Tags
Those who ever watched TV’s “Father Ted” will recall that the phrase ‘that’s an ecumenical matter’ was something which the eponymous Fr Ted taught the foul-mouthed Fr Jack to say when visiting bishops came to Craggy Island; it was a way of avoiding him saying anything embarrassing. Yet a good deal of what passes in the name of ecumenism is embarrassing enough. Rereading that report on Religion in Society I linked to last week, it struck me that it was a pure product of ecumenism of the sort which in my view has rotted the vitals of the Christian faith in Europe. The sincerity of its members in what they believe is apparent, but is what they believe what Christians have always believed? The answer to that has to be ‘no’.
At the risk of getting myself on some sort of Government list as a fundamentalist and extremist, I am committed to the view that Christ is my Saviour, and that he is your Saviour too; indeed to the whole idea that His name is the one name above all. That has led Christians into bad places in the past, but that is no excuse for so neglecting it that it leads everyone into bad places now. That it was not only wicked but pointless to try to compel belief is something I have no problem with. You can’t make someone a Christian. As I remind some of our youngsters when, back from preaching, they think they have helped bring someone closer to Christ, that is the work of the Holy Ghost, and we are but feeble instruments in His hand – we stand in His strength and have none of our own. But to go from that extreme to the idea that one faith is as good as another is to commit the error at the opposite end of the spectrum of folly. If one faith was as good as another then Paul could have stayed at home, as could Peter, and everyone could have been saved in the way they chose, knowing it was God’s will – or even not knowing that.
We come back here to a point made before on this blog, usually by me, which is that we are being saved from something; Christ suffered, died and was buried, for us, to save us from our sins and to gain heaven for us. His resurrection was the first fruits of His sacrifice, and as we die with Him, so we rise with Him. I am quite happy to respect another fellow’s ‘belief system’, and I am even happy to say that I’ve no idea who will get to Heaven – that’s above my pay grade. But what I am not happy to say is that it does not matter. That is what the report says by implication. We should make spaces for all faiths and for none, that I can follow, but I cannot follow the idea that it is somehow wrong to claim that one’s own faith is the one which saves you – that is truth and we are bound to preach it.
Truth? That’s a problem for an age of relativists, but so much the worse for the relativists. Truth is the Person of Christ, and in His life, death, and resurrection, we shall have life, and life eternal. We are charged with making disciples of all nations. We’ve often made a hash of it, but only the other day we had a fine preacher from Nigeria here, and I thought to myself when I listened to him that the new world was coming to the aid of the old.
My friend, you have more patience than do I to be able to make your way through a document such as this. I had a book on ecumenism by Walter Kasper that I tossed after about the first 30 or 40 pages . . . and I patted myself on the back for having made it that far. That said, for all their sweet, pretty talk about ALL religions there seems to be a complete departure from reality that seems to pander to a PC, ‘new speak’ and ‘new think,’ that is sold as ‘ecumenical’ or ‘Christian’ . . . and, of course, on their ‘enligtened’ and ‘loving’ approach is the only way one should think . . . whilst all other perspectives and facts that enter one’s mind via our own ‘lying eyes’ and experience are motivated by hate mongering which blinds us to this ‘higher plain’ where they soar about like angels winging their way miles above the thought of other men: you know . . . those stupid and coarse fellows that occupy this space with their hightened selves.
When it comes to Muslims, it seems that these pinheads have a belief that the time is now for the lions to lay down with the lambs. I would say that they might not be wanting lions and wild beasts to live as their neighbors if they understood that they, themselves, were the lambs on the menu. Israel will not take Muslim refugees in, nor will Japan . . . because these unenlightened peoples don’t want the same problems that we are faced with . . . though we will speak not speak badly of Israeli’s or Japanese because it is a cultural thing with them. Nonsense: it is reality. The archbishop of Baltimore recently stated that to stop immigration of the Muslims is something than no Catholic can support: I guess he just separated me from the Church by extension.
And, of course, the other idea of pulling back from evagelization efforts only exacerbates these differences or the only hope that is left for peace between the Muslim and Jew or the Muslim and Christian . . . and that ain’t easy. The only accounts that I’ve read about were almost Biblical in their movement of the Holy Spirit in their dreams or in a vision of Jesus. I’m all for discussing differences with other Christians or with Jews or even unbelievers . . . but a Muslim will not even allow me to refer to the basics of the faith without wanting to lop my head from my shoulders. So our leaders will write more pretty words about all religions and make it seem that what people believe is no hindrance whatsoever regarding ‘living in peace on earth’ or findling ‘eternal peace’ in Heaven. Our leaders have all seemingly taken leave of their senses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your problem was is that you had a book by Walter Kasper.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The priest who’s parish my wife works for gave it to me because I was not ‘ecumenical’ enough. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ecumenicalism of Kasper is extreme, He wants you to leave the barn door open so others can steal your cows.
Doesn’t Kasper in one of his books doubt the divinity of Christ or at least put it into question? And he’s suppose to be a leading theologian? How Pope John Paul II put him in red, I’ll never understand.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I haven’t spent much time looking into the many errors this man spouts so I can’t answer. I am with you 100% about the JPII move . . . one of many by this saintly pope that makes one gasp and scratch the head. It will remain an enigma that we now have to suffer with I’m afraid.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As I said to Dave just now, none of these shepherds are faithful. I live in an area of the world where they keep sheep. I watch the shepherd at work, all day, all night, in all weathers, caring for the sheep. These men are not shepherds, they are not even hirelings, as I doubt anyone pays them to betray the sheep.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shepherds should not be opening the sheep-fold and inviting wolves in. Just because the wolves claim to be vegetarian does not mean we should believe them.
This, I fear, is yet another reason why I won’t go near one of the big churches. I have no idea what their leaders believe, but if I judge by the only standard I have, their behaviour, then the answer is nothing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It would do you well to join a Big Church, my friend. After all, think of all the practice you’d get in learning to distinguish between wolves, shepherds and hirelings?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m well experienced enough that I can’t spot enough non hirelings!
LikeLiked by 1 person
But Fave, Kasper likes Origen. Maybe you should fish his book outta the trash and have another go at it. Maybe someday they’ll call him a church father too!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not fair, Ginny, you are hitting below the belt now. 🙂
LikeLike
Religions
LikeLike
Well, I know that I’ll get to heaven. This is the basic idea of the freedom in Christ that I have, explained in Paul’s letter to the Romans. Chapter 5: freedom from God’s wrath (we therefore have peace with God through Jesus Christ); Chapter 6: freedom from sin (we have died to sin, how can we live in it any longer?) Chatper 7: freedom from the law (the wretched man) and Chapter 8: freedom from death.
If you don’t know that this is true of yourself because you think it is above your pay grade, then that’s your problem.
It seems to me, though, that the epistle to the Romans gives us plenty of reason to be assured that we will get to heaven; this is the starting point for effective witness.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree. These so-called shepherds are not be be trusted with the keys to anything – except perhaps the gin cabinet.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hahahahahahahahah [;-D
LikeLike
Good one liner. Thanks for the tip. Maybe I’ll use it. Is Father Ted available on Youtube? Is he anything like Mr. Ed? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
I think if you search on youtube you’ll find him.
LikeLike
I found it. It is awful. Pitiable stuff. Pay me and I’ll watch three episodes.
LikeLike
I can understand the scruples of those Catholics and other Christians who do not like Father Ted. The series was made by writers and other creative TV people with their own secular comedy agenda. However, as a die-hard fan, I have watched Father Ted in Catholic presbyteries, Franciscan friaries in the UK and Assisi, the seminary TV room in Rome, and not once have I heard the suggestion that the trio of priests and their housekeeper are invented…
They are totally true to type, recognizable (not stereotypes but comedy characters based on type, just like “Dad’s Army” and other comedy classics). There are painfully true lessons in the Father Ted series for all Catholics who must deal with the secular critique of Catholicism, and we would do well to tune in and learn those lessons rather than dismiss the “awfulness” Ginny. But I know where you’re coming from, and I sympathise: it’s painful stuff ! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wildly popular in the UK, but a failure with those without a sense of humour 🙂
LikeLike
Oh boy, the Father Ted Show is about to begin. Get ready to bust a gut.
LikeLike
You’ll like it – give it a go
LikeLike
I don’t think he has made it to American TV yet.
LikeLike
Geoffrey, this is a very good piece. In fact it is yet another in a series of good posts on this blog which are really challenging, thought-provoking and deserve a wide audience. One thing I appreciate about this blog is the subtle critique – particularly in “ecumenical matters” – when people are comfortable to state their views plainly before other traditions. Long may it continue.
I have today been entering into some discussions regarding a fictional tale for children (centred on the character of a donkey of course) and my prospective creative partner who is a well-known children’s book illustrator has already flagged up her position on religion in the early stages of discussion. References to religion would be “very off-putting and uncool for many people”. In other words, Christianity in a story is no longer possible if commercial publishing success is a consideration. She loves my idea and we will probably get to work on it after a meeting next Easter, but the donkey in the story – a very special donkey who was ridden by the Messiah – has already become a problem because he is connected with Christianity…
Aaaaaaarrrrrrgh!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Gareth, do let me know when you have it done and in what ways it might be available. It may interest my wife who is DRE at a large parish. She’s always looking for new material for the kids.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Dave. I have said as much about it as I wish to here. I’m aiming for that much sought after prize, the children’s illustrated classic story. This one happens to have a narrative that takes us into a Christian religious theme. It is a story based in western culture. In my view, it is no more than a modern version of a mediaeval folk tale for children. But we now have a new problem: if we mention Christ or Christian religion, we supposedly “alienate” the whole commercial market.
Jesus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a shame!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh no, that’s not the end of the story… That’s just the starting problem. There’s a lot of work to be done here to find a way of doing it and keeping both the donkey and the Man who “was despised and rejected by mankind” (Isaiah 53:3) in the story! That’s the challenge. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I pray you find a way to navigate the shoals of secularism. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
My son has written a few short stories based on animal characters with the subliminal message of Christ – they are unpublished he wrote them for his children.
LikeLike
Thank you Gareth, I appreciate that. I wrestle, as I think you do, with these matters. Your story is depressing – alas!
LikeLike
Garath please let me know when your stories are out also.
LikeLike
Hey Dave, how cum you didn’t respond to my two questions regarding Leo the Great? Just curious. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I answered yours with 1 question of my own Ginny.
LikeLike
No. You avoided giving an answer by asking a question. Sometimes questions do provide answers and sometimes they are simply evasion. I’m still wondering how you can consider Pope Leo the Great’s condemnation of Origen as hearsay. I mean the definition of hearsay includes rumor, gossip or tale bearing. Strange word to chose to describe the words of a man who IS a Saint about one who ISN’T a Saint in favor of defending the man who ISN’T a Saint. I mean really. You call the words of a Saint a rumor but the words of a condemned heretic orthodox. Wanna take another looksee at your position? Keep an open mind. I await your explanation of why you think a heretic’s reputation is more worthy of defense than a real Saint. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
And you use a letter by a pope which is not an infallible declaration whilst you discount 2 other canonized saints not to mention the constant use of the Church of his works for both spiritual and doctrinal benefit. Please explain why the Church would quote a heretic in the Catechism and use his work as a source of nourishment for those who read the Liturgy of the Hours? I raise your 1 saint with 2 saints and the implied acceptance of Origen by the Church’s use of his writings. If you, or the Vatican, have the proofs that you seem to think Pope Leo the Great had, then please show them to us all and end the long debate that has ensued. We don’t know and you don’t know . . . you surmise and I give the benefit in view of the lack of evidence and the usage that the Church makes of his writings that do exist. It’s that simple.
LikeLike
Infallable (;-D
LikeLike
Dave, YOU are one saying that 2 Saints think marvels of Origen’s teaching. YOUR assertion is the one that needs proof documents that come from credible sources. Not a source made by some Boscovites to please their Anglican masters like the Cracker Jack’s Box site Chalcedon provided. The Crossroads Initiative IS a credible source and the link I provided goes to documents available there. Dr. Marcellino D’Ambrosio is well esteemed among his peers and by the Church. Not some much the Cracker Jack’s Box. No, a letter from the Pope condemning anyone is generally a done deal. In that matter, Roma locuta; causa finita est, or Rome has spoken, the cause is finished. But Hell, for Protestants anything Rome says or does is a matter to be discussed and evaluated all the day long till an alternative, usually to the contrary, has been found and agreed upon. And you know the rest of that story well.
So I await any proof documents you may provide that substantiate your claims to the contrary.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My ‘proof’ is the Liturgy of the Hours and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (so take it up with them) And I am surprised that the Catholic Encyclopedia on New Advent is blown off as a work of Protestants. It bears a Nihil Obstat from 1911 when that used to mean something. (Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.)
Seriously, I have no dog in this fight. If you can get the Church to excommunicate Origin or find where they did so: then you’d have your proof.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave, you still aren’t showing your sources. You need to actually provide the specific texts for your assertions that prove beyond doubt what you claim they say on the matter with verifiable links to cross reference to, or quit trying to get the rest of the planet to take YOUR word for it, that is that Origen is a orthodox source for Catholic doctrine and should be accepted as a doctor and/or father of the Church. Hello? Perhaps you consider the New Advent website infallible or something. Not so said my kitty from the corner of the room. He’s smarter than whatever doggie you think is in the fight.
BTW both my own copies of Christian Prayer and the CCC are within easy reach. It has two readings from Origen in it as part of the Office of Readings. It also has “Go Tell It On The Mountain,” which is a negro “spiritual”, “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,” by Martin Luther, “Amazing Grace,” by John Newton and a few other Protestant elements as well. Gee, does this mean Martin Luther has been reconciled to the Church and all his teachings are acceptable for study and promotion because some useful idiot got one of his rather famous songs inserted into a Catholic Prayer book for use by Catholics? It may help you to know I absolutely loath the song Amazing Grace. No, Dave. God gave me a brain to use and I do. I make up my own mind. There is much work in the Vineyard of a pruning nature for the coming generation. Both root and branch need removal and tossed into the fire, etc. But as is, they aren’t done making the mess yet, so it will have to wait.
Now, you’ve made a claim that BOTH St. Jerome and St. Athanasius have statements that vindicate and defend him and his works. “Sts. Jerome and Athanasius and other notables would take the stand in his defense.” (from The Difficulty of Hell essay on Tuesday @ 3:00 P.M.) Produce the proofs necessary for this assertion. Otherwise it is hot air and blathery blather.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I give up . . . if you didn’t even take the word from your own source Crossrads Initiative you will believe nothing I say and yet you keep asking for my sources but never produce your own. You hate my neutrality here . . . and you love your dogmatic stance that relies upon flimsy evidence. Since it is something ‘vitally important’ to you . . . it seems that you should be the one producing evidence . . . not the person who says “I have found no evidence that condemns the man and my Church continues to teach him.” Are you really going to try to indict the Liturgy of the Hours because of the music they inserted (which is abominable) and thus ‘prove’ that the inclusion of Origen for the purpose of teaching and enlightening the soul is of the same type? I would never make such a stretch. That would be like saying because at Mass we sing dumb stuff written by non-Catholics makes the words of consecration suspect. How silly.
LikeLike
And BTW, please give the title of the work by Origen, the chapter and verse where he says these things. Then provide proof that this was a published and taught work or if it was ‘speculative theology’ which is not discouraged by the Church. I doubt you can do either.
Actually I am done, in this thread. I have already told you that I really don’t care about the subject anymore than the good writings of the man which we still refer to for our benefit. Outside of that . . . folks can try to demean him without fact or proof and they (and you) have every right to speculate just as he had a right to speculate. I choose not to.
LikeLike
Dave, guess what? My work is too valuable to be wasted here. Look it up yourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have . . . it is rather a quick search on the internet. He uses him as an answer to those who would take him as an opener to show the oppositions (better than they could probably state it themselves) and then sets them straight. He does this about 6 times in the Summa.
LikeLike
From Crossroads Initiative:
Origen: His Life and Works
Priest and Early Church Father
Origen, born into a Christian family from Alexandria Egypt around 185AD, was only a teenager when he witnessed his father, Leonidas, dragged from his home by Roman soldiers and ultimately martyred. He was inspired by his father’s heroic example to dedicate himself to a strict life of prayer, fasting and study. The bishop of Alexandria, Demetrius, recognized the talent and holiness of this young man and named him head of the catechetical school of this great center of early Christianity. Origen ultimately became one of the greatest Scripture scholars and preachers of the early Church. Though he began his teaching ministry as a lay catechist, Origen was ultimately ordained a priest and wrote commentaries and homilies that influenced subsequent Early Church Fathers from both East and West. Though he did not receive the grace of martyrdom, Origen was imprisoned and brutally tortured for his faith during the persecution that took place under the emperor Decius. Weakened by his ordeal, he died a few years later in 254 AD.
Though several of Origen’s teachings were condemned after his death by Church authorities, it must be remembered that his erroneous opinions were expressed in matters that had not yet been defined by official Church teaching. In his lifetime, Origen was always a loyal son of the Church whose correct opinions far outnumbered his errors.
Origen’s writings were profuse indeed, though only a limited number survive. He wrote commentaries on almost every book of the Bible, with his treatise on Song of Songs, Romans, and many homilies on the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) surviving either intact or in large portions. He was the author of one of the earliest attempts at textual criticism of the Old Testatment, the Hexapla, and was responsible for the first attempt at systematic theology in his famous De Principiis (On First Principles). His two works of spiritual theology, Exhortation to Martyrdom and On Prayer were widely read in the Early Church and are still read today, with many excerpts used in the Roman Office of Readings.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Forgot to leave you a link to your favorite orthodox site: https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_author/39/Origen.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Been there done that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then you should not claim their site Orthodox if they refute themselves.
LikeLike
Dave, they are a far sight more credible than anyone who writes here. Take that anyway you’d like. If you think it is not nice, well, I never joined the church of nice and they eyeballed me for not nice long before I realized their eye were ever on me. I don’t agree with what you think about rehabilitating Origen. It has happened several times throughout the centuries. He comes and he goes. He is a fad. Some adopt the defensive position simply to seem smart and educated. Others do so because people they look up to have done so. Here’s how I made up my mind over 20 years ago: I read one little thing he wrote in a source book one of my professors had me read and it said even the devil would be saved by the redeeming work of the Christ upon the Cross. I couldn’t agree with that laughable notion so wrote him off as a source for spiritual nourishment and went on the the next person on my list of personalities I was supposed to be learning about for that class that week. I went back to class and his story was reviewed in the class including his self castration. (I can still hear in my heart my professor’s warm laughter as his lecture progressed. He was very talented at getting a point across when it needed a little theatrical assistance. He was well loved and kind too.) We were also told of a long list of those who thru the years agreed and disagreed with his various positions and errors and heresies and who did and didn’t agree with them. Not a complete list, but some pretty heavy hitters. You are not alone in your defense of him. There are many notables who think he’s a wonder boy and worthy of praise. I, one the other hand, do not and have not since that day. I’ll stay true to my professors and myself and my Church in this matter. You really don’t have to agree with me at all, but it would be nice if tired NOT to speak as if you ARE speaking for the Church. That is simply too presumptuous and bad for your poor soul. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t . . . I let the opinion of other saints and theologians and the publications of the Church Herself defend him. My opinion counts for nothing as does yours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
P.S. Please explain the many usages of Origen by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica to prove a specific point of theological thought.
It is easy to be critical now that you have the works of all those men who came after Origen. Have you ever thought that he was the first one to set down in writing a Systematic Theology of our faith? Giants stood on his shoulders. Give the man his due . . . he was among the greatest catechists of his day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Dave, did you know that St. Thomas Aquinas was a little fuzzy on the Immaculate Conception and that he didn’t know that eggs and sperm meet in the womb and bango- babyo happens? He was wrong about a few things and isn’t God nor is he the ONLY authority on stuff in the Church and some folks have “developed” much from his seed. Oh dear. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
He absolutely held that the theology that others were tryting to evaluate it as flawed and he was right. It was never something he actually pursued but he did shoot down the others. The funny part is that it was by his argument against the prevalent theologians that we ended up with the theology that made de fide later. It could not have happened before her conception: which was an argument against a few. It also could not happen after her conception: also another bit of thinking. He nixed both. He was right . . . she was immaculately conceived precisely at the very moment of her conception. So do you think St. Thomas was a heretic because he did not hold to it before it was defined?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh Dave………………………….Here is another part of the story you may not be familiar with: Did Origen Castrate Himself?
09
FEB
The story that Origen, in a fit of piety, castrated himself, was well known during the Middle Ages. Carl Pyrdum on his (now defunct?) blog, Got Medieval, has a brief discussion of this which includes an image of Origen and his severed genitalia(I decided not to include an image here).
This account comes to us from Eusebius. In his Ecclesiastical History, VI.8 he relates how Origen decided to, er, separate himself from his sexual bits because he either misread scripture or because he was teaching female catechumens and wanted to either be free from temptation or let everyone know that it was impossible for any hanky-panky to be going on, or maybe a combination of the two. 1
So as sort of a warmup to discussing Origen’s theology I thought it would be interesting to explore this question; Did Origen castrate himself?
A fair amount of this will involve a discussion of Origen’s life so I guess I might as well include relevant parts of his biography. Origen was the son of a prominent Christian who was martyred around the start of the third century. His career began in Alexandria where he quickly became a favorite of the Bishop, Demetrius. As an educated layperson, Origen was qualified to give instruction to catechumens which he did, as well as write. At some point Origen’s teaching turned into actual preaching (I’m a bit fuzzy on the distinction myself) which Demetrius opposed.
https://medievalhistorygeek.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/did-origen-castrate-himself/
Whack job! Literally! He’s a whacko! Wanna follow him? Give your poor wife the head’s up first. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
I already addressed that many days ago, Ginny. Read this article and condemn him if you must or mark it down as another hit piece against the man: and many of saints were surrounded by enemies who did just that to them . . . St. John of the Cross is only one simple reminder.
I will use your own article to refute this or at least cast a great shadow of doubt about it:
“However I want to explain why I consider Origen’s self-castration to be unlikely. I’m going to do this by examining two areas; his role within the Church and his writings.
OK, Origen was a teacher in the Church, educating catechumens at the Catechetical School of Alexandria, which he revived while a young man. This school was operated as a philosophical branch. One of the traditions of philosophy was that teachers should inspire students to want to emulate them. Would castrating oneself be something students would find desirable? Would this help attract students?
At that time a catechumen was a person who was interested in Christianity and was engaged in learning enough about it to make an informed decision before being baptized which would (at least in theory) result in a radical change in the catechumen’s lifestyle. Again, would the fact that one of the teachers and the head of the school had castrated himself out of religious piety encourage people to convert? I know I recently cautioned everyone not to make assumptions about folks from historical periods thinking like us but I’m going to take a leap here and say that having a teacher who cut his own junk off for religious reasons would not be a strong selling point when trying to attract new Christians.
So this is the first reason I consider this unlikely. A prominent teacher at a school designed to educate people about Christianity and convince them to convert would likely not have been someone who had engaged in self-mutilation. I don’t care if he was educating girls, boys, or snow leopards. I think it unlikely, though we have to give at least some credibility to the idea that he had done so, regretted it, and managed to conceal it.
However the real reason why I have serious questions about this is because of Origen’s writings. Eusebius relates that in addition to avoiding suspicion while teaching girls, Origen castrated himself because he misunderstood Matthew 19:12 where Jesus advocates people becoming Eunuchs for the Church.
The problem is, Origen constantly cautions people not to read scriptures literally. He states, many times, that the Bible (he’s also the first person I recall to say the Bible should be considered a single book, not a collection) includes figurative and spiritual, as well as literal, meanings. Now Eusebius says Origen did this while very young, however he also says one reason was to help him teach girls. Clearly we’re not talking about Origen the teenager. We’re likely discussing him while in his 20’s. Unless his thinking was very different from when he wrote On First Principles beginning from when he was about 30, he would have known not to take scripture literally. 2
Of course a counter to this is that cutting one’s own testicles off, then finding out this isn’t what the Bible meant, might cause someone to radically alter his opinion of how scripture should be read. I’d say that would rank pretty high on any list of OSM’s. 3
So I want to offer a specific quote which I consider the key piece of evidence, for my opinion anyway. In On Prayer, XX.1, Origen writes:
Let us suppose there is a difference between church and synagogue. In its proper sense the church has no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but is holy and blameless. Into it enters no bastard or eunuch or one castrated ”
Did you even read the article?
LikeLike
Once again, I am believe in the justice system of the U.S. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor not the defendant. Then leave it to the judge and jury.
Enough of your trying to bait me on this foolishness. Be done with it!
LikeLike
I believe Dave, it really comes down to show us the excommunication. If you can’t produce the evidence then everything else is speculation.
D’Ambrosio, since Ginny believes him to be a genuine sources writes in his book “When the Church was Young (2014)” writes, “Emperor Justinian secured condemnations against ten doctrines attributed to Origen…resulted in the destruction of Origen’s writings, many of which are most likely lost forever…His legacy was woven into the fabric of the Church’s faith and life–no emperor could rip it out. Because of the condemnations and because of the “tale” (interesting choice of word) of his self-mutilation, Origen was never canonized. But there are few teachers in the history of the Church to whom more is owed.” (p.101) Also the author has an entire section on Origen “The First Theologian.”
If I were Analytically reading the author’s point I would simply surmise that he chooses words because ultimately there’s a silence in the historical record. One could conclude an opinion to this silence, but it would be nothing more than speculation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Precisely my point friend, and very will put. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
See my post about this stuff where I describe how long ago I made up my own mind about the guy and who it was who helped me decide. I think it is three posts back and addressed to Dave. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
I responded already to this in my other post. You can read it there. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Documents (;-D
LikeLike
Ginny, I’d like to thank you profusely. I’m working on my current project and I had vaguely at the back of my mind some idea that the ass and the foal were connected to the Old and New Testaments. I couldn’t remember from where it came. It was indeed Origen! You just reminded me. (Origen’s commentary on the Gospel of St John. A marvellous piece of orthodox Catholic commentarry, by the way.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pszzzzzt………….That is me sticking my tongue out at you and giving you raspberries. Thanks for sharing. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
My pleasure…
LikeLike
Ginny, why are you being so rude when Dave and Gareth have both pointed out that your Church uses Origen a lot? Here is a well-informed and scholarly discussion which conforms with what Catholic sources says:
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/apocatastasis-the-heresy-that-never-was-2/
I hope you are not one of those people who won’t accept correction when you are shown to have over-stated your case. Of course, if you have a reference to your Church rejecting all Origen taught, then please provide it, because I am always happy to accept correction – as you should be if you are wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh Jess, dear. You think I’m rude, Okay. Judge not lest ye be judged.
I don’t accept correction when those who think they know best don’t. No one here is my superior. I have them ya know. When they say “go” I go, when they say “stop” I stop. I love engaging in discussions. It broadens horizons and allows for the flow of ecumenism.
I find it sometimes difficult to come here though simply because in the past it has allowed a few individuals to blaspheme unabated for days on end, and even praised their works, yet when nits get picked, it is “rude” to express opinions unlike the others. Yeah. Housing a man who regularly invokes demons and pagan gods speaks volumes about the housekeepers. It is unwise to befriend the friends of devils. But that is just my opinion. Hope all your Christmas shopping is done and all your stockings are hung. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Oh I’m forever judging, as we all do, but since I have no actual jurisdiction and just an opinion, I don’t ‘spect anyone to much care 🙂
It’s not about superiors, is it, it’s about more knowledge. One of the things I love about this place is all the knowledgeable people, including you – it’s like a mini-university 🙂
Christmas presents despatched – and I’m not mentioning stockings in the presence of so many men 😳
LikeLike
Oh I forgot Jess. Thanks for the link. It is like a little piece of candy for my kitty. Thank you. BTW, did you read the stuff on Holy Fear by Msgr. Pope? He covers all the bases. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did – and thanks so much. Isn’t he so good – I do love his writing.
LikeLike
I, Bosco the Great , am about to speak Infallibly…….Hear ye hear ye……I, Bosco the Great command all Mary worshippers not ot read the bible, because it is a dead letter, and says horrible things like Jesus was sacrificed only once. And at the sound of the trumpet, I command all, small and great, to bow down befor baby Nimrod and mother, ooops, I mean Mary and Jesus cement images. If you don’t, I will cast you into the firey furnace. Bosco has spoken.
LikeLike
Bosco – you are being very naughty – go and stand in the corner until you feel the naughtiness go away 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why is it always me. Ok, im getting on the step.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Only you know why you are naughty – now you are not, you can rejoin class 🙂 xx
LikeLike
Pingback: InlandTownOnline Obiano Closes 2015 with Special Thanksgiving - InlandTownOnline