St. Gregory Palamas, Hesychasm and St. Teresa of Avila

[George720]

Ghosty, you did a nice job with your explanation, thank-you…

To put it in terms more clear to Latin thinking,
when God bestows Grace on a person
He is … actually sharing the Divine Nature Itself with them,
albeit in a different mode than He possesses It Himself.

The Divine Nature is understood in two modes, th first of which is the Divine Essence, Which, were we to possess it, we would BE God… The second mode is the Action of that Divine Essence insofar as it acts in Creation… And this is understood in Palamas as the Creative Energy of God that IS God, but NOT in His Essence… And we who encounter God in purity of heart are given this Divine Energy that IS God… It is Old Testament Salvation, by Which the person is saturated in the Holy Spirit, but is not Hypostatically joined with God in His Energies - eg Salvation for the Prophets of Old, while saturational in the Holy Spirit, did not change the human hypostasis-person, yet was Life Eternal, for it was “Knowing the One True God, and His Son, Jesus Christ…” as John described… It was as Moses encountered it after 40 days on the mountain a Divinization of the person of Moses to the extent that his face shone so brightly that he had to cover his face before his followers… And this divination, of course, is what the Orthodox refer to as Theosis… It is the underlying fact that guided the Councils which they met to protect within the Church…

So that the hypostatic change in Christians now comes early in Baptism into Christ, and then the discipling of the one baptized continues to lead to the, (dare I say advanced?), purification of the heart, which in God’s time leads to a divine encounter with God that unites one into the Marriage of the Lamb… And this purification is the narrow and afflicted path found by so few - An askesis that presents the body as a living sacrifice to God for the Love of God and neighbor…

So it is a very big deal… It is the Path of the Saints…

geo

 

[poche]

There is evidence a tradition of hesychasm in the Mozarabic rite.

 

[Maximus1]

Interesting article

 

[George720]

There is evidence a tradition of hesychasm in the Mozarabic rite.

Homily 51 of Gregory Palamas describes the life of the Theotokos as hesychastic from her birth… Might I add that our life prior to birth is hesychastic and Edenic, which is why the sins of the mother are carried to the unborn child, and David writes in Psalm 50 (51), the Great Psalm of Repentance: “And in sins did my mother bear me…” This is why the sins of the father are carried to the 7th generation… It is why abortion is such an evil sin…

If you have not read Palamas Homily 51, set aside all other things and find it and read it… I just went to look for my book of his Homilies and it is gone! The one I thought it was turned out to be St. Isaac the Syrian’s Ascetical Homilies - And he does not write about the life of our Blessed Mother prior to Her entry into the Temple…

geo

 

[George720]

Today is St. Gregory Palamas’ Feast Day!

geo

 

[poche]

Maria de Agreda also wrote about the Blessed Virgin from before her entry into the Temple.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Today is St. Gregory Palamas’ Feast Day!

I thought he was celebrated on a Sunday in Lent?

Is there a special prayer at Divine Liturgy for his feast day? I found his Troparion and Kontakion but they seem to be for the Sunday in Lent that I mentioned.

 

[BartholomewB]

Thank you for your link to that homily in your post #5. I have a question about that. In two or three places, for instance here:

They have now led this truly sanctified child of God, now the Mother of God, this Virgin into the Temple of God. And She, being filled with Divine gifts even at such a tender age, … She, rather than others, determined what was being done over Her.

an ellipsis indicates that some words have been cut out. Do you know what was omitted, and why?

 

[George720]

I thought he was celebrated on a Sunday in Lent?

Is there a special prayer at Divine Liturgy for his feast day? I found his Troparion and Kontakion but they seem to be for the Sunday in Lent that I mentioned.
[/quote He was canonized a saint of the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1368 by Patriarch Philotheos of Constantinople, who also wrote his Vita and composed the service which is chanted in his honour. His feast day is celebrated twice a year on November 14, the anniversary of his death, and on the Second Sunday of Great Lent.

I think the prayers are the same…

Maria de Agreda also wrote about the Blessed Virgin from before her entry into the Temple.

What did she say about them?

They have now led this truly sanctified child of God, now the Mother of God, this Virgin into the Temple of God. And She, being filled with Divine gifts even at such a tender age, … She, rather than others, determined what was being done over Her.

an ellipsis indicates that some words have been cut out. Do you know what was omitted, and why?

I have not yet located my book of his homilies, but when I read the post #5 link, it seemed like it might have been a different homily… I live in these elipses! Never knew their definition! Oh well…! . So thank you - your question answered mine, because the homily is much longer, and this was created somewhat as a summary, I should think - a summary by selection and omission of text… You see, he first gave the homily, and then revised it, and kept on revising - eg expanding - it for the rest of his life, so central was it to all that his life was about as a monk… I imagine that like many monastics, he was raised by the Theotokos, and had fairly frequent communication with Her, and that this homily was given to him by her, and added to across time, or at least given additional insight…

You see, he explained that She kept purity in silence and stillness across Her life from the time of Her birth - And She was born of very holy parents, especially her mother… So that contrary to David’s lament, She was not carried in Anna’s sins… She was simply too old and too mature in faith…

I then added that life in the womb is naturally hesychastic and Edenic for the unborn person… So that such purity, which most of us do not cling to when we are born, She jealously guarded, and it accounts for Her Entry into the Holy of Holies at three and a half years of age…

And given the fact that She is the Mother of all Christians, this hesychastic and neptic Way of Life that birthed Christ is the Norm - however rarely encountered - of Christian inner life, because the Church itself, the Body of Christ in the Faithful, is a pattern of Her… And She is the Mother of Monastics… And the Altar is where Christ becomes His Body which is the Bread… And indeed the whole Church is Her Body…

So it’s another big deal, you see…

geo

 

[Magnanimity]

The second mode is the Action of that Divine Essence insofar as it acts in Creation… And this is understood in Palamas as the Creative Energy of God that IS God, but NOT in His Essence…

Divine Energy (infused Grace and Divine activity, to use more Western terminology) but not the Divine Essence (Being God in Himself). This usage of the terms “energy” and “essence” is foreign to Latin thinking, but the ideas themselves are not.

Hi Geo and Ghostly. For those of us Western-minded Christians who are very comfortable and conversant in the language of St Thomas (who has plenty to say about essences, albeit within an Aristotelian framework), can you recommend online reading (papers, etc) that tries to tie-in these two traditions, the divine “energies” vis-a-vis Thomism (with its emphasis on existence, essence–and the two being united in God)?

That may be a tall order, but if you know of anything, please share. Those of us “little Thomists” on here who are also deeply interested in discovering more light from the East would be intrigued to learn more.

 

[George720]

Those of us “little Thomists” on here who are also deeply interested in discovering more light from the East would be intrigued to learn more.

St Thomas … has plenty to say about essences, albeit within an Aristotelian framework

You feel familiar to me… Ever been on CAF on the radio?

There is a radical disjunction between reason and Revelation… Reason tried, through St. Thomas, to conceal the disjunct by framing the issue as the relationship of faith and reason… Then Thomas in his last year or so of life encountered Revelation from God, and stopped writing the Summa and recused himself in his cell until his Abbot inquired, and he said, as I surmise you well know, “All I have written is straw - I will teach no more…”

I was a lifetime atheist when I encountered God as God, and upon emerging from that encounter said to myself: “THIS changes EVERYTHING…” And my life and its thinking turned inside out, upside down and backwards, where it has remained ever since, some 38 years hence… The only hint Aristotle gave of this was the formal cause (I think) where the purpose of an action was the cause of the action… eg where the future causes the present, and not vise-versa (eg billiard ball etiology)… God, of course, is the God of time, being not subject to time, but God of past, present and future… Seeing the end from the beginning, and the beginning from the end, and the present throughout…

And the psycho-epistemological pre-requisite of Revelation is Repentance, self-denial, taking up one’s cross, and following Christ - eg Living an heroic life for the sake of Truth and Goodness and Love…

I do not know of resources attempting synthesis of Thomas and Palamas… Palamas is utterly reasonable, but that is a consequence of the many visions and revelations of his life… His life this morning being read had him three years in his cell, followed by his Vision of himself having his cup filled first with milk to overflowing, then wine to overflowing, soaking his robes, with directive to give what he had received… He protested that no one wanted what he had to give them… And was told to give it anyway… And he did… Even as an illumined elder, this had to be told to him… He did not and could not INFER it, you see… Obedience to God is by Revelation… Obedience to those “having the rule over you” is discipleship UNTO obedience to God…

Thank-you for checking in…

geo

 

[Ghosty1981]

For those of us Western-minded Christians who are very comfortable and conversant in the language of St Thomas (who has plenty to say about essences, albeit within an Aristotelian framework), can you recommend online reading (papers, etc) that tries to tie-in these two traditions, the divine “energies” vis-a-vis Thomism (with its emphasis on existence, essence–and the two being united in God)?

Honestly I haven’t found very much online that I recommend for this purpose. Too many polemics and too many academics trying to stake a claim on some new “groundbreaking reinterpretation” of Medieval theologians. This isn’t an area of widespread interest, and the different approaches to theology don’t lend themselves to easy cross-translation. The big problem is that there isn’t a one to one translation of terms where we can say that Palamas’ “Divine Energies” is equivalent to this or that term in Aquinas’ work. The concepts and categories each saint is working with have broad overlaps and sharp divergences; “energy” contains notions of “accident” and “act”, “power” and “activity”, for example. Sanctifying Grace is Divine Energy, but so is Divine Providence and the act of creation.

I recommend just reading St. Gregory’s work itself, keeping in mind that he is not using terms in a Thomistic manner. If you can read St. Theresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross and understand them as compatible with Thomistic ideas then you can easily do the same with Palamas.

One aspect of the English language that I think might be helpful in translating Palamas’ teaching is that we easily turn nouns into verbs, adverbs, and adjectives. The word home, for example, is a noun primarily, but we can easily transform it into a verb (think of re-homing an adopted animal), and with some creativity and poetry we might even make it an adjective like “homey”. When thinking of God in a Palamite manner I would say that the “noun” aspects of God are best understood with the term Essence, and the verb/adverb/adjective aspects are best understood with the term Energy. Just try to forget the English connotation of energy as some kind of separate, intangible force and you should be fine.

In another post I will provide some links and citations from the Summa that I think highlight areas of overlap between Palamism and Thomism.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I know very little of all the Thomistic and other schools of theology.
I like St. Thomas Aquinas okay as a saint and as a person, but finding God through reason or philosophy doesn’t work well for me.
I had the same problem when I read about Edith Stein - just couldn’t understand her whole fascination with studying philosophy.
If I were just picking some faith to join I might have chosen Eastern, but culturally and every other way I was raised Latin Rite, and Latin Rite I will stay.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Here are some quotes from the Summa and interpretations of the Summa that I think highlight the concept that St. Gregory Palamas was working with:

Summa Theologiae, I-II Q.112 A.1:

Nothing can act beyond its species, since the cause must always be more powerful than its effect. Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness, as it is impossible that anything save fire should enkindle.

continued…

 

[Ghosty1981]

Summa Theologiae II-II Q.23 A.2:

The Divine Essence Itself is charity, even as It is wisdom and goodness. Wherefore just as we are said to be good with the goodness which is God, and wise with the wisdom which is God (since the goodness whereby we are formally good is a participation of Divine goodness, and the wisdom whereby we are formally wise, is a share of Divine wisdom), so too, the charity whereby formally we love our neighbor is a participation of Divine charity. For this manner of speaking is common among the Platonists, with whose doctrines Augustine was imbued; and the lack of adverting to this has been to some an occasion of error.

EWTN used to have the full text of Garrigou-Lagrange’s analysis of Aquinas’ writings on Grace, but their library is no longer complete (I believe the portion I’m looking for is in Chapter 3 or 10, which are no longer archived). The text in question discussed how humans attain formal participation in Divinity through Grace, acquiring the accidental but very real form of God through Sanctifying Grace (participation in the Divine Nature, in other words). If I’m able to find it I will post a link, but unfortunately it is no longer as readily available as it once was.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty1981]

Summa Theologiae I-II Q.110 A.2:

Every substance is either the nature of the thing whereof it is the substance or is a part of the nature, even as matter and form are called substance. And because grace is above human nature, it cannot be a substance or a substantial form, but is an accidental form of the soul. Now what is substantially in God, becomes accidental in the soul participating the Divine goodness, as is clear in the case of knowledge. And thus because the soul participates in the Divine goodness imperfectly, the participation of the Divine goodness, which is grace, has its being in the soul in a less perfect way than the soul subsists in itself. Nevertheless, inasmuch as it is the expression or participation of the Divine goodness, it is nobler than the nature of the soul, though not in its mode of being.

 

[Magnanimity]

@George720 and @Ghosty1981, these replies are wonderful! Thank you for taking the time to share. You’ve given me a lot to digest. As I say, my concepts are limited to the West, but I am determined to continue broadening my view to assimilate as much of this wisdom as I can manage.

 

[Ghosty1981]

My pleasure!

Just wanted to take a minute to clarify an area of overlap between Aquinas and Palamas that I believe leads to a lot of confusion. When Aquinas says:

The Divine Essence Itself is charity, even as It is wisdom and goodness. Wherefore just as we are said to be good with the goodness which is God, and wise with the wisdom which is God (since the goodness whereby we are formally good is a participation of Divine goodness, and the wisdom whereby we are formally wise, is a share of Divine wisdom), so too, the charity whereby formally we love our neighbor is a participation of Divine charity.

he is speaking of what Palamas would call the Divine Energy despite Aquinas using the term Divine Essence. Charity, Wisdom, Goodness, and all the other “adjectival” terms are Divine Energy in Palamas’ terminology. This leads to a lot of confusion when people are only familiar with one approach or the other.

Palamas insists that the Divine Energy is one and simple despite referring multiple things (like Charity and Wisdom), much as Aquinas insists that the Divine Essence is simple despite also referring to multiple things. The difference is that Aquinas uses the term “essence” in such a way that it incorporates the Divine Nature as a whole, while Palamas speaks of the Divine Nature in two aspects of Essence (God In Himself) and Energy (the expression and activity of Divinity). It is still One, Simple Divinity in Palamas’ description, but he wouldn’t say that humans share in the Divine Essence any more than Aquinas would say that humans become God as He Is in Himself. Both saints insist that we partake in the form of God, and that our share in Divinity is a different mode from that of God’s, but they use different terminologies and points of emphasis to highlight this reality.

I view Aquinas as primarily a mystic with a keen grasp of philosophy and a systematic manner of expressing things, so I don’t set him against Palamas in any way. I think a lot of Aquinas is lost if the mystical aspect of his arguments are not kept firmly in mind.

Peace and God bless!

 

[George720]

And thus because the [soul] participates in the Divine [goodness] imperfectly, the participation of the Divine [goodness], which is [grace], has its being in the [soul] in a less perfect way than the [soul] subsists in itself. Nevertheless, inasmuch as it is the expression or participation of the Divine [goodness], it is nobler than the [nature] of the [soul], though not in its mode of being. (etc etc)

This is the kind of theological writing that just drives me away from the Latin theologians as Scholastics…

Tell me - When you read Palamas, do you get a similar gut-level feeling of wanting to avoid him?

I am an old Aristotelian philosophy major, and my response to Aquinas is viscerally anathematic…

Forgive me, I mean no disrespect - Think: My Personal Confession!

geo

 

[Ghosty1981]

This is the kind of theological writing that just drives me away from the Latin theologians as Scholastics…

Tell me - When you read Palamas, do you get a similar gut-level feeling of wanting to avoid him?

I am an old Aristotelian philosophy major, and my response to Aquinas is viscerally anathematic…

Forgive me, I mean no disrespect - Think: My Personal Confession!

geo

Nope, I enjoy the precision and clarity of thought. Palamas’ style is very different and serves a different purpose; Aquinas is literally writing a textbook here. Aquinas wrote poetry and songs and had mystical experiences beyond the famous one towards the end of his life (he didn’t stop writing the Summa after that experience either, contrary to common perception), but people are most familiar with his textbooks for theologians-in-training.

The amount of theological ground that Aquinas covered in his writing is absolutely unparalleled in Christian history (only St. John of Damascus comes close, IMO, and I consider Aquinas to be the Damascene’s true successor) and I don’t believe a less Holy person could have the clarity of thought and literal inspiration to do it. At the same time I love the more poetic styling of Palamas, Theresa of Avila, and John of the Cross, but I would never look to them for precision and clarity the same way I look to Aquinas.

Different Saints scratch different itches, but all are merely different colors from the infinite and invisible Divine Spectrum of Light.

Peace and God bless!