Follow on Facebook
Recent Comments
Geoffrey on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… Robert Fortuin on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… John H on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… Robert J on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… Robert Fortuin on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… Iainlovejoy on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… Counter-Rebel on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… Iainlovejoy on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… Robert Fortuin on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… Counter-Rebel on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… -
Recent Posts
Categories
- Ainulindale
- Alexander Earl
- Apostle Paul
- Aquinas
- Athanasius
- Augustine
- Basil of Caesarea
- Bible
- Book Reviews
- Brian Moore
- Citations
- Cyril of Alexandria
- Dante
- David B. Hart
- Dionysius the Areopagite
- Dumitru Staniloae
- Eric Reitan
- George MacDonald
- Grace, Justification & Theosis
- Gregory Nazianzen
- Gregory of Nyssa
- Henri de Lubac
- Herbert McCabe & Friends
- Holy Trinity
- Hugh McCann
- Humor
- Icons
- Inklings & Company
- Interesting Theologians
- Irenaeus
- Isaac the Syrian
- Islam
- John Behr
- John Stamps
- Jordan Wood
- Julian of Norwich
- Lamentation
- Liturgy & Sermons
- Mark Chenoweth
- Maximus the Confessor
- Mythopoeia
- Nicholas Wolfterstorff
- Patristic and Byzantine theology
- Paul Griffiths
- Personal
- Philosophical Theology
- Poetry & Fiction
- Preaching
- Robert Farrar Capon
- Robert Fortuin
- Robert Jenson
- Roberto De La Noval
- Sacraments
- Sergius Bulgakov
- Spirituality
- T. F. Torrance
- T. S. Eliot
- Theology
- Theotokos
- Thomas Allin
- Thomas Talbott
- Tom Belt
- Uncategorized
- Universalism and Eschatology
- Vincent of Lérins
- Zizioulas & Yannaras
Archives
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
What a fascinating title!
Sent from my iPhone
>
LikeLike
Glad you liked it, my lovely matushka. 🙂
LikeLike
This is how historical understanding dies – assuming that Origen must fit into late 4th c. categories – either the proto-“Arian” or the proto-Nicene. No doubt, Origen was a massive influence on all Easterners, on both sides, in the dispute c. 325-381. Eusebius at least as much as the Cappodocians.
So what? Origen deserves to be read and understood in his own terms.
LikeLike
Father Al,
I look forward to reading this article.
In the meantime, how did you acquire and format it like this in the blog post? I’ve never seen this done and I’d like to know how to do it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Taylor, WordPress has an agreement with Scribd that allows embedding. Pretty, neat, huh? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is a plug in required or just drop in html?
LikeLike
It is indeed very cool!
LikeLike
When you bring up a document on Scribd, you’ll see “embed” in the left column. Click on that and it will bring up code for embedding. Ignore that code. Look in the left column under “format” and click on WordPress. That will give you the WordPress coding. Copy and paste it into the new post (text not HTML faculty in the editor).
By the way, the WordPress folks are trying to figure out why your comments are requiring constant approval. The problem seems to have them temporarily stumped.
LikeLike
This is an excellent article. Thank you for finding it and sharing it.
I was delighted to see that same passage cited from Peri Archon Book IV, 4, 1 where Origen ascribes to “heretics” belief that the Son is of a different ousia, that there was a time that the Son did not exist, and even subordination. Basically Origen here refutes Arianism before the advent of Arius!
Origen is Nicene. Or rather, Nicene Orthodoxy is Origenist.
The problem with Origen is chiefly with his doctrine of the pre-existence of minds, not his Trinitarianism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There might be another interesting article you to read Dr. Marshall. It is called “The preexistence of souls” also by Ilaria Ramelli. In it she, I do believe, establishes clearly that Origen did not teach the thing he is often accused off. It might be on scribd. If not I may have a copy t e-mal you if you like.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really? In reading Peri Archon a few times, it seems rather obvious to me that Origen taught the pre-existence of minds.
(I say “minds” or “noes” because Origen speculates that a “soul” or “psyche” is a cold or fallen “mind” or “nous”). When it is divinized by grace, the sinful “soul” can become noetic again and even a “spirit” or “pneuma.”)
What is the article title by Ilaria Ramelli?
LikeLike
“Preexistence of Souls” ( https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/236107426/Preexistence-of-Souls) turns out Fr. Kimel uploaded it! The idea has been gaining traction for a while now. In short: to Origen to be bodiless is a divine feature shared bybFathher, Son and Holy Ghost. Creatures are necessarily embodied, qua creatures. The fall is a hardening of the spiritual body, a change in its constitution, but not its creation. Edwards (“Origen against Plato”) points out that fragment 15 in Peri Archon is unique and the onlynplace where Origens famous doctrine shows up. The fragment is also a composition of Koetschau’s from several anti-Origenist sources and cannot be taken to be as Origen’s own composition.
Anyway, cool stuff.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nice. Thank you so much!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Can you please just download it and store it as a page on your own site? I don’t want to subscribe to scribd and i have nothing i want to upload. And i can’t even access it because of the paywall, except by coming to this page.
LikeLike
John, we had this conversation a year or two ago, and I’m surprised you are reiterating your request. I understand why you do not want to join Scribd. That’s your decision and not my problem, to put it bluntly. As I have told you before, I’d be happy to email you and any EO reader any article on Scribd to which I have linked. It’s also the case that many of these articles I found in multiple places on the net, as a quick Google search will reveal. And yes, sometimes I do upload documents to WordPress and link to them; but that means I cannot embed them in my blog, which is something I like to do from time to time. Sorry you find this all so inconvenient.
The matter is closed. Fini. Concluded. (Pulling out thesaurus to find other synonyms.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fr Kimel,
I have a notion about the Trinity. I’m curious if it makes any sense. It seems to me that inherent in the very concept of self-consciousness is the idea the the self has a self-image. To be self-conscious is to have a self that is able to be aware of itself. Being self-conscious, then, really implies that there are two selves. The “second” self is dependent upon the “first” self for its existence, yet the “first” self could not be a self-conscious being without the “second” self. Thus, if the “first” self has always existed, so has the “second” self. They are co-eternal, yet the “second” self is subordinate to the “first” self. We could call the “first” self “the Father,” and the “second” self “the Son.”
Do these two selves have a relationship to each other? And if so, what would this relationship be? I haven’t worked it out completely, but it seems their relationship must be one of love. The first self is perfect. It’s self-image is perfect. Therefore, the relationship between them must be one of perfect love, since perfect goodness will always love perfect goodness. What I haven’t worked out is how this relationship must also be a person. If I could do that, I’d have the Trinity fully explained.
Is this making any sense? Or I should I just go back to the drawing board?
LikeLike
Julian,
Your comments reminded me of a fine essay by David Bentley Hart, The Mirror of the Infinite.” Though the notion of the Trinity “fully explained” is perhaps slightly ambitious. Anyway, here is a nice quote from Hart’s article:
. . . the constant pendulation between inner and outer that constitutes our identities is an ineffably distant analogy of that boundless bright diaphaneity of coinherence, in which the exteriority of relations and interiority of identity in God are one, each person wholly reflecting and containing and indwelling each of the others. Because for us personality is synthetic, composite, successive, and finite, we are related always in some sense “over against,” in a fragmentary way, and to be with others always involves for us a kind of death, the limit of our being. In God, though, given the simplicity of his essence, there is an absolute coincidence of relation and unity.
Later in the essay Hart indicates the “specular” nature of Gregory of Nyssa’s metaphysics. It’s well worth a perusal.
LikeLike
Thanks, Brian. I couldn’t (quite literally) have said it myself.
LikeLike
Julian,
Your idea is very similar to that of St. Augustine. His thought was that, since man is made in the image of God, there must be something in man that mirrors the Holy Trinity. He found it in the human intellect. First there is mind which, in Augustine’s view, mirrors the Father. The first act of mind is reflection upon itself, i.e., self-knowledge (as when we say, “I know my own mind”). This self-knowledge mirrors the Son Who is generated by the Father. Finally, Mind gives birth to Will, which is associated first and foremost with love of self (amor sui). This mirrors the Holy Spirit.
Of course, we must always remember that any analogies we might conjure up to help understand the doctrine of the Holy Trinity are just that — analogies. We must always be careful not to take them too far.
LikeLike
Thanks, Ed. So far, two solid theologians have expressed similar ideas to my own. Seems like a good sign.
LikeLike
Fr. Kimel,
Thanks for posting this. I struggled mightily through the Greek using Google Translate, and I think I got the sense of it, although Google Translate is a poor tool for this purpose, and the formatting of the article gave me fits.
Was Origen vilified because he used non-literal word pictures and analogies to convey his ideas in an era when people wanted simple teaching that could be taken literally?
Thanks,
Robert
LikeLike