www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology St. Origen?

Have any Christian communions canonically declared Origen a saint?

No. Incognitus

Any support for introducing his cause?

I do not think so, some of his writings were what the Egyptian priest Arius based his views on. Of course these led to the whole heresy of Arianism. It is not to say Origen is the origin of Arianism, but Arius' interpretation of some of the writings of Origen led him down the path to consider the Son a creation of the Father at a point in time long ago and of less divinity than the Father.

Origen, although a brilliant writer and thinker, was also a formal heretic. He taught, among other things, the pre-existence of souls, a form of universalism, a wrong understanding of the Holy Trinity, and denied the goodness of the material creation (something which some Protestants also fall into). There is no doubt that his contribution to Christian thought, especially Scriptural studies, was very influential and compelling in his day, but ultimately, he is not Orthodox in his thinking in the above matters, and some others. That does not mean that there are a few exceptions to the idea that someone could be sanctified and still be in some error (like St. Ephraim the Syrian) there is no way that Origen could be canonized as a Saint.

Priest Thomas Soroka

As Father Thomas has well said, the theologic influence is undeniable of Origen. This can be seen strongly in such fathers as the great Cappadocians Sts. Gregory of Nyssa and Nazianzen. But at the same time some of his principles are difficult if not impossible to reconcile with orthodox Christianity.

This does not mean his works are not completely without spiritual or theological merit. His "Exhortation to Martyrdom", "On Prayer" and other works had a profound effect on not only his students but generations of theologians afterwards. Origen, at least in my opinion, is an important step (albeit incomplete in many ways) in reconciling pure Platonic philosophy with Christianity which was further refined by other Church Fathers after Origen.

Is it really proper to call Orgien a "formal heretic"?

I understood that Fathers and theologians like him are better termed "mateiral heretics" rather than formal ones. A formal heretic is one who is baptized Catholic and slips into heresy, thus severing himself from the Church. A material heretic is one who, being born into a false doctrine, believes his heresy out of invinvible ignorance.

Actually, then, Origen cannot be called a heretic at all. He lived and died a Catholic. While he was controversial, he never went against a defined teaching of the Church, and died a member of the Church. Had his teachings been definitively condemned by the Church during his lifetime, I'm willing to wager that he would have submitted to this judgement, devout Catholic that he was.

I can compare him to the Catholic Jansen, whose teaching laid the foundations of the Jansenist heresy, especially prevalent in France a couple of centuries ago. Jansen taught doctrines that were later condmned, AFTER his death, as false interpretations of Saint Augustine. However, throughout his life Jansen made it clear that he submitted all of his teachings to the judgement of the Church. He therefore could not be called a heretic, although his followers were.

Or am I off-base?

That being said, I don't think Origen will ever be canonized; he's too controversial.

Then again, it's possible. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches, for example, have saints in their calendars that were Arians; Saint Nicetas the Goth is an example. Nicetas was an Ostrogoth born along the Danube, a part of the world evangelized by the Arians. In good faith, Saint Nicetas was converted to Arian Christianity and ordained an Arian priest. He was martyred by the heathens, and is commemorated by Catholics (Latin and Eastern) and Orthodox on September 15.

Saint Gregory Palamas, from a Catholic standpoint, was a material schismatic (not a formal schismatic); and yet, the Eastern Catholic Churches publicly commemorate him on November 14. From a Catholic standpoint, Saint Photius of Constantinople was also, at least materially, a heretic or a schismatic (historians and theologians disagree on their assesment of him); yet he is commemorated by Eastern Catholics, publicly, on February 6.

So there is some precedent for the Church canonizing material heretics, or those who taught heresy out of ignorance.

Thank goodness the Church recognizes there is no schism in heaven!

Does anyone know if the Orthodox Church, in her Western Rite dioceses, publicly venerates any post-Schism Latin Saints, like Francis of Assisi?

Saints Nicetas the Goth, Photius of Constantinople, and Gregory Palamas, pray for us!

Origen, pray for us!

Well, having no skill for parsing words, I would simply say that he was condemned by name (or maybe just "Origenism") at one, maybe two councils. Now whether he was willfully separating himself from the Church, or blissfully fell into an accidental heresy, is probably moot. (Don't know enough about him to really say at this point, nor do I really have the desire to find out...) But we do not number him among the Saints, nor likely will we, due to his erroneous teachings listed above.

Priest Thomas

Reverend Father:

Those condemnations, made centuries after his death, applied only to some of his teachings, no? I mean, I don't think he as a person was anathematized, nor all of his works.

I agree.

I would not take what the so-called Western Rite churches in Orthodoxy (of which there are very few) do as a measure of much. They're presence is highly controversial, at least in it's modern incarnation. Whether they commemorate this or that Saint would not "prove" that the Orthodox Church universally commemorates certain Saints. I know of one Orthodox monastery which has an icon of St. Francis and St. Claire on the iconostas, but this does not number them among the Saints in the Orthodox calendar.

Priest Thomas

Dear Friends,

This is an interesting issue!

From the point of view of hagiography alone, it is a fact that there was a local cult in honour of Origen of Alexandria following his death.

His body was enshrined at an altar in Alexandria where people DID come to venerate him and invoke his intercession. The cathedral where his shrine was was later destroyed and his remains were lost - or at least haven't been excavated.

That some of his teachings were later condemned - this too is a fact.

But Origen died in communion with the Church, he always readily submitted to the Church's teaching and so he does NOT deserve to be placed, in any way, alongside historic heretics.

Fr. McNichol, SJ has written an acual icon of Origen, halo and all, which can be found on his icon site.

Could Origen be ever canonized? Personally, if the West and East ever had an ecumenical council to reestablish full ecclesial communion, including the Oriental Churches, a case such as Origen might be brought up. Who can know?

The issue of acknowledging saints by the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox ecumenical commissions was a central one in their meetings, as we know.

Oriental saints such as Severus of Antioch and Dioscoros of Alexandria fair very poorly in the liturgical commemorations of the Eastern Orthodox Church! ("Headless Severus" is but one example that I remember for Mor Ephrem's benefit . . . ).

Then there is the mention of the "impious Patriarch Theophilus" in the Greek menologion.

At one point, it was noted that some OCA parishes had begun dropping the anathemas against the Oriental Orthodox saints during the celebration of the Sunday of Orthodoxy.

In any event, I've also heard rumours of the possibility of the canonization of the Old Believer Saint Avvakum by the ROC as a way to help mend fences with the Old Believers . . .

But what do I know?

As for St Gregory Palamas and St Photios, there has NEVER been a formal pronouncement of heresy against them by Rome and they have NEVER been condemned by Rome in any way.

If anything, and as Fr. Dvornik shows rather conclusively, St Photios died in full communion with Elder Rome and the hullaballo about the Filioque in later centuries is what made the Latins blame him for the schism in the Church.

St Gregory Palamas is himself acknowledged by Rome as a full Catholic saint and one may find him on Catholic Saints Online.

Even St Mark of Ephesus was never condemned by Rome for anything. The Pope at the Council of Florence actually recognized Mark Eugenikos as the one to convince into signing the Florentine Union since he, in the minds of the Latin theologians, best represented traditional Orthodoxy (and the Pope was, of course, right).

When Mark Eugenikos refused to sign the Union agreement, the Pope was heard to say, "We have accomplished nothing" and this even though all the other Greek bishops signed it, including Met. Isidore of Kyiv.

But Rome would not dare condemn Mark as a heretic (since he defended the ancient Orthodox doctrines) and would not condemn him as a schismatic. That he was later called both by the West is a different story.

Just some reflections.

Alex

Dear Friends,

It would be possible for Orthodox Christians to venerate post-schism Latin saints privately without incurring anyone's formal wrath.

Russians in France developed a veneration for Lourdes, La Sallette and St Therese of Lisieux as well as St Francis - all in private.

In addition, it is a fact that when certain church communities came into union with the Orthodox Church, their western or Latinized devotions were allowed to remain.

Thus, in Western Ukraine, individual Orthodox parishes there (and I mean those in communion with Moscow) have such Western devotions as the Way of the Cross, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament (Monstrance and all), devotion to the Sacred Heart etc.

I once met an Orthodox priest from the Czech Republic who had a lot of former Hussites and was bringing more into Orthodoxy.

He actually told me he wanted Jan Hus to be recognized a saint by the Orthodox Church to help in the conversion of the Hussites to Orthodoxy!

This question was actually dealt with by the Moscow Patriarchate in the 19th century - I don't have the decision, probably in the negative, but it was published in one of the calendars of the Czech Orthodox Church.

BUT Hus's associate, Jerome of Prague, also venerated by the various strands of Hussites over the centuries, WAS an Orthodox Christian and his Orthodox baptismal certificate was found. There are some "rumblings" the Orthodox Bishop of Brno tells me about his possible glorification as a Saint.

But because a saint wasn't formally Orthodox, his or her public cult in Orthodoxy wouldn't be possible.

However, the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox commission appears to be saying that once formal unity is established, the anathemas on each other's teachers dropped, then the veneration of each other's formerly excommunicated saints would be up to individual jurisdictions.

So it is possible . . .

Alex

That's not exactly true. Saint Photius's relationship with Rome was very rocky; I don't know if he was ever considered heretical, but for a time he was definitely in schism from the Church. He did die in a very fragile union with Rome, although this does not necessarily say anything about his orthodoxy in all matters. I leave this question to the various historians and theologians who have written about him. It seems to be a rather complex issue.

Of course Saint Gregory Palamas was never declared a heretic by Rome. He was a member of a Church already in schism! The Catholic Church does not pass those kinds of judgements on those outside her fold.

I agree with you that, for some strange reason, Saint Gregory Palamas is officially considered a saint by the Catholic Church. However, don't put too much wait on what you find at "Catholic Saints Online." It's not exactly an "official" website.

Do you know this for a fact?

What you say of the Orthodox applies equally to us Catholics, with a few anamolies.

I've already brought up Saint Nicetas the Goth, for example. He was baptized Arian, and ordained an Arian priest. He is today commemorated by the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches.

I wonder if the Orthodox Monastery of New Skete (the one that has the puppies) publicly venerates Saint Francis?

Dear PaxTecum,

Yes, St Photios and Rome did part ways, but he was NEVER considered a heretic or condemned as such.

Rome did censure St John the Merciful, Patriarch of Constantinople for adding "Ecumenical" to his patriarchal title, but that didn't prevent him from becoming a saint.

Pope John VIII not only was reconciled with Photios - this Pope stated that he always considered the "Filioque" addition to the creed to be wrong.

Fr. Dvornik and others have shown that the union between Photios and Rome was anything but fragile. Later RC polemics turned Photios into the originator of the split between East and West, but that has no basis in the times in which Photios lived.

As for Palamas, why is it strange that he is considered a saint by Rome today?

Rome has always maintained that the Orthodox Church is the "true Church of Christ" although "in rebellion" (but the "rebellion" part is no longer the ecclesiological position of Rome).

St Seraphim of Sarov and many, many other Russian Orthodox saints are now recognized by Rome.

It was Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky that petitioned Rome to recognize the Orthodox Saints of Rus' and this was granted formally, by Rome, in 1904.

In fact, whenever an Orthodox Church or a part of it came into communion with Rome, ALL the saints that were canonized by it when it was out of communion with Rome are approved for continuing veneration by that Church - except for some exceptions involving saints of a particularly "anti-Roman" attitude during their lives.

(In the case of the Ethiopian Catholic Church, the veneration of St Pontius Pilate was dropped . . .)

The Cause of the Orthodox Saint Job of Pochaiv came before Rome, but was never completed. Despite this, during the papal coronation of the Pochaiv Miraculous Icon, medals were struck with the icon of St Job and distributed to the faithful.

As for Palamas, I only mentioned Catholic Saints Online in passing. There was actually a formal ceremony in Rome to declare official Catholic recognition of him and placement in the Catholic calendar. This happened, I believe, in 1974 as Fr. Serge Keleher both told me and showed me a document to that effect. I've also read this in Catholic publications since.

And to condemn or ignore Palamas' theology in any way is to do the same to the Orthodox Church.

Yes, there are a number of Arian and other saints that belonged to schismatic and heretical communities that are in both Catholic and Orthodox calendars today - I once got into trouble here for raising this very matter.

St Sabbas the Goth was another and so was St Artemius the Dux Augustalis of Egypt. Fr. Holweck has an entire listing of these in his "Dictionary of Saints."

St Francis could not be publicly venerated in the Orthodox Church for as long as there is separation between it and Rome.

There is also the matter, in some Orthodox circles, of a certain suspicion of the spirituality of Franciscanism as being "spiritually dangerous" etc.

But even with restoration of communion, the acceptance of Saints is something that is entirely up to individual communities and would remain so.

New Skete Monastery is a former Byzantine Catholic Franciscan community. They print icons of St Francis and St Clare, but, as far as I've heard, do not publicly venerate them.

I once corresponded with Fr. Thomas' friend, Fr. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!), the famous Orthodox theologian.

I put this very question to him and he said that private veneration of those who were not "formally Orthodox" is not condemned.

Whenever I received a letter from him, it always had a stamp with the image of St Francis and I know he personally loved St Francis and venerated him privately.

So when ecclesial communion is re-established with Orthodoxy, the cult of "their saints" can spread to other Orthodox Churches.

For example, the Orthodox Church of Georgia was formerly of the Oriental, Miaphysite family of churches but came into full communion with Byzantine Orthodoxy.

The cult of their saints has remained in tact and is now generally affirmed in all Orthodox calendars.

St David of Garesja is there, even though in his lifetime and afterwards, Greek theologians called him "that putrefaction from Georgia."

Do you think that is a step up from "headless Severus?"

It is always nice to converse with a fellow hagiographer!

Alex

It is indeed starnge, which is not to say I have a problem with it.

Palamas wasn't a Catholic, straight and simple. It is therefore sorta odd that he is a canonized Catholic saint. Imagine the Churchcanonizing Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi.

Actually, the Catholic Church has never remotely held anything like this, although some posters, and the Administrators apparently, of this forum do.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is only one "true Church of Christ," and that this is the Church in communion with the successor to Saint Peter, the Pope of Rome.

Other churches and religions hold, more or less, certain elements of the true faith. The Orthodox Churches hold a great deal of it, but cannot be said to be the "true Church of Christ" they are in an imperfect communion with the true Church, more so than Protestants, and other heretics, schismatics, and apostates.

No one on this forum has been able to provide documentation to the contrary.

Again I ask: Why not?

So it's okay to publicly venerate a heretical Arian, but not a Catholic? What logic is there in that?