- Nov 26, 2007
- 1,639
- 400
- 34
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
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
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:
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: