Shaking the Foundation of Faith

NY Times ^ | November 18, 2005 | Scott M. Liell

[Drammach]

If you want, I can ping you whenever I get around to editing that entry (probably this weekend) and you can let me know if you think my rewording is well-considered.

Please do so..

In a sense, I have no dog in this fight, so to speak, other than having read a lot lately on the Council of Nicea and the succeeding councils, and the history involving their various religious findings, it was noted that Origen and his teachings were considered "controversial" in some aspects right from the "beginning", and over the course of several hundred years, were eventually declaimed as false by the "church"..
So, in a general sense, I think you will find that Origen's teachings, or those of his followers, after his death, were denied, although specifically, Origen himself, and his original teachings may have held some validity within the church..
However, from what I've read, "Origenism" was eventually dead as (Roman) Catholic doctrine..

[AntiGuv]

I have no agenda in this regard besides historical accuracy. There is no doubt that what came to be known as "Origenism" is excluded from Catholic doctrine, but it is important to recognize that what is referred to as "Origenism" are those interpretations of some peripheral topics he discussed that are contrary to orthodox doctrines. Much of Origen's teachings, as my excerpt above outlines, have become the very core doctrine of Catholicism (and Orthodoxy).

Yes, Origen flirted with certain 'errors' as they were later defined, and became a controversial figure (primarily due to the exploits of John Chrysostom), but his cardinal significance to the history of Christendom is undeniable. My edits on Wikipedia will be meant to be neutral, as opposed to what I think is the biased framing of the current version. And I'll surely ping you whenever I get to it!

[carumba]

That is the point. Go to the expert to learn or go directly to the source. So when the NY Times offers an opinion about God and where he belongs in public discourse I can safely ignore them and form my own opinion.

[AntiGuv]

But speaking of John Chrysostom, might I add that I've certainly never seen anyone refer to him as brilliant. In my estimation, he was just a petty hack and a vicious thug. The same goes for Athanasius with his terror tactics and his hit squads. Whatever brilliance he might've had certainly wasn't expressed in anything I can tell but his Machiavellian politics.