Palamas and hesychasm

[Basil Shannon]

According to a discription of Gregory Palamas' Triads in a Light & Life catalogue, it says that he presents a denfense in the writing against a monastic group called "the hesychasts." Does anyone know what group this refers to? He is not against hesychism, is he?

[Herman Blaydoe]

St. Gregory Palamas was probably the Church's greatest defender of hesychasm. His debates with the Latin Barlaam form the basis of how we understand hesychasm.

[Basil Shannon]

Thanks. I did not see how this would be possible, but I have not read Palamas.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I was going to start a new thread but I see that maybe my question can fit in here.

In Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos' The Mind of the Orthodox Church he writes: "Many contemporary theologians believe that the Councils of St. Gregory Palamas’s time should be considered to constitute and compose the Ninth Ecumenical Council. And this is because they were called together by the emperors, were concerned with a doctrinal topic of great importance, and St. Gregory Palamas, who has attained deification and therefore had personal experience of deification, was battling in them. I would like to refer to the opinion of Father Athanasios Gievtits, who says: “But we think that the Council of Constantinople at the time of St. Gregory Palamas in 1351, judging at least from its great theological work, can be, and deserves to be counted among the Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church, lacking in nothing as to the soteriological significance of its theology. This Council constitutes the proof of the conciliarity of the Orthodox Church and of the living experience and theology concerning salvation in Christ”.

Does anyone know what then would be considered the 8th Ecumenical Council? The Council(s) concerning St Photios and the procession of the Holy Spirit? (ie vs filioque).

An added question. What then of the idea often heard that there can only be 7 Ecumenical Councils? That these express the fullness of doctrine in a sense? St Justin Popovich I believe even expresses this idea. Perhaps the two ideas can be reconciled in some way?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Father,

Could we try 7 1/4 to 7 1/2?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Matthew,
Sorry, I'm busy on those days.http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/proud.gif
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Justin]

The quotes and thoughts at this link (http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1025&start=0) might be of some use for the discussion here?

[Kenneth Mc Rae]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Perhaps this link will help you: -

>> http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html <<

There you'll find an essay by Fr. George Dragas, entitled:-

"The Eighth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (879/880)and the Condemnation of the Filioque Addition and Doctrine"

In Jesus,
Theo

(Message edited by theophilus on 01 January, 2005)

(Message edited by theophilus on 01 January, 2005)

[Kenneth Mc Rae]

In a paper (lecture/sermon?) entitled, The Patristic Heritage and Modernity ( >> http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/2.aspx#_ftn41 << ), Bishop Hilarion, of the Russian Orthodox Church, makes the following statement :-

"What is today quite conventionally named “Palamism” has been studied very little in Russia (until the late 19th century, Hesychasm was considered a heresy in Russia , and Palamas its main champion).[41]"

Here's the footnote that accompanies it :-

"[41] Cf. S.V. Bulgakov, Handbook for Church Servers, Moscow , 1913 (repr. 1993; in Russian), p.1622: “Hesychasts (the tranquil). Thus a company of monks was designated in Greece in the 14th century, who distinguished themselves by the very oddest dreaminess. They considered the navel the centre of all spiritual energies... and thought that by placing their chin on their chest and continually watching their navel, they would be able to see the heavenly light and enjoy angelic visions... The Hesychasts’ absurd opinion about the conditions for receiving the uncreated light soon fell into oblivion by themselves.” The same book does, however, present a more positive opinion on the Hesychasm of St Gregory Palamas on pp.570-71. It is startling to see such texts reprinted in the late 20th century without any comments whatsoever."

Now, as a Catholic, I find this to be a striking admission, of sorts, coming from an Orthodox hierarch, especially in light of the fact that there are those today who vehemently insist that either one or all of the "great" 14th century hesychastic Councils of Constantinople should (do?) constitute a 9th Ecumenical Council. Who's right? Who must we believe? John II, Metropolitan of Russia, 1800-1889 ( >> http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_1.htm#n3 ), who traditioned Seven Ecumenical Councils, or the bold John Romanides of the Nine Ecumenical Councils?

"All profess that there are seven holy and Ecumenical Councils, and these are the seven pillars of the faith of the Divine Word on which He erected His holy mansion, the Catholic and Ecumenical Church" (John II, Metropolitan of Russia, 1800-1889)." >> http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_1.htm#n3 <<

Danut Manastireanu, a Romanian Orthodox theologian, agrees with Bishop Hilarion's view of the widespread, almost universal neglect of "Palamism", for 5 centuries after the "Great" Councils, of 14th century Constantinople. In his essay entitled, the "Place of Scripture in Orthodox Tradition" (>> http://www.ortho-logia.com/English/RomWritings/ScrpitureInBO-S.htm <<), can be found the following remark(s):-


"In fact, in the dispute between Palamas and Barlaam we have a confrontation between the mystical tradition of the East and the scholasticism of the West. The irony is that although the Palamite theology has received official recognition from the Orthodox Church at the Councils in 1347 and 1351, it was soon forgotten and Orthodox theology stood for almost five centuries under a strong scholastic influence." ( >> http://www.ortho-logia.com/English/RomWritings/ScrpitureInBO-4.htm << )

And again:-

"The study of Palamas as a representative personality for the Byzantine theology is justified by his overarching influence on modern Orthodox theology. LaCugna writes about him: `Gregory is as central a figure in the East as Thomas Aquinas is in the West'.[11] "
"[11] CM LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life, San Francisco: Harper, 1991, p. 181"

In the second quote, Manastireanu observes that Palamism has only become an "overarching influence" in modern or contemporary Orthodoxy, thus demarcating some sort of change or deviation from the theological "tradition" on Palamism, handed down by the pre- "late 19th century" Orthodox Church.

While standing firmly in the tradition of John II, though, and the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, Fr. Florovsky, nonetheless, argues for the "universally" binding power of the Great 14th Century Hesychastic Councils, upon all Orthodox theologians and peoples :-

"S. Gregory begins with the distinction between 'grace' and 'substance': ç èåßá êáé èåïðïéüò Ýëëáìøéò êáé ÷Üñéò ïõê ïõóßá, áëë' åíÝñãåéá åóôé Èåïý (Capita Phys., Theol., etc., 68-9). This basic distinction has been formally accepted and elaborated at the Great Councils Constantinople, 1341 and 1351. Those who would deny this distinction were anathematised and excommunicated. The anathematisms of the council of 1351 were included in the rite for the Sunday Orthodoxy, in the Triodion. Orthodox theologians are bound by this decision." ( St. Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers , >> http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/florovski_palamas.html << )

According to Florovsky, then, anyone who "anathematized" Palamism, by their words and actions, believing it an error at best, or even worse, a heresy, as Bishop Hilarion says was largely the case in the pre- "late 19th century" Russian Church, must necessarily be viewed as ex-communicants. What then are we to make of those Orthodox sons and daughters, who for 5 centuries viewed Palamism as something to be forgotten? What are we to make of their ecclesiastical status? Are they in or out?

Hence arise(s) the following anomalies or problems :-

1 - If one or all of the Great Councils of the 14th century constitute the 9th Ecumenical Council, how is the rejection of "Palamism", by much of the pre= "late 19th century" Orthodox Church, to be reconciled with this fact? If anything can be assumed from the stance of the mid 19th century Russian Church on "Palamism", it is that they were, if nothing else, the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

2 - While Fr. Florovsky aligns himself with the Church of the Seven Councils, he nonetheless appears to think this should not detract from the "universally" binding force these "Great" Councils on Hesychasm exercise upon all Orthodox Christians, Russians included. And perhaps he is right, but does he apply this rule to the pre-"late 19th century" Church"? If yes, then according to Bishop Hilarion and Danut Manastireanu, he must view a large part of that Church as ex-communicant for rejecting "Palamism".

3 - The tradition of the 19th century Russian Church, in regard to "Palamism", appears somewhat compromised, to some degree, by the "neo-Palamism" of her sons like Fr. Florovsky, and all those who belong to the same branch of the "Russian" theological school. How can they assume a different stance on the issue or question of "Palamism" without accusing their Mother Church and holy fathers of error?

(Message edited by theophilus on 01 January, 2005)

(Message edited by theophilus on 01 January, 2005)

(Message edited by theophilus on 01 January, 2005)

(Message edited by theophilus on 01 January, 2005)

(Message edited by theophilus on 01 January, 2005)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Regarding the following statement from Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "What is today quite conventionally named “Palamism” has been studied very little in Russia (until the late 19th century, Hesychasm was considered a heresy in Russia , and Palamas its main champion)."

I do not know what accounts for such a sweeping statement especially as there is so much that witnesses that the opposite is true. Certainly those involved in the monastic/Patristic revival within the 19th century Russian church were well aware of St Gregory Palamas- this includes hierarchs, monastics & intellectuals.

Regarding being excommunicant for rejecting Palamism. This brings up a very important point about Church life. There are many times in both the history of the Church & in our own personal life when basic aspects of Church teaching are lost sight of. This sin of weakness or ignorance however does not constitute heresy. Heresy is rather the conscious rejection of Church doctrine not just in its external expression but also as to its essential meaning. It also I would say involves a conscious rejection after open admonition from members of the Church. In other words the bar for what constitutes heresy is very high- is not simply ignorance.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Ken McRae]

"I do not know what accounts for such a sweeping statement especially as there is so much that witnesses that the opposite is true. Certainly those involved in the monastic/Patristic revival within the 19th century Russian church were well aware of St Gregory Palamas- this includes hierarchs, monastics & intellectuals." Fr. Raphael

Though Bishop Hilarion does not say so, in the broader context of that paper, I can assume he would respond by saying it was the on account of the tireless labours of those individuals at the heart of the Russian "monastic/Patristic revival" that the tide eventually turned; but the real long-awaited fruit of their labours was not readily visible until the "late 19th century", according to the Bishop. A five hundred year old "tide" cannot be turned or reversed over night. It took decades, if not the better part of a century of heroic labours on the part of the "faithful".


Regarding being excommunicant for rejecting Palamism. This brings up a very important point about Church life. There are many times in both the history of the Church & in our own personal life when basic aspects of Church teaching are lost sight of. This sin of weakness or ignorance however does not constitute heresy." Fr. Raphael

I'm confident Bishop Hilarion would agree with you on this, without a doubt. However, knowing and believing this, he still chose to use the "h" word, in describing how the Russian masses felt about "Palamism", before the eventual turning of the tide(s), through the unceasing prayer and labour of men like St. Seraphim, the holy Optina elders, and many righteous hierarchs who tirelessly laboured with them toward that end.


"Heresy is rather the conscious rejection of Church doctrine not just in its external expression but also as to its essential meaning. It also I would say involves a conscious rejection after open admonition from members of the Church. In other words the bar for what constitutes heresy is very high- is not simply ignorance." Fr. Raphael

While the term "ignorance" might befit the laity, as describing their general level of spiritual and theological knowledge, it cannot, unfortunately, apply to a theologically trained priesthood; which would be comparatively far more knowledgable in the Counciliar decrees and canons of its Holy Mother Church.

In the Lord,
Theophilus

[Justin]

This is most interesting...

I would be interested to hear what some of the other forum participants have to say about this, as it seems very important (and unfortunate)?

[Eugene]

Dear friends,

Just a little historical overview. I dont remember reading any official or defenite rejection of Palamism by Russian Chusch hierarchs, but there was an elusive attitude predominant in the 19-sentury Russian Chursch against hesychasm and Palamism. Some peolple explian it by strong influence of Catholicism in Russian Orthodoxy. (Catholic church rejected Palamism and supported the views of Barlaam of Calabria before, although that position seem to change after the II Vatican Council. As a historical hint, Catholic influence penetrated through Kiev semianry - Bishop Peter Mogila used to sent seminarians to Catholic schools to study theology). Another factor was a general decline in Orthodox spiritual life in 17-19 sentury Russia. This attitude had radically changed at the end of 20th sentury which brought a revival of spiritual life and interest to Palamism and hesychasm in Russian Church. Russian hesychast saints such as St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Sergy of Radonezh, St. Nilus Sorsky, elders of Optina, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, St. Theophane the Recluse and others are now the most respected and beloved saints in the Russian Church. It was their continuing prayers and strong influence and contribution that overturn the negative attitude to Palamism. The efforts of Parisian theological school also contributrd to this revival.

In Christ,
Evgeny