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

[ArmyMatt]

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.

well, do you have any thoughts of how you think they can be synthesized? even if not as fleshed out as you like?

 

[ArmyMatt]

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 Orthodoxy 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.

he has a book called “Aristotle: East and West” where he goes from Aristotle to how Aquinas and Palamas diverged if you’re interested.

 

[zippy2006]

he has a book called “Aristotle: East and West” where he goes from Aristotle to home Aquinas and Palamas diverged if you’re interested.

Thanks. Yes - I have that book, although I have not read it thoroughly and in full. He also contributed two chapters to a later, edited volume entitled, Divine Essence and Divine Energies: Ecumenical Reflections on the Presence of God in Eastern Orthodoxy. The reason I know about these volumes is because Christiaan Kappes co-authored an article reviewing the second work, "Palamas among the Scholastics..."

Edit: Another book which may be helpful to Catholics such as Antonius is Aiden Nichols' Light from the East, where he looks at a variety of recent Orthodox theologians and assesses their theology in relation to Catholicism.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Edit: Another book which may be helpful to Catholics such as Antonius is Aiden Nichols' Light from the East, where he looks at a variety of recent Orthodox theologians and assesses their theology in relation to Catholicism.

interesting, thanks!

 

[prodromos]

Isn't Thomas Aquinas the one who after receiving a direct revelation from God, considered everything he had written previously as "straw", and stopped writing from that point on?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Isn't Thomas Aquinas the one who after receiving a direct revelation from God, considered everything he had written previously as "straw", and stopped writing from that point on?

I heard that as well

 

[zippy2006]

Isn't Thomas Aquinas the one who after receiving a direct revelation from God, considered everything he had written previously as "straw", and stopped writing from that point on?

Yes, within months of his death.

 

[Reader Antonius]

well, do you have any thoughts of how you think they can be synthesized? even if not as fleshed out as you like?

Perhaps. With the caveat that I am truly unsure, I feel as though there are three ways perhaps St. Gregory Palamas' teaching can be reconciled with larger Apostolic Christianity (i.e., Roman Catholicism, non-Byzantine Eastern Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Church of the East).

To begin though, I think it is important to recognize that St. Gregory Palamas' teaching, at least as understood by most Palamists, is a uniquely Greek concept (and, by extension, Slavic). It is wholly particular to Eastern Orthodoxy, and, by another extension, Byzantine Catholicism to a lesser degree. This is an important point that is easily forgotten. Speaking from a wholly Catholic perspective, Catholics and Oriental Orthodox now agree that they express the same faith in Christ, by means of different words and concepts. Similarly, with the Church of the East. And indeed, even though there is mutual acceptance of the Ecumenical Councils in the Catholic Church by the self-governing churches, the Oriental Catholics generally express themselves in Miaphysitic terms.

This fact actually is helpful, because it means that if something like Miaphysitism can be accepted as a legitimate variant of orthodox Christology in the Catholic Church, then why not St. Gregory's distinction (if indeed it is "real" or "hard") in God?

Moreover, an acquaintance who "translated" (as he put it) from Coptic Orthodoxy to Coptic Catholicism once pointed out to me in considerable detail that the Alexandrian and Latin traditions tend to have more in common than the Alexandrian and Constantinopolitan. One area of this is the fact that Alexandria & Old Rome tend to prefer "grace" (gratia; ⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥ) & "sanctification" (sanctificatio; ⲙⲛⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ) to the more Greek "energeia" & "theosis." This convergence between West & the non-Greek East provides an opening in my mind.

Hence, the three ways I can see at the present time, at least inchoately:

I. That the Essence-Energies distinction is akin or perhaps identical to the "gratia" vs. "esse" distinction in Western thought, and the "ⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥ" & "ⲫⲩⲥⲓⲥ" distinction in Oriental thought. That is, both Alexandria & Old Rome note that God acting in time and interacting with creation in general is in some way distinct from His Essence "as is" (in se). In Latin thought, "grace" is generally understood as a created thing that can impart Divine Life or Essence. Specifically however, there is a type of grace – sanctifying grace – which seems to be identifiable with the Divine Life Himself, especially in recent thought. Perhaps, in a way, sanctifying grace can be a Palamite energy for, like the latter, it is somehow distinct from the Divine Essence (in that it is a gift that imparts the Divine Life to a soul), yet is somehow God as well (CCC §1996-2005); an "uncreated grace." If the distinction holds, and I've seen Latins go back and forth in the definition of sanctifying grace and grace in general, then perhaps more "graces" are uncreated as well? Perhaps what the Latins and Copts call "grace" is what St. Gregory Palamas' following Cappadocian Greek calls "energy."?

II. That Scotism holds the key in a way that Thomism does not. I am not yet convinced that St. Thomas Aquinas cannot be harmonized with St. Gregory Palamas, yet it is difficult because one must be heavily familiar with both, how they use terms, and well-versed in each's writings. But Scotism, and the Franciscan intellectual tradition in general, may be a way that the Latin Church – it being such a "weak muscle" in her theology – could utilize. I need to do more reading on this however, because, as a former Dominican friar and seminarian, I am not at all well-versed in Scotism. Indeed, we were implicitly discouraged to study Bl. John Duns Scotus as an inferior thinker to the Angelic Doctor (and, of course, our brother in the Order). Yet, even St. Thomas Aquinas understood a need for a "formal distinction" which was not merely conceptual, but not fully "real" either. Bl. Scotus taught that openly that between things which are inseparable and indistinct in reality, there may indeed be definitions which are not. We Dominicans saw this as approaching nominalism, yet I'm not so sure. Bl. Scotus' "clincher" for me is when he wrote that the Personal properties of the Most Holy Trinity are examples of things that are formally distinct from the Divine Essence. Perhaps there is a road there? Often language proves to be a barrier which, once thought insurmountable, is actually harmonizable: e.g., the recent Catholic acceptance of modern Miaphysitism as an orthodox (or "tolerable" at the least) Christology.

III. That Palamism must take its place as a unique theological synthesis which can be accepted without apparent harmonization. Such a state of affairs is virtually intolerable to my mind – and yet it does exist in the Catholic Church; indeed, in the Latin West alone. Molinism & Thomism on God's foreknowledge and the concept of predestination are widely different, yet Pope Paul V "ended" the heated quarrel of the 17th century by Papal fiat. Ever since, they have existed side-by-side as legitimate variations without apparent harmonization. To a lesser degree perhaps is the "phenomenon" of the Catholic acceptance of the Anaphora of Sts. Addai & Mari, used notably by the Chaldean Catholic Church. It has no explicit institution narrative; only an epiclesis. Yet, the CDF famously declared it a valid anaphora which truly brings forth the Holy Eucharist. While there is an official explanation as to "why," the explanation itself is difficult to grasp in purely intellectual terms; especially when one compares the anaphora with what is taught by the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of Florence & Trent regarding the "matter and form" of the Holy Mysteries.

So far that is the best I can do. Yet, I intend to re-read the Triads and the 150 Chapters of St. Gregory, as well as the relevant sections of the Summa of St. Thomas. I also intend to take time reading a few articles and sources I've found or been shown here that deal with this topic. At the end of the day, I must have the humility to say: I do not know. And there is goodness in that. As "kataphatic" as we Latins are supposed to be, it was the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran which declared: "between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude."

 

[Reader Antonius]

Isn't Thomas Aquinas the one who after receiving a direct revelation from God, considered everything he had written previously as "straw", and stopped writing from that point on?

Indeed. There were other factors to his ceasing writing, but he did experience an encounter with God that made him see that what he had written could not (nor can any theology, however excellent) fully express the Divine Reality of God. At the same time, St. Thomas also had an experience wherein the Eucharist spoke to him from the tabernacle saying: "You have written well of Me, Thomas. What will you have as your reward?" To which St. Thomas said: "Non nisi Te, Domine..." (Only yourself, O Lord).

St. Thomas, far from the cold rationalist he is often caricatured as, was in reality a profound contemplative & mystic. His "all is straw" reflects that, and he himself warns in very beginning of the Summa Theologiae, as we were constantly reminded as plucky Dominican student-brothers:

"Concerning God, we cannot grasp what He is, but only what He is not, and how other beings stand in relation to Him."

This is the very definition, in my mind, of apophatic theology.

 

[ArmyMatt]

thanks!

 

[zippy2006]

Some additional resources:

• Fr. Christiaan Kappes
  • Academic Dean at Sts. Cyril and Methodius Seminary
  • Theologically eclectic
• Dr. Jared Goff
  • Professor at Sts. Cyril and Methodius Seminary
  • Theologically Franciscan (Bonaventure & Scotus)
• Dr. Matthew Minerd
  • Professor at Sts. Cyril and Methodius Seminary
  • Theologically Dominican (Thomas and the Thomist tradition), but with a growing concern with the East
• Dr. Peter L. P. Simpson (second website)
  • Philosophy professor in New York
  • Aristotelian, but knowledgeable of Medieval theology
  • Offers free translations of Scotus (link)

 

[ArmyMatt]

Some additional resources:

• Fr. Christiaan Kappes
  • Academic Dean at Sts. Cyril and Methodius Seminary
  • Theologically eclectic
• Dr. Jared Goff
  • Professor at Sts. Cyril and Methodius Seminary
  • Theologically Franciscan (Bonaventure & Scotus)
• Dr. Matthew Minerd
  • Professor at Sts. Cyril and Methodius Seminary
  • Theologically Dominican (Thomas and the Thomist tradition), but with a growing concern with the East
• Dr. Peter L. P. Simpson (second website)
  • Philosophy professor in New York
  • Aristotelian, but knowledgeable of Medieval theology
  • Offers free translations of Scotus (link)

thanks!

 

[ArmyMatt]

there’s probably a ton from the 20th Century on Palamas. Met Kallistos said it was His century.