I did a little research. It seems he was extremely prolific; very few authors being as fertile as he was. St. Epiphanius estimates at six thousand the number of his writings, counting separately, without doubt, the different books of a single work, his homilies, letters, and his smallest treatises. This being the case, it is no wonder that there may be some errors. Also it should be rememberd that at the time (A.D. 185-232), there was very little was settled doctrine.
However, it seems he was not counted a heretic in his own time. St. Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, who regarded himself as his disciple, made him remain with him for a long period to profit by his learning (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl). St. Alexander of Jerusalem his fellow pupil at the catechetical school was his intimate faithful friend (Eusebius, VI, xiv), as was Theoctistus of Caesarea in Palestine, who ordained him (Photius, cod. 118). Beryllus of Bostra, whom he had won back from heresy, was deeply attached to him (Eusebius, VI; St. Jerome, "De viris ill.", lx). St. Anatolus of Laodicea praises him in his "Carmen Paschale". Julius Africanus consulted him, Origen's reply being extant (P. G., XI, 41-85). St. Hippolytus highly appreciated his talents (St. Jerome, "De viris ill."i). St. Dionysius, his pupil and successor in the catechetical school, when Patriarch of Alexandria, dedicated to him his treatise "On the Persecution" (Eusebius), and on learning of his death wrote a letter filled with his praises (Photius, cod. 232).
His chief adversaries were heretics; the Sabellians,
Arians,
Pelagians, Nestorians, and
Apollinarists. This fact speaks well of him.
Also, mitigating against the idea that he was a heretic is his own humble attitude toward the authority of the Sacred Apostolic Tradition and the Church. his In the preface to the "De principiis" Origen laid down a rule thus formulated in the translation of Rufinus: "Illa sola credenda est veritas quae in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione". In accordance with those principles Origen constantly appeals to ecclesiastical preaching, ecclesiastical teaching, and the ecclesiastical rule of faith (
kanon). He admits the necessity of baptism of infants because it is in accordance with the practice of the Church founded on Apostolic tradition; he warns the interpreter of the Holy Scriptures, not to rely on his own judgment, but "on the rule of the Church instituted by Christ". For, he adds, we have only two lights to guide us here below, Christ and the Church; the Church reflects faithfully the light received from Christ, as the moon reflects the rays of the sun. The distinctive mark of the Catholic is to belong to the Church, to depend on the Church outside of which there is no salvation; on the contrary, he who leaves the Church walks in darkness, he is a heretic. It is through the principle of authority that Origen is wont to unmask and combat doctrinal errors. It is the principle of authority, too, that he invokes when he enumerates the dogmas of faith.
It seems to me that a man animated with such sentiments may have made mistakes, because he is human, but his disposition of mind is essentially orthodox and he does not deserve to be ranked among the promoters of heresy. Since he did not formally deviate from settled doctrine, it is not formal heresy even though those ideas would conflict with doctrine which would be settled at a later time. Formal heresy is defined as the open and obstinate rebellion against a Divinely instituted teaching of the Church. So he should not be considered a heretic as he would have, if these had been settled matters in his own day, he would have deferred to the Wisdom of the Church.
