Origen and Heresy
I have some difficulty with the following sentence in this article: "He was anathematized by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 and declared a heretic." First, a heretic is someone who willfully teaches personal opinion after that opinion has been condemned by the Church. A condemnation of some of Origen's views 300 years after his repose does not make him a heretic. Second, it isn't even clear that II Constantinople anathematized Origen. As one website put it, "Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council." I also read something to this effect in an article by Bishop Kallistos Ware. --Fr Lev 09:45, February 22, 2006 (CST)
I've tried to clear the matter up. Origen was anathematized. This is without doubt. Likewise, his books were declared heretical. Both declarations were made in Canon XI of the Council in question. The specific book from which your quote comes actually does not claim that Origen was not anathematized, it only calls into question the authenticity of 15 additional canons. That selfsame text does reproduce the 11th Canon that anathematizes Origen by name.