www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Scholasticism vs. St. Gregory Palamas

Dear Friends:

A friend of mine (born Lutheran, converted to Orthodoxy, now Byzantine Catholic) who for some reason never acquired knowledge of Saint Gregory Palamas, began to argue with me when I explained his teachings.

He asked, "What is the difference between St. Greogry Palamas and scholasticism?" implying that St. Gregory Palamas was just as much a speculative person as say St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Anselm, et al.

So what would be the distinction? Instinctively I "feel" the difference, but I cannot annunciate it!

Thanks,

anastasios

It's a question of method, basically.

Palamas was a "theologian" in the Orthodox sense -- that is, a "knower of God" in the experiential, intuitive, simple cognitive sense. In Orthodoxy, written theological writings are not begun with rational speculation -- rather, they are begun with the personal experience and knowledge of God, and the writings are an attempt to articulate in reasoned words that knowledge of God that the true theologian has acquired over time. Asceticism, prayer, fasting, works, etc., are living theology that enable one to progess in the knowledge of God. St. Gregory was writing from the vantage point of his own knowledge of God as a hesychast.

Scholastics tend to approach theology from a more purely rational mindset, deductively analyzing theological points as they would any other philosophical or analytical problem. Prayer and asceticism are separate from this process of theological analysis in the scholastic method.

The difference, therefore, is not that hesychasts like St. Gregory don't use rational language and argument in attempting to persuade -- of course they do -- that's simply called "effective writing". The difference lies in the root of the ideas they expound -- in the case of the hesychast, the root for the ideas expressed is the direct, personal knowledge of God acquired through years of prayer and asceticism, whereas in the case of the scholastic, the root is the rational and deductive mind, trying to make "sense" of something, whether scriptural, theological, moral, etc. It's the starting point that's different.

Brendan

Good answer Brendan. Both "methods" express very different theologies.

Dear Anastasios,

The only thing I would add to Brendan's usual scholarly explications is how St Gregory Palamas differed from the West on the subject of "Uncreated Energies."

He taught that while we could not possibly know God in His Essence, we could participate in His Uncreated Energies or Emanations.

This participation transfigures and transforms us through the process of Theosis or Divinization in our life in Christ by means of the Holy Spirit.

This teaching is also reflected in Orthodox Iconography where the Saints reflect their Divinized and "Christified" state.

Orthodox Iconography shows Saints as reflections of the Icon of Christ. Also, their haloes are always connected to their bodies.

Western art, to everyone's loss, is often very realistic and does not teach or reflect Divinization. The haloes of the Saints are also often separated from their bodies (e.g. above their heads etc.).

Alex

Dear Anastasios,

For what it's worth, and without getting into another discussion about Martin Luther, I just wanted to add this point.

Luther himself taught that the Christian is called to be a "little Christ."

The theology of St Gregory Palamas is the best possible outline of how this truly happens in the life of the Christian.

Alex

Dear Brendan,

Forgive me if I am revisiting an overtried topic.

From the Orthodox point of view, did not Gregory Palamas represent more than just a methodical difference over Barlaam and Akindynus who were nominalists and were condemned by the Orthodox Church?

Have I misinterpreted what you have written?

Alex

Dear Alex,

Would you please comment further on this concept of Uncreated Energies?

Dear Mor Ephrem,

As I understand it, Grace in Orthodoxy is the ontological Uncreated Energies of God operating in the believer who participates in the life of God through Christ by means of the Holy Spirit.

For Nominalists, Grace is not ontological.

Through Synergy (even though it is an "uneven" Synergy), God permeates our very being and we are allowed to become by Grace what God is by Nature.

St Gregory likened the Divine Essence and His Uncreated Energies to the Sun and its rays.

Through Christ and our life and participation in Him, we may engage in the process of Theosis and so become permeated with the Divine Rays of God's Energies.

This is what Orthodox iconography celebrates by portraying Saints in their deified form. This is what the Nominalist heretics of St Gregory's day rejected. Gregory's victory over them is what the Byzantine Church celebrates on the Second Sunday of the Great and Holy Fast.

Alex

Alex,
If grace is ontological in Orthodoxy, is what St Augustine was flirting with at the end of his life by saying "all is grace" true according to this reasoning?

OK, for the 'scholastic theologians', the Thomistic/Aristotelian postulate is:

"All being is one, good, true and universal".

If grace exists as a reality, then it participates in 'being'. And is therefore, 'ontological'. If it is not 'ontological', then it doesn't exist.

(I haven't studied this in years; but it still leads me to the medicine cabinet for a Tylenol. It's OK for philosophy and logic, but applying it to theology is just plain weird for those who hold an Eastern, mystical approach. It's theological chess. And about as relevant to salvation.)

Blessings!

"From the Orthodox point of view, did not Gregory Palamas represent more than just a methodical difference over Barlaam and Akindynus who were nominalists and were condemned by the Orthodox Church?"

Yes, of course, but my point was the the underlying difference leads naturally to substantial differences. The nominalist conclusion is the natural fruit of scholastic theology, and is not accepted by Orthodoxy. My only point is that to understand the differences one has to understand the methodological differences first -- particularly to respond to the question posed by Dustin's friend, I think.

Brendan

Dear Veritas et Vita,

You raise a most important question, my friend.

We have Dr. John and Brendan, thank God, to bring things across most accurately and precisely!

St Augustine is problematic for the Orthodox Church historically.

More to the point, Augustine is sometimes at variance with the Cappadocian Fathers.

That doesn't mean he isn't a Saint, since he himself submitted his teachings to the Church to be measured against the standard of the Councils and of the Fathers.

I think of Grace in Orthodoxy as the Person of the Holy Spirit and His work within us and in our lives.

I think of Grace in western terms as a kind of "thing" that God imparts to the soul that produces salvation and holiness.

Rather than saying "All is Grace," I think it would be better to say that "Grace is Everywhere and Always Available."

St John Cassian argued with Augustine on these and other points, as did the Bishops of Southern Gaul.

This shows that the Cappadocian school was accepted even in the West and that Augustine represented for a number of people in the West a moving away from what the Church had, until that time, taught about Grace and Original Sin.

Augustine won in the West and Cassian lost which is why Cassian's cult is limited to the City of Marseilles alone.

The issue of whether and how Augustinianism led to Calvinism and predestinationism is a separate one, although Orthodox theologians definitely do see a connection and an historical flow.

Brendan - you are right, once again, darn it . . .

Love,

Alexxxx

>The nominalist conclusion is the natural fruit of scholastic theology, and is not accepted by Orthodoxy.<

WHAT!?!

I fail to see how anyone could make this statement. Nominalism is the "natural fruit of scholatsic theology"? You're kidding, right?

Most people today look down on scholasticism because they view it as philosophy manhandling theology. Everything is laid out in these huge, theoretical systems, which might mention God but surely don't lead one to know Him in a personal sense. Yes, we're all patrologists now (I think it was von Balthasar who said this). Let's get away from those dry, boring medievals.

The only problem is that if people actually stopped and bothered to read some of the scholastics they'd see how wrong this view is. Aquinas had a profound understanding of the tradition and faith of the Church, making the most of what sources he had from the east. Bonaventure was a great, mystical, theologian. What about St. Anselm, St. Albertus Magnus, Hugh of St. Victor, Richard of St. Victor, etc.?

Don't put the above scholars and HOLY theologians in the same class as the later followers of Okham. It does an injustice to the many saints and a few doctors of the Church AND it shows a basic misunderstanding of the situation. ISTM that nominalism wasn't a natural fruit of scholasticism, it was an unnatural rejection of scholasticism.

Dear Friends,

I must confess that I have to go with Ignatius on this one, even though he doesn't agree with what I said on the Filioque . . .

St Bonaventure (didn't he call Aquinas the "father of all heretics?")would have joined the Orthodox Church in condemning nominalism as would have others.

Aquinas actually had such an intimate knowledge of the Cappadocian Fathers that he made a point of acquainting his readers with the "Father through the Son" formula for the procession of the Spirit.

And there were Orthodox theologians who actually venerated Aquinas as a saint in private and thought he "should have been Orthodox" as Meyendorff has noted. The moral system of Aquinas was well known in the Orthodox East which used it since it hadn't a developed system of its own. This was especially true of the Kyivan Baroque period.

Blessed John Duns Scotus and his work could have been taken, in my humble view, directly out of the annals of the Cappadocian Fathers.

It would be wrong to oppose the scholastics to the Fathers.

Both actually were about doing the same thing, using different methods: integrating the Gospels with the thought systems of their time, thereby allowing the Message of Christ to be communicated more effectively.

Ignatius, my Roman Brother, I love you!

Alex

Alex,

Thanks for a great posting! Thanks also for including Blessed John Duns Scotus, another great theologian which I overlooked.

The resourcement movement that has been going on in Catholic circles for about 50 years or so has, with great profit, emphasized a "return to the sources" of the Fathers and using their insights when facing modern problems. One bad result of this (and it really seems to be an unitended side effect) is a dismising of scholastics and other theologians. It seems that theology goes from the Fathers to the Catholic Renaissance of the early 20th century and everything else in-between was somehow ilegitimate developments. Please

It's funny what you were saying about some Orthodox saying Aquinas "should have been Orthodox." Makes one wonder what would have happened if he had, in fact, been present at the Council of Lyons. Would there have been a reunion?

Also, Aquinas was known to have gone into ecstasies during his life when in contemplative prayer. It doesn't seem to me that his great love for God got lost when he was writing.

May God grant you many years my brother.

[This message has been edited by Ignatius (edited 03-16-2001).]