So by “intuitive vision,” Benedict XII meant that we will perceive God like the angels do, by unmediated intellectual apprehension of His Essence. (This would fit with the Lord’s words about how the guardian angels of “little ones… see the face of My Father in heaven.”) It’s overwhelming to truly consider what this means, but next to it every other view of heaven suddenly seems shabby.
Palamas called the Papacy “anti-Christ” in his writings and yet he and his teachings are venerated, celebrated, and believed every second Sunday during Lent amongst eastern Catholics. but muh nuance amirite.
@@konstantintheodosius8685 you don’t know how your church works. Besides the point that you’re wrong on the statistics, even if it was just one person venerating Palamas, that one person is the Pope, and because Palamas is canonically and authoritatively established as a saint, it’s not for you to decide what’s right or wrong against your own papacy.
I know I am way late but just found your channel and really love the content. Just to clarify, I personally love the Jesus Prayer. I understand that has a Palamite connection. In your view, would it be heretical to sit down and say "Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner", even if I did not hold the Palamite views? Surely the EO don't have a monopoly on those words, seeing as how fundamental and beautiful they are.
You should be fine. The Jesus Prayer is rooted in the Scriptures, was first commonly recited in about the 4th century, and the same can be said for the Prayer Rope.
How is possible than a Christian can believe that there's a scission in God? An ontological difference between himself essence, and his spirit, how powers ? The gospel, the first Christians and the Pathristic fathers have never talked about differences in God. It's logical to think that all the Father's have condemned that vision.
@@benjamind547 No, actually proponents of the view need to show how it is grounded in the patristic tradition. I agree that there are some elements that have precedents (like the non-identity of God’s attributes), but as far as I know none of them taught the same theology in the same terms. Feel free to endeavor to show otherwise.
@@SammyJ.. See St Maximus in 400 chapters on Charity and Virtue (paraphrasing the title a little), 1.48-50. The EED doctrine can be simplified imo as the conceptual distinction between God qua participated (analogous to the Intellect in Aristotle and Plotinus) and God qua unparticipated (analogous to the One).
we experience uncreated energies in a created medium (the nous is created). so the source of the energy is uncreated but the experience of it is created because our means of experiencing it is created (our body and faculties including the nous). does that make sense?
This one yes, thanks for the clarification, anyway the teaching can lead to something unusual upon thinking the trinity, well offcourse i talk from the west world
@@dionysiuscarthusianus3015 thank you! to me it is just plainly logical. if a palamite thinks that created grace means that we can’t know God, well, i’m sorry that we are created and He is not? lol
I don’t necessarily disagree with Bisarrion. It must be noted, however, that there has been no formal condemnation from the Holy See in regards to the matter. The opportunity was present in Florence but not followed through. It also should be taken into account that the theologians, as co operators with the Magisterium, do not have the charism of infallibility on doctrines of faith and morals. As such, they should be respected but at no time are they to be considered as “Magisters” or “masters.” Until we receive a formal condemnation from the Extraordinary Papal Magisterium or the Extraordinary conciliar magisterium we cannot say with firm certainty (for we have an authority over our head) that this position is “condemned.” With that being said, I am through and through for the Thomist position. Good work from Bessarion to consider for further dialogue.
This is incorrect. First and foremost, the idea that Palamism was not condemned at Florence is false. The council of Florence redefines what was stated in Benedictus Deus concerning the beatific vision, so yes they did take the opportunity. What you are mistaking for your beleif is the fact that Orthodox Bishop Gennadius Scholarius had asked if it were acceptable to hold a formal distinction between essence and energies, which was NOT touched on for the reason that Scotists and Thomists disagreed (as well as the fact they wanted to give the east the easiest path to reconciliation). The consensus of the schools, as Melchor Cano points out, and as Leo XIII also states, is INFALLIBLE in determining doctrine. To deny this is a grave error.
@@archdukedende1658 Please cite where in Florence Benedictus Deus was proposed as a response to the Palamite position. I’ve read Florence and do not recall this at all but am happy to have my memory refreshed.
But it’s condemned by Papal definition of the beatific vision because when discussing what “intuitive vision” means we have to go with what the term meant in theological use at the time. We can’t just change the words meaning to accept a palamite definition.
@@esoterico7750 I agree, but did this council refer to the vision as “intuitive” which is defined as such in Benedictus Deus. I don’t believe it was ever referred to in the council. The subject about the sight of God was never brought up in the council as far as I am aware, more or less argue for what the correct understanding of “sight” is.
@@MountAthosandAquinas It should be in Acts 22 of Florence. The wording they use, though rather light and not extremely precise, is intended to repeat Benedictus Deus. The theologians who have wrote a Cursus and mention this subject (or have wrote a commentary) all use Florence as a "repetition" of this infallible teaching. Among them, Billuart OP, Thüring OFM, and a few more that Bessarion goes on to cite in the original video.
If Palamism is a heresy then why is Palamism accepted in the Eastern Catholic churches? Perhaps even more shocking, if Nestorianism is a heresy (which it is of course) why are there Nestorian churches in union with Rome?
It's possible to reconcile if we take the position that the distinctions aren't real but virtual. A position many easterners actually take despite the contrary having such a huge presence on RUclips. Palamism is reconcilable, but it is a theology that that is not perfectly pure for Catholic consumption like thomism or others are.
So by “intuitive vision,” Benedict XII meant that we will perceive God like the angels do, by unmediated intellectual apprehension of His Essence. (This would fit with the Lord’s words about how the guardian angels of “little ones… see the face of My Father in heaven.”) It’s overwhelming to truly consider what this means, but next to it every other view of heaven suddenly seems shabby.
Palamas called the Papacy “anti-Christ” in his writings and yet he and his teachings are venerated, celebrated, and believed every second Sunday during Lent amongst eastern Catholics.
but muh nuance amirite.
catholics contradict many things
Just because 2 people venerate Palamas there, it doesn‘t mean that it‘s right. Stop repeating Dyer points.
@@konstantintheodosius8685 That’s not a rebuttal
@@LightOfAllMankind Can‘t you read, brother? 😭😭😭😭
@@konstantintheodosius8685 you don’t know how your church works.
Besides the point that you’re wrong on the statistics, even if it was just one person venerating Palamas, that one person is the Pope, and because Palamas is canonically and authoritatively established as a saint, it’s not for you to decide what’s right or wrong against your own papacy.
I know I am way late but just found your channel and really love the content. Just to clarify, I personally love the Jesus Prayer. I understand that has a Palamite connection. In your view, would it be heretical to sit down and say "Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner", even if I did not hold the Palamite views? Surely the EO don't have a monopoly on those words, seeing as how fundamental and beautiful they are.
You should be fine. The Jesus Prayer is rooted in the Scriptures, was first commonly recited in about the 4th century, and the same can be said for the Prayer Rope.
@@wiseman1436 okay, just wasn’t sure if you could necessarily separate the two. Thank you!
Is there any books you guys could recommend
Does the thread about this still exist?
How is possible than a Christian can believe that there's a scission in God? An ontological difference between himself essence, and his spirit, how powers ? The gospel, the first Christians and the Pathristic fathers have never talked about differences in God. It's logical to think that all the Father's have condemned that vision.
It’s definitely taught by Maximus and there’s a good case for it being taught by Dionysius
@@esoterico7750 this lead directly to polytheism, if I've understood the whole point
@@esoterico7750 It’s not taught by St. Maximus, not in nearly the same terms as Palamas, anyway
@@benjamind547 No, actually proponents of the view need to show how it is grounded in the patristic tradition. I agree that there are some elements that have precedents (like the non-identity of God’s attributes), but as far as I know none of them taught the same theology in the same terms. Feel free to endeavor to show otherwise.
@@SammyJ.. See St Maximus in 400 chapters on Charity and Virtue (paraphrasing the title a little), 1.48-50. The EED doctrine can be simplified imo as the conceptual distinction between God qua participated (analogous to the Intellect in Aristotle and Plotinus) and God qua unparticipated (analogous to the One).
we experience uncreated energies in a created medium (the nous is created).
so the source of the energy is uncreated but the experience of it is created because our means of experiencing it is created (our body and faculties including the nous).
does that make sense?
That is what we call ‘created grace’
This one yes, thanks for the clarification, anyway the teaching can lead to something unusual upon thinking the trinity, well offcourse i talk from the west world
@@dionysiuscarthusianus3015 thank you! to me it is just plainly logical. if a palamite thinks that created grace means that we can’t know God, well, i’m sorry that we are created and He is not? lol
No.
I don’t necessarily disagree with Bisarrion. It must be noted, however, that there has been no formal condemnation from the Holy See in regards to the matter. The opportunity was present in Florence but not followed through. It also should be taken into account that the theologians, as co operators with the Magisterium, do not have the charism of infallibility on doctrines of faith and morals. As such, they should be respected but at no time are they to be considered as “Magisters” or “masters.” Until we receive a formal condemnation from the Extraordinary Papal Magisterium or the Extraordinary conciliar magisterium we cannot say with firm certainty (for we have an authority over our head) that this position is “condemned.”
With that being said, I am through and through for the Thomist position.
Good work from Bessarion to consider for further dialogue.
This is incorrect. First and foremost, the idea that Palamism was not condemned at Florence is false. The council of Florence redefines what was stated in Benedictus Deus concerning the beatific vision, so yes they did take the opportunity. What you are mistaking for your beleif is the fact that Orthodox Bishop Gennadius Scholarius had asked if it were acceptable to hold a formal distinction between essence and energies, which was NOT touched on for the reason that Scotists and Thomists disagreed (as well as the fact they wanted to give the east the easiest path to reconciliation).
The consensus of the schools, as Melchor Cano points out, and as Leo XIII also states, is INFALLIBLE in determining doctrine. To deny this is a grave error.
@@archdukedende1658 Please cite where in Florence Benedictus Deus was proposed as a response to the Palamite position. I’ve read Florence and do not recall this at all but am happy to have my memory refreshed.
But it’s condemned by Papal definition of the beatific vision because when discussing what “intuitive vision” means we have to go with what the term meant in theological use at the time. We can’t just change the words meaning to accept a palamite definition.
@@esoterico7750 I agree, but did this council refer to the vision as “intuitive” which is defined as such in Benedictus Deus. I don’t believe it was ever referred to in the council. The subject about the sight of God was never brought up in the council as far as I am aware, more or less argue for what the correct understanding of “sight” is.
@@MountAthosandAquinas It should be in Acts 22 of Florence. The wording they use, though rather light and not extremely precise, is intended to repeat Benedictus Deus. The theologians who have wrote a Cursus and mention this subject (or have wrote a commentary) all use Florence as a "repetition" of this infallible teaching. Among them, Billuart OP, Thüring OFM, and a few more that Bessarion goes on to cite in the original video.
Where is the thread?
Epic.
If Palamism is a heresy then why is Palamism accepted in the Eastern Catholic churches? Perhaps even more shocking, if Nestorianism is a heresy (which it is of course) why are there Nestorian churches in union with Rome?
Because Rome is in heresy and the video is talking nonsense.
@@johnmanual7595 Yep
Islam is less heretical.
It's possible to reconcile if we take the position that the distinctions aren't real but virtual. A position many easterners actually take despite the contrary having such a huge presence on RUclips.
Palamism is reconcilable, but it is a theology that that is not perfectly pure for Catholic consumption like thomism or others are.
They aren't Nestorians anymore, that's how
So true!