http://levellers.wordpress.com/2007/04/29/thinking-blogger-award/

Michael, I’m not waiting for the pope to rehabilitate anybody, I’m just celebrating the fact that it seems that he is. Nor am I waiting for “official” guidance from Rome or anywhere else as to when to celebrate Origen, just listening for sound guidance from wherever it may come.

As for the calendar: In the east the anti-Origenist sentiment often runs stronger than in the West. The Copts, I believe, have him on the calendar. But the ambivalence is otherwise almost universal.

I think Origen was a beautiful man. I took some heat for including him among the Fathers in my book, The Fathers of the Church. But he certainly belonged there.

But why wait until the pope rehabilitates him? I’m one Baptist who doesn’t like Catholic bashing, but you don’t hold to papal infallibility any more than I do. And this pope is one of whom I am very suspicious because of the way he persecuted liberation theologians (especially Boff) as Cardinal Ratzinger.

And, even if one is celebrating the Catholic rehabilitation of Origen, why would one need to celebrate a feast day on a Catholic calendar? Why not the Eastern calendar?

I don’t expect any clarification from Rome. Origen has appeared increasingly in magisterial documents, including papal encyclicals, and he’s all over the Catechism. This is just the most explicit statement of what has long been implicit.

Origen’s is a complicated case, since (as you say) his stated intention was to deliver the teaching of the catholic church. He didn’t always succeed at that, but his failures may be understandable and excusable, given the times ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äù just as the condemnation of “Origenism” is understandable, given the later times.

The old Catholic Encyclopedia gives us an excellent rundown of the situation:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

That might clear the way for saying, “Yeah, for apologetic purposes Origen set forth some pretty heretical ideas as possible interpretations of the nature of souls and their eschatological destiny. But that doesn’t make him a heretic, any more than asking difficult questions and exploring all the possibilities (based on the best information we have) makes one a heretic today. Remember: Origen’s intent was to remain within the consensual orthodoxy of the church. Imitate his method, not necessarily his conclusions–especially where additional theological work has now been done.”

I don’t know if that argument will wash, but I wonder if that might be what Benedict was getting at, since his remarks seem focused exclusively on Origen’s method rather than his theology per se.

His method and theory are incredible and invaluable. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t err, however.