Thursday, July 5, 2018

Abbé Guettée on Origen's Interpretation of Matthew 16:18

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)