ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤

Forwarded from Pure World Truth

Significantly, ALL Orthodox scholars who have written on Palamas—Lossky, Krivosheine, Papamichael, Meyendorff, Christou—assume his voice to be a legitimate expression of Orthodox tradition. Mutatis mutandis, the same is true of Gregory of Cyprus. As one of the scholars has recognized, what is being defended is “one and the same tradition… at different points, by the Orthodox, from St. Photius to Gregory of Cyprus and St. Gregory Palamas.” […] The Palamite doctrine “might be viewed as a punishment permitted by God, which has managed to be imposed as official dogma.”

—M. Jugie, Theologia Dogmatica Christianorum Orientalium ab Ecclesia Catholica Dissidentium, I (Paris 1926), 431; idem, “Palamite (Controverse),” DTC, II, pt. 2 (Paris, 1932), col. 1817.

Another Eastern Orthodox scholar points out that Palamas took an ecumenical approach toward Muslims:

“Perhaps worth recalling here that a friend of Cantacuzenus, the famous Hesychast theologian and Archbishop of Thessalonica, Gregory Palamas, describes in 1354 his journey to Turkish-occupied Asia Minor in a rather mystic tone—hoping, like Cantacuzenus, for a subsequent conversion of Muslims and implying the acceptance, for the time being, of a friendly coexistence.”

—Meyendorff, Byzantine Views on Islam, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 18 (1964), p. 123

“At any rate, this particular rite was still in use in the twelfth century because Nicetas Choniates gives a detailed account of a conflict which opposed Emperor Manuel I to the patriarchal synod, and in which Eustathios, Metropolitan of Thessalonica, played a leading role. In 1178, Manuel published two decrees ordering the deletion of the last anathema from the rite, starting with the copy in use at the Great Church of St. Sophia. The anathema, quoted from Sura 112, reads as follows: “I anathematize the God of Muhammad about whom he says: ‘He is God alone, God the Eternal, He begets not and is not begotten, nor is there like unto Him anyone.’” The reason for this measure was that the emperor was afraid to scandalize the converts by obliging them to anathematize not only the beliefs of Muhammad, but also “the God of Muhammad,” for this seemed to imply that Christians and Moslems did not, in fact, believe in one and the same God. The imperial measure provoked strong opposition on the part of the patriarch and the synod. Eustathius of Thessalonica, who acted as the Church’s spokesman in this matter proclaimed that a god believed to be “of hammer-beaten metal” is not the true God, but a material idol, which should be anathematized as such. After some argument between the palace and the patriarchate, a compromise solution was found. The emperor withdrew his original decree; the twenty-second anathema was retained in the ritual, but now it read simply: “Anathema to Muhammad, to all his teaching and all his inheritance.” This text was preserved in the later editions of the Euchologion. The episode is significant inasmuch as it clearly illustrates the existence in Byzantium of two views on Islam: the extreme and “closed” one, which adopted an absolutely negative attitude towards Muhammadanism and considered it a form of paganism; and another, the more moderate one, which tried to avoid burning all bridges and to preserve a measure of common reference—in particular, the recognition of a common allegiance to monotheism. Manuel I belonged to this second group, and in this respect he followed the tradition which seems always to have been predominant in official governmental circles of Byzantium.

—Meyendorff, Byzantine Views on Islam, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 18 (1964), p. 124-125

www.tgoop.com/CATHOLICAPOLOGETICSANDPOLEMICS/3994

396 viewsJun 20 at 15:31

Significantly, ALL Orthodox scholars who have written on Palamas—Lossky, Krivosheine, Papamichael, Meyendorff, Christou—assume his voice to be a legitimate expression of Orthodox tradition. Mutatis mutandis, the same is true of Gregory of Cyprus. As one of the scholars has recognized, what is being defended is “one and the same tradition… at different points, by the Orthodox, from St. Photius to Gregory of Cyprus and St. Gregory Palamas.” […] The Palamite doctrine “might be viewed as a punishment permitted by God, which has managed to be imposed as official dogma.”

—M. Jugie, Theologia Dogmatica Christianorum Orientalium ab Ecclesia Catholica Dissidentium, I (Paris 1926), 431; idem, “Palamite (Controverse),” DTC, II, pt. 2 (Paris, 1932), col. 1817.

Another Eastern Orthodox scholar points out that Palamas took an ecumenical approach toward Muslims:

“Perhaps worth recalling here that a friend of Cantacuzenus, the famous Hesychast theologian and Archbishop of Thessalonica, Gregory Palamas, describes in 1354 his journey to Turkish-occupied Asia Minor in a rather mystic tone—hoping, like Cantacuzenus, for a subsequent conversion of Muslims and implying the acceptance, for the time being, of a friendly coexistence.”

—Meyendorff, Byzantine Views on Islam, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 18 (1964), p. 123

“At any rate, this particular rite was still in use in the twelfth century because Nicetas Choniates gives a detailed account of a conflict which opposed Emperor Manuel I to the patriarchal synod, and in which Eustathios, Metropolitan of Thessalonica, played a leading role. In 1178, Manuel published two decrees ordering the deletion of the last anathema from the rite, starting with the copy in use at the Great Church of St. Sophia. The anathema, quoted from Sura 112, reads as follows: “I anathematize the God of Muhammad about whom he says: ‘He is God alone, God the Eternal, He begets not and is not begotten, nor is there like unto Him anyone.’” The reason for this measure was that the emperor was afraid to scandalize the converts by obliging them to anathematize not only the beliefs of Muhammad, but also “the God of Muhammad,” for this seemed to imply that Christians and Moslems did not, in fact, believe in one and the same God. The imperial measure provoked strong opposition on the part of the patriarch and the synod. Eustathius of Thessalonica, who acted as the Church’s spokesman in this matter proclaimed that a god believed to be “of hammer-beaten metal” is not the true God, but a material idol, which should be anathematized as such. After some argument between the palace and the patriarchate, a compromise solution was found. The emperor withdrew his original decree; the twenty-second anathema was retained in the ritual, but now it read simply: “Anathema to Muhammad, to all his teaching and all his inheritance.” This text was preserved in the later editions of the Euchologion. The episode is significant inasmuch as it clearly illustrates the existence in Byzantium of two views on Islam: the extreme and “closed” one, which adopted an absolutely negative attitude towards Muhammadanism and considered it a form of paganism; and another, the more moderate one, which tried to avoid burning all bridges and to preserve a measure of common reference—in particular, the recognition of a common allegiance to monotheism. Manuel I belonged to this second group, and in this respect he followed the tradition which seems always to have been predominant in official governmental circles of Byzantium.

—Meyendorff, Byzantine Views on Islam, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 18 (1964), p. 124-125

BY ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕝𝕚𝕔 𝔸𝕡𝕠𝕝𝕠𝕘𝕖𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 ℙ𝕠𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕤