ŷ������

“Origen significa aquí aquello a partir de donde y por lo que una cosa es lo que es y tal como es. Qué es algo y cómo es, es lo que llamamos su esencia. El origen de algo es la fuente de su esencia. La pregunta por el origen de la obra de arte pregunta por la fuente de su esencia.

»Según la representación habitual, la obra surge a partir y por medio de la actividad del artista. Pero ¿por medio de qué y a partir de dónde es el artista aquello que es? Gracias a la obra; en efecto, decir que una obra hace al artista significa que si el artista destaca como maestro en su arte es únicamente gracias a la obra.

»El artista es el origen de la obra. La obra es el origen del artista. Ninguno puede ser sin el otro. Pero ninguno de los dos soporta tampoco al otro por separado. El artista y la obra son en sí mismos y recíprocamente por medio de un tercero que viene a ser lo primero, aquello de donde el artista y la obra de arte reciben sus nombres: el arte”
― Martin Heidegger, Off the Beaten Track

“The so-called 'condemnation of Origen' by 'the Church' in the sixth century probably never occurred proper, and even if it occurred it did so only as a result of a long series of misunderstandings, when the anthropological, eschatological, and psychological questions were no longer felt as open to investigation �� as Origen and still Nazaianzen considered them �� but dogmatically established. The aforementioned condemnation was in fact a condemnation, not at all of Origen, but rather of a late and exasperated form of Origenism; moreover, it was mainly wanted by emperor Justinian �� or better his counselors, given that he was not a theologian �� and only partially, or even not at all, ratified by ecclesiastical representatives.

This 'condemnation' was triggered by the development of a radical kind of Origenism in the first half of the sixth century, especially in Palestine, in the monasteries of St. Saba, the 'Great Laura' and 'New Laura' […]. (pp. 724-725)”
― Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena

“Origen admits of a tension between the logika's free will and God's will during history (Hom. in Gen. 3.2: 'Many things happen without God's will, but nothing without God's providence'), but not in the end, when God's will shall unfailingly be fulfilled. And the object of this will is revealed by 1 Tim 2:4-6 […] The realization of God's will in the end will not annihilate the logika's free will, exactly because their will shall be then completely free, thanks to their achieved complete knowledge (note again Origen's ethical intellectualism): once all have come to know the Good, in the end, all will certainly adhere to it, and this adhesion will be absolutely free and voluntary. That providence leads each logikon to salvation, all the way respecting its free will, is hammered home also in Princ. 2.1.2; 3.5.5.1.8.3 and elsewhere in a later work such as the Commentary on Matthew. For Origen, the reconciliation between providence (and its outcome, apokatastasis) and free will is a weighty philosophical issue; at the same time he is also aware of the divine mystery: thus, he is certain that these two poles are in harmony, but God only knows how this reconciliation takes place in each single case." (pp. 180-181)”
― Ilaria Ramelli

“Origen calls apokatastasis also "palingenisis" (παλιγγενεσία) and declares that it will take place in Christ (ἐ�� Χριστ��) at the end of the time, when he will sit on the throne of his glory, and it depends only on Christ, who will make those involved "pure to the highest degree" (Comm. in Matth. 5.15.23). (p. 200)”
― Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena

“Among the first explicit accusations leveled against Origen by these authors, even though some do deal with eschatological issues, none is directed against his apokatastasis doctrine, or at least none is against the eventual universal restoration of all humans. They were well aware that Origen's core doctrine was that of the eventual restoration of all human beings, but they did not criticize this (they limited themselves to counter the claim of the final salvation of the devil), very probably because, as Basil attests […], still at the end of the fourth century a great many Christians believed in the final apokatastasis of all humans. (577)”
― Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena

“All this shows that, as in the case of Theophilus, so also in that of Jerome, much of the Origenist controversy of that day depended on political considerations and on contingence. Much also rested on gross misunderstandings and even the lack of direct reading of Origen's works, or, even worse, according to Origen's and Rufinus's denunciations, the deliberate alteration of these works. (658)”
― Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena