...so any parish wishing to commemorate him can insert his troparion in the Liturgy next Sunday.

One can be recognized as a saint and not be commemorated by a particular Church on a particular day. There are lots of Latin saints not on our calendar and lots of Byzantine saints not on the Latin Church's calendar or other Eastern Churches' calendars.

As Fr. Serge has mentioned elsewhere St. Gregory Palamas is in the Greek Anthologion published by Rome and the MCI has propers for Vespers for St. Gregory Palamas so any parish wishing to commemorate him can insert his troparion in the Liturgy next Sunday.

http://www.metropolitancantorinstitute.org/sheetmusic/2007/03-03-07GF2SundayGreatVespers.pdf

No, the letter says only "this text" may be used. Everything else is forbidden.

Nick

St. Gregory Palamas Pray to God For Mankind!

St. Gregory Palamas defended the Hesychasts, who will defend St. Gregory?

In a church dedicated to Our Lord – Troparia: Sunday; St. Gregory. Kontakia: Glory: St.Gregory; Now: Triodion.
In a church dedicated to the Theotokos – Troparia: Sunday; Patronal Feast; St. Gregory.

Kontakia: Triodion; Glory: St. Gregory; Now: Patronal Feast.
In a church dedicated to a Saint – Troparia: Sunday; Patronal Feast; St. Gregory. Kontakia:
Patronal Feast; Glory: St. Gregory; Now: Triodion.

Prokeimenon of 2nd Sunday of the Great Fast and of St. Gregory; Alleluia verses of Sunday; Communion hymn of Sunday and of St. Gregory.

Isn't Gregory Palamas a heretic in the byzcath religion?

About 1360 Palamas died. In 1368 the seventh Synod of Constantinople (concerning this matter) under the Patriarch Philotheus (1364-1376: Callistus's successor) excommunicated the Barlaamite monk Prochorus Cydonius, confirmed the "Tomus" of 1351 as a "Faultless Canon of the true faith of Christians", and canonized Palamas as a Father and Doctor of the Church. So by the end of the fourteenth century Hesychasm had become a dogma of the Orthodox Church. It is so still. The interest in the question gradually died out, but the Orthodox still maintain the Tomus of 1351 as binding; the real distinction between God's essence and operation remains one more principle, though it is rarely insisted on now, in which the Orthodox differ from Catholics. Gregory Palamas is a saint to them. They keep his feast on the second Sunday of Lent and again on 14 November (Nilles, "Kalandarium manuale", Innsbruck, 1897, II, 124-125). The office for this feast was composed by the Patriarch Philotheus. In the nineteenth century there was among the Orthodox a certain revival of interest in the question, partly historical, but also speculative and philosophical. Nicodemus, a monk of Athos, defended the Hesychasts in his Egcheiridion symbouleutichon (1801); Eugenius Bulgaris and others, especially Athos monks, have again discussed this old controversy; it is always evident that their theology still stands by the Tomus of 1351, and still maintains the distinction between the Divine essence and energy.

In terms of commemoration New Advent says this

THE BYZANTINE RITE AT THE PRESENT TIME
The Rite of Constantinople now used throughout the Orthodox Church does not maintain any principle of uniformity in language.

I would take anything said in New Advent about the Eastern churches with a grain of salt. Mostly they are from articles from the Catholic Encyclopedia published back in 1910. They all refer to the Eastern Churches as Rites.

The author of the Votum which moved the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to authorize the liturgical veneration of Saint Gregory Palamas was none other than Patriarch Joseph Cardinal Slipyj, whom no one will accuse of doctrinal relativism. The Holy See published that volume of the Anthologion in 1974 - feel free to look it up if you read Greek.

Fr. Serge

As for the Catholic Church... THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA DOES NOT REPRESENT THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, EITHER IN 1911 OR TODAY.

Yes, the encylcopedia has an imprimatur/Nihil Obstat. But that means that there's nothing inside of it contrary to the faith (as it was at that time), as determined by the censor. [addition: "nothing contrary to the faith" is much different than "the official position"]

Yes, the encylcopedia does contain Catholic teachings, but it contains MUCH more than that. It's a work by Catholic professors, trying to provide what was then the insights of the latest scholarship for the educated reader.

In my view, its flaws include:

- inconsistency: the articles are written to different standards. Some are well written according to the highest standards of objectivity you can set; others fall FAR short of academic objectivity and accuracy.

- too many opinions: sometimes, the authors give their own opinions, theological or otherwise, on an issue the Church as a whole has not made a decision on.

- rationalist critique: rationalist debunking of "unprovable myths" was fashionable among orthodox Catholic scholars of the time (the emergence of rampant heterodoxy in Catholic universities today has generally made orthodox Catholic scholars much more careful when they speculate). There are LOTS of times when the encyclopedia says "such and such a tradition about Saint X has no proof; therefore it should not believed", sometimes in direct conflict with the opinion of the Church -then or now.

- inaccuracies: there's been a LOT of scholarship in the past century in just about every topic in that encyclopedia which has provided incontrovertible facts that make some (not all by any means, just some) of the articles either obsolete or laughably inaccurate. I know most people on this board will say "oh it's modern scholarship, so it must be evil". Sometimes, you do have to take modern scholarship with a grain of salt. But other times it provides incontrovertible evidence and insights about a particular topic.

- changes in Church teaching since then: as much as some will howl about it, the Catholic Church has come out with decisive statements in the past 100 years on various subjects which overturn theological opinions that were widely accepted back in 1911. Vatican II and other documents before and since have decisively ruled on subjects like "who can be saved?", or the legitimacy of the Orthodox church.

The article on Hesychasm is an example of the encylopedia's strengths and flaws. It gives an OK history of the controversy between Barlaam and St. Gregory Palamas (yes, I said Saint) and the subsequent decisions. But where it presents the Hesycast opinion, it does so in an unobjective and polemical manner; I'm no expert in Palamite theology but I'd imagine it's wrong in several areas. The article's condescension DOES NOT represent the Catholic Church's opinion on Hesychasm at all.

So, the Catholic Encylcopedia is a generally good reference book for Catholic theology, circa 1911. There's a lot of good stuff in there. But it must be read with caution; some things are dated or outright false. And it's NOT the official position of the Catholic Church; those who wish to find such should go to this site:

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/

No hidden agenda here.

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is a publicly accessible web site. Many terms pertaining to the Catholic faith when put in to a popular search engine such as google bring that site up first. The New Advent site bears no warning that "this is 100 years old and cannot be counted as trustworthy" as others are stating here. It also bears the stamp of Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat. Despite its age, I can't imagine it would or could contain anything that is radically contradictory to what the Catholic Church currently says about itself. The present should be consistent with the past, even if clarified or better explained. I also believe the author of the article in question was or is generally speaking held in high regard.

What the article simply shows me is that 100 years ago at least Palamism was regarded as heretical, or very near it and that St. Gregory was not regarded as such. I have talked to Latin Catholics before who definitely regard his distinction of the Essence and Energies of God as heretical.

All of this simply helps explain to me why his commemoration seems to be at most optional, and at worst ignored, in the Ruthenian Church.

The Encyclopedia does carry Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat, so it certainly seems that it can be a position that is not contrary to the faith to regard the teachings of St. Gregory as erroneous and to refer to him simply as "Gregory Palamas". So I am not surprised by the other things I am reading in terms of St. Gregory on this board.

again I apologize to all. Now it is time to giv praise to God. Halleluia!

I did a little research (Im sure you all are more familiar with your music) and found that there is a song for Gregory the Palamite. I found it here
http://www.metropolitancantorinstitute.org/sheetmusic/2007/03-04-07GF2SundayDivineLiturgy.pdf
Why all the crying? who said it was missing? He is mentioned in the third verse."and give You thanks for Gregory, whose teachings wise we e'er employ" It is for Sunday 4 of March- 2007. Your shepherds didn't hide him like everyone is saying. I hope this puts it all to rest.

Of course the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are nothing more than the opinion of one or two Catholics, including a bishop. It simply tells us that the text has been submitted to someone in the Church hierarchy for review. It is a declaration of formal review, in the main.

Mary

I believe it means that not only has the document been reviewed, but that it has been approved for publication and contains nothing contrary to the faith. So it would seem to me it is a perfectly acceptable opinion for Catholics to hold that Palamism is heretical in its distinction between the essence and energies of God (as I have been told elsewhere) and that St. Gregory Palamas does not need to be regarded as a saint. The fact that he is not present on wall calendars, his commemoration hymns are not published in service books, or the 2nd Sunday of Lent would simply be called the second Sunday of Lent just to me further illustrates the point that people are not comfortable with his theology.