to know that the Bride has been seeking out the Bridegroom, and the Bridegroom cometh at midnight? Let us be caught up in that which renders us awake at this moment so we shall not miss the calll, but be ready to respond with a Lover's response.
Thanks for commenting! The point about Evagrius is certainly fair. I think the crowd that Fr. Joseph is addressing is more those individuals who either get really obsessed with reading heterodox sources over sound theology, and those un-initiated in the controversies that may read these figures without knowing the background, subtleties, etc. Kind of like how some people get really obsessed with "lost books of the Bible" over actual Scripture. Ultimately, adhering to the judgements of the Church's Councils should be the main priority for Orthodox at the end of the day.
A big problem us moderns have is looking at Origen with rose colored glasses. The really bad stuff he taught is mostly lost to time as it was destroyed when the heresies were condemned at Constantinople II and onward the texts just stopped being copied down.
Origen was a lot like the modern day people online that teach wild things without the mind of the church that are exactly the target audience of the above book. In fact there's a couple canons from Nicea I (Canon 15/16) about teaching in places outside the bounds of one’s bishop which was a response to Origen teaching in places he wasn’t blessed to teach.
The ancients didn't have the view we had that everything needs to be preserved for archeological study and logistically copying things was tedious so things that were retained had to be important and worth it to maintain. Think about it where’s the complete works of Paul of Samosata, Nestorius, Arius, <insert heresiarch here> etc.
So much is lost and this in my estimation leads to a selection bias of “look this stuff isn't that bad.” Similarly with Evagrius Ponticus’ neoplatonic/origenist anthropological works or Didymus the Blind’s works in a similar vein.
In extreme cases we see works passed as those of other saints even, Evagrius texts are a good example I believe they were passed as the tests of St. Nilus of Sinai for centuries or the works of Pelagius that circulate as being from “St. Jerome.”
The Fathers of the time always tried to keep the best of someone and discard the heretical. We see this with the Philokalia of Origen, Theodoret of Cyrus biblical commentaries, Evagrius’ neptic writings, Didymus’ biblical commentaries to name a few that were preserved while others were discarded to time.
Were he more widely circulated in the east in the first millenia no doubt St. Augustine’s “On the Trinity” would also have been mostly lost to time for similar reasons due to the drastic ways it breaks from defined Cappadocian trinitarian understanding. The Franks basing their later theology on it (due to not knowing Greek) kept it in circulation however and we see the tragedy this led to from about 850-1250 in Church history.
While I am far from a proponent of supporting the idea that there was no problem with Origen's
theology, I do find it difficult to stand how much Eusebias and Origen and others are considered unorthodox, after the fact, and according to rules which did not exist within their own time. Yes, Evagrius needed Maximus the Confessor's correction, but does this mean that Evagrius was a full scale heretic? I think not--I know it is not the case. This is the one area where if one does study the fathers and make it a task to understand each generation on its own terms, that one will fail to see the radical and inspired character of Basil and Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa, in not only protecting the faith from those who would lose track of it's importance, but who also, in many ways were bringing into question the most basic presuppostions of their time. Nicea, wasn't a confession of what had been the case--we see this enough in what Origen outlines as the apostolic and ecclesiastical preaching in the beginning of On first principles--but rather was a reflection of those who knew God reflecting upon what this God called them to proclaim--something rather significant and almost nonsensiccal to the environment of the time--that God was three persons and yet one, that the logos was not an intermediary principle but the Divine God himself. It is tricky ground, no question, in how to adress, the average persons questions about the father's, but in the end, is it not enough to know that the Bride has been seeking out the Bridegroom, and the Bridegroom cometh at midnight? Let us be caught up in that which renders us awake at this moment so we shall not miss the calll, but be ready to respond with a Lover's response.
Thanks for commenting! The point about Evagrius is certainly fair. I think the crowd that Fr. Joseph is addressing is more those individuals who either get really obsessed with reading heterodox sources over sound theology, and those un-initiated in the controversies that may read these figures without knowing the background, subtleties, etc. Kind of like how some people get really obsessed with "lost books of the Bible" over actual Scripture. Ultimately, adhering to the judgements of the Church's Councils should be the main priority for Orthodox at the end of the day.
A big problem us moderns have is looking at Origen with rose colored glasses. The really bad stuff he taught is mostly lost to time as it was destroyed when the heresies were condemned at Constantinople II and onward the texts just stopped being copied down.
Origen was a lot like the modern day people online that teach wild things without the mind of the church that are exactly the target audience of the above book. In fact there's a couple canons from Nicea I (Canon 15/16) about teaching in places outside the bounds of one’s bishop which was a response to Origen teaching in places he wasn’t blessed to teach.
The ancients didn't have the view we had that everything needs to be preserved for archeological study and logistically copying things was tedious so things that were retained had to be important and worth it to maintain. Think about it where’s the complete works of Paul of Samosata, Nestorius, Arius, <insert heresiarch here> etc.
So much is lost and this in my estimation leads to a selection bias of “look this stuff isn't that bad.” Similarly with Evagrius Ponticus’ neoplatonic/origenist anthropological works or Didymus the Blind’s works in a similar vein.
In extreme cases we see works passed as those of other saints even, Evagrius texts are a good example I believe they were passed as the tests of St. Nilus of Sinai for centuries or the works of Pelagius that circulate as being from “St. Jerome.”
The Fathers of the time always tried to keep the best of someone and discard the heretical. We see this with the Philokalia of Origen, Theodoret of Cyrus biblical commentaries, Evagrius’ neptic writings, Didymus’ biblical commentaries to name a few that were preserved while others were discarded to time.
Were he more widely circulated in the east in the first millenia no doubt St. Augustine’s “On the Trinity” would also have been mostly lost to time for similar reasons due to the drastic ways it breaks from defined Cappadocian trinitarian understanding. The Franks basing their later theology on it (due to not knowing Greek) kept it in circulation however and we see the tragedy this led to from about 850-1250 in Church history.
It's an excellent book aside from some typos that seem more than AFPs usual standard.