Is Hesychasm prayer approved by the Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jragzz123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jragzz123

Guest
I’ve heard very conflicting views on this. I’ve heard the practice has Hindu roots and is bad and that the church condemned it. And some people who swear by it’s power in their life. I personally don’t really see any issues and I know a lot of people who pray the Jesus prayer. Is there an official teaching of the church on this?
 
Hesychastic prayer, as a form of prayer originating in the Byzantine tradition, is accepted at least by Catholics of the Byzantine tradition. Whether or not it has the approval of Rome doesn’t really matter.
 
Hello Jragzz123,

Hesychasm does not have Hindu roots. This was a rumor which was started sometime during the 15th to 16th centuries in reaction to the Russian Orthodox Church’s rejection of the reunification and reconciliation between the Eastern and Western Churches made at the Council of Florence. Hesychasm has a very long history within Christianity independent of Hindu spirituality.

Hesychasm, as a prayer method, has been ruled as compatible with Catholic Theology. It’s pioneer, St. Gregory Palamas, was actually supportive of reconciliation between the East and the West and mirrored many Western Scholastic developments of theology if you analyze them within their own system of terms and connotations.

While hesychasm is acceptable within the Catholic Church, many if not most Roman Catholic theologians and experts in spirituality are hesitant to support it. Their concern lies not with the practice itself but rather the dangerous misconceptions which can arise from attempting to practice such a prayer method without proper guidance and instruction. This hesitance is even more widely shown today as it was years ago due to the presence of Buddhist literature and meditation techniques available today.

The problem lies here. Hesychasm promotes the quieting of the soul so that God’s will may be more immanent in your life. In the silence of your own will, God’s will becomes more audible. It is then that the hesychast can unite his or her own will to that of God to live it more fully. There is a very subtle misstep in this avenue of thought which can have disastrous consequences. If the hesychast does not seek to unite his or her will with God and instead seeks to destroy his or her own will, allowing God’s will to supplant their own, then the practitioner falls into heresy.

It is at this point where Buddhist influences come into play: the attempted destruction of the human will. The rumors of the 15th and 16th centuries describe the hesychast who has lost their way, not the true hesychast.

If you wish to attempt hesychasm, it must be done under the direction of experienced practitioner who understands this distinction and will guide the novice around the theological pitfalls which can entrap those coming from a Western background. Eastern Christians, be they Catholic or Orthodox, are usually raised in a theological structure in which these pitfalls are more easily avoided.

Thomas Merton, considered by many to be the foremost expert of Western Catholic hesychasm (also known as centering prayer), is not necessarily the best to turn to for instruction. He was already a master of contemplative prayer before he journeyed into hesychasm and his books are written on the level of one master speaking to another master. They are very easily misunderstood by those outside of his monastic and contemplative background and I would not suggest them to the new reader. Instead, I would suggest a more basic study in centering prayer which contained both the nihil obstat and imprimatur signatures, denoting that it conforms with Catholic doctrine.
 
Thank you Ben (@CRM_Brother) - I pray your post is helpful… The fundamental difference between Hindu/Buddhist vs Christian is as you suggest - Christian prayer calls on God in denial of self, whereas the Hindu/Buddhist practice simply denies self but does NOT call on our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ… Hence the eastern religions simply open their souls to spiritual principalities, whereas Christian Prayer, and especially the Jesus Prayer, opens one’s soul ONLY to our God… And it is important to have someone to oversee one’s progress, because the path of Salvation is indeed narrow and obstructed, and the Ladder of Divine Ascent does suffer casualties… The blessedness of the Church is that She functions as a sort of safe “Inside Passage” for aspirants in their ascents unto God, because She has the skills needed to “disciple all the nations” in what works, what is safe, and what is not, as a general rule… And the problem today is the paucity of experience Spiritual Fathers and Mothers who can direct accurately those at lower levels of the process… What is found instead is direction by those who have very limited experience and yet are seen as having the responsibility to ensure the safety of those under their care. (As having to render account for their souls)…

The Jesus Prayer itself is one approach to this problem, because it constantly invokes the Name of God in all its iterations: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have Mercy on me the sinner.” When I first started this prayer, it blotted out my otherwise very random inner dialog of thoughts - By replacing them with their stilling by this prayer - It simply crowded them out while “calling on the Name of the Lord”, as the Psalmist wrote… Those thoughts don’t “still” all that easily by human means, and intoning a long oooooommmmmm, as the eastern religions sometimes do, does NOT call on the Name of the Lord…

Thank-you for a good post, Ben… One of the first teachings in hesychia is the forsaking of using one’s imagination in Christian meditation… The proper usage if the imagination is when it is directed toward creation… Demonic powers love to see it directed toward God…

geo
 
Last edited:
Phillip_Rolfes said:
Hesychastic prayer, as a form of prayer originating in the Byzantine tradition, is accepted at least by Catholics of the Byzantine tradition. Whether or not it has the approval of Rome doesn’t really matter.
Click to expand...
This is a moot point. Rome does not go around nowadays disapproving of Byzantine practice.
The Vatican document I posted made that clear.
It pretty much says a short version of what CRM_Brother posted.
 
Last edited:
Palamism as a theological opinion and spirituality is definitely frowned upon by the west and has at times incurred charges of heresy. However the west and Rome in particular tolerate it as there is no formal definition on the matter one way or another. However even Palamas’ veneration is permitted without any reference to his teachings but seems to be permitted in spite of them and not as an endorsement of them. Palamism in all truth is tolerated , at best, and pretty much given the ecclesiastical side eye by the Western church and some quarters of the Eastern Catholic Churches but it is allowed in the church. Here is the official decree from the Congregation for Eastern churches permitting the veneration of Gregory Palamas in eatsern churches:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
What do you define as “Palamism”? St. Pope John Paul II called Palamas a “saint” and repeatedly cited him as a great theological writer. Saints do not have heresies named after them. Whatever problems the West had with Palamas, I think they’re long gone.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
What do you define as “Palamism”?
Click to expand...
The essence-energy distinction being a real rather than a nominal distinction in God.
Tis_Bearself said:
St. Pope John Paul II called Palamas a “saint” and repeatedly cited him as a great theological writer.
Click to expand...
There is more to Palamas than his theological writing on the essence-energies distinction.
Tis_Bearself said:
Saints do not have heresies named after them. Whatever problems the West had with Palamas, I think they’re long gone.
Click to expand...
They really aren’t at all as long Thomism exists and the western view of divine simplicity exists. Palamism was criticized by not just westerners but even easterners as tending towards polytheism and violating divine simplicity.

As the excerpts of the discussion between The Congregation for Eastern Churches and the Head of the UGCC show, palamas’ even as late as the 1970’s was still viewed with suspicion and the discussion shows that his veneration was allowed for reasons other than his theology concerning essence-energies as the Head of the UGCC says:

“In my humble opinion the liturgical office of Palamas could be inserted into the Greek Anthologion with the annotation “Venerated by the Orthodox”, without entering into the merits of his doctrine”
 
Last edited:
Well, the 1970s were 50 years ago already. I realize it may be recent in terms of Church time, but given that 50 years = almost all of my life and longer than a lot of other people have even been on earth at this point, I think St. Pope John Paul II laid to rest any issues with Palamas so I feel very comfortable ignoring whatever might have been said about him before that.
 
Last edited:
Yet St Palamas is venerated in the Eastern Catholic Churches on the second Sunday of Great Lent.

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
Yet St Palamas is venerated in the Eastern Catholic Churches on the second Sunday of Great Lent.

ZP
Click to expand...
Like I said… his veneration was permitted. However it was permitted without any regard to his essence-energies theology.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Well, the 1970s were 50 years ago already. I realize it may be recent in terms of Church time, but given that 50 years = almost all of my life and longer than a lot of other people have even been on earth at this point, I think St. Pope John Paul II laid to rest any issues with Palamas so I feel very comfortable ignoring whatever might have been said about him before that.
Click to expand...
You think 50 years is that long? That was a short time ago in church time. All you need to do is just read any western opinion on Palamism even today and you will see the same charges levied at Palamism.

Simply because Palamism as is taught has some fundamental breaks with western theology on the God’s divine simplicity that simply cannot be reconciled. It’s wishful thinking to think Palamism has ever been endorsed in the west or by the Catholic Church. His literal decree of permitting his veneration (which still stands) makes it very clear that it does not serve as an endorsement of his teachings.

The best you can say is it’s tolerated as byzantine practice (as not all easterners are Byzantines) but consult and decent writing from western theologians concerning divine simplicity and Palamism and you will find the answer of what they really think.

People forget that even in the Byzantine world Palmas’ teachings were severely controversial. It’s not just just a western concern. The idea of a real distinction between essence and energy poses all kinds of problems regarding deification, divine simplicity and monotheism.

It’s doesn’t help matters that Eastern Orthodox also see Palamism as matter of dispute between the Catholic Church and themselves.
 
Last edited:
Wandile said:
You think 50 years is that long? That was a short time ago in church time.
Click to expand...
Yes, if you read my post that you quoted, I said exactly that.

Not really interested in the rest of the argument; as I said, St. Pope JPII ended the matter afaik.

Stepping off the thread now, have a nice day.

St. Gregory Palamas, pray for us!
 
Last edited:
There has been a renewed interest in St. Gregory Palamas in recent years and scholars have begun to examine his original works again, outside the hundreds of years of theological addition which has since been piled upon him.

Western Scholars are slowly realizing that the heresies that the West has accused St. Gregory of were actually second and third hand mistaken accounts of what St. Gregory had actually written. Eastern Scholars, much to some’s chagrin, have found that St. Gregory’s theology was actually rather compatible with scholastic principles of the day. It was this nearness to scholasticism that he was accused of polytheism during his life time. Apparently, his theology was too Western.

The problem most encounter today is that they cannot separate the competing philosophies when comparing St. Gregory and Western theology, primarily the scholastics. St. Gregory wrote within the structure of neo-Platonistic philosophy while the scholastics wrote within the structure of Aristotelianism (or neo-Aristotelianism). The comparative theologian must always analyze each side within each system and not cross-interpret. For example, "real’ means something completely different in Aristotelianism than it does in neo-Platonism. The Aristotelianism can say that something is not “real”; the neo-Platonist can say that the same thing is “real”; and both would be saying the same thing.

If we break down the theologies within their various structures we can find make associations between different terms.
East : West
Essence : Essence
Energy : A cross between Uncreated and Infused Created Grace
 
Last edited:
CRM_Brother said:
…
If we break down the theologies within their various structures we can find make associations between different terms.
East : West
Essence : Essence
Energy : A cross between Uncreated and Infused Created Grace
Click to expand...
There is merit to thinking his teaching has been distorted by his followers or Neo- Palamites however at the base the theories seem irreconcilable unless the Palamites come around to affirming absolute divine simplicity and admit in some way that the distinction is only nominal or mental and does not actually exist in God. Then the ideas are reconcilable.

This is because on the catholic side absolute divine simplicity is a dogma of faith as dogmatised at the Fourth Lateran Council and reaffirmed at the First Vatican Council.

Mascall offered a mock conversation between a Thomist and a Palamite based on a conversation between Lossky and Mascall hiimself:

Palamite: “You make no distinction between the essence of God and his energy and you say that God gives himself to the creature in a finite mode. On your showing, this must mean that the divine essence is given in a finite mode, and this is plainly impossible. Either what is given is finite, in which case it cannot be God, or what is given is God, in which case it cannot be given finitely. In the former case there is no real deification of man; in the latter case man ceases to be a creature. Neither alternative is admissible, so your theory must be false.”

Thomist: “The whole matter is, of course, a profound mystery, but you have not been fair to my thought. I did not mean that God-in-a-finite-mode was given to the creature, but that God was received by the creature in a finite mode. The finitude is in the mode of participation, not in the object participated. And here is a dilemma for you, in return for that on which you tried to impale me. You say that the creature participates in the divine energy, though not in the divine essence. Now listen. Either the energy and the essence are identical, or else in participating in the energy the creature does not really participate in God. In the former case your own theory is false, in the latter it fails to provide for a real deification of man.”

Palamite: “No, now it is you who are being unfair to me. The energy is divine, and therefore in participating in the divine energy the creature participates in God. God is present, really present, in his energy as much as in his essence. The only difference is that the energy is communicable and the essence is not. Thus God is really communicated in his energy, though he remains incommunicable in his essence.”

Thomist: “Really, this is intolerable. God and his essence cannot be separated. If the energy communicates God it communicates his essence. And then you need my theory to explain how the creature can participate in God without losing its creatureliness.”
 
Last edited:
This is the point some modern scholars of St. Gregory are making. He didn’t actually say that there was division within the essence of God. This is compatible with the Western notion. In neo-Platonism, the act of a spiritual being is united with the essence of that being. St. Gregory is saying that the distinction between God’s essence and his act outside of himself (energy/grace) is real. St. Gregory says that God’s presence is immanent in his external act because in neo-Platonism, the sign of something (like God’s external act) participates in the reality of the thing itself. To the neo-Platonist, this is dividing God’s essence. To the West, this is more familiar. We don’t say that sanctifying Grace is the entirety of the essence of God. So too, does St. Gregory make this distinction between essence and energy. God’s essence is one according to St. Gregory just as God’s essence is one in Aquinas.
 
Last edited:
CRM_Brother said:
This is the point some modern scholars of St. Gregory are making. He didn’t actually say that there was division within the essence of God. This is compatible with the Western notion. In neo-Platonism, the act of a spiritual being is united with the essence of that being. St. Gregory is saying that the distinction between God’s essence and his act outside of himself (energy/grace) is real. To the neo-Platonist, this is dividing God’s essence. To the West, this is more familiar. We don’t say that sanctifying Grace is the entirety of the essence of God. So too, does St. Gregory make this distinction between essence and energy. God’s essence is one according to St. Gregory just as God’s essence is one in Aquinas.
Click to expand...
However there is a problem when they say the energies are not the essence yet somehow God. This is impossible as God is his essence. Secondly the energies are many and divine yet not the divine essence. How can there be a divinity outside of the divine essence without falling into polytheism?

Lastly the problem of the changeability of the divine energies. Palamas asserted that the energies which are divine and God can change yet the Council of Nicaea absolutely forbid changeability in God and so did the Lateran IV and Vatican I.
 
Last edited:
This is due to the fact that neo-platonism sees a sign (God’s external act) as participating in the essence. Westerners approach a sign differently. We are both saying the same thing. We just understand it differently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top