That quote from Kokkinos is rather insightful. I think that this video was helpful from the quotes from the Palamite councils. I appreciate your time making the video.
Hey Irenaeus, love the videos. You have been a huge help to Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism, if you could, do you know where do you get all of St. Maximus’s works? I’ve been trying to find all of them, but it’s been quite a hassle. Thank you!
@hap1678, The works of Maximus are (unfortunately) not yet available in a complete volumes. Some of his works are easy to find online and others take some digging to locate a good English translation. Any specific title your looking for? Thanks for the comment. Irenaeus
@@MountAthosandAquinas Ah okay, too bad. I wasn’t looking for anything in specific but I have read a couple of St. Maximus works (like disputations with pyrrhus and others) i was looking for a book by him where he really goes into EED and Filioque. And please keep up the good work. My journey has been a huge help due to you and a couple others such as dwong and ofc many books!
There are a few statements by Maximus touching upon the Felioque conversation in his Ad Thelassium. Though, in my humble opinion, I don’t think they add much to the conversation substantively. In regards to the EED conversation, his Opusculas are chalked full. I would actually like to make a video focusing purely on Maximus idea of “energy” as he articulates it in his opusculas. It’s his clearest thinking in the matter in my opinion.
@@MountAthosandAquinas I wish Nyssa was made a Doctor of the Church, in part so we could have a married Doctor, but also because he's just such a profound writer. I've always found the Cappadocians interesting because it was literally two brothers and their best friend from uni. Their intercession in this regard is also really invaluable. Pray to St. Gregory of Nyssa for me!
Thanks all for checking out the video. Don’t like the video? Let’s talk about why. Leave your thoughts, and don’t forget to like and subscribe so you don’t miss the additional videos for EED series. -Irenaeus
Thanks, an Orthodox friend pointed me to key sources and where to find them. Online some of the sources I quoted are near impossible to find even with a quick google search.
Fantastic. Looking forward to watching through this. Also, on one of Ybarra's recent videos, you commented about St. Sophronius of Jerusalem inviting a Muslim to pray in a letter. Do you know where to find this letter (or where to look through his writings in general?) All I have been able to find by him is a discussion on a letter by him denying universalism.
Hey Shocky102, It’s been a while since I’ve gone down the hole of trying to find Saint Sophronius writings. I wish I could remember where I found it. I took a mental note of what was said but failed to remember the reference since it was tangential to why I was reading.
Hey Zachery, Norman Russels book titled “Gregory Palamas, the hesychast controversy and the debate with Islam” has the Synodal Tomos. He recently released a paperback version which is much more affordable on Amazon. -Irenaeus
@@MountAthosandAquinas thank you so much! While I'm at it do you know where I could find Kokkinos' orations and the 150 chapters of Palamas. I've been searching around and come up empty. Keep up what you do your content is amazing. Praying for you and this little ministry.
Thanks Zachery, I appreciate it. So I’m unsure about Kokkinos orations. A friend of mine gave the quotes that I had in my video. The 150 Caputas of Gregory can be found in the Philokalia. If you search for “Philokalia PDF” on google one should pop up. If you want to just read online the Philokalia can be found at this site: happy reading. orthodoxchurchfathers.com
Thanks, this was amazing. Can you please expound more on will, knowing, energy, person, maximian mode of existence, and conceptualization? This might be too long a list and distraction from your plans so apologies for an unreasonable request.
Hey ChottoChotto, I recommend my video titled “three modes of being” which touches upon Maximus the Confessors different tiers of being. In regards to the rest, (will, person, etc..) are you seeking formal definitions?
Your reading of Palmas turns on taking the different uses of energy as one and the same, and so you then make the pluralization dependent on creatures. Damascene, among others differentiates different meanings of energy. When spoken of as one, energy has the sense of dunamis or power, not activity. The plural activities are eternal though never diminished by creatures participation in them. Palamas makes this very point citing Damascene. Pino's bk, Essence and Energy: Being and Naming in St. Gregory Palamas, spells this out quite clearly with explicit texts from Contra Akindynos and On Essence and Energy.
I respectfully disagree with that reading. Diversification comes from limitation since differentiation is greater and lesser by degrees. Gods energy according to Dionysius is wholly one and most comprehended by the term “Goodness” itself. It’s more accurate to say the Fathers look at the Will as the dunamis of the one energy. Dionysius is clear that “thought will” is the principle of all Goodness. I’ve also carefully cited the council Tomos, and Kokkinos who clearly disagree with the position your putting forward. To me if your going to engage Palamas you have to do so with respect to the Tomos since his letters are clear he is in absolute harmony with them as being the councils that are over him.
Let’s not mention that Palamas himself makes no such distinction between different notions of energy. For he states that God is only contemplated in 3 ways: via Hypostasis, Essence, and Energy. No such thing as an additional notion of energy which is sometimes called activity. I believe Palamas is faithful to Maximus, Nyssa, and Damascenes definitions I’ve laid out.
I will also remind you that Maximus speaks of the diversification of the energies as in the creature. For in his Ambigua 7:19 he states clearly: “God is eternally an active creator, but creatures exist only in potential and then later in actuality.” And again in Ambigua 7:12 “(The saints) will have received the DIVINE ENERGY….so that there will be only ONE SOLE ENERGY, that of God and of those worthy of God: or rather, God alone, who in a manner worthy of his goodness wholly interpenetrates all who are worthy.” How can Maximus say there will only be “one sole” energy? Because Maximus is aware that diversification as Nyssa and Basil state is through conceptualization. So that the one who has gone “beyond every concept” and been raised to the super essential ray no longer knows God in Diversification but as a simple unified whole. For if the energies were diversified prior to the termination of the product then it’s no longer vis a vis concepts by which the diversification happens. But Maximus and Nyssa are clear that once we are raised beyond all concepts, we ourselves will become simple in the Eternal Glory that admits of no differences. Palamas agrees. “There is NO distinction THERE (in Goodness itself which is the all encompassing Energy) between life and wisdom and goodness and the like, for that goodness embraces all things collectively, unitively and in utter simplicity.” (34th Caputa) Nyssa has the most clear formulation in his Homily on the Song of Songs which I will withhold for the time being. But if need be, I’m ready to prove from him (the Father of fathers) that your reading is not his understanding.
@@MountAthosandAquinas Again, Palamas and Damascene distinguish different uses of energy, sometimes as power (dunamis) and sometimes as activity (and sometimes as product.) In the former sense they are one, in the latter sense they are many. As Palamas makes clear, knowing and willing in God qua activity are not the same activity, and that is true whether God creates or doesn't create. The diversification of a given activity relative to creatures is one issue. The diversification of God's activities from each other is another. Your account seems to conflate these two issues. I affirm the Tomos. I disagree with your interpretation of it. Again, have you read Pino's book or dissertation?
@@MountAthosandAquinas do you mean this " A sole creator has been declared by us , the trihypostatic Lord , the uncreated energy not being at all detrimental to unity , for the things made are attributed to the one who acts and not the activity . " i can't find it in oration 29 would you please help me to find it
Oh okay, the 25:50 moment was the quote form Nyssa so I thought you were referring to that. I found this quote in the Palamite Tomos. I checked into it and found that Gregory was mushed from two orations. I forget the other one, though the 29th was part of it.
No problem! I remember having the same dilemma with the quote and finding the rest elsewhere. I do affirm the thought of Gregory though even though it’s not word for word. Kindly let me know your thoughts when you finish the video. More coming in the next week or two. Irenaeus
This video shows a consistent teaching amongst CERTAIN Eastern fathers in regard to God's essence and energy, but it fails to identify its source, which is none other than the Neoplatonic metaphysics. Gregory of Nyssa absorbed the metaphysical doctrines of the Neoplatonists, as did the Pseudo Dionysius, and through the latter's influence especially these ideas were imparted to their successors (viz., Maximus, Damascene, Palamas). Your video showed little in the way of Biblical support for the doctrine, only patristic commentaries which made use of the Neoplatonic metaphysics as a way of speaking philosophically of the Gospel mysteries. The Palamite synods employed the same methodology that is used in this video, unquestioningly assuming that these fathers spoke in regard to these matters by the providential influence of the Holy Spirit, rather than by the influence of pagan metaphysics, and gave the stamp of dogmatic imprimatur to Neoplatonic speculations in regard to the Godhead. Now I don't have any problem per se if these Eastern fathers employed pagan metaphysics as a way trying to elucidate the gospel mysteries in a metaphysical framework (as did Augustine and Aquinas), SO LONG, that is, as this is acknoweldged to be the case, and that these borrowings from paganism should be wholly strained out whenever an ecclesiastical body sets about issuing dogmatic decrees - and this is the fatal error of the Palamite synods, which established Neoplatonic metaphysics as the basis for issuing dogmas in regard to the essence and energies (so called) of God, based upon a flawed understanding of Sacred Tradition, such that anyone questioning or rejecting this syncretic linkage between the Gospel and Neoplatonism should be subject to anathema. This video also failed to inform its viewership that these fathers did not always teach in conformity with the Palamite doctrine, for in Oration 28.17 Gregory Nazianzen speculates that perhaps the blessed in heaven will indeed come to know the nature and essence of God in the age to come, for he is aware in that passage that 1 Corinthians 13:12 does indeed seem to promise that the beatific vision will include the direct vision of God Himself (as Augustine, Popes Leo I + Gregory I, each surnamed "the Great", Aquinas, as well as the Papal Bull Benedictus Deus all teach), and not simply of the 'things around God', whatever that means. Moreover, Gregory of Nyssa argues in Against Eunomius 12.2 that 1 Timothy 6:16 'God dwells in unapproachable light' means the Father dwelling in the Son, in the same manner as John 14:10 - 'I am in the Father and the Father in me' - that is to say, they are one in essence, thus establishing that the glory He shared with the Father before the creation of the world (cf. John 17:5) was a glory or light of essence, and not of energy. He says moreover in his Reply to Eunomius' Second Book that the Son of God "is not the result of an energy, but is proved to be very God of very God the Father, without liability to be acted upon, beaming from Him and shining forth from everlasting," but according to Palamas "God is Light not according to His essence but according to His energy" (Against Akindynos PG 150 823A). Basil and Gregory of Nyssa speak of the Father and Son as Unbegotten Light and Begotten Light, which is an impossibility in the Palamite system, for only persons and natures beget, while energies do not beget. Thus the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. states that the Son is only begotten out of the essence of the Father Light out of Light, which is why Basil and his brother Gregory speak of Unbegotten and Begotten Light - that is, according to essence. Hence Basil declares in Letter 52 to the Canonicae that "since the Father is light without beginning, and the Son begotten light, but each of them light and light; they [i.e. the fathers of the Council of Nicea--ed.] rightly said of one essence (homoousian), in order to set forth the equal dignity of the nature", while Athanasius, commenting upon the Nicene Council and the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D., denounces the Arians in Chapter 24 for denying that the light that is in the Son is the same in essence as the Father (De Decretis 24), who also teaches in Discourse 3.65 Against the Arians that "brightness of glory" in Hebrews 1:3 refers to the brightness of the Father's own essence (hence glory = essence). Any efforts towards ecumenism should not proceed on the basis of unquestioning assumption that the post Palamite Eastern Orthodox Church teaches entirely in conformity with the fathers and the ecumenical councils. The Orthodox are very proud and arrogant about pointing out the thorn that is in their Roman Catholic brother's eye, while failing to perceive the beam that is in their own eye.
Thomas, I appreciate the thoughtful comment. You may not know, but this video is a first part of a four part series. Much of your issues I am sympathetic towards. The goal of this video was simply historical in nature. It was to show that Palamas maintained the verbiage of the Eastern Patrimony. I also did a video on the Transfiguration. If you don’t know, I also make a video showing that Aquinas faithfully maintained the Western Patrimony. Lastly, I made a video that seeks to harmonize both. I suggest checking them out if you have not. Would like to hear final thoughts. Peace -Irenaeus
@@MountAthosandAquinas I became interested in this subject some years back while writing a work on the Trinity, and actually began writing on it as a specific subject of inquiry a few years back, and then allowed it to go fallow, until I found a RUclips video on the subject two years ago and addressed some comments to it, and was thereafter engaged by a Greek Orthodox interlocutor who exhibited all of the qualities of a rigid dogmatist in defending his Church's teaching with regard to God's essence and energies (so called), exhibiting the typical Eastern Orthodox arrogance and pride as being keepers of the pure gospel, even in the face of overwhleming evidence that the Eastern fathers leavened their teaching with pagan metaphysics, while hurling accusations at Augustine and Aquinas as diluting or perverting the faith. Palamas for his own part wrote scathingly in regard to the Filioque, while disobeying his ecclesiastical superiors and agitating the essence-energies question to the point that he and his followers strong armed the Eastern Church into dogmatizing on a matter that ought properly to have remained in the realm of theologoumenon, given the variety of opinions on the matter. After hashing it out with this character for several months, who did not even have the decency of admitting that any Eastern father ever wrote contrary to the Palamite doctrine with respect to the ontological status of the divine light, even when confronted with specific texts, in the worst case refusing to admit that Gregory Nazianzen actually wrote in Oration 28.17 that in his opinion, the blessed will come to know the essence and nature of God in the age to come, in satisfaction of 1 Corinthians 13:12 (he would admit the existence of sentences before and after that which I cited, but not the actual sentence in question), I decided I was going to resolve this matter once and for all (to my satisfaction at least) by going through every available patristic text I could gain access to in order to see what the fathers as a whole had to say about the ontological status of the divine light, with the intent of publishing the results of my work, and after having gone through the writings of 150 patristic authors so far, it is very clear to me that Palamas does not have a great deal of support for his teaching regarding the ontological status of the divine light - especially at the level of Godhead (concerning what comes down to us, opinions vary - be it energy, or the light being tempered - the Biblical teaching appearing to be that it is seen through a mirror darkly or through the veil of the flesh in this life, but in the age to come is seen as it is, face to face , the two objections to this interpretation
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Back to your old tricks, Graikos? I cited numerous passages above where the Eastern fathers identify the Divine Light of Godhead or His glory with His essence. Your stubborn refusal to accept their words does not mean that they did not teach these things. Let us demonstrate the invalidity of your objection. Where in the Bible does it say that God is a Trinity? Answer: Nowhere. Nevertheless, it is indeed taught in Sacred Scripture that God is a Trinity, and those who deny the teaching are deemed by the Church to be heretics because they deny that the Bible teaches that God exists as a Trinity, even though this exact phrase is nowhere to be found within the Biblical text. On the same principle, your verbal sleight of hand which denies that the Eastern fathers taught that the Divine Light of Godhead is synonymous with the Divine Essence inasmuch as they never use the explicit phrase "doxa equals ousia" has no more validity than the Arian denial of the Trinity. It is enough that they teach it, even if they do not utter the exact phrase you employ for the purpose of denying their clear teaching. Examples of this clear teaching: Hippolytus: He begot the Word; and as He bears this Word in Himself, and that, too, as (yet) invisible to the world which is created, He makes Him visible; (and) uttering the voice first, and begetting Him as Light of Light, He set Him forth to the world as its Lord, (and) His own mind… (Against Noetus, Ch 10) [Essence begets essence - Light begets Light - therefore Light = Essence.] Hippolytus: The beloved generates love, and the light immaterial the light inaccessible....This is He who is named the son of Joseph, and (who is) according to the divine essence my Only-begotten. (Hippolytus, Discourse On the Holy Theophany) [Father generates Son, Light generates Light, who is generated (only begotten) according to essence. Therefore Light = essence.] Origen of Alexandria: [the Son] is the brightness and express image of the divine nature (ὅτι τῆς θείας φύσεως «ἀπαύγασμα» καὶ «χαρακτήρ») (Against Celsus, 7.17) [Glory (Heb 1:3) = the Divine Nature (τῆς θείας φύσεω).] Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria: Or how is (the Son) unlike to the essence of the Father, who is the perfect image and brightness of the Father, and who says, “He that has seen Me has seen the Father?” John 14:9 (Catholic Epistle, Ch 3) [The Son being the brightness of the Father's glory indicates that He has the same essence as the Father.] Marcus Diadochus: After all, this is what our surmising desires, to bring forth the begotten brightness of the glory of the unbegotten light. What lack of wholeness is there in that super-bright and begotten brightness of the blessed glory? How again according to the Apostle was the Son a special outpouring of the brightness of the glory, what principle of essence did He have? How but if it were not for God to determine all possible reasonings, who knows the heart and kidneys, when it concerns the nature of God? But why is it not manifest, that He is the eternal brightness of light? And how do they dare to say that true light is not the nature of God? For as the true God, that is, the Father, is light, He must be true; so also the true light, that is, the Son, must be the true God. (Homily Against the Arians, 2) [True Light = the nature of God; brightness of glory is the principle of God's essence.] Gregory Nazianzen: Three in Individualities or Hypostases, if any prefer so to call them, or persons, for we will not quarrel about names so long as the syllables amount to the same meaning; but One in respect of the Essence - that is, the Godhead. (Oration 39.11) [Essence = Godhead] Light was That Godhead Which was shown upon the Mount to the disciples-and a little too strong for their eyes… (Oration 40.6) [Godhead = Light.] Let us lay hold of the Godhead; let us lay hold of the First and Brightest Light. (Oration 40.37) [Godhead = Light; Essence = Godhead; therefore Essence = Godhead = Light = Essence.] John Chrysostom: But the very thing which he said, "the brightness of the glory," hear also Christ Himself saying, "I am the Light of the world" (John viii. 12.) Therefore he [the Apostle] uses the word "brightness" showing that this was said in the sense of "Light out of Light (ὡς φῶς ἐκ φωτός)". Nor is it this alone which he shows, but through the brightness indicates the equality of the essence, and the nearness to the Father. Observe the subtlety of his expressions. He hath taken one essence and hypostasis to indicate two hypostases. (Homilies On the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2.2) [The one essence is the Light and the 2 hypostases are the Father and the Son.] Didymus the Blind: …the Lord [is]...a life-giving and eternal light shining together and consubstantially (homoousian) out of the paternal light… (On the Trinity, 3.3) [A homoousian Light is an Essential Light, not an energetic light as in the Palamite conception.] Cyril of Alexandria: Not therefore identical with believers is the Son, but He is established in the Essence of the Father, existing as True Light out of True Light. (Commentary On John, 1.7) [If the hyparxis of the Son is as True Light, and the hyparxis of the Father is as True Light, and the Son is established in the essence of the Father, He must be established in the essence of the Father in accordance with His hyparxis, which is as True Light. Hence the hyparxes of the Father and Son as True Light are one and the same as their essence, and therefore their essence must be the True Light.] [Pseudo(?)] Methodius: Hail, and shine Jerusalem, for your light has come, the Light Eternal, the Light for ever enduring, the Light Supreme, the Light Immaterial, the Light of one essence (homoousian) with God and the Father (Φως το ομοουσίαν του Θεού και Πατρός). (Oration On Simeon and Anna, Ch 13) [A homoousian Light is an Essential Light.] The pre Pseudo Dionysian (i.e. pre 520 A.D.) Eastern fathers clearly teach that the Divine Light of Godhead (not what comes down to us) is synonymous with the Divine Essence and not with the divine energy, as in the Neoplatonic Pseudo Dionysian-Palamite teaching, which is dogmatized in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, and which is at variance with the teaching of the Greek and Latin Fathers and with the Creed of Nicea, which teaches that the Son is begotten out of the essence of the Father Light out of Light, and being begotten Light out of Light is of the same essence (homousian) with the Father. Your objection that the Eastern fathers cited above do not expressly state "doxa is ousia" has no more validity than the Arian denial that the phrase "God is a Trinity" is nowhere explicitly stated in the Bible. In both cases, it is enough that the doctrines are clearly taught by the cited authorities, and persistence in denial is evidence of a willfully unbelieving mindset. You may wish to read a work composed by the Greek scholar John A. Demetracopoulos, Professor of Medieval Philosophy and Theology at the University of Patras in Greece, which appeared in the Journal of Theology known as Bibliotheca 11 - Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History, 1204-1500, pp. 263 - 372, titled "PALAMAS TRANSFORMED. PALAMITE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN GOD’S ‘ESSENCE’ AND‘ENERGIES’ IN LATE BYZANTIUM" (afkimel.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/palamas_transformed_demetracopoulos.pdf). His research indicates that Palamas misunderstood Basil's teaching in regard to the Divine Names (epinoia), and incorrectly inferred from Basil that he was speaking of a real rather than a conceptual distinction in God between essence and attributes/energies, and that Palamas' subsequent defenders in the Greek Church modified his doctrine and returned it to the earlier patristic concept of a conceptual (rather than a real) distinction in God between essence and attributes/energies. Demetracopoulas further demonstrates that at a still later date, a number of defenders of the teachings of Gregory Palamas within the Greek Church came under the influence of the writings of Thomas Aquinas, and understanding Aquinas to be an authoritative voice in the field of Christian theology, they made use of Aquinas' conceptual apparatus to further modify the Palamite teachings and to mitigate Palamas' notion of a real distinction existing between the essence and the energy in God, such that they acknowledged the outward form of Palamas' teaching while interpreting it along Thomistic lines, thereby substantively and implicitly affirming the teaching of the Latin doctors while formally and explicitly proclaiming fealty to the Palamite doctrine, whose own teaching of a real distinction in God between uncreated essence and uncreated energy they themselves could not endorse, except by doing away with it and by declaring the distinction to be merely formal, along the lines of Basil and Aquinas, and asserting that Palamas himself understood the distinction to be conceptual and not real, even though his own writings witness to the fact that Palamas understood the distinction to be real and not merely conceptual, which initiated the theological brouhaha between Latins and Greeks in the first place. In Demetracopoulas' scholarly article you (i.e. Graikos) will see that so many of Palamas' defenders in the Greek Church made use of the writings of Thomas Aquinas' in trying to defend Palamas' teachings by modifying them along Thomistic lines that the idea frequently expressed by you that there is no such thing as Palamism in the Greek Church, inasmuch as (in your opinion) Gregory Palamas taught the faith once handed down by Christ and the Apostles to the Eastern Christian fathers is exposed for the fallacy that it is.
If you think modern ecuminism is enough to disprove a Church, you might want to look into who was present at the inter-religious meeting of Assisi, and also anything Patriarch Bartholomew has done in the past years
![NLE Choppa - Or What ft. 41 (Orchestra Mix) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/biOFASEgSOM/mqdefault.jpg)
That quote from Kokkinos is rather insightful. I think that this video was helpful from the quotes from the Palamite councils. I appreciate your time making the video.
Hey Irenaeus, love the videos. You have been a huge help to Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism, if you could, do you know where do you get all of St. Maximus’s works? I’ve been trying to find all of them, but it’s been quite a hassle. Thank you!
@hap1678,
The works of Maximus are (unfortunately) not yet available in a complete volumes. Some of his works are easy to find online and others take some digging to locate a good English translation. Any specific title your looking for? Thanks for the comment.
Irenaeus
@@MountAthosandAquinas Ah okay, too bad. I wasn’t looking for anything in specific but I have read a couple of St. Maximus works (like disputations with pyrrhus and others) i was looking for a book by him where he really goes into EED and Filioque. And please keep up the good work. My journey has been a huge help due to you and a couple others such as dwong and ofc many books!
There are a few statements by Maximus touching upon the Felioque conversation in his Ad Thelassium. Though, in my humble opinion, I don’t think they add much to the conversation substantively.
In regards to the EED conversation, his Opusculas are chalked full. I would actually like to make a video focusing purely on Maximus idea of “energy” as he articulates it in his opusculas. It’s his clearest thinking in the matter in my opinion.
I'm glad you brought up St. Gregory of Nyssa's homilies on Song of Solomon, they're a hidden gem. Good taste.
Yes they are! One of my favorite mystical writings from the Fathers.
@@MountAthosandAquinas I wish Nyssa was made a Doctor of the Church, in part so we could have a married Doctor, but also because he's just such a profound writer.
I've always found the Cappadocians interesting because it was literally two brothers and their best friend from uni. Their intercession in this regard is also really invaluable.
Pray to St. Gregory of Nyssa for me!
@@neoplatonicrelationship very profound writer! His mystical writings are, like you said, a hidden gem. Gregory of Nyssa, PRAY FOR US!
Thanks all for checking out the video. Don’t like the video? Let’s talk about why. Leave your thoughts, and don’t forget to like and subscribe so you don’t miss the additional videos for EED series.
-Irenaeus
enjoyed the video, maybe the most comprehensive i’ve seen on the topic.
Just wondering in what ways your Orthodox friend benefited you in this process
Thanks, an Orthodox friend pointed me to key sources and where to find them. Online some of the sources I quoted are near impossible to find even with a quick google search.
Fantastic. Looking forward to watching through this.
Also, on one of Ybarra's recent videos, you commented about St. Sophronius of Jerusalem inviting a Muslim to pray in a letter. Do you know where to find this letter (or where to look through his writings in general?) All I have been able to find by him is a discussion on a letter by him denying universalism.
Hey Shocky102,
It’s been a while since I’ve gone down the hole of trying to find Saint Sophronius writings. I wish I could remember where I found it. I took a mental note of what was said but failed to remember the reference since it was tangential to why I was reading.
I believe this is a muslim legend. I'm not sure it's even happenned.
Do you know where I can find the synodal tomos? It was really interesting I would love to read more about it.
Hey Zachery,
Norman Russels book titled “Gregory Palamas, the hesychast controversy and the debate with Islam” has the Synodal Tomos. He recently released a paperback version which is much more affordable on Amazon.
-Irenaeus
@@MountAthosandAquinas thank you so much! While I'm at it do you know where I could find Kokkinos' orations and the 150 chapters of Palamas. I've been searching around and come up empty. Keep up what you do your content is amazing. Praying for you and this little ministry.
Thanks Zachery, I appreciate it.
So I’m unsure about Kokkinos orations. A friend of mine gave the quotes that I had in my video.
The 150 Caputas of Gregory can be found in the Philokalia. If you search for “Philokalia PDF” on google one should pop up. If you want to just read online the Philokalia can be found at this site: happy reading.
orthodoxchurchfathers.com
Thanks, this was amazing. Can you please expound more on will, knowing, energy, person, maximian mode of existence, and conceptualization? This might be too long a list and distraction from your plans so apologies for an unreasonable request.
Hey ChottoChotto,
I recommend my video titled “three modes of being” which touches upon Maximus the Confessors different tiers of being.
In regards to the rest, (will, person, etc..) are you seeking formal definitions?
👍🏻
Your reading of Palmas turns on taking the different uses of energy as one and the same, and so you then make the pluralization dependent on creatures. Damascene, among others differentiates different meanings of energy. When spoken of as one, energy has the sense of dunamis or power, not activity. The plural activities are eternal though never diminished by creatures participation in them. Palamas makes this very point citing Damascene. Pino's bk, Essence and Energy: Being and Naming in St. Gregory Palamas, spells this out quite clearly with explicit texts from Contra Akindynos and On Essence and Energy.
I respectfully disagree with that reading. Diversification comes from limitation since differentiation is greater and lesser by degrees. Gods energy according to Dionysius is wholly one and most comprehended by the term “Goodness” itself. It’s more accurate to say the Fathers look at the Will as the dunamis of the one energy. Dionysius is clear that “thought will” is the principle of all Goodness. I’ve also carefully cited the council Tomos, and Kokkinos who clearly disagree with the position your putting forward. To me if your going to engage Palamas you have to do so with respect to the Tomos since his letters are clear he is in absolute harmony with them as being the councils that are over him.
Let’s not mention that Palamas himself makes no such distinction between different notions of energy. For he states that God is only contemplated in 3 ways: via Hypostasis, Essence, and Energy. No such thing as an additional notion of energy which is sometimes called activity. I believe Palamas is faithful to Maximus, Nyssa, and Damascenes definitions I’ve laid out.
I will also remind you that Maximus speaks of the diversification of the energies as in the creature. For in his Ambigua 7:19 he states clearly:
“God is eternally an active creator, but creatures exist only in potential and then later in actuality.”
And again in Ambigua 7:12
“(The saints) will have received the DIVINE ENERGY….so that there will be only ONE SOLE ENERGY, that of God and of those worthy of God: or rather, God alone, who in a manner worthy of his goodness wholly interpenetrates all who are worthy.”
How can Maximus say there will only be “one sole” energy? Because Maximus is aware that diversification as Nyssa and Basil state is through conceptualization. So that the one who has gone “beyond every concept” and been raised to the super essential ray no longer knows God in Diversification but as a simple unified whole. For if the energies were diversified prior to the termination of the product then it’s no longer vis a vis concepts by which the diversification happens. But Maximus and Nyssa are clear that once we are raised beyond all concepts, we ourselves will become simple in the Eternal Glory that admits of no differences. Palamas agrees.
“There is NO distinction THERE (in Goodness itself which is the all encompassing Energy) between life and wisdom and goodness and the like, for that goodness embraces all things collectively, unitively and in utter simplicity.” (34th Caputa)
Nyssa has the most clear formulation in his Homily on the Song of Songs which I will withhold for the time being. But if need be, I’m ready to prove from him (the Father of fathers) that your reading is not his understanding.
@@MountAthosandAquinas Again, Palamas and Damascene distinguish different uses of energy, sometimes as power (dunamis) and sometimes as activity (and sometimes as product.) In the former sense they are one, in the latter sense they are many. As Palamas makes clear, knowing and willing in God qua activity are not the same activity, and that is true whether God creates or doesn't create. The diversification of a given activity relative to creatures is one issue. The diversification of God's activities from each other is another. Your account seems to conflate these two issues.
I affirm the Tomos. I disagree with your interpretation of it.
Again, have you read Pino's book or dissertation?
@@MountAthosandAquinas Uhm, he does so I believe in Contra Akindynos or On Essence and Energy as Pino shows. He directly cite Damascene's discussion.
i can't find the quotation of gregory at 25:50
Whoops, didn’t notice that I forgot to cite it all the way. It’s Nyssas 6th homily on the Song of Songs.
@@MountAthosandAquinas do you mean this " A sole creator has been declared by us , the trihypostatic Lord , the uncreated energy not being at all detrimental to unity , for the things made are attributed to the one who acts and not the activity . " i can't find it in oration 29
would you please help me to find it
Oh okay, the 25:50 moment was the quote form Nyssa so I thought you were referring to that. I found this quote in the Palamite Tomos. I checked into it and found that Gregory was mushed from two orations. I forget the other one, though the 29th was part of it.
@@MountAthosandAquinas oh i see, thank you so much
No problem! I remember having the same dilemma with the quote and finding the rest elsewhere. I do affirm the thought of Gregory though even though it’s not word for word. Kindly let me know your thoughts when you finish the video. More coming in the next week or two.
Irenaeus
1:01:30 "Energy is the motion of the essence."
This video shows a consistent teaching amongst CERTAIN Eastern fathers in regard to God's essence and energy, but it fails to identify its source, which is none other than the Neoplatonic metaphysics. Gregory of Nyssa absorbed the metaphysical doctrines of the Neoplatonists, as did the Pseudo Dionysius, and through the latter's influence especially these ideas were imparted to their successors (viz., Maximus, Damascene, Palamas). Your video showed little in the way of Biblical support for the doctrine, only patristic commentaries which made use of the Neoplatonic metaphysics as a way of speaking philosophically of the Gospel mysteries. The Palamite synods employed the same methodology that is used in this video, unquestioningly assuming that these fathers spoke in regard to these matters by the providential influence of the Holy Spirit, rather than by the influence of pagan metaphysics, and gave the stamp of dogmatic imprimatur to Neoplatonic speculations in regard to the Godhead. Now I don't have any problem per se if these Eastern fathers employed pagan metaphysics as a way trying to elucidate the gospel mysteries in a metaphysical framework (as did Augustine and Aquinas), SO LONG, that is, as this is acknoweldged to be the case, and that these borrowings from paganism should be wholly strained out whenever an ecclesiastical body sets about issuing dogmatic decrees - and this is the fatal error of the Palamite synods, which established Neoplatonic metaphysics as the basis for issuing dogmas in regard to the essence and energies (so called) of God, based upon a flawed understanding of Sacred Tradition, such that anyone questioning or rejecting this syncretic linkage between the Gospel and Neoplatonism should be subject to anathema.
This video also failed to inform its viewership that these fathers did not always teach in conformity with the Palamite doctrine, for in Oration 28.17 Gregory Nazianzen speculates that perhaps the blessed in heaven will indeed come to know the nature and essence of God in the age to come, for he is aware in that passage that 1 Corinthians 13:12 does indeed seem to promise that the beatific vision will include the direct vision of God Himself (as Augustine, Popes Leo I + Gregory I, each surnamed "the Great", Aquinas, as well as the Papal Bull Benedictus Deus all teach), and not simply of the 'things around God', whatever that means. Moreover, Gregory of Nyssa argues in Against Eunomius 12.2 that 1 Timothy 6:16 'God dwells in unapproachable light' means the Father dwelling in the Son, in the same manner as John 14:10 - 'I am in the Father and the Father in me' - that is to say, they are one in essence, thus establishing that the glory He shared with the Father before the creation of the world (cf. John 17:5) was a glory or light of essence, and not of energy. He says moreover in his Reply to Eunomius' Second Book that the Son of God "is not the result of an energy, but is proved to be very God of very God the Father, without liability to be acted upon, beaming from Him and shining forth from everlasting," but according to Palamas "God is Light not according to His essence but according to His energy" (Against Akindynos PG 150 823A). Basil and Gregory of Nyssa speak of the Father and Son as Unbegotten Light and Begotten Light, which is an impossibility in the Palamite system, for only persons and natures beget, while energies do not beget. Thus the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. states that the Son is only begotten out of the essence of the Father Light out of Light, which is why Basil and his brother Gregory speak of Unbegotten and Begotten Light - that is, according to essence. Hence Basil declares in Letter 52 to the Canonicae that "since the Father is light without beginning, and the Son begotten light, but each of them light and light; they [i.e. the fathers of the Council of Nicea--ed.] rightly said of one essence (homoousian), in order to set forth the equal dignity of the nature", while Athanasius, commenting upon the Nicene Council and the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D., denounces the Arians in Chapter 24 for denying that the light that is in the Son is the same in essence as the Father (De Decretis 24), who also teaches in Discourse 3.65 Against the Arians that "brightness of glory" in Hebrews 1:3 refers to the brightness of the Father's own essence (hence glory = essence).
Any efforts towards ecumenism should not proceed on the basis of unquestioning assumption that the post Palamite Eastern Orthodox Church teaches entirely in conformity with the fathers and the ecumenical councils. The Orthodox are very proud and arrogant about pointing out the thorn that is in their Roman Catholic brother's eye, while failing to perceive the beam that is in their own eye.
Thomas,
I appreciate the thoughtful comment. You may not know, but this video is a first part of a four part series. Much of your issues I am sympathetic towards. The goal of this video was simply historical in nature. It was to show that Palamas maintained the verbiage of the Eastern Patrimony. I also did a video on the Transfiguration. If you don’t know, I also make a video showing that Aquinas faithfully maintained the Western Patrimony. Lastly, I made a video that seeks to harmonize both. I suggest checking them out if you have not. Would like to hear final thoughts.
Peace
-Irenaeus
@@MountAthosandAquinas I became interested in this subject some years back while writing a work on the Trinity, and actually began writing on it as a specific subject of inquiry a few years back, and then allowed it to go fallow, until I found a RUclips video on the subject two years ago and addressed some comments to it, and was thereafter engaged by a Greek Orthodox interlocutor who exhibited all of the qualities of a rigid dogmatist in defending his Church's teaching with regard to God's essence and energies (so called), exhibiting the typical Eastern Orthodox arrogance and pride as being keepers of the pure gospel, even in the face of overwhleming evidence that the Eastern fathers leavened their teaching with pagan metaphysics, while hurling accusations at Augustine and Aquinas as diluting or perverting the faith. Palamas for his own part wrote scathingly in regard to the Filioque, while disobeying his ecclesiastical superiors and agitating the essence-energies question to the point that he and his followers strong armed the Eastern Church into dogmatizing on a matter that ought properly to have remained in the realm of theologoumenon, given the variety of opinions on the matter.
After hashing it out with this character for several months, who did not even have the decency of admitting that any Eastern father ever wrote contrary to the Palamite doctrine with respect to the ontological status of the divine light, even when confronted with specific texts, in the worst case refusing to admit that Gregory Nazianzen actually wrote in Oration 28.17 that in his opinion, the blessed will come to know the essence and nature of God in the age to come, in satisfaction of 1 Corinthians 13:12 (he would admit the existence of sentences before and after that which I cited, but not the actual sentence in question), I decided I was going to resolve this matter once and for all (to my satisfaction at least) by going through every available patristic text I could gain access to in order to see what the fathers as a whole had to say about the ontological status of the divine light, with the intent of publishing the results of my work, and after having gone through the writings of 150 patristic authors so far, it is very clear to me that Palamas does not have a great deal of support for his teaching regarding the ontological status of the divine light - especially at the level of Godhead (concerning what comes down to us, opinions vary - be it energy, or the light being tempered - the Biblical teaching appearing to be that it is seen through a mirror darkly or through the veil of the flesh in this life, but in the age to come is seen as it is, face to face , the two objections to this interpretation
@@thomaspalmieri6038 which greek speaking saint father
ever say the Glory Δόξα οf God is his essence ?
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Back to your old tricks, Graikos? I cited numerous passages above where the Eastern fathers identify the Divine Light of Godhead or His glory with His essence. Your stubborn refusal to accept their words does not mean that they did not teach these things.
Let us demonstrate the invalidity of your objection. Where in the Bible does it say that God is a Trinity? Answer: Nowhere. Nevertheless, it is indeed taught in Sacred Scripture that God is a Trinity, and those who deny the teaching are deemed by the Church to be heretics because they deny that the Bible teaches that God exists as a Trinity, even though this exact phrase is nowhere to be found within the Biblical text.
On the same principle, your verbal sleight of hand which denies that the Eastern fathers taught that the Divine Light of Godhead is synonymous with the Divine Essence inasmuch as they never use the explicit phrase "doxa equals ousia" has no more validity than the Arian denial of the Trinity. It is enough that they teach it, even if they do not utter the exact phrase you employ for the purpose of denying their clear teaching.
Examples of this clear teaching:
Hippolytus: He begot the Word; and as He bears this Word in Himself, and that, too, as (yet) invisible to the world which is created, He makes Him visible; (and) uttering the voice first, and begetting Him as Light of Light, He set Him forth to the world as its Lord, (and) His own mind… (Against Noetus, Ch 10) [Essence begets essence - Light begets Light - therefore Light = Essence.]
Hippolytus: The beloved generates love, and the light immaterial the light inaccessible....This is He who is named the son of Joseph, and (who is) according to the divine essence my Only-begotten. (Hippolytus, Discourse On the Holy Theophany) [Father generates Son, Light generates Light, who is generated (only begotten) according to essence. Therefore Light = essence.]
Origen of Alexandria: [the Son] is the brightness and express image of the divine nature (ὅτι τῆς θείας φύσεως «ἀπαύγασμα» καὶ «χαρακτήρ») (Against Celsus, 7.17) [Glory (Heb 1:3) = the Divine Nature (τῆς θείας φύσεω).]
Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria: Or how is (the Son) unlike to the essence of the Father, who is the perfect image and brightness of the Father, and who says, “He that has seen Me has seen the Father?” John 14:9 (Catholic Epistle, Ch 3) [The Son being the brightness of the Father's glory indicates that He has the same essence as the Father.]
Marcus Diadochus: After all, this is what our surmising desires, to bring forth the begotten brightness of the glory of the unbegotten light. What lack of wholeness is there in that super-bright and begotten brightness of the blessed glory? How again according to the Apostle was the Son a special outpouring of the brightness of the glory, what principle of essence did He have? How but if it were not for God to determine all possible reasonings, who knows the heart and kidneys, when it concerns the nature of God? But why is it not manifest, that He is the eternal brightness of light? And how do they dare to say that true light is not the nature of God? For as the true God, that is, the Father, is light, He must be true; so also the true light, that is, the Son, must be the true God. (Homily Against the Arians, 2) [True Light = the nature of God; brightness of glory is the principle of God's essence.]
Gregory Nazianzen: Three in Individualities or Hypostases, if any prefer so to call them, or persons, for we will not quarrel about names so long as the syllables amount to the same meaning; but One in respect of the Essence - that is, the Godhead. (Oration 39.11) [Essence = Godhead]
Light was That Godhead Which was shown upon the Mount to the disciples-and a little too strong for their eyes… (Oration 40.6) [Godhead = Light.]
Let us lay hold of the Godhead; let us lay hold of the First and Brightest Light.
(Oration 40.37) [Godhead = Light; Essence = Godhead; therefore Essence = Godhead = Light = Essence.]
John Chrysostom: But the very thing which he said, "the brightness of the glory," hear also Christ Himself saying, "I am the Light of the world" (John viii. 12.) Therefore he [the Apostle] uses the word "brightness" showing that this was said in the sense of "Light out of Light (ὡς φῶς ἐκ φωτός)". Nor is it this alone which he shows, but through the brightness indicates the equality of the essence, and the nearness to the Father. Observe the subtlety of his expressions. He hath taken one essence and hypostasis to indicate two hypostases. (Homilies On the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2.2) [The one essence is the Light and the 2 hypostases are the Father and the Son.]
Didymus the Blind: …the Lord [is]...a life-giving and eternal light shining together and consubstantially (homoousian) out of the paternal light… (On the Trinity, 3.3) [A homoousian Light is an Essential Light, not an energetic light as in the Palamite conception.]
Cyril of Alexandria: Not therefore identical with believers is the Son, but He is established in the Essence of the Father, existing as True Light out of True Light. (Commentary On John, 1.7) [If the hyparxis of the Son is as True Light, and the hyparxis of the Father is as True Light, and the Son is established in the essence of the Father, He must be established in the essence of the Father in accordance with His hyparxis, which is as True Light. Hence the hyparxes of the Father and Son as True Light are one and the same as their essence, and therefore their essence must be the True Light.]
[Pseudo(?)] Methodius: Hail, and shine Jerusalem, for your light has come, the Light Eternal, the Light for ever enduring, the Light Supreme, the Light Immaterial, the Light of one essence (homoousian) with God and the Father (Φως το ομοουσίαν του Θεού και Πατρός). (Oration On Simeon and Anna, Ch 13) [A homoousian Light is an Essential Light.]
The pre Pseudo Dionysian (i.e. pre 520 A.D.) Eastern fathers clearly teach that the Divine Light of Godhead (not what comes down to us) is synonymous with the Divine Essence and not with the divine energy, as in the Neoplatonic Pseudo Dionysian-Palamite teaching, which is dogmatized in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, and which is at variance with the teaching of the Greek and Latin Fathers and with the Creed of Nicea, which teaches that the Son is begotten out of the essence of the Father Light out of Light, and being begotten Light out of Light is of the same essence (homousian) with the Father.
Your objection that the Eastern fathers cited above do not expressly state "doxa is ousia" has no more validity than the Arian denial that the phrase "God is a Trinity" is nowhere explicitly stated in the Bible. In both cases, it is enough that the doctrines are clearly taught by the cited authorities, and persistence in denial is evidence of a willfully unbelieving mindset.
You may wish to read a work composed by the Greek scholar John A. Demetracopoulos, Professor of Medieval Philosophy and Theology at the University of Patras in Greece, which appeared in the Journal of Theology known as Bibliotheca 11 - Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History, 1204-1500, pp. 263 - 372, titled "PALAMAS TRANSFORMED. PALAMITE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN GOD’S ‘ESSENCE’ AND‘ENERGIES’ IN LATE BYZANTIUM" (afkimel.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/palamas_transformed_demetracopoulos.pdf). His research indicates that Palamas misunderstood Basil's teaching in regard to the Divine Names (epinoia), and incorrectly inferred from Basil that he was speaking of a real rather than a conceptual distinction in God between essence and attributes/energies, and that Palamas' subsequent defenders in the Greek Church modified his doctrine and returned it to the earlier patristic concept of a conceptual (rather than a real) distinction in God between essence and attributes/energies. Demetracopoulas further demonstrates that at a still later date, a number of defenders of the teachings of Gregory Palamas within the Greek Church came under the influence of the writings of Thomas Aquinas, and understanding Aquinas to be an authoritative voice in the field of Christian theology, they made use of Aquinas' conceptual apparatus to further modify the Palamite teachings and to mitigate Palamas' notion of a real distinction existing between the essence and the energy in God, such that they acknowledged the outward form of Palamas' teaching while interpreting it along Thomistic lines, thereby substantively and implicitly affirming the teaching of the Latin doctors while formally and explicitly proclaiming fealty to the Palamite doctrine, whose own teaching of a real distinction in God between uncreated essence and uncreated energy they themselves could not endorse, except by doing away with it and by declaring the distinction to be merely formal, along the lines of Basil and Aquinas, and asserting that Palamas himself understood the distinction to be conceptual and not real, even though his own writings witness to the fact that Palamas understood the distinction to be real and not merely conceptual, which initiated the theological brouhaha between Latins and Greeks in the first place.
In Demetracopoulas' scholarly article you (i.e. Graikos) will see that so many of Palamas' defenders in the Greek Church made use of the writings of Thomas Aquinas' in trying to defend Palamas' teachings by modifying them along Thomistic lines that the idea frequently expressed by you that there is no such thing as Palamism in the Greek Church, inasmuch as (in your opinion) Gregory Palamas taught the faith once handed down by Christ and the Apostles to the Eastern Christian fathers is exposed for the fallacy that it is.
@@thomaspalmieri6038 no greek father says Δόξα as essence in no greek language text.
Remember guys ecumenism will always lead you to the grave. Only Orthodoxy grants you life
If you think modern ecuminism is enough to disprove a Church, you might want to look into who was present at the inter-religious meeting of Assisi, and also anything Patriarch Bartholomew has done in the past years
@@giacomofilosofia he didn't say that though, he said ecumenism leads to the grave; bishops especially, if I might add ;)
@@FirstActuality The comment above implied that I agree it does. It does lead to the grave and bishops will have to respond for it before God one day
you are right false ecuminism will but intellegent discussion over theological differences won't doom you
what a waste of tine.
what makes you say that? it seems to me your are just being rude