Commenting
on Origen’s understanding of Peter and Matt 16:18, the Abbé Guettée, a French
Catholic bishop who would convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, wrote:
Romish theologians quote some texts in which
he seems to apply to the person of
St. Peter the title of the rock, but
they omit this passage, in which he clearly explains himself: “If you believe,”
he says (Commentary on St. Matt.), “that God has raised the whole building of
his Church on Peter alone, what will you say of John, the son of the Thunder?
What will you say of each of the Apostles? Will you venture to say that the
gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter in particular, but shall prevail
against the others? Are not the words, the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it, addressed to them all? Have not
these words had the fulfilment in each one of the Apostles?” (Abbé Guettée, The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and
Primitive Relations With the Eastern Churches [New York: Carleton, 1867], 170,
italics in original)
This section
of Origen’s writings (Commentary
on Matthew 12, 10-11 [ANF 9:455-56]) has resulted in some scrambling by
Catholic apologists. Steve Ray attempted to downplay the problem Origen poses
to the modern, dogmatically defined, understanding of the Papacy by arguing
that Origen was going off on an extreme with his allegorical reading of the
text:
Protestants often use Origen’s Gospel
commentary on Matthew 16 in an attempt to defuse the Catholic understanding of
Matthew 16 . . . why does Origen seem to contradict this later in life? There
could be several reasons. Origen viewed the Scriptures as a chest full of
spiritual treasures, the preserve of a few privileged Christians . . . . This
conviction led Origen into what we usually call the ‘allegorical interpretation
of Scripture’. He held that there are three levels of meaning in the Bible: the
literal sense; the moral application to the soul; and the allegorical or spiritual
sense . . . Does Origen intend to slight the literal sense of Matthew 16? Intentionally or unintentionally,
through his allegorizing, he does not address the literal and historical sense
of the passage but “digs deeper” for a personal and spiritual application.
Although Catholics approve and acknowledge the necessity of “spiritual exegesis”
of Scripture, it must be noted that it can be taken to unhelpful extremes . . .
We can understand Origen to be simply “spiritualizing the text.” (Stephen K.
Ray, Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the
Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church [San Francisco: Ignatius
Press, 1999], 179-80, n. 63)
