Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:08, 29 December 2010

Orphaned references in Palamism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Palamism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Fortescue":

• From Hesychasm: Fortescue, Adrian (1910). Hesychasm. Vol. VII. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 2008-02-03.. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• From Essence–Energies distinction: Fortescue, Adrian (1910), Hesychasm, vol. VII, New York: Robert Appleton Company, retrieved 2008-02-03. {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Martin Jugie

Here is a weblog that provides a translation of "The Palamite Controversy" by Martin Jugie. Looks interesting. --Richard S (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A few points

This article was a great idea, Richard. Kudos for being bold!

I haven't looked through the article very closely yet. Just a few remarks:

1. I think the remarks about "quietism" might benefit from the following information, which used to be included in the Essence-Energies distinction article:

Adrian Fortescue mentioned that "hesychasm" is derived from the Greek word ἥσυχος, meaning "quiet", and "hesychast" from ἡσυχαστής, meaning "quietist", and he characterized some practices of the later hesychasts as "magic".

This information is still in the Essence-Energies distinction article, but I "hid" it because I had doubts about its direct relevance to the essence-energies distinction. You can still see the information if you go to the section Essence-Energies distinction#Roman Catholic perspectives and open the editor.

2. I have the same concerns about the Aquinas material here that I had in the Essence-Energies distinction article. The Summa contra Gentiles passage denies a distinction between God's essence and his existence. It doesn't deny a distinction between God's essence and his energies. A lack of distinction between essence and existence may entail a lack of distinction between essence and energies, but for us to simply imply that it does (without a source that explicitly says so) would be an original synthesis.

3. I have similar WP:SYN concerns about the section on hellfire-- True, many Orthodox believe that hellfire is simply God's light as experienced by the damned. You have certainly provided sources that support that fact. However, is there a source which attributes this belief to Palamas himself, or which explicitly describes it as a "Palamite" doctrine? I haven't been able to find one. Consider the following homily from Palamas on Hell, which never equates Hell with God's light and, in fact, seems to sit uneasily with such an equation: http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/StGregoryPalamas_homily33.htm. I'm not suggesting that we quote this homily in the article, since we would need secondary sources for the purpose of interpreting it. However, I'm uneasy about claiming that Palamism equates Hell with God's light. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, check this out: "Theophanes points out that this kind of divine vision will be a cause of suffering for sinners, since the divine light will be perceived as the punishing fire of hell Unlike Theophanes, Palamas did not believe that sinners could have an experience of the divine light" --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Nowhere in his works does Palamas seem to adopt Theophanes' view that the light of Tabor is identical with the fire of hell." --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your good words, Phatius. It should be obvious that more than 90% of this article is taken from other articles in Misplaced Pages written by other editors so the only credit that I can take is for putting together the outline structure on which to hang the various pieces of text borrowed from the other articles.

I don't feel fully qualified to make a final decision on your points (except for #3) so I would like to hear what other editors have to say on points 1 & 2. (in general, I think I agree with your points #1 and #2 but I don't feel confident enough to act upon them without further input from other editors).

On point #3, however, I think your point is well taken and I have moved the passage in question to Tabor Light which seems a more appropriate place to discuss this topic.

--Richard S (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My view on point 2, which is in agreement with that of Phatius, is obvious from what I have written below. On point 1, I don't see the usefulness of including this phrase. Hesychasm and the identification with the light seen on Tabor of the light that its practitioners perceived predated Palamas (see Vailhé's article in the Catholic Encyclopedia). It's the theology that Palamas later developed in support of hesychasm, that is covered in this article. Esoglou (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well. I wonder about the Palamas argument as put forward by Phatius. I say this because one I have never heard of the book that is now on several Misplaced Pages articles. And two I would like to see the passage from Palamas' work that makes such a statement. Can someone provide me with the passage as so mentioned. Also this directly calls this statement:

Among the patristic testimonies, Saint John of Sinai (of the Ladder) says that the uncreated light of Christ is "an all-consuming fire and an illuminating light". Saint Gregory Palamas (E.P.E. II, 498) observes: "Thus, it is said, He will baptize you by the Holy Spirit and by fire: in other words, by illumination and judgment, depending on each person's predisposition, which will in itself bring upon him that which he deserves." Elsewhere, (Essays, P. Christou Publications, vol.2, page 145): The light of Christ, "albeit one and accessible to all, is not partaken of uniformly, but differently".

Into being wrong. So someone is wrong here either Palamas is saying that those condemned will not see the light of Christ or they will as "albeit one and accessible to all, is not partaken of uniformly, but differently". So as a secondary source and a Eastern Orthodox theologian is George Metallinos misinformed on Palamas? Also again can someone give me the source in Palamas specifically where Palamas says that he opposes the view that the light of Christ is a pointed out above? Also Theophanes definition of hell is not what is given here. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As for the Aquinas could Phatius please provide a link to Nick Cases paper? And also what was Petros Toulis' responses to it? This is not the last time someone will move the goal posts on the Eastern Orthodox but I'd like to read the paper. As the Roman Catholic seminary books teach Aquinas as actus meaning Aristotle's energy not existence as Bradshaw points out in chapter 7 of his book. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi LoveMonkey. To me, the Palamas quotes that you cite seem a bit ambiguous. I don't want to get into a detailed interpretive debate here, but they appear open to multiple interpretations, and not all of those interpretations require that hellfire is God's uncreated light. I can see that Metallinos interprets Palamas as equating hellfire with the uncreated light, and we can legitimately mention that in articles. However, the interpretation must be attributed to Metallinos (e.g. "According to Metallinos, Palamas identified hellfire with the uncreated light").

As for the legitimacy of the Iōannēs Polemēs source, which says that Palamas did not equate hellfire with the uncreated light-- To qualify for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, a source only needs to be a published academic source. That's it. We can disagree with a source, but as long as it's a published academic source, it qualifies for inclusion. To be honest, I did fail to properly attribute the Polemēs statement to Polemēs. (I just wrote, "Palamas did not identify hellfire with the divine light." Instead, I should have written, "According to Polemēs, Palamas did not identify hellfire with the uncreated light."). I will go back through the articles that I edited and fix that.

You said you wanted to see the quote from Palamas that Polemēs uses to back up his claim. Unfortunately, the Polemēs book is available only for snippet view on Google Books. If you can read Greek, you might be able to get some information out of the following snippet view, which provides an excerpt from Palamas: . As far as I can tell, Polemēs's argument is as follows: (1) When arguing that the divine light is not sensible, Palamas points out that, if it were sensible, then sinners could experience it; (2) this implies that Palamas does not believe that sinners can experience the divine light; (3) therefore, according to Palamas, sinners can't experience the divine light.

I'm not sure what Nick Cases paper you're referring to? Have I mentioned a Nick Cases paper elsewhere and forgotten about it? I certainly may have. Please clarify what Nick Cases paper you're talking about. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Attitude of Western theologians

With some necessary modifications, I have replaced in Palamism#Attitude of Western theologians the previous text with the text that is chiefly the work of Phatius. Apart from other problems, the previous text used anachronistic synthesis to interpret Fortescue's 1910 text on the basis of a link in an electronic version of it prepared 70 years after his death and to make Aquinas make declarations about divine "energies". The text of Phatius McBluff incorporates the work of several Misplaced Pages editors posterior to the writing of the previous text.

In view of arguments based on the electronic presentation of the Catholic Encyclopedia by the New Advent initiative, I have given Catholic Encyclopedia references instead to a website that provides, along with an electronic version without added links, a scan of the original pages. Esoglou (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Rejection of Palamism by the Latins/Latinophrones contributed to its acceptance in the East

Esoglou commented out the phrase "by being necessarily hostile to Palamism" as a "personal comment, not in the source". I'm not personally invested in keeping the phrase but I did want to point out that it is not far from the source. Here is what Jugie wrote: "The fact that the Latins and the Latinophrones were necessarily hostile to it, far from harming it, contributed to its success. Very soon Latinism and Antipalamism, in the minds of many, would come to be seen as one and the same thing." The full text can be found here. I wanted to communicate this idea without plagiarizing Jugie. Any help in getting this idea across to the reader would be much appreciated. --Richard S (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Getting the story straight

There has been a movement among a couple of editors (mostly Esoglou and also Phatius) to cast the Catholic criticism of Palamas as focusing on the essence-energies distinction. I'm concerned that this view is some combination of 20th century revisionism and OR on the part of these editors. I am, as I've acknowledged many times, no expert on theology in general and this topic in particular but my personal take on this is that the Catholic objection to Palamism is not solely based on the essence-energies distinction. There was, in my opinion, a genuine distrust of Hesychasm as mystical, self-induced delusion of a vision of God. It may be that this distrust remains among some Catholic theologians. I'm not knowledgeable enough to determine that.

As I understand it, Barlaam's attack was not based solely on the essence-energies distinction. According to Meyendorff, Barlaam viewed "any claim of real and conscious experience of God as Messalianism". One of the key issues is whether or not there can be any carnal experience of God.

Hesychasm has been described as "psychosomatic", "auto-suggestion" and involving "grossly magic practices". These are criticisms that go beyond the essence-energies distinction.

It seems that Catholics identified Hesychasm with Quietism. The CE entry on quietism asserts "Among the errors of the Beguines and Beghards condemned by the Council of Vienne (1311-12) are the propositions: that man in the present life can attain such a degree of perfection as to become utterly impeccable; that the "perfect" have no need to fast or pray, but may freely grant the body whatsoever it craves; that they are not subject to any human authority or bound by the precepts of the Church."

NB: I am NOT saying that Hesychasm is guilty of the "errors of the Beguines and Beghards". I do think that traditionally the Catholics tended to condemn Hesychasm through a "guilt by association". In effect, hesychasm was considered to be just another of the quietist heresies. We have no indication that quietism has been rehabilitated. The errors of the Beguines and Beghards are still considered errors. When we talk about Palamas and hesychasm being rehabilitated, I think what happens is that the misinformed association of hesychasm with quietism was dispelled by authors such as Meyendorff.

Of course, politics plays a part here. If there is a general attitude of distrust and hostility, then there is no incentive to differentiate between acceptable mysticism and heretical mysticism. If, however, there is a more eirenic attitude towards reconciliation, then minds are more open to drawing distinctions that aid that goal. I think Meyendorff's work was more acceptable to the West because the West's attitude towards the East had changed. If he had written the thesis half a century earlier, he might never have received his doctorate. As it was, his doctoral thesis had to be defended before the entire faculty of theology at the Sorbonne and was debated for decades in the journal Istina, a testimony to the paradigm-shift that was occasioned by his work.See Biographical dictionary of Christian theologians --Richard S (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

it might be added that "quietism" is the literal translation of "hesychasm" (or "quietists" of "hesychasts"), so that the equation between the two may have been an innocent misunderstanding, because the literal translation of "hesychasm" as "quietism" is misleading. --dab (𒁳) 17:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's quite clear that many Catholic sources equate "hesychasm" with "quietism". However, Kallistos Ware makes a point of not translating "hesychasm" as "quietism". For example, here and here.

I think this is an important point to make in the article

--Richard S (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Richard. I'm not aware of an effort on my part to cast Catholic criticism of Palamas as focused on the EE distinction. I think you may be confusing my efforts here with my efforts on the Essence-Energies distinction article. When it came to that article, I thought (as I still think) that discussion should stay focused on the EE distinction. In the Essence-Energies distinction article, we might legitimately mention that Catholic theologians had a more general problem with Palamism, but that claim should be clearly distinguished, within the article itself, from the claim that Catholic theologians objected to the EE distinction.

I have absolutely no problem with adding more info on non-EE-related Catholic criticisms in this article, as indicated by my suggestion that we add more info on the "auto-suggestion" accusations. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

OK... I apologize. I think we are in agreement. Much has been said by different editors on different Talk Pages. We have the improvement of a separate article on Palamism but now the challenge is to remain clear as to what is said about the EE-distinction and what is said about Palamism. Forgive me if I got it a bit muddled. --Richard S (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It may also be the case that any conflating of the EE-distinction with Palamism is an artifact of the way this article was constructed (i.e. by borrowing bits from other articles). We are only now constructing a picture of the whole elephant and it is understandable though regrettable that parts of this article may make the trunk of the elephant look like it is the whole elephant. It will take some careful review of the article text to make sure that we root out such implications and "get the story straight" for the reader's sake. --Richard S (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Fortescue, Adrian (1910), Hesychasm, vol. VII, New York: Robert Appleton Company, retrieved 2008-02-03. {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)