Palamian Theology go beyond his predecessors?

[Addai]

Besides the Photian Schism, I've done some reading Palamas. I've read some writiers like James Likoudis and maybe others that say that he went beyond the theologians of the day. (The situation reminds me of how the Reformers like Luther and Calvin absolutized certain Augustinian notions beyond what Augustine said, or how present day Calvinists do the same with Calvins works with the five points etc.)

Anyone know anything about this?

[Badaliyyah]

Originally Posted by Addai

Besides the Photian Schism, I've done some reading Palamas. I've read some writiers like James Likoudis and maybe others that say that he went beyond the theologians of the day. (The situation reminds me of how the Reformers like Luther and Calvin absolutized certain Augustinian notions beyond what Augustine said, or how present day Calvinists do the same with Calvins works with the five points etc.)

Anyone know anything about this?

This is a big topic. I would suggest you look at Myendorff's studies of Palamas and Lossky's Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (which is something of a classic).

With those recommendations in mind, despite Lossky, I don't think Palamas' use of the essence/energies distinction can be in any direct way read out of the Cappadocians or Ps.Dionysius. Maximus Confessors and the 6th ecumenical council though...does seem to provide the lens and then someone like Palamas can find the foundations for it back in earlier moments of the tradition.

In any case, the move Palamas makes is brilliant and serves as a way of reframing questions that were already there, especially the unity of God's transcendence and immanence.


salaam.

[mardukm]

Dear brother Badalliyah,

Thank you for the reading suggestions. I will have to look it up at some local library.

When I was a Coptic Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome, I had the (mis)conception along with other Copts that the Eastern Orthodox theological language of "Essence IS God" and "Energy IS God" went beyond what the Fathers intended, and tended dangerously to the idea that there was any other distinction WITHIN the Godhead other than the distinction of Persons. My friends and I would sometimes joke half-seriously that the Eastern Orthodox believed that the Godhead consisted of five Persons - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, God the Essence, and God the Energy.

Only after coming into Catholic communion have I been forced to deal with the fact that the Catholic Church herself does not regard the theological language of the Easterns (post-Great Schism) as inherently heretical (especially given that the veneration of St. Palamas is a praxis continued from Eastern Orthodoxy).

After more reflection, I have come to realize that the language of "Essence IS God" and "Energy IS God" is intended to insist on that very unity that I originally thought the language had dangerously and even heterodoxically come close to denying.

Of course, as an Oriental, I still do not feel comfortable using that theological language of the Easterns to describe the essence/ energies of God. But I have now at least come to appreciate it as a legitimate and orthodox development in the Eastern Tradition (though not for the Oriental Tradition).

Blessings,
Marduk

[Badaliyyah]

I am not surprised that Marduk and others originally thought that the essence/energies distinction implied some sort of division in God. This seems to be the usual rhetoric against Palamas. But as Marduk pointed out, this is in fact, once one comes to read Palamas, the exact opposite of the role it actually plays in Palamas. The point is the unity of God in God's revelation AND transcendence.

My real reason for posting was that I, sadly, misspelled Meyendorff and didn't provide titles...so if anyone is interested...


John Meyendorff...
--He writes the introduction to the volume on St.Gregory Palamas in the Classics of Western Spirituality series.

--A Study of Gregory Palamas (St. Vlad's Press, isbn:978-0913836149)

--St.Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality (St. Vlad's Press, isbn:978-0913836118)


salaam.

[East and West]

Originally Posted by Badaliyyah

In any case, the move Palamas makes is brilliant and serves as a way of reframing questions that were already there, especially the unity of God's transcendence and immanence.

Its brilliant if you want to destroy God's infinite nature, or his unity as one being. If you like the idea of cutting God into parts, then its brilliant. But if you think that any of these things is a bad thing, then I suggest being very wary of Palamite theology.

[East and West]

Originally Posted by Badaliyyah

I am not surprised that Marduk and others originally thought that the essence/energies distinction implied some sort of division in God. This seems to be the usual rhetoric against Palamas. But as Marduk pointed out, this is in fact, once one comes to read Palamas, the exact opposite of the role it actually plays in Palamas. The point is the unity of God in God's revelation AND transcendence.

Can you elaborate, becuase I still remain unconvinced. After reading, I still hold stongly to the idea that Palamite theology is extremely dangerous.

[Mickey]

Originally Posted by East and West

I suggest being very wary of Palamite theology.

...so says Barlaam.

[East and West]

Originally Posted by Mickey

...so says Barlaam.

I did not say I agree with everything that Barlaam taught. I think its unfair to lump me in with him. I still acknowledge a real participation in the divine life, as does every faithful Catholic.

[Badaliyyah]

Originally Posted by East and West

Can you elaborate, becuase I still remain unconvinced. After reading, I still hold stongly to the idea that Palamite theology is extremely dangerous.

I am not going to elaborate at any length. I would suggest the Meyendorff introduction if you are really interested. It is fairly short and as with most of the Classics series at once pretty good historiographically, while remaining very accessible.

In any case, whether you buy it or not the purpose of the essence/energies distinction was to maintain the unity of God in God's transcendence/immanence, hiddenness/revealedness, etc. Like I said, I suggest you look at the volume from the Classics of Western Spirituality. The selection from Palamas' Triads is also fairly short.


salaam.

[East and West]

Originally Posted by Badaliyyah

I am not going to elaborate at any length. I would suggest the Meyendorff introduction if you are really interested. It is fairly short and as with most of the Classics series at once pretty good historiographically, while remaining very accessible.

In any case, whether you buy it or not the purpose of the essence/energies distinction was to maintain the unity of God in God's transcendence/immanence, hiddenness/revealedness, etc. Like I said, I suggest you look at the volume from the Classics of Western Spirituality. The selection from Palamas' Triads is also fairly short.


salaam.

The only reason I ask is that not one single thing I have read, nor has any apologist for Palamas, have ever been able to answer these objections adequately. I suppose that's because what Palamas taught was just wrong.

[Badaliyyah]

Originally Posted by East and West

The only reason I ask is that not one single thing I have read, nor has any apologist for Palamas, have ever been able to answer these objections adequately. I suppose that's because what Palamas taught was just wrong.

If the objection is that Palamas' distinction between essence and energies creates a division in God then this is just wrong and a pretty bad misreading. I don't know what to tell you other than...read some Palamas, he is pretty clear on this point.


salaam.

[East and West]

Originally Posted by Badaliyyah

If the objection is that Palamas' distinction between essence and energies creates a division in God then this is just wrong and a pretty bad misreading. I don't know what to tell you other than...read some Palamas, he is pretty clear on this point.


salaam.

Whether or not Palamas believes that it creates a division is irrelevant. The logical conclusion of his theology is that it does create a division.

[Badaliyyah]

Originally Posted by East and West

Whether or not Palamas believes that it creates a division is irrelevant. The logical conclusion of his theology is that it does create a division.

how?

[josephdaniel29]

Originally Posted by East and West

Whether or not Palamas believes that it creates a division is irrelevant. The logical conclusion of his theology is that it does create a division.

Just as the logical conclusion of St Athanasius's theology creates a division in the Godhead, or Chalcedonian Christology creates a division in Christ?

Your logic about a supposed division was exactly the arguments used by those who opposed Orthodox Trinitarian theology or Chalcedonian Christology. They came from a misunderstanding of what was actually taught.


Yours in Christ
Joe

[mardukm]

Dear brother East and West,

Originally Posted by East and West

Whether or not Palamas believes that it creates a division is irrelevant. The logical conclusion of his theology is that it does create a division.

This rhetoric of "the logical conclusion is..." is not very smart. What is the "logical conclusion" of the teaching that "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God"? Is it that Christians are polytheists?

I propose that we don't judge another Tradition's doctrines on our own biased interpretations, but rather on what that selfsame Tradition itself teaches. I very often have to make this exhortation to non-Catholic and especially non-Latin polemicists and apologists alike (when they misinterpret Catholic or Latin teaching). I would be remiss if I did not offer you the same brotherly exhortation in this instance.

Blessings,
Marduk