On St. Gregory Palamas, the Essence & Energies Distinction, and Finding a Way Forward

[Reader Antonius]

Pax, Ειρήνη, שלום! Christ is Crucified! Σώτερ σώσον ημάς!

Dear brothers and sisters of the Eastern Orthodox Churches,

Firstly, I wish all of y'all a blessed & solemn Great & Holy Friday. Pascha is coming; I know of many Greek Catholics who are aching for the day as they also follow the Julian calendar in some places! May the coming of the Paschal Feast find you all well, and may you sing of the troparion with gusto.

I suppose, in a way, one could argue this thread is "bad timing." Yet, I would contend this issue is among the more serious impediments to Christian ecumenism...or is it? You see, I'm not yet convinced that the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas – and, yes, he's a saint because the Melkites & Ukrainian Greek Catholics have him in the Menaion, ergo, he is a saint in the Catholic Church as a whole – cannot be reconciled with either Oriental Orthodox/Catholic theology nor the Scholasticism of the Roman Church. But, I don't really know. For my part, I've read the Triads as well as many books St. Palamas' perhaps greatest modern proponent, the Rev. Fr. John Meyendorff (memory eternal!) and Lossky. Yet, even with the vigorous defenses of Palamite theology, I find several objections notwithstanding. I'd like to (charitably, if possible!!) debate some of these objections of mine in the hope, ultimately, of moving to a better understanding of Palamite theology and its possible reconciliation with more mainstream Christian traditions (e.g. Roman, Protestant, Oriental, Assyrian, etc.).

And please keep in mind this is not a solely "West vs. East" issue. Hardly. Not only do Eastern Catholics debate this within the Catholic Church (the most heated occur between Oriental Catholics, especially Syriacs, & Byzantine Catholics of the Melkite tradition), there has been pushback among the Oriental Orthodox to St. Gregory Palamas, as well as the general sense of more or less functionally equating Eastern & Oriental Orthodoxy in opposition to the West. Heck, at this point the Romans/Latins (excepting the reactionaries, of course) tend to be the least vociferous, lol, in my experience!

Hence, what follows now are my main "objections." They are not dogmatic nor settled even in my mind. If anything, I'm hoping a kind EO brother or sister who can explain them to me better will resolve the "objecting" nature. And, while I am a Latin & an ordained Reader of the Holy Roman Church, I have spent considerable time with Byzantine Catholic Christians, many of them Palamites, and so I am both familiar with the general scheme of things, as well as the Cappadocian Tradition (the Melkite Greek Abouna Dr. Khaled Anatolios has been a particular inspiration). Hence, my experience is why I often call myself "Romano-Byzantine" since both traditions – Thomism & Greek Cappadocian (via Melkites) – have irrevocably set my theological mindset. But I digress! Let us move to the "objections" now. Perhaps it would be best to begin with prayer in the Trisagion in the Holy Languages of the Glorious Cross, as St. Cyril of Alexandria taught (cf. Jn. 19:20):

+.אלהים הקדוש, גבור הקדוש, אל-עולם הקדוש: רחם נא
+Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς.
+Sanctus Deus, Sanctus Fortis, Sanctus Immortalis, miserere nobis.

Obj. I. – The Positing of the Unknowability of the Divine Essence Posits Knowability

"How is it that [Palamites] do not explain how we know that God's Essence is unknowable. If we cannot know the Essence of God, then we cannot know that it is an unknowable Essence. Nor do the Palamites explain how we likewise know that through the energies we know 'God as such' though not 'God as He is in Himself.'"

–"God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life," by Catherine Morwy La Cugna (Harper Collins /San Francisco, 1991); 191.

This is one of the first critiques I encountered (at a Ukrainian Greek Catholic, pro-Palamite monastery to boot!), and it sort of blew me away. Essentially the argument here is multivalent. To begin, we must properly situate St. Palamas in his efforts. His primary goal, as a supporter of the Athonite monks, was to defend the hesychastic practice of the Taboric light experienced by the monks. This was sparked by Barlaam's criticism, and so all Palamite theology historically flows from this source. But how to defend it? The Athonite monks were experiencing what they believed, ardently, to be the "uncreated light" that shone on Mt. Tabor in the Holy Transfiguration. Not surprisingly, Barlaam argued that the hesychastic claim that the light was of divine origin and to be identical to the light which had been manifested to Jesus' disciples on Mt. Tabor at the Transfiguration was nonsense. Oddly, in a not so un-Orthodox manner, Barlaam viewed this doctrine of "uncreated light" to be polytheistic because it posited two eternal substances that are uncreated, and therefore Divine.

Oddly, I think this sets the stage for what St. Gregory Palamas argues in the Triads. To use a metaphor from Sun Tzu (孫子), St. Palamas sort of "falls" into the trap laid by Barlaam here. Don't get me wrong, either! There are true genuine spiritual and theological riches in the writings of the saintly Archbishop of Thessaloniki, but I really do believe much of the problem lies in St. Palamas' insistence to justify the Athonite experience as true and from God...perhaps at any cost. In order to do this, as we see in the Triads, St. Gregory posits many an interesting attempt at a solution:

First, he knows he must address the question of how it is possible for man to have knowledge of a transcendent and unknowable God. This, in effect, is the subtle challenge of Barlaam, and is indeed a point preached frequently by the Cappadocian Fathers. St. Palamas' solution therefore draws a distinction between knowing God in his essence (οὐσία) and knowing God in his energies (ἐνέργεια). This is, in effect, his solution to the difficulty: the Athonite monks' experience is of the energies, not the Essence. But this leads to more questions that St. Gregory must answer: What do we mean by Essence & Energies, specifically? We must define our terms.

It seems to me that the conclusion of St. Gregory of the definition of "οὐσία" of God is that of God as God pure, ungraspable aseity. The Divine Essence, God's Being, the nature and substance of God as taught in Greek Christianity is uncreated, and cannot be comprehended in words. To deal with both the obvious reality of Divine Revelation & the experience of the Athonite monks, St. Gregory must therefore affirm two conjoined realities: The Energies of God are Divine, but they are distinct from the Essence. But this immediately creates a logical problem. If I can posit with my human mind that the "οὐσία" of the Thrice-Holy God cannot be known or comprehended, then I have *precisely* posited a knowability of the Unknowable. Put another way: By saying that God's Essence is unknowable, incomprehensible, and incommunicable, I have, ipso facto, affirmed that His Essence is, indeed, "knowable," "comprehensible" (even if not fully), and "communicable." The logic is inescapable here, and I wonder if St. Gregory realized the logical flaw.

This logical problem however is *not* insurmountable! Many theologians, Roman/Eastern Catholic & Eastern Orthodox, have posited that a formal distinction between the Essence and Energies would allow a seamless theology to present itself. But the problem is that the so-called "Neo-Palamites" have often rejected a formal distinction for a real distinction. The famous Rev. Fr. John Romanides argued strongly that St. Gregory Palamas considered the distinction between God's essence and his energies to be a "real distinction." [And I think he's got a case here at first glace; St. Gregory was desperate to defend the hesychastic experience!] This type of insistence on a real distinction is highly contrary from the Thomistic "virtual distinction" and the Franciscan Scotist "formal distinction" – and this is not even to mention the Byzantine critics of St. Gregory Palamas in his day, or the Cappadocian Fathers when they touched on these points. It's not hard to see that even Barlaam himself appears to have accepted a "formal distinction" between God's essence and his energies; remember Barlaam was no Latin, but a Greek Italiote.

CONTINUED BELOW:

 

[Reader Antonius]

Obj. II. – The Difficulties of the Palamite The Council of A.D. 1351.

From a Catholic perspective, the loss of the Pope of Old Rome as a confirmer of the Ecumenical Councils over local synods, the Byzantine East developed a model in which the Byzantine emperor called & directed non-ecumenical, but nevertheless authoritative synods over the Greek Churches (i.e. Constantinople, Greek Alexandria, Melkite Antioch, Greek Jersualem, and the later Slavic Patriarchates). One of these synods was the Council of A.D. 1351. Prior to this definitive acceptance of St. Gregory Palamas' teaching in the Greek East (Ruthenians and other Slavs would resist Palamism for a lot longer), there was actually a foment of disagreement among Greek theologians regarding St. Gregory's claims. Indeed, the Synod of A.D. 1351, due to this disagreement, was imposed on the Byzantine Church by imperial force and the persecution of opponents.

Take this summary from the Tome. On the one hand, it is clearly stated that: "The energy of God is not created but uncreated (ασκιστος); This distinction between the uncreated Essence and the uncreated energies does not in any way impair the Divine simplicity; there is no 'compositeness' (σύνθεση) in God; The term 'deity' (θεώτης) may be applied not only to the Essence of God but to the energies...."

So far so good. But then a curious claim is made: "The Essence enjoys a certain priority or superiority in relation to the energies but not in His Essence..." This is a massive "Whoa!", even with the last clause attempting to avoid it. Here's why: If the Essence truly has "superiority" (of any substantive "kind" over the energies...then the only logical conclusion is that there is, indeed, σύνθεση, within God. This is a massive problem with violates many teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers on the Divine simplicity (i.e. lack of composition in the Divine). Now, to be fair, one can avoid this issue by affirming a formal distinction rather than a real one...but that is not seemingly what the A.D. 1351 synod sought to do, and this is tragic.

Be that as it may, St. Gregory Palamas more or less accomplished his goal. By affirming a distinction between the Essence of God and the energies experienced by the Athonite monks, he was able to reconcile how these holy men were able to experience the Divine without compromising the Essence (i.e. the Unknowability). In a way, as we say in the South, St. Gregory Palamas, by the A.D. 1351 synod, "had his cake and got to eat it too." Put more clearly: St. Palamas was able to fully stress that the transcendent God remains eternally hidden in His Essence, but communicates with man through His "uncreated divine energies". Thus, man is fundamentally unable to participate in God's imparticipable Essence, but he can be divinized by partaking in His "uncreated divine energies." God, in His Divine Simplicity is at the same time both personally imparticipable and personally participable to us. How can Divine simplicity (as the Cappadocians put it: "not composite") do both?

Yet such a claim: "God, in His Divine Simplicity is at the same time both personally imparticipable and personally participle to us" is frankly riddled with holes. What does St. Gregory mean here by Divine Simplicity? He does not define the term in the Triads. Is he reacting to Barlaam's usage, or drawing on Cappadocian ideas? Is he perhaps even utilizing Aristotelian categories? We don't really know, although the best guess is Cappadocian. Regardless, does the saint mean it as he defines it, or as the Cappadocians did? How, indeed, can a Divine Essence (or even Divine energy) be both imparticipable & simultaneously participle to humanity? The ready response of St. Gregory would be that the distinction itself between Essence and energy makes this a reality (presumably), but, if as as the A.D. 1351 synod authoritatively declared that there is superiority of the Essence over the energies, this creates a problem. If St. Gregory understood the distinction between Essence and energy as "real" (as Lossky & Meyendorff argue), then the definition of the Divine energies become suspect in terms of its Divinity. In other words, how "Divine" are they really? If the Essence has superiority (υπεροχή), mankind is getting something...else than God. Or less than Him, maybe? This is an issue that St. Gregory Palamas *never* addresses in the Triads to my memory.

Obj. III. – Sacred Tradition & Eastern Orthodoxy's Opinions Prior to St. Gregory Palamas

This, for me anyway, was something of a clincher. Despite being a Latin Thomist (though the latter is fading rapidly, lol!), I wanted to grasp St. Palamas from an Eastern (i.e. Byzantine Chalcedonian) perspective. Away with St. Thomas Aquinas! Away with Suarez! Let us look to Byzantine sources instead. What I found was quite problematic for a claim that St. Gregory Palamas affirmed a real (non-formal) distinction between Essence & energies; at least to my eyes.

Again, one gets the impression in the Triads that St. Palamas is not so much trying to develop a theology as to defend, at any cost, the experience reported by the hesychasts. At one point he writes in the Triads (emphasis mine):

"He who participates in the divine energy... becomes himself, in a sense, light; he is united with the light and with the light he sees in full consciousness all that remains hidden for those who have not this grace; for the pure of heart sees God [the light]."

This, it seems to me as a humble Reader, stands in *direct* contradiction with the Eastern, Byzantine tradition; especially as articulated by the Holy Cappadocians. Let me not be coy here: St. Palamas' claim here is that God's "Uncreated Light" can be seen by bodily eyes in the world as an experience of theosis. What this is claiming inescapably is this: It would mean that the glory of God can be seen with the eyes of our flesh in this life.

But such a radical claim of seeing God with mortal eyes, at least prior to the unique Taboric Light hesychasm on Mt. Athos, was vehemently denied by the Holy & Godbearing Fathers; especially the Cappadocians. This concept that the the direct vision of God in the full glory of His Divinity is beyond the sight of any mortal creature in this world is fundamental to Christian (and Jewish) theology. For the Transcendent God dwells in "inaccessible [ἀπρόσιτον] light" (1 Tim. 6:16) and St. John the Theologian wrote: "No man at any time [οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεθέαται] has seen God" (Jn. 1:18). From the Latin & Eastern (not just Byzantine!) Catholic perspective, in the supernatural order of grace revealed by God, the immediate Face-to-Face vision of God has been reserved to saints in the Blessed Vision in Heaven. [I will return to this point...], as St. John the Theologian wrote clearly: "We shall be like Him because we shall see Him as He is [Note the Greek's clarity & force: ὅτι ὀψόμεθα αὐτὸν καθώς ἐστιν." (1 Jn. 3:2). Many Eastern Orthodox have tried to apply Palamite understandings here; noting that the energies will be "God as He is" yet this is quite a stretch for the Byzantine Greek linguistic perspective ("ἐστιν" is quite unambiguous, like the English "to be" or the Latin "esse"). It is basic Greek *essentialist* language.

And to be frank, this wasn't lost on other Eastern Orthodox theologians of previous eras; especially those not yet heavily influenced by the A.D. 1351 synods & by Constantinople. In those cases too, there was "dissent" so to speak.

The Confession of St. Dositheos (A.D. 1672), reacting against Calvinism puts it exactly as the Romans did at the Lateran Ecumenical Councils:

"[A]fter their death [the saints], when all reflective vision being done away, they behold clearly the Holy Trinity..." (Decree 8)

Can you perhaps argue this is to be understood in Palamite terms? Maybe...but seriously?

Then you have the Slavic Orthodox, who were not quick at all to accept Palamism for quite some time. The Confession of Ruthenian Orthodox, St.
Petro Mohyla (A.D. 1640) is striking:

"...The joy and gladness of Heaven will be no other than the blessed vision of the Holy Trinity... Every desire of wisdom and all goodness will cease in this vision; for by gazing attentively upon God we will see all things in Him and we will experience all joy."

Now there are those who object to St. Petro Mohyla as too "influenced by Latins," but the historiography suggests it was primarily Greeks making such claims against him...and during Turkokratia, which led to much resentment among Ruthenian Orthodox.

Part of the great difficulty with all this, including the confessions that *seem* to go against Palamism is we cannot ask the Heavenly saint what he really meant. Is his argument a formal distinction to protect the monastic traditions of blessed Mt. Athos? Or was he truly innovating, however sincerely, to posit an irrefutable contradistinction to Barlaam and other Greek skeptics?

If we assume, as do many for good or ill, that St. Gregory Palamas intended to, if gently & piously, reinterpret traditional Cappadocian & Byzantine doctrine, this might well be reflected in his teaching that on Pentecost it was not the Person of the Holy Spirit which descended on the Apostles and other disciples but rather the "uncreated energies of the Holy Spirit". For the neo-Palamites who insist on a real distinction rather than a formal one, these "uncreated energies" are declared many, infinite, eternal, and knowable. But, let us speak frankly: the highest authority of the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Ecumenical Council accepted by the majority of the faithful. Yet, not one Ecumenical Council has in its Trinitarian definitions – all seven accepted by Eastern Orthodoxy – ever predicated any plurality in God other than that of the Most Holy Trinity. Only the Thrice-Holy God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is uncreated. If we assume that St. Gregory's zeal to protect the Athonite experience led him to an extreme apophaticism, then we can only conclude that St. Gregory Palamas posited God as a categorical supra-Essence (a confusion of his Aristotle??). Thus, God is One who is absolutely unknowable (despite, again, knowing that He is unknowable...?) and thus God is above and beyond the Most Holy Trinity (as per St. Gregory's comment on Pentecost above). In this way, again if the distinction is truly real & not formal, the Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity are truly, really, and fundamentally distinct from the hyper-substance of God's Essence. If such an argument is made, then we have a frightening departure from the Patristic Tradition.

Hence, Eastern (Cappadocian, Coptic, & Syriac) and Western teaching held that the saints see God directly but not completely or comprehensively. Not even with the supernatural aid of the "light of glory", was there a comprehensive vision of the Thrice-Holy Essence of God, for it is beyond the complete grasp of any created intellect. This leads me to my final "objection."

Obj. IV. – St. Gregory Palamas' Theological Synthesis is Not Fundamentally Necessary for Trinitarian Dogma or the Dogma of Heaven

In recent years, many modern Eastern Orthodox (especially, in my experience, converts from Protestantism) have equated a Neo-Palamism with Eastern Orthodox theology proper. It becomes a sort of flag or standard; a way of fundamentally differentiating (and thus proving Eastern Orthodoxy's unique status as Christ's Church) from the Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, and Protestants.

Yet, I fear deeply that so many of us (myself included) are not yet well-versed enough on the subjects of such sublime theology to be waving banners of differentiation. Despite all I've written, I'm not convinced that St. Gregory Palamas' Triads represent a fundamental, ontological distinction so much as a formal one. If the latter is true, then not only is St. Gregory Palamas "acceptable" to the rest of Apostolic Christianity (i.e. outside the Byzantine Greeks & Slavs), but perhaps even rising to the level of "Doctor of the Church" (i.e., one of Christianity's greatest theologians).

Here's why I think that.

One of the most common things I see in debates over Palamism vs. Thomism (or whatever, really) is that neither party takes into account the historical context. The 13th-14th centuries, in both Western Europe & the Byzantine East were a rediscovery of philosophical systematic thought; most notably a revival of Aristotle's insights. Both St. Thomas Aquinas, the Latin Church's greatest theologian, and St. Gregory Palamas drew on these new texts and incorporated them into their theology to varying degrees. One of the reasons why St. Thomas Aquinas is generally considered a "higher" (for lack of a far better word!!) theologian is that he maintained a logical consistency & probably had photographic memory of what he read. He was probably a literal genius, so there's some unfairness there, lol. Thus, he was a synthesis-extraordinaire, capable of engaging multiple disciplines & theological sources simultaneously. St. Gregory Palamas was different (although not necessarily in a bad way). He was first and foremost a monk, and while that did not deprive him of deep theological insights (hardly!), it did affect his aims and methods of dealing with the sources. Hence, many scholars have noted that St. Palamas lacked a "metaphysics of substance" resulting in much confused terminology. He felt the need to posit a "supra-Essence" for God to protect the hesychastic experience on Mt. Athos – particularly the Taboric Light. Yet, this resulted in the confession that the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity being "of One substance" being weakened. Moreover, ironically and sadly, even the doctrine of Theosis suffered from this concept of a supra-Essence. The staunch confession of Ephesian-Chalcedonian Christianity, East & West (in Christian Latin, we called it "Unitio" or "Divinizatio"), was that mankind can participate in the Divine nature by grace via Theosis. It is not surprising that Barlaam of Calabria keenly observed that if God is communicable in His energies but not fundamentally in His Essence, it follows that His energies are not identical with His Essence. There are therefore, by logical necessity & result, two Gods, one communicable, and the other, incommunicable. St. Gregory Palamas would have been horrified by such a suggestion as this was by no means his intention...nor, it is possible, was it his actual argument.

The ex-Archbishop of Canterbury of the Anglican Communion, Rev. Rowan Williams, was especially fascinated by Eastern (Greco-Slavic) Christianity. The topic and history of St. Gregory Palamas was of special interest to him. For all his many flaws from a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox perspective, he also picked up on the philosophical tumult of the periods in which both Sts. Thomas Aquinas & Gregory Palamas lived. In one discussion he sagely commented (emphasis & slight changes mine):

"[St.] Palamas has come to be presented as the doctrine of the Eastern [Orthodox] Church on the knowledge of God, and any critical questioning of Palamism is interpreted as an attack upon the contemplative and experiential theology of [Eastern] Orthodoxy. However, scholars, by no means unsympathetic to the Eastern tradition, have cast serious doubts upon whether the Palamite distinction of "ousia" from "energeiai" is really a legitimate development of the theology of the Cappadocians or [St.] Maximus the Confessor [...] Against the Eunomian heretics, [Sts.] Basil and the Gregories insist that God's energeia are inseparable, the energeia is one [...] The patristic defense of Trinitarian dogma points us toward an identification of ousia and energeia [....] Palamism is philosophically a rather unhappy marriage of Aristotelian and Neoplatonic systems; the characteristic extreme realism of Neoplatonic metaphysics coloring (and confusing) a terminology better understood in terms (inadequate though they may be) of the Aristotelian logic already applied to Christian trinitarianism."
[Citation: "The Philosophical Structures of Palamism" in Eastern Churches Review, Vol. IX, no. 1-2 (1977); 41.0.].

CONCLUSION BELOW:

 

[Reader Antonius]

CONCLUSION BELOW:

While I have reservations with Rev. William's characterization, I think he is definitely onto something here that is worth pondering. The Cappadocian Tradition of theology, drawing heavily as it did on the Godbearing Origen of Alexandria, did not frequently, much less substantively, see a strong distinction between essence & energies within God. In point of fact, much of the Thomistic ideas of Divine simplicity (i.e. lack of composition or parts), actus purus, and the identification of God's Essence with His attributes stems from the fact that St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustine before him, were heavily influenced by the Three Holy Hierarchs; most especially St. Basil the Great & St. Gregory the Theologian. Just as early Cappadocian thought did not make hard and fast distinctions, the Benedictines and later friar communities followed that model, developed a synthesis which affirmed Divine simplicity not as a limitation, but as a marker of the Divine Essence.

This, at last, brings me to my final point: In many ways, I feel that both St. Thomas Aquinas (via St. Augustine) and St. Gregory Palamas (via Godbearing Origen & St. Basil, mostly) were trying to say the same thing in different ways & languages. The "problem" was that, due to his circumstances, St. Gregory was focused on demonstrating the ascetic praxes of Mt. Athos first and foremost, and I believe this colored his understanding of the issue. Yet, even with this – provided a formal distinction in his thought is preferred – there are huge areas of common ground possible here!

The easiest way to explain it is like this: When we die in grace & achieve theosis, the more ancient understanding of "seeing God" consisted, East & West, of the idea that the saints see God directly – i.e., "as He is" in His Essence – but not completely or comprehensively. The idea was that even with the supernatural aid of the "light of glory", and even with fully experienced theosis, a comprehensive, full vision of the Thrice-Holy Essence of God was beyond the complete grasp of any created intellect. Put another way: The saved will indeed see God as St. John the Theologian describes...but we will only see what it is possible for us to see. Indeed, early opponents of St. Gregory Palamas, (mis?)understanding him to be arguing for a *real* distinction, vigorously denied that Tradition had any place for such a firm division. Part of that is because it was simply not needed.

In a way – presuming we assume St. Gregory Palamas' primary motivation was to develop Cappadocian theology as opposed to simply defending Athonite mysticism (however beautiful!) – both the Roman West, the Oriental East, the Byzantine East, and the Assyrians are saying the same thing here, but in different ways:

That is, the Thrice-Holy God is truly transcendent. His Divine Essence cannot ever be fully grasped, seen, or experienced as He Himself experiences it. Yet, in His graciousness & love for mankind, He invites humans into theosis & salvation; the end goal of which is seeing God "as He is, Face-to-Face." Insofar as we are capable of experiencing this – even if it's only the tiniest smidgen! – we shall be fulfilled and happy for all eternity. For what we see is truly Gods Essence (ousia), even if He remains ever beyond us. And this is enough.

Hence, St. Gregory Palamas can be accepted by non-Byzantine Orthodox Christians if we assume, and I think on fairly good grounds given the work of recent scholars, that he was arguing for a formal not objective distinction. His primary goal was to protect the spiritual life of the monks of Mt. Athos, and to affirm the experiences they related. In the process, he may not have full grasped the philosophical & theological intricacies of the issue; but that was not his fault, nor should he be blamed. Quite the contrary, working from an almost totally Byzantine Greek perspective, he related a truth that all Christians have always held: For all the wondrous condescension of God to us, allowing us to experience and share in His Life, He nevertheless remains beyond us...fully known only to Himself.

To conclude, and for my part, I will allow far wiser & more learned bishops, scholars, and theologians continue this work of reconciliation & ecumenical discussion over St. Gregory Palamas. Much work has already been done harmonizing the ideas, especially through honest and open sharing of insights and studies of the writings in question. Indeed, there is a comprehensive treatment released about six years ago about a Roman Catholic who goes out of his way to properly understand what St. Gregory Palamas is saying, and not impute to him malicious intentions or heretical thought. It is a stellar piece, and I recommend it. Indeed, I need to go and re-read it myself again! I'll end on that.

Reconciling Hesychasm and Scholasticism in the Triads of Gregory Palamas
By: Daniel J. Castellano

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That was a good read, thanks for posting.

 

[ArmyMatt]

can you give the main points? that’s a lot to try to hash through especially on a forum.

 

[Reader Antonius]

can you give the main points? that’s a lot to try to hash through especially on a forum.

Pax, Ειρήνη, שלום! Christ is Risen!

Apologies, I've been staying at a Benedictine Abbey for a while and was quite busy on the Lord's Day of the Myrrhbearing Women with the Melkites. I also wasn't sure I could give main points to such a complex issue, but I will try.

Firstly, though, Blessed & Happy Pascha to all here! At last, all of Christendom now basks in the Resurrection Glory of Christ God our Hope!

I suppose if I had to break it down it would follow the main divisions in an outline kind of way. I will do my best:

Preface: Currently, I'm not convinced that St. Gregory Palamas & St. Thomas Aquinas, and their respective "camps" of Palamism & Scholasticism are irreconcilable. I lean towards the idea that the simplicity of God cannot accept a real distinction between Divine Essence & "Energies" (I put that in quotes because the term is multivalent throughout Christian theology, even in the East). Hence, I have developed "objections" of sorts to the idea proposed by St. Gregory Palamas in the Triads & vindicated by the 1351 A.D. Synod of Constantinople (after, oddly, excommunicating him...). The objections are as follows:

I. Knowing Unknoweability is Contrary to Reason
A. How can we posit that God's Essence is unkoweable without knowing it?
B. St. Gregory's goal is not theological development but defending Mt. Athos' experiences.
G. The Essence-Energies distinction is reflective of this debate on Taboric Light.
D. To posit the Essence as unknowable, incomprehensible, & incommunicable, ipso facto, affirms the very same (even if not fully).
E. A "formal" distinction is reconcialible with non-EO Christianity; a "real" one is probably not.

II. The Palamite Synod of A.D. 1351 Complicated the Matter
A. Creating & imposing St. Gregory's writings stifled debate & gave them questionable authority; synodally & doctrinally.
B. The Synodal Tome suggests a "real" distinction, yet is very ambiguous and could be interpreted formally; if difficult.
G. How can Cappadocian theology accept that God is both personally imparticipable & participable (cf., σύνθεση or ἀντίθεση)?
D. How does St. Gregory define "ενέργεια"? Aristotelian, Cappadocian, Barlaamite, or self-defined?

III. Holy Tradition of Byzantine, Cappadocian Theology & St. Gregory
A. "Real" distinction of Essence & Energies seems to contradict "Eastern" theology.
B. Bodily Sight of even Divine Energy is problematic.
G. Pre-Taboric Light visible Energies denied by the Cappadocians.
D. Greek of St. John the Theologian & Confessions of Dositheos II & Peter Mohyla
E. Problems of appearing to posit Supraessence or Hyperessence of God's Essence.
Z. Lack of Ecumenical Conciliar basis for Palamism; both "formal" & "real."

IV. St. Gregory Palamas Theological Efforts Unnecessary
A. Hazards of using Palamism as distinctive marker by EO Christians.
B. Rediscovery of Aristotle in East & West affects terminology in the Triads.
G. St. Thomas Aquinas & St. Gregory Contrasted & Compared; esp. goals.
D. St. Gregory's lack of clear substance metaphysics hampers interpretation.
E. Supraessence ironically undermines Theosis/Divinizatio if "real" distinction is posited.
Z. Philosophical & Cappadocian criticism of ex-Archbishop of Canterbury, Rev. Rowan Williams suggesting St. Gregory was confused.
H. Thomistic/Augustinian Divine simplicity, pure act, unity of Essence & Energy not uniquely Western but derivations of 3 Holy Hierarchs.
TH. Affirming Heavenly vision of Divine Essence truly but uncomprehensively/non-completely possible without "real" Energetic distinction.
I. Formal distinction along the lines of the Cappadocians provides opportunity for Byzantine-Eastern-Western unity with Palamism.

This is probably the best I can do...

 

[ArmyMatt]

A. How can we posit that God's Essence is unkoweable without knowing it?

God can reveal it. it’s actually the same with us.

E. A "formal" distinction is reconcialible with non-EO Christianity; a "real" one is probably not.

no, a real one can be, depending on what one means.

G. How can Cappadocian theology accept that God is both personally imparticipable & participable (cf., σύνθεση or ἀντίθεση)?

because you find it in saints earlier than the Cappadocians as well as in their own writings (like the Life of Moses).

D. How does St. Gregory define "ενέργεια"? Aristotelian, Cappadocian, Barlaamite, or self-defined?

Cappadocian, Dionysian, Damascene, etc.

B. Bodily Sight of even Divine Energy is problematic.

St John says he did in the beginning of his gospel.

Z. Lack of Ecumenical Conciliar basis for Palamism; both "formal" & "real."

6th Ecumenical Council provides it, when it says Christ has two Natures each with natural operations (operations meaning energies).

E. Supraessence ironically undermines Theosis/Divinizatio if "real" distinction is posited.

depends again on how that is defined.

H. Thomistic/Augustinian Divine simplicity, pure act, unity of Essence & Energy not uniquely Western but derivations of 3 Holy Hierarchs.
TH. Affirming Heavenly vision of Divine Essence

where is this?

and a blessed Easter season to you as well!

 

[Reader Antonius]

God can reveal it. it’s actually the same with us.

That's not quite the point being made. I'm not quite sure how to explain it to you either, to be honest (which says far more about my own brain than is intended as a slight to you in any way!), but I'll do my best.

To begin, St. Gregory objects in the Triads to referring to God as "an" Essence, much as St. Thomas does. Obviously this is because God transcends all determinations and definitions. Frankly, as we learned as friar-seminarians, God is not a being; He is Being. Yet, St. Thomas and even the Jews (Maimonides) understood that Essence can be applied to God with the proper understanding (after all, the Ecumenical Councils do!). God, of course, is therefore undefinable Essence; the principle without a principle of itself (arche anarchos). Nothing problematic here, of course. Yet, St. Gregory *seems* to go further: he argues that that the Essence, as it is a distinction from the Energies, is imparticipable. He has to do this in order to distinguish, because the Energies are participable, clearly. Yet, if I can know, either by reason or by Revelation (or both), that God's Essence is unknowable and inexpressible, I am in reality participating in that truth by my knowing it. Otherwise, one could never posit God, in a distinct Essence that incommunicable in se, is imparticipable. You have already communicated its incommunicability; in the conceptual sense, anyway.

In this regard though, I agree with you: the unknowability of the Essence of God (that is specifically, the truth that His Essence is transcendent to any created intellect or experience) is Divine Revelation. But the claim of a totally imparticipable Essence is the problem. Knowledge is participation on some level, and it is communication to boot – both of which most Palamites deny emphatically ("incommunicable") in an assertion of complete apophaticism of the Essence of God.

But this is a minor point; more of what got me thinking about it.

no, a real one can be, depending on what one means.

Precisely the problem. Not only is there disagreement of "virtual," "formal," and "real" in many of these discussions in English alone, there's uncertainty about what St. Gregory himself means by these terms. It can be surmised based on scholarship, but of course we cannot very well ask him. Even modern Palamites have trouble on this point, positing a real distinction most of the time, but then "backing off" (in my experience discussing this topic with Byzantine Catholic Palamites) when the problems of a "hard" distinction become apparent or are not so clearly taught in previous Cappadocian thought.

because you find it in saints earlier than the Cappadocians as well as in their own writings (like the Life of Moses)

Cappadocian, Dionysian, Damascene, etc.

It is indeed possible, even inarguable, to find distinctions in Cappadocian theology between ousia and erga or energeiai. But the depth of these distinctions is the issue in question. St. Gregory often cites the Fathers here, but if you press his citations things become...ambiguous very fast. Part of the reason for this is that the Cappadocians (and others) have very different goals from St. Gregory. He, or so it is argued, in order to defend the form of Hesychasm that admits bodily experience of the Taboric Light, must emphasize the plurality of the Energies, and the fact that they cannot be identified with the Divine Essence. By necessity then, St. Gregory's concept of Divine Energies would be tied to that which is manifested in creation. This is part of why he repeatedly uses the metaphor of the sun and the rays, for example.

But going this far seems problematic...like stretching too far and straining. Some examples might be helpful. I will give only one due to limits of time. Before doing so however, I think it useful to explain a bit how St. Thomas & Scholasticism (along with other Fathers not of the Cappadocian school) deal with this issue prior to St. Gregory. I will use the Scholastic term of actus purus since, frankly, it's the simplest and most straightforward:

Actus purus is a manifestation of the basic monotheistic affirmation that God is not a composite being. Part of that implies God is also not a mixture or composition of potentialities. Thus, what we perceive or call His "attributes," "abilities," and "operations/works" (the Latin parallel to energeiai or erga) are all identical with the Essence. His Essence is Being in se. Put another way, God already is anything He can be. Thus, when God "acts" (operates, works), He does so with His Essence in Divine simplicity. Yet, this doesn't mean His actions are not distinguishable from the Essence in a formal sense. This is precisely the opening where Palamism could be integrated into non-EO Christianity. For the Latins (and others; how easily Oriental Orthodox theology is forgotten in these discussions, sadly...), God's action is entirely contained in Himself. It thus works without any means aside from His Essence. But that creates a problem, as the Fathers well understood: how does Divine Being act in the world without failing to transcend it. Here there is diversity in the Tradition in terms of explanations (of which perhaps Palamism could be a more widely agreed upon one). From the Scholastic view anyway, the Divine operation is virtually distinct, insofar as it exists in time and interacts with creatures. More can be said, but it may muddle more than clarify.

This, incidentally, is how the Latins (and probably others) read the Cappadocian Fathers when they make distinctions that appear comparable to St. Gregory's (or, at least, Palamism): Divine power is not an ability or a potential, but the actual living activity (energeia) of God. They are multiple in the sense that God does "many good things" (Is. 63:7, erga), and this is what we see & have had revealed to us as the Divine operations (energeiai). This is a notion in which the distinction is formal or virtual. St. Gregory may be interpreted in this way, but Palamites often deny this and point to St. Gregory's use of the Cappadocians, hence an example:

St. Basil the Great is quoted in the Triads as ridiculing energy (erga, pronoia, energeiai) as God's Essence. Yet, there's a perfectly reasonable non-Palamite (for the record: I tend to distinguish between St. Gregory Palamas & "Palamism" or "Palamites" like Fr. Meyendorff or Lossky) way of understanding this that doesn't require a "real" or "hard" distinction. In fact, St. Gregory himself alludes to this when he teaches that his Energies are God. All St. Basil is saying is that it is folly to regard each energeiai as though it were the Essence per se; that would be sort of pantheist, almost. No, St. Basil could easily be teaching here what St. Thomas taught: Divine energeiai (powers, operations) are manifestations of God's Essence. Distinct due to being in time and via interaction with creation, but virtually or formally so due to Divine simplicity. The teaching of St. Basil here is far from denying that the Essence does not subsist in the energeiai, but Palamites generally would interpret St. Basil in this way. But he need not be so understood.

Anyway, my point is that the Scholastic notion (one example) of God's simplicity is perfectly compatible with Cappadocian theology (a bit more on this later), or any other theology really, that notes the formal distinction between God's acting & Essence. That is, the energies are not totally identified with the Essence (as opposing total exclusion of identification), but manifestations the One Essence of the Most Holy Trinity. Thus, only when considered in and of themselves do we see that these energeiai are not truly distinct or divergent from the Essence; they cannot be. We would even agree with St. Gregory the Theologian (whom St. Palamas also cites): i.e., energeiai are neither many or named unless manifested in the world. There is no real distinction between energeia and Divine Essence in Cappadocian thought as far as I can see.

St John says he did in the beginning of his gospel.

Not really sure what you're going for here: Are you arguing that Christ our God in the flesh was the bodily, visible, or experiential Essence of God? There's nothing in the text suggesting that; merely that He "became flesh and pitched His tent" among us. I'd really hate getting into the Bible here since most of this debate is about Patristic consistency but what you are referring to is Jn. 1:14, but this immediately followed by Jn. 1:18, which is part of what the whole issue of bodily visibility (sensible or no) of God is about:

"No one has ever seen (ἑώρακεν) God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known (ἐξηγήσατο; incidentally, this is whence our word exegesis derives)."

CONTINUED...

 

[Reader Antonius]

CONTINUED...

Moreover, St. John the Theologian himself implies a direct distinction between the Incarnation and seeing God "as He is" (αὐτὸν καθώς ἐστιν) in 1 Jn. 3:2, so it's kind of a moot argument. St. John the Theologian's point is the reality of the Incarnation, not that looking at the Face of the Son meant looking at the Triune Essence. Indeed, this creates an interesting question for Palamites: Is the Incarnation merely an Energy, or a combination of the Essence hidden by Energy(ies)? Or, as others might say:

"But He comes in condescension to show loving-kindness upon us, and to visit us. [...] He takes unto Himself a body, and that of no different sort from ours. For He did not simply will to become embodied, or will merely to appear. For if He willed merely to appear, He was able to effect His divine appearance by some other and higher means as well. But He takes a body of our kind [...]"

A little further, St. Athanasius the Great says something interesting vis-a-vis Palamism:

"For He was not, as might be imagined, circumscribed in the body, nor, while present in the body, was He absent elsewhere; nor, while He moved the body, was the universe left void of His working and Providence; but, thing most marvelous, Word as He was, so far from being contained by anything, He rather contained all things Himself; and just as while present in the whole of Creation, He is at once distinct in being from the universe, and present in all things by His own power — giving order to all things, and over all and in all revealing His own providence, and giving life to each thing and all things, including the whole without being included, but being in His own Father alone wholly and in every respect."

If the Essence of God and His Energies are true, real, hard distinctions rather than virtual or formal, then what indeed is the Incarnation? If we take seriously the Hypostatic Union as defined by the first seven Ecumenical Councils, must we not affirm that the fullness of Divinity dwelt embodied in Christ our God (Col. 2:9)? This is part of why a notion of Supraessence, taken or stressed too far, becomes (ironically for Palamism) dangerous to theosis/divinizatio.

This is a major reason why I don't think later Palamites understood or followed St. Gregory well (as some later Thomists & Neo-Thomists, and Origenists before them). Barlaam suggested that the Taboric Light was a mere apparition. Yet, in doing so, he opens himself to a denial of theosis. Here the Latin affirmation of actus purus allows for the Taboric Light being, indeed, a true experience of what Latins would call "sanctifying grace." What the holy monks of Mt. Athos saw and still see, as do many Byzantine Catholic monks I've read about and some I've known, is a manifestation of the Divine Essence as energeiai. But we need not make a "hard" or "real" distinction here between the two. Even the full revelation in the "blessed vision" of God "as He is" in Heaven never was understood, in any orthodox tradition to my knowledge, as full comprehension of God's Essence. That would be heretical to the extreme, suggesting apotheotic autodivinity. If anything, I think St. Gregory Palamis is, if we understand a formal distinction, simply affirming the Faith against an argument of Barlaam, specifically. That is, the Taboric Light is an example of God allowing the holy monks to participate in His Essence without doing so fully, which would be impossible. Thus, St. Gregory's Essence-Energies distinction is a specifically anti-Barlaamite argument rather than an attempt to synthesize Cappadocian theological distinctions, nor develop it further (or, as some might say, alter it).

To my mind then, the real issue here isn't St. Gregory Palamas' own words, but the Palamite interpretation of them (is this Origenist vs. Origen again, I wonder?). If a formal distinction was held by St. Gregory Palamas (assuming so for argument's sake), then the Taboric Light is, while perhaps odd to non-Byzantines, a very possible Theophanic experience. The Latins, Copts, & Syro-Indians have similar in corpus vivus ecstatic and mystical experiences which suggest earthly experience of the Divine Essence via energeiai/opera. But if the distinction between Essence & energeiai is truly "real" or "hard," then many questions arise. Is the Taboric Light the Divine Essence or not? If the "glory" experienced (I know full well it is less sensible than it is experiential) is not the Divine Essence, but an Energy, than were the holy monks not seeing what St. John Chrysostom described regarding the Holy Transfiguration: "[T]he Lord showed Himself in greater splendor when the Divinity manifested its rays..." (cited by St. Gregory himself, famously, in the Triads)? And, once again, we wheel back to the original problem: how did the holy monks participate in an imparticipable God?

The only way, it seems, is to assume (as Palamites do) that the Energies, are God indeed. An easy sort of response, but the Synodal Tome of A.D. 1351 that vindicated St. Gregory affirmed clearly Energies are "inferior" (to conversely use the wording) to the Divine Essence. But if there is true superiority in the Essence – in such a way that the participle Energies are distinct in substance rather than accidental (to use the Aristotelian terms familiar to St. Gregory's contemporaries) – then we risk introducing subordination in God. But I don't think this was St. Gregory's intent or meaning, especially given how he cites and uses the teaching of St. Maximos the Confessor. If St. Gregory means that the Divine Energies are not plurality in God due to being formally distinct but subsistent with the simplicity of the Divine Essence, then there is no problem whatsoever. If anything, he's providing a unique synthesis of Byzantine Cappadocian thought that can stand alongside Thomism or other systems.

6th Ecumenical Council provides it, when it says Christ has two Natures each with natural operations (operations meaning energies).

I'm well aware of the terminology here, but what you're arguing is quite a stretch. The VIth Ecumenical Council merely affirmed the basic Christological principle of Dyoenergism. Everyone who accepts this Ecumenical Council knows that this is simply the teaching that Our Lord, God, and Savior acts through two energies, Divine and human, which correlate to His two natures hypostatically united in a single Divine Person. The definition of the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople really was just facing down yet another regurgitation of Monophysitism's abominable forms.

If you are effectively positing that the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople's condemnation of monoenergism is equivalent to what St. Gregory Palamas lays out in the Triads and the Capita CL...well, honestly, I don't know what to say.

depends again on how that is defined.

Again, precisely. I should note in passing it gets even more confusing (mainly because I'm getting tired and a tad puckish): In the Scholastic tradition, deriving from St. Thomas' discussion of rationes and his commentaries on the "Sententia," this type of distinction of "formal" or "virtual" is not simply insubstantial or conceptual. It just means a distinction that's not "real/hard" in the sense of "in the thing itself" (in res). In other words, the Divine Energies are not separate "things" from God's Essence. "Virtual" and "formal" are indeed "real" in the sense that God's Essence is interacting in time and with creatures. Indeed, to our perception they are *very* real, indeed!! Hence the mystery in the first place that the Jews & Early Fathers had to deal with: transcendence & immanence of God.

where is this?

and a blessed Easter season to you as well!

It's not a secret that St. Thomas Aquinas, especially, was familiar with the Eastern Fathers; notably the Cappadocians & Three Holy Hierarchs. He cites them in the Summa and other works, rather accurately too given that they are translations, some from Arabic in Toledo. That was one of his gifts: he was a theological synthesizer. He took varying theological models & conceptualizations and brought them together as harmoniously as possible. There's a reason why many Byzantine Greek Orthodox and Slavic Orthodox looked at St. Thomas Aquinas in a very, very, very different way in the past than modern Eastern Orthodoxy does. Please understand that the Scholastic tradition inherited by St. Thomas Aquinas via the medieval Sententiae was, in essence, started with St. John of Damascus' approach. His systematic drawing from multiple Patristic & Biblical sources into texts touching on many theological topics all together ("On the Orthodox Faith" is the most famous) was widely adopted by the West (e.g., St. Isidore of Seville, John Scotus Eriugena, St. Alcuin of York, St. Peter Lombard, St. Anselmus). Indeed, St. Thomas shows particular reverence for the Cappadocians alongside St. Augustine in terms of the authority he vests in their citations.

But to point you to where it is would be onerous. I could try to find where he cites the Cappadocians, for example, but honestly I don't have that time. There are articles though that discuss the influence of the Greek Fathers on St. Thomas Aquinas. This article came across my "Didascalus Desk" this morning, and actually deals precisely with this topic, albeit from the perspective of the Heavenly Vision of God. If you can't access it, I'd be happy to try to send you the PDF file at my own expense.

Lastly, my thanks for the discussion. Do keep in mind my "goal" (or, better put, wish) is that St. Gregory's theology can be incorporated into the larger Christian Tradition of Roman Catholicism & non-Byzantine Eastern Christianity in a way that is harmonious. My goal here is hardly to attack or be belligerent. And forgive me if I ever come across that way. Sometimes my writing can have a "clinical" feel, but that's more my habit of reading two or three academic articles a day that come across my desk; and that mainly out of my own weird idea of "fun" LOL.

And also many thanks for the Paschal greetings! I look forward to singing the Paschal troparion with the Melkites for the Lord's Day of the Paralytic & chanting the Misercordia Domini ("The earth is full of the mercy of the Lord, Alleluia...") with the Latins for the Lord's Day of the Good Shepherd.

Christ is Risen! Let His enemies be scattered, Alleluia!! Glory be to You, O Christ God our Hope, Glory be to You! +

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yet, if I can know, either by reason or by Revelation (or both), that God's Essence is unknowable and inexpressible, I am in reality participating in that truth by my knowing it. Otherwise, one could never posit God, in a distinct Essence that incommunicable in se, is imparticipable. You have already communicated its incommunicability; in the conceptual sense, anyway.

which is an energy. unknowability is an energy, since it can be known. God’s essence is beyond that.

Thus, what we perceive or call His "attributes," "abilities," and "operations/works" (the Latin parallel to energeiai or erga) are all identical with the Essence.

and this is where we, and as you pointed out in the Cappadocians, disagree. if the energia and ousia are distinct, they are not identical.

Precisely the problem. Not only is there disagreement of "virtual," "formal," and "real" in many of these discussions in English alone, there's uncertainty about what St. Gregory himself means by these terms. It can be surmised based on scholarship, but of course we cannot very well ask him. Even modern Palamites have trouble on this point, positing a real distinction most of the time, but then "backing off" (in my experience discussing this topic with Byzantine Catholic Palamites) when the problems of a "hard" distinction become apparent or are not so clearly taught in previous Cappadocian thought.

not really a problem. my Patristics professor in Seminary is a Palamite scholar, he never had any issue with this.

Not really sure what you're going for here: Are you arguing that Christ our God in the flesh was the bodily, visible, or experiential Essence of God? There's nothing in the text suggesting that; merely that He "became flesh and pitched His tent" among us. I'd really hate getting into the Bible here since most of this debate is about Patristic consistency but what you are referring to is Jn. 1:14, but this immediately followed by Jn. 1:18, which is part of what the whole issue of bodily visibility (sensible or no) of God is about:

no, you said the visibility of the energies is problematic. when St John says he beheld the glory of the only begotten, the word for beheld means with your eyes.

Moreover, St. John the Theologian himself implies a direct distinction between the Incarnation and seeing God "as He is" (αὐτὸν καθώς ἐστιν) in 1 Jn. 3:2, so it's kind of a moot argument. St. John the Theologian's point is the reality of the Incarnation, not that looking at the Face of the Son meant looking at the Triune Essence. Indeed, this creates an interesting question for Palamites: Is the Incarnation merely an Energy, or a combination of the Essence hidden by Energy(ies)? Or, as others might say:

I don’t know where this line of argument came from. you said His energy being visible is problematic. I was responding to that.

If the Essence of God and His Energies are true, real, hard distinctions rather than virtual or formal, then what indeed is the Incarnation? If we take seriously the Hypostatic Union as defined by the first seven Ecumenical Councils, must we not affirm that the fullness of Divinity dwelt embodied in Christ our God (Col. 2:9)? This is part of why a notion of Supraessence, taken or stressed too far, becomes (ironically for Palamism) dangerous to theosis/divinizatio.

no, because the basis of the Incarnation is the Person of the Son. so the Natures are united fully, even if you have a strong understanding of God’s supraessence.

Is the Taboric Light the Divine Essence or not? If the "glory" experienced (I know full well it is less sensible than it is experiential) is not the Divine Essence, but an Energy, than were the holy monks not seeing what St. John Chrysostom described regarding the Holy Transfiguration: "[T]he Lord showed Himself in greater splendor when the Divinity manifested its rays..." (cited by St. Gregory himself, famously, in the Triads)? And, once again, we wheel back to the original problem: how did the holy monks participate in an imparticipable God?

it’s not. Divinity is a broader term which includes the energies. it isn’t equated to the Essence. just like humanity includes human energies.

But if there is true superiority in the Essence – in such a way that the participle Energies are distinct in substance rather than accidental (to use the Aristotelian terms familiar to St. Gregory's contemporaries) – then we risk introducing subordination in God.

not necessarily. Christ says “the Father is greater than I” which doesn’t introduce subordination in God.

I'm well aware of the terminology here, but what you're arguing is quite a stretch. The VIth Ecumenical Council merely affirmed the basic Christological principle of Dyoenergism. Everyone who accepts this Ecumenical Council knows that this is simply the teaching that Our Lord, God, and Savior acts through two energies, Divine and human, which correlate to His two natures hypostatically united in a single Divine Person. The definition of the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople really was just facing down yet another regurgitation of Monophysitism's abominable forms.

If you are effectively positing that the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople's condemnation of monoenergism is equivalent to what St. Gregory Palamas lays out in the Triads and the Capita CL...well, honestly, I don't know what to say.

I am not, simply saying the 6th sets the precedent ecumenically by affirming the Divine nature has Divine energies proper to it.

It's not a secret that St. Thomas Aquinas, especially, was familiar with the Eastern Fathers; notably the Cappadocians & Three Holy Hierarchs. He cites them in the Summa and other works, rather accurately too given that they are translations, some from Arabic in Toledo. That was one of his gifts: he was a theological synthesizer. He took varying theological models & conceptualizations and brought them together as harmoniously as possible. There's a reason why many Byzantine Greek Orthodox and Slavic Orthodox looked at St. Thomas Aquinas in a very, very, very different way in the past than modern Eastern Orthodoxy does. Please understand that the Scholastic tradition inherited by St. Thomas Aquinas via the medieval Sententiae was, in essence, started with St. John of Damascus' approach. His systematic drawing from multiple Patristic & Biblical sources into texts touching on many theological topics all together ("On the Orthodox Faith" is the most famous) was widely adopted by the West (e.g., St. Isidore of Seville, John Scotus Eriugena, St. Alcuin of York, St. Peter Lombard, St. Anselmus). Indeed, St. Thomas shows particular reverence for the Cappadocians alongside St. Augustine in terms of the authority he vests in their citations.

But to point you to where it is would be onerous. I could try to find where he cites the Cappadocians, for example, but honestly I don't have that time. There are articles though that discuss the influence of the Greek Fathers on St. Thomas Aquinas. This article came across my "Didascalus Desk" this morning, and actually deals precisely with this topic, albeit from the perspective of the Heavenly Vision of God. If you can't access it, I'd be happy to try to send you the PDF file at my own expense.

I can’t open the article. but I would like to see where it is said that we behold the Divine Essence in the Cappadocians, which is not the same as saying we shall see Him as He is or we see His glory.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and, thanks again for the paschal greetings!

 

[ArmyMatt]

and also, if the posts could be a little more brief I think that would help. thanks!

 

[prodromos]

no, because the basis of the Incarceration is the Person of the Son

Autocorrect strikes again!

 

[ArmyMatt]

Autocorrect strikes again!

fixed and thanks! that drunk elf…

 

[zippy2006]

One of the most common things I see in debates over Palamism vs. Thomism (or whatever, really) is that neither party takes into account the historical context.

Have you read Fr. Christiaan Kappes?

Two basic questions are, first, whether Orthodoxy is indistinguishable from Palamism, and second, whether Thomism is indistinguishable from Catholicism. Even the Catholic Church affirms that one can be a non-Thomist and yet be Catholic. Although there are Orthodox who reject Palamism, it is less clear to me that Orthodoxy is distinguishable from Palamism. Perhaps it is, but much of the scholarship of the last century in Orthodoxy pushes for an identification between Orthodoxy and Palamism. It would seem that you are undecided on this matter.

I think Kappes has shown with strong plausibility that although Thomism is incompatible with Palamism, Catholicism is not. For example, at Ferrara-Florence the Thomists asked the Pope to condemn Palamism, but after he commission a study (by a Franciscan) he decided to refrain from doing so. Obviously there were practical reasons for refraining, but there were also theological reasons insofar as the Franciscan-Scotist position draws very close to Palamism (and you have alluded to the Scotistic formal distinction).

So it seems to me that at the end of the day Orthodoxy qua Palamism is not incompatible with Catholicism, although it is incompatible with Thomism. Would you agree or disagree?


(I should warn you that your posts are much longer and more rigorous than these forums are accustomed to, and you will probably not find interlocutors who have the time or knowledge to respond in kind.)

 

[ArmyMatt]

Although there are Orthodox who reject Palamism, it is less clear to me that Orthodoxy is distinguishable from Palamism. Perhaps it is, but much of the scholarship of the last century in Orthodoxy pushes for an identification between Orthodoxy and Palamism.

agreed. the work of guys like Ware, Veniamin, Meyendorff, Bradshaw, etc show how central Palamas is to our faith, and how he articulated the essence and energies distinction.

 

[Reader Antonius]

Have you read Fr. Christiaan Kappes?

No, but it seems I clearly need to! Thank you.

Two basic questions are, first, whether Orthodoxy is indistinguishable from Palamism, and second, whether Thomism is indistinguishable from Catholicism. Even the Catholic Church affirms that one can be a non-Thomist and yet be Catholic. Although there are Orthodox who reject Palamism, it is less clear to me that Orthodoxy is distinguishable from Palamism. Perhaps it is, but much of the scholarship of the last century in Orthodoxy pushes for an identification between Orthodoxy and Palamism. It would seem that you are undecided on this matter.

I am undecided; on more than one point actually, lol. Firstly, I am not convinced (despite the vigorous arguments of recent times to the contrary) that Eastern Orthodoxy (or Byzantine Christianity in general) is indistinguishable from Palamism. Much of the argumentation strikes me as similar to those who claim Neo-Thomism & Catholicism are the same, in the sense both lines of thought are trying to identify their synthesis as equivalent to that of the Fathers. Such arguments, I hold at present, do not necessarily follow. Secondly, I am not certain whether Thomism as it came to be synthesized truly expresses the thought of St. Thomas, hence my support of ressourcement & St. Thomas himself over Neo-Thomism or Thomist manualism. I do agree that Thomism is distinguishable from Catholicism. The theological variation in the Eastern Catholic Churches essentially demonstrates that to be so, although so too do Molinism & Scotism.

I think Kappes has shown with strong plausibility that although Thomism is incompatible with Palamism, Catholicism is not. For example, at Ferrara-Florence the Thomists asked the Pope to condemn Palamism, but after he commission a study (by a Franciscan) he decided to refrain from doing so. Obviously there were practical reasons for refraining, but there were also theological reasons insofar as the Franciscan-Scotist position draws very close to Palamism (and you have alluded to the Scotistic formal distinction).

So it seems to me that at the end of the day Orthodoxy qua Palamism is not incompatible with Catholicism, although it is incompatible with Thomism. Would you agree or disagree?

I'm not sure, but you may very well be onto something. It is quite possible that I have fallen into a trap (unsurprising given my Dominican formation) of functionally & unwittingly assuming Thomism and Catholicism are equivalent. But this is not something I consciously profess; it's probably just habit. Then again, I may simply be desirous of seeing them as harmonizable when they are not; a fact I still find difficult to accept.

All that said, I would agree that – if Eastern Orthodoxy is indeed equivalent to Palamism – it is not necessarily incompatible with Catholicism. I mean, clearly, given that many Byzantine Catholics are Palamite without much difficulty to the Church's unity. Thus, if Thomism (i.e., the teachings of St. Thomas himself) can't be reconciled with Palamism, it's not a "deal-breaker" as they say – the Latins would just need another model. This isn't even to mention the theological variations of Oriental & East Syriac traditions of Alexandrian, West Syriac, and Indian Catholicism!

I suppose what I seek is an explanation as to why that is so. The event you describe at the Ecumenical Council of Florence is an example of there being room here, especially given Catholics believe Florence was guided by the Holy Spirit. I suppose thus what I crave is an explanation or a synthesis, as I have not yet found one. If Florence was able to attain unity without condemning St. Gregory as presented by the Greeks, then such unity can exist. The question for me is how?

Perhaps Fr. Christiaan Kappes might help me find a way.

(I should warn you that your posts are much longer and more rigorous than these forums are accustomed to, and you will probably not find interlocutors who have the time or knowledge to respond in kind.)

Yes, I've seen that. I'm a old-style forum sort used to rigorously debating theology in post form; before comboxes and when forums were very different from "chatrooms." While I no longer care much for debate anymore as I've gotten older, old habits die hard. I will do what I can to be more succinct, but...yeah.

 

[Reader Antonius]

I was just thinking that, indeed, you might say I desire Palamism as presented by modern EO Christians as compatible with the Catholic Church's overarching theology (Eastern or Western). I just don't see how but really want to, lol. My arguments above aren't whole-hearted ones. They are simply what I have heard and I am trying to convey as best I can. Hence, they aren't so much personal objections as the objections I have read or seen or heard. This is why I put them in quotations: "objections."

I really do believe that there is a way St. Gregory of Palamas' teachings are harmonizable. I just want to know how or by what model. So far a synthesis of my own is beyond me, and I have yet to read anyone who has provided one that makes sense. Hence, why I'm grateful to @ArmyMatt for providing feedback, even if I unintentionally buried him (sorry!).

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm grateful to @ArmyMatt for providing feedback, even if I unintentionally buried him (sorry!).

no worries!

 

[zippy2006]

I am undecided; on more than one point actually, lol. Firstly, I am not convinced (despite the vigorous arguments of recent times to the contrary) that Eastern Orthodoxy (or Byzantine Christianity in general) is indistinguishable from Palamism. Much of the argumentation strikes me as similar to those who claim Neo-Thomism & Catholicism are the same, in the sense both lines of thought are trying to identify their synthesis as equivalent to that of the Fathers. Such arguments, I hold at present, do not necessarily follow. Secondly, I am not certain whether Thomism as it came to be synthesized truly expresses the thought of St. Thomas, hence my support of ressourcement & St. Thomas himself over Neo-Thomism or Thomist manualism. I do agree that Thomism is distinguishable from Catholicism. The theological variation in the Eastern Catholic Churches essentially demonstrates that to be so, although so too do Molinism & Scotism.

Okay, that makes sense to me. I am sympathetic to both of these intuitions, although I lean toward the position which says that there is at least an intrinsic relation between Orthodoxy and Palamism, such that a wholesale rejection of Palamism would be problematic for the Orthodox Christian.

I'm not sure, but you may very well be onto something. It is quite possible that I have fallen into a trap (unsurprising given my Dominican formation) of functionally & unwittingly assuming Thomism and Catholicism are equivalent. But this is not something I consciously profess; it's probably just habit. Then again, I may simply be desirous of seeing them as harmonizable when they are not; a fact I still find difficult to accept.

Okay… Correct me if I misunderstood, but are you querying whether Thomism and Catholicism are harmonizable? The received Catholic view is of course that they are harmonizable but not indistinguishable; that one can be a Thomist Catholic but one can also be a non-Thomist Catholic. Are you positing something different?

All that said, I would agree that – if Eastern Orthodoxy is indeed equivalent to Palamism – it is not necessarily incompatible with Catholicism.

I would want to say, “Even if…” If Palamism is not equivalent to Orthodoxy then it seems to me that it would be all the more reconcilable with Catholicism, at least theologically speaking. That is, it seems to me that Palamism presents additional obstacles to reunion (even though it is not strictly contrary to non-Thomist Catholicism). One strand of non-Palamite Orthodoxy is pro-Thomism, but even the remaining strands are generally not as opposed to Thomism as Palamites are. Thus, ceteris paribus, the non-Palamites are less opposed to Catholicism than the Palamites.

I suppose what I seek is an explanation as to why that is so. The event you describe at the Ecumenical Council of Florence is an example of there being room here, especially given Catholics believe Florence was guided by the Holy Spirit. I suppose thus what I crave is an explanation or a synthesis, as I have not yet found one. If Florence was able to attain unity without condemning St. Gregory as presented by the Greeks, then such unity can exist. The question for me is how?

Good point: Unity between Catholics and Palamites can exist given that aspect of Florence. The “how” question does not strike me as overly difficult, at least as it pertains to Palamism. Palamism must be seen as a legitimate theological school, similar to Scotism or Molinism or Suarezianism. Theological schools often come to contradictory conclusions and disagree vehemently with one another without breaking union.

Perhaps Fr. Christiaan Kappes might help me find a way.

I would be curious to know what you think of him!

Yes, I've seen that. I'm a old-style forum sort used to rigorously debating theology in post form; before comboxes and when forums were very different from "chatrooms." While I no longer care much for debate anymore as I've gotten older, old habits die hard. I will do what I can to be more succinct, but...yeah.

Haha, fair enough!

----------

I was just thinking that, indeed, you might say I desire Palamism as presented by modern EO Christians as compatible with the Catholic Church's overarching theology (Eastern or Western). I just don't see how but really want to, lol. My arguments above aren't whole-hearted ones. They are simply what I have heard and I am trying to convey as best I can. Hence, they aren't so much personal objections as the objections I have read or seen or heard. This is why I put them in quotations: "objections."

I really do believe that there is a way St. Gregory of Palamas' teachings are harmonizable. I just want to know how or by what model. So far a synthesis of my own is beyond me, and I have yet to read anyone who has provided one that makes sense. Hence, why I'm grateful to @ArmyMatt for providing feedback, even if I unintentionally buried him (sorry!).

An interesting piece of information in this vein regards the Palamite Dr. David Bradshaw, an Eastern Orthodox theologian (or philosopher?) who once held the thesis that Palamism and Catholicism are irreconcilable, but changed his mind when he learned about the legitimacy of the Scotist school within Catholicism. He has written on the topic and has many videos which can be found on YouTube. I have not researched this very far as of yet, but given your inquiry it seems promising.