What is the singing at the start of this video & is it in Latin...? Also, I really enjoyed this episode & seeing that I'm new to Catholicism, it is one I'll have to watch countless times & learn the terminology & about the characters spoken about. Thank you for sharing.
His writings are read at the Office of Readings, so it cannot beall bad. However he does seem to tend towards two heresies, Arianism and Gnosticism. Another person who is read in the Office, but has some suspect writings is Tertullian.
I wasn't very familiar with Origen and came here to learn more. I heard that Origen believed in multiple gods and that we shouldn't pray to Jesus, but after checking the facts, I found out that's completely untrue.
In the 1970s at the Pontificia Universitas Lateranensis we learnt that Origen was NOT a Church Father, because of his dubious doctrinal orthodoxy and his lack of exemplary life ( self-castration): he is an "Ecclesiastical Writer" of the post-apostolic age. The Church does NOT consider him a "Church Father". So you donot have to remove him from a category to which he does not belong.
I have heard very convincing arguments both in defense of and against Origen and his work. I do not know what to make of him. Thankfully we are not in the place of judging people's souls, as that is the Lord's alone. And with how distant he is from our day. Any good from his work has long been brought into other safer harbors. My point is, perhaps this is a sleeping dog best left lying in history. Certainly he is a cautionary tale to all brilliant scholars though to be sure..
I wasn't very familiar with Origen and came here to learn more. I heard that Origen believed in multiple gods and that we shouldn't pray to Jesus, but after checking the facts, I found out that's completely untrue.
@@Metarig We should give Origen of Alexandria a little charity. Christianity was new after Jewish Christians expulsion from the Synagogue. They were still trying to flesh out the details of doctrine as the lion's share of it was uncharted territory. The fact that he got as far as he got doctrinally speaks volumes about the strength of reason, but also a saddening reveal of the fact that the human intellect is an imperfect reflection of the divine Reason aka, the Logos. He straddles the line between orthodox and heresy given the place in history that he occupied.
Have to agree with your conclusion that Origen should not be considered a church father because his doctrine is not wholly consistent, therefore not wholly trustworthy and should not be presented to the children whose trust must be protected - one poisoned piece of candy in a bag is not acceptable
Dr. Papandrea...I've really appreciated your work for a long time. Your church history lectures were very important for helping me to understand the development of the church. I appreciate you taking a more critical look at Origen. I think, more often than not, Origen is thought of as being unfairly treated by church authorities (especially after his death). Your argument, that Origen was too extreme in his Allegories, would certainly not be rebutted by most conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. I'm a protestant, but it's my impression that 21st Century Roman Catholicism has embraced allegory. Not only has allegory been embraced, but the historical-critical method seems to reign supreme among catholic scholars. As an example, Bishop Robert Barron has said, in regards to the violence in the Old Testament, that we should allegorize and not literalize many of these texts. He has also said that there is a historical core to the Old Testament but that we need to remember that these texts were consciously shaped by human authors. I'm sympathetic to this view because it seems like the only intelligible way to harmonize both Old and New Testament. To be sure, we need to be careful in how we allegorize, but it could be said that Origen was ahead of his time in understanding this. What are your thoughts?
Thanks for your kind words, and for watching my lectures! I would say that among Catholic scholars you can find the same wide spectrum that you would among Protestant scholars, from the very conservative to the very progressive - the difference being that in the Protestant world these scholars are often found in different denominations, while we have them all in the Catholic Church. So in my opinion, progressives are often more friendly to Origen than conservatives regardless of whether they are Catholic or Protestant. But to your point, it's not as simple as that because someone like Bishop Barron, who is often more conservative, is - again, in my opinion - too easy on Origen. And I say that with much respect for Bishop Barron, but Origen takes the allegorization of Scripture too far - unnecessarily far. You don't need to be following Origen to accept that the OT has layers of interpretation, including historical and spiritual/prophetic layers. On one hand, I think Bishop Barron is right, if his point is that we do not have to interpret violence in the OT as though everything the Hebrews did was God's will. On the other hand, virtually all of the Church fathers would interpret much of the OT spiritually, or allegorically, or in some sense non-literally (at least for its relevance to the Church) but they did not go as far as Origen did. So, as in all things, the truth is not found at the extremes, and I really think that when it comes to the spectrum of biblical interpretation from the historical/literal to the allegorical/non-literal, Origen does represent one extreme. At the risk of turning this into a commercial, if you want to see how the majority of the Church fathers interpreted Scripture, check out my book, Reading Scripture Like the Early Church - there I use the methodology of the consensus of Church fathers, and intentionally leave out Origen as the outlier. And you'll see even without Origen, the Church fathers did not read the Bible like fundamentalists, or take an overly literal interpretation. Thanks for your comment!
I wanted to ask this a long time, i know its off topic. But is Islam a form of gnoticism? To me when looking at the historical snd ideological values of Islam it tend to be swinging that way.
Not directly related to Gnosticism, but one of Muhammad’s teachers was thought to be a Gnostic. That’s why when the Quran refers to “Christian teachings” it often has Gnostic elements. Edit: The Quran also has Gnostic stories in it.
Great video Sir! Poor Origen. He did all that “extra” and still ended up being lost. That’s a scary reminder that there are a lot of deceived believers.
You do Origen a disservice by condemning his so strongly and repeatedly. It is wrong of you and the Councils to call him a heretic when he was not able to defend himself. By doing so, you discourage many from learning the richness of his commentaries on Scripture. Origen was a trail-blazer and into speculative theology in the very early church where few walked before him. So many of this great man's works were destroyed by those jealous of him; what has been lost is pitiful. You stress Jerome's condemnation of Origen, but do not develop Jerome's appreciation of him. Henri de Lubac wrote "Origen is rarely read, except by fragments and without making an effort sufficient to understand him. Or else he is approached with prejudices." (de Lubac, Henri. History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture According to Origen. Translated by Anne Englund Nash, Ignatius Press, 2007. p. 38). Further, "Thomas Merton, the Trappist monk, and writer, did reflect on Origen, particularly in his writings on the early Christian mystics and theologians. Merton held Origen in high regard as a profound thinker and spiritual writer, even though Origen's work was later controversial and some of his teachings were condemned. Merton saw Origen as a key figure in the development of Christian mysticism and theology, particularly in his allegorical interpretations of Scripture and his emphasis on the contemplative life. Merton appreciated Origen’s approach to the Scriptures as a deeply spiritual exercise, where the text was not just to be understood intellectually but was a means of encountering God. However, Merton was also aware of the complexities and debates surrounding Origen's legacy, particularly his views on apokatastasis (the eventual restoration of all beings) and other speculative theology that led to Origen being posthumously anathematized by the Church. Despite these controversies, Merton found value in Origen's contributions to the spiritual tradition of the Church. In his book The Wisdom of the Desert, Merton touches on Origen's influence on the Desert Fathers, indicating that Origen’s spiritual teachings had a lasting impact on Christian monasticism. (OpenAI. "Response on Thomas Merton's Views on Origen." ChatGPT, 8 Aug. 2024.).
What is the singing at the start of this video & is it in Latin...?
Also, I really enjoyed this episode & seeing that I'm new to Catholicism, it is one I'll have to watch countless times & learn the terminology & about the characters spoken about.
Thank you for sharing.
It's Gregorian chant in Latin, the introit for the Solemnity of All Saints.
His writings are read at the Office of Readings, so it cannot beall bad. However he does seem to tend towards two heresies, Arianism and Gnosticism. Another person who is read in the Office, but has some suspect writings is Tertullian.
I wasn't very familiar with Origen and came here to learn more. I heard that Origen believed in multiple gods and that we shouldn't pray to Jesus, but after checking the facts, I found out that's completely untrue.
I believe he did say we shouldn't pray to the Son, only to the Father in the name of the Son. But he definitely didn't believe in multiple gods.
In the 1970s at the Pontificia Universitas Lateranensis we learnt that Origen was NOT a Church Father, because of his dubious doctrinal orthodoxy and his lack of exemplary life ( self-castration): he is an "Ecclesiastical Writer" of the post-apostolic age. The Church does NOT consider him a "Church Father". So you donot have to remove him from a category to which he does not belong.
I have heard very convincing arguments both in defense of and against Origen and his work. I do not know what to make of him.
Thankfully we are not in the place of judging people's souls, as that is the Lord's alone.
And with how distant he is from our day. Any good from his work has long been brought into other safer harbors.
My point is, perhaps this is a sleeping dog best left lying in history.
Certainly he is a cautionary tale to all brilliant scholars though to be sure..
I wasn't very familiar with Origen and came here to learn more. I heard that Origen believed in multiple gods and that we shouldn't pray to Jesus, but after checking the facts, I found out that's completely untrue.
@@Metarig We should give Origen of Alexandria a little charity. Christianity was new after Jewish Christians expulsion from the Synagogue. They were still trying to flesh out the details of doctrine as the lion's share of it was uncharted territory. The fact that he got as far as he got doctrinally speaks volumes about the strength of reason, but also a saddening reveal of the fact that the human intellect is an imperfect reflection of the divine Reason aka, the Logos. He straddles the line between orthodox and heresy given the place in history that he occupied.
It would be helpful if you would include some quotes in a video like this
Have to agree with your conclusion that Origen should not be considered a church father because his doctrine is not wholly consistent, therefore not wholly trustworthy and should not be presented to the children whose trust must be protected - one poisoned piece of candy in a bag is not acceptable
Dr. Papandrea...I've really appreciated your work for a long time. Your church history lectures were very important for helping me to understand the development of the church. I appreciate you taking a more critical look at Origen. I think, more often than not, Origen is thought of as being unfairly treated by church authorities (especially after his death). Your argument, that Origen was too extreme in his Allegories, would certainly not be rebutted by most conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. I'm a protestant, but it's my impression that 21st Century Roman Catholicism has embraced allegory. Not only has allegory been embraced, but the historical-critical method seems to reign supreme among catholic scholars. As an example, Bishop Robert Barron has said, in regards to the violence in the Old Testament, that we should allegorize and not literalize many of these texts. He has also said that there is a historical core to the Old Testament but that we need to remember that these texts were consciously shaped by human authors. I'm sympathetic to this view because it seems like the only intelligible way to harmonize both Old and New Testament. To be sure, we need to be careful in how we allegorize, but it could be said that Origen was ahead of his time in understanding this. What are your thoughts?
Thanks for your kind words, and for watching my lectures! I would say that among Catholic scholars you can find the same wide spectrum that you would among Protestant scholars, from the very conservative to the very progressive - the difference being that in the Protestant world these scholars are often found in different denominations, while we have them all in the Catholic Church. So in my opinion, progressives are often more friendly to Origen than conservatives regardless of whether they are Catholic or Protestant. But to your point, it's not as simple as that because someone like Bishop Barron, who is often more conservative, is - again, in my opinion - too easy on Origen. And I say that with much respect for Bishop Barron, but Origen takes the allegorization of Scripture too far - unnecessarily far. You don't need to be following Origen to accept that the OT has layers of interpretation, including historical and spiritual/prophetic layers. On one hand, I think Bishop Barron is right, if his point is that we do not have to interpret violence in the OT as though everything the Hebrews did was God's will. On the other hand, virtually all of the Church fathers would interpret much of the OT spiritually, or allegorically, or in some sense non-literally (at least for its relevance to the Church) but they did not go as far as Origen did. So, as in all things, the truth is not found at the extremes, and I really think that when it comes to the spectrum of biblical interpretation from the historical/literal to the allegorical/non-literal, Origen does represent one extreme. At the risk of turning this into a commercial, if you want to see how the majority of the Church fathers interpreted Scripture, check out my book, Reading Scripture Like the Early Church - there I use the methodology of the consensus of Church fathers, and intentionally leave out Origen as the outlier. And you'll see even without Origen, the Church fathers did not read the Bible like fundamentalists, or take an overly literal interpretation. Thanks for your comment!
@@TheOriginalChurch Thanks for your in-depth reply. I’ll definitely check out your book.
Great content
I wanted to ask this a long time, i know its off topic. But is Islam a form of gnoticism?
To me when looking at the historical snd ideological values of Islam it tend to be swinging that way.
Not directly related to Gnosticism, but one of Muhammad’s teachers was thought to be a Gnostic. That’s why when the Quran refers to “Christian teachings” it often has Gnostic elements.
Edit: The Quran also has Gnostic stories in it.
@@JethroF thank you
Great video Sir! Poor Origen. He did all that “extra” and still ended up being lost. That’s a scary reminder that there are a lot of deceived believers.
How do you know you’re not deceived??
Hypolytus in his Apostolic Traditions tha those who make themselves Eunichs should not be allowed to be a teacher.
Eunuchs also couldn't be clergy, I believe.
7:27 that's really funny, Deuteronomy. It's not like Origen was a Jew...
You do Origen a disservice by condemning his so strongly and repeatedly. It is wrong of you and the Councils to call him a heretic when he was not able to defend himself. By doing so, you discourage many from learning the richness of his commentaries on Scripture. Origen was a trail-blazer and into speculative theology in the very early church where few walked before him. So many of this great man's works were destroyed by those jealous of him; what has been lost is pitiful. You stress Jerome's condemnation of Origen, but do not develop Jerome's appreciation of him. Henri de Lubac wrote "Origen is rarely read, except by fragments and without making an effort sufficient to understand him. Or else he is approached with prejudices." (de Lubac, Henri. History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture According to Origen. Translated by Anne Englund Nash, Ignatius Press, 2007. p. 38).
Further, "Thomas Merton, the Trappist monk, and writer, did reflect on Origen, particularly in his writings on the early Christian mystics and theologians. Merton held Origen in high regard as a profound thinker and spiritual writer, even though Origen's work was later controversial and some of his teachings were condemned.
Merton saw Origen as a key figure in the development of Christian mysticism and theology, particularly in his allegorical interpretations of Scripture and his emphasis on the contemplative life. Merton appreciated Origen’s approach to the Scriptures as a deeply spiritual exercise, where the text was not just to be understood intellectually but was a means of encountering God.
However, Merton was also aware of the complexities and debates surrounding Origen's legacy, particularly his views on apokatastasis (the eventual restoration of all beings) and other speculative theology that led to Origen being posthumously anathematized by the Church. Despite these controversies, Merton found value in Origen's contributions to the spiritual tradition of the Church.
In his book The Wisdom of the Desert, Merton touches on Origen's influence on the Desert Fathers, indicating that Origen’s spiritual teachings had a lasting impact on Christian monasticism. (OpenAI. "Response on Thomas Merton's Views on Origen." ChatGPT, 8 Aug. 2024.).
Not enough specifics to throw out the term heretic so easily.
Brave to make this video but best to stick to specifics on grave matters
Well, he was anathematized by an ecumenical council, so the Church has already used that term.