Palamas & Patristics 2

Mirror link

From Fr. Yves, Congar, O.P., I Believe in the Holy Spirit.

Congar III:64: It would, in my opinion, certainly be possible to dispute the meaning of the texts of the Cappadocian Fathers and John Damascene that have been quoted in favor of Palamas' thesis.¹⁷ The ante-Nicene Fathers, and in particular Athanasius, always denied that there could have been any procession in God other than that of the Persons. According to them, apart from the hypostases, only creatures proceeded from God. ...

¹⁷. G. Florovsky, "Grégoire Palamas et la patristique," Istina, 8 (1961-1962), 115-125, especially 122 (only Basil of Caesarea, Ep. 234 ad Amphilochium, and John Damascene, De fide orthod., I, 14); G. Philips, op. cit. below (note 22), 254.

Did the Fathers postulate a kind of corona of divine energies which were active ad extra, which could be shared and which were ontologically and really distinct from the divine essence and the hypostases? E. von Ivanka, who is also a considerable expert, disputes this (see note 16 below). The problem has, in my opinion, not yet been fully cleared up, and I am in no position to decide.

Congar III:65: Palamas interprets this as taking part in God entitatively and ontologically, but this participation cannot be in his essence, which cannot be communicated--it must be in the energies which emanate from that essence and which surround it. ... From the philosophical point of view, this Palamite idea of participation is clearly elementary and material,²⁵ one might almost say Neo-Platonic. The interpretation provided by Thomas Aquinas (and Maximus the Confessor), on the other hand, is Aristotelian, although it has taken from Plato a note of exemplarism.

²⁵. Thus, according to Palamas, if a man were to participate in God's essence, he would himself become omnipotent and there would consequently be an infinite number of divine hypostases: Capita CL physica, 108-109 (PG 150, 1193C-1196A [Sinkewicz 205-209]). This accounts for G. Philips' comment, op. cit. (note 22 ["La grâce chez les Orientaux," ETL, 48 (1972), 37-50, reprinted in L'union personnelle avec le Dieu vivant. Essai sur l'origine et le sens de la grâce créée, (Bibl. ETL, XXXVI) (Gembloux, 1972), 241-260]), p. 253: "Palamas sees 'participation' as a division into almost materialized pieces, each participant possessing a fragment of the whole, which is clearly absurd. In his view, everything that can be shared can also be divided (Cap. 110; PG 150; 1196C [Sinkewicz 209]; Theoph. 944A)."

Congar III:66: The participation of which Thomas speaks is in a likeness of God's perfections and is realized in existence by the efficient causality of the absolute Being. There is no distinction in God himself between the divine essence that cannot be shared and the energies that are communicated, not even when it is a question of our supernatural participation. ... Participation ... is not in perfections which are God's common perfections. It is rather in the divine nature as a principle of activities with God himself in view (see 2 Pet 1:3-4).

I do not dispute the underlying intention of Palamas' teaching, but find myself in disagreement with the concepts that he uses and his metaphysical mode of expression. Even if it is admitted that he is supported by several of the Fathers in his distinction a parte rei between the divine essence and the energies, he still only presents us with a theologoumenon in the precise sense in which this this term has been defined by B. Bolotov...

Congar III:67: Did the Roman Catholic Church dogmatically condemn the Palamite theses at any time? J. Kuhlmann does not think so. .... Kuhlmann has therefore concluded that, as far as Palamism is concerned, there is no obstacle to re-establishing communion with the East. Is he being too optimistic here? Mgr. Gérard Philips, who was the king-pin in the Theological Commission of Vatican II, has come to the same conclusion. This is, in my opinion, a firm guarantee.