ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤

Forwarded from Pure World Truth

and they were so far from finding the knowledge of beings the object of their desire and zeal-as to claim that inanimate things have a soul and participate in a soul superior to our own. They also allege that things without reason are reasonable, since capable of receiving a human soul; that demons are superior to us and are even our creators (such is their impiety); they have classed among things uncreated and unoriginate and coeternal with God, not only matter, and what they call the World Soul, but also those intelligible beings not clothed in the opacity of the body, and even our souls themselves”

Dyer might think Islam teaches polytheism, but Gregory Palamas didn’t. Nowhere in the Triads does Palamas call Muslims polytheists. In fact, Muslims aren’t even mentioned in the context Dyer claims. As the other quotes show, Palamas viewed Muslims as monotheists who worship the same God he did.

The Eastern Orthodox Council of Blachernae infallibly dogmatized the theology of Gregory Palamas as binding:

Blachernae (Constantinople V) [AD 1351] Canon II:
“…This evil one has also involved himself with many other circles against the Church. Now retreating and now advancing, he attacks the truth—sometimes with doctrines containing nothing sound, and sometimes with pleasures, which he is accustomed to enjoy and the end of which is separation from God. Most recently he has found favour with Barlaam. This man, a monk of Calabrian origin, steeped in Hellenic learning and relying wholly upon it, proceeded against the truth and those who adhere to it in a holy manner, and accused them of ditheism for saying that not only is the Trihypostatic and wholly imparticipable essence of God uncreated, but also the grace of the Spirit that is eternal and deifying and participable by the worthy. When a divine synod was convoked on these matters, he was refuted and condemned by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ on the basis of the theological writings of the holy Fathers, which supported the truth of the teaching of the current most holy Metropolitan of Thessalonike, Palamas, and of the monks.”

Some Eastern Orthodox try to argue that Blachernae only affirmed certain parts of Palamas’ theology, not everything he taught. But Canon 4 says otherwise—it explicitly states that the Orthodox must hold to his writings, his thinking, and his fighting by EVERY MEANS in defense of Scripture, the Orthodox faith, and Holy Tradition:

Canon IV: This frequently mentioned most honourable hieromonk, Kyr Gregory Palamas, and the monks who agree with him—who in their writing and thinking, or rather, as already said, in their fighting by EVERY MEANS in defence of the divine Scriptures, and our common religion and tradition, have scrutinized and comprehended with precision nothing that is not congruous with the divine Scriptures—we hold to be not only superior to all their opponents, or rather, to those who contend against the Church of God, as the earlier synodal tomos puts it, but we also declare to be the MOST RELIABLE defenders of the Church and of Orthodoxy, and its champions and helpers. For thus will the tomos issued in relation to those synods possess reliability and certainty, just as it now indeed does.”

The top Eastern Orthodox scholars affirms that Palamas’ teachings are dogma, and that his voice is the very expression of Orthodox tradition:

“But if Gregory’s insight and solution are important, so is his impact on the later Palamite synthesis. Part of that synthesis was actually prepared in the thirteenth century by Patriarch Gregory II of Cyprus. In a very real sense, the fundamental distinction between the essence and the energy is none other than the “working piece” of Palamas theology. Even so, its formal ratification as dogma by the Palamite councils of 1341, 1347, and 1351 was foreshadowed in the confirmation of the tomos at the Council of 1285.

www.tgoop.com/CATHOLICAPOLOGETICSANDPOLEMICS/3993

268 viewsJun 20 at 15:31

and they were so far from finding the knowledge of beings the object of their desire and zeal-as to claim that inanimate things have a soul and participate in a soul superior to our own. They also allege that things without reason are reasonable, since capable of receiving a human soul; that demons are superior to us and are even our creators (such is their impiety); they have classed among things uncreated and unoriginate and coeternal with God, not only matter, and what they call the World Soul, but also those intelligible beings not clothed in the opacity of the body, and even our souls themselves”

Dyer might think Islam teaches polytheism, but Gregory Palamas didn’t. Nowhere in the Triads does Palamas call Muslims polytheists. In fact, Muslims aren’t even mentioned in the context Dyer claims. As the other quotes show, Palamas viewed Muslims as monotheists who worship the same God he did.

The Eastern Orthodox Council of Blachernae infallibly dogmatized the theology of Gregory Palamas as binding:

Blachernae (Constantinople V) [AD 1351] Canon II:
“…This evil one has also involved himself with many other circles against the Church. Now retreating and now advancing, he attacks the truth—sometimes with doctrines containing nothing sound, and sometimes with pleasures, which he is accustomed to enjoy and the end of which is separation from God. Most recently he has found favour with Barlaam. This man, a monk of Calabrian origin, steeped in Hellenic learning and relying wholly upon it, proceeded against the truth and those who adhere to it in a holy manner, and accused them of ditheism for saying that not only is the Trihypostatic and wholly imparticipable essence of God uncreated, but also the grace of the Spirit that is eternal and deifying and participable by the worthy. When a divine synod was convoked on these matters, he was refuted and condemned by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ on the basis of the theological writings of the holy Fathers, which supported the truth of the teaching of the current most holy Metropolitan of Thessalonike, Palamas, and of the monks.”

Some Eastern Orthodox try to argue that Blachernae only affirmed certain parts of Palamas’ theology, not everything he taught. But Canon 4 says otherwise—it explicitly states that the Orthodox must hold to his writings, his thinking, and his fighting by EVERY MEANS in defense of Scripture, the Orthodox faith, and Holy Tradition:

Canon IV: This frequently mentioned most honourable hieromonk, Kyr Gregory Palamas, and the monks who agree with him—who in their writing and thinking, or rather, as already said, in their fighting by EVERY MEANS in defence of the divine Scriptures, and our common religion and tradition, have scrutinized and comprehended with precision nothing that is not congruous with the divine Scriptures—we hold to be not only superior to all their opponents, or rather, to those who contend against the Church of God, as the earlier synodal tomos puts it, but we also declare to be the MOST RELIABLE defenders of the Church and of Orthodoxy, and its champions and helpers. For thus will the tomos issued in relation to those synods possess reliability and certainty, just as it now indeed does.”

The top Eastern Orthodox scholars affirms that Palamas’ teachings are dogma, and that his voice is the very expression of Orthodox tradition:

“But if Gregory’s insight and solution are important, so is his impact on the later Palamite synthesis. Part of that synthesis was actually prepared in the thirteenth century by Patriarch Gregory II of Cyprus. In a very real sense, the fundamental distinction between the essence and the energy is none other than the “working piece” of Palamas theology. Even so, its formal ratification as dogma by the Palamite councils of 1341, 1347, and 1351 was foreshadowed in the confirmation of the tomos at the Council of 1285.

BY ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤