I just want to clarify that I don’t think the differences are merely semantic, but I do think that the differences are more complementary than oppositional. In other words, the two different theological approaches come at the same question differently, and their answers are both orthodox and not at all in contradiction. Add on top of this the very different uses of terms (and different languages for that matter) and you have an easy set-up for confusion.
As for St. Gregory’s Sainthood, he’s not on the Roman Calendar, but that doesn’t mean he’s not a Saint in the Roman Catholic Church. There are many Saints who don’t have specific universal feasts, hence the feast of All Saints Day. He also was never investigated the way we might see the cause of a potential Saint today, but that’s not at all unusual; the modern approach of putting forth the cause of a person for Canonization is relatively recent, and the process of the Pope Canonizing Saints only goes back to the 13th century. None of the Saints prior to 1234 had such a Beatification, and this includes all the Early Fathers.
St. Gregory Palamas came after that period, but his inclusion came with the acceptance of the Byzantine Churches that were formally in Schism. So the process of Canonization is not strictly necessary for a person to be recognized as a Saint (or else St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, and even Popes like St. Leo would not properly be Saints), and St. Gregory Palamas falls under the category of “Canonization without modern process”, just like the aforementioned Latin Saints.
Peace and God bless!
Dear Ghosty:
I fear that I must take issue with you regarding the ----for lack of a better term—‘grandfathering in’ of Gregory Palamas as a Saint in the RCC because he is accepted by & allowed for the Eastern Catholics who follow the Saints of the Orthodox. This fallatious arguement would lead to us–‘RCC’— accepting many other or ALL Orthodox saints made by various Orthodox Councils since the Schism. Should we regard ‘Photius’ as a Saint?; the man who solidified the final schism—now that would be absurd on it’s face!
How about the rather recent Orthodox Sainthood granted to Tsar Nicholas II of Russia & his entire family?—so sad what happened to them but a man who presided over the starving & killing of millions of his subjects before the revolution–and whose wife took her instruction from Rasputin??
As to Gregory Palamas; if he should be regarded as a Saint by us then I nominate an old woman down the block. I refer you to a book entitled–“Ending The Byzantine Greek Schism”.
Pages 19–21B are specifically dedicated to ‘NOTE ON PALAMISM’ I wish I had the time to type quotes; I DO NOT unfortunately. Below are some authors who take great objection to the Palamite view that the Beatific Vision in not attainable and great lengths are gone into as to the ESSENTIAL difference between the thesis & views of Palamas and those within Roman Catholic Tradition—not mere interpretations or symantics but VITAL SUBSTANCE! By the way, most who were persecuted, exiled & KILLED were the anti-Palamites!
Against the thesis of Gregory Palamas:
Demetrios Kydones—“The 14th Century Apologia For Unity With Rome”
Dr. Rowan D. Williams—“The Philosophical Structures of Palamism”
Prof. Lowell Clucas—many writings in the 14th Century which were also expressed by Byzantine Thomistic opponents of Palamism
Fr. Yves Congar, OP—“Note on Palamite Theology”
Fr. Bertrand de Margerie,SJ—Les Perfections du Dieu de Jesus Christ
Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner, OFM.Conv.—"Healing An ancient Schism: Theological Reflections
PS:–All of this info is printed under the ‘Nihil Obstat’ & Imprimatur.
Those FOR PALAMISM:
KALISTOS WARE: Orthodox Bishop, Apologist, and one of the greatest Orthodox voices in opposition to the RCC!
“accordind to Kalistos Ware and some other Eastern Orthodox theologians, the Palamite DISTINCTION between essence and energies is not merely a private speculation or an ‘optional extra’, but an indispensable part of the faith----A DOGMA”!
I do not know about you but I like the solid interpretations of OUR THEOLOGIANS not ORTHODOX SPOKESMEN whose views differ in SUBSTANCE from ours.
This is NOT SEMANTICS–
Gregory Palamas a RCC SAINT?----No way/any way that would make any sense of the ‘institution’ of Sainthood. This defies common sense and when it does, sorry–I do get upset! Are we to be that stupidly ecumenical that we take or grandfather in all Orthodox Saints even where they disagree with a basic belief rooted in RCC TRADITION?–I think not?
I know that I am being sarcastic but it has value as a rhetorical point—“Shall I begin contruction in my home of a small shrine/alter to the last Tsar of all the Russias”???
