Thread by @BessarioneNic

Palamism and Catholicism

Recently, I came across a few pretentious and extremely ignorant Eastern Orthodox in a discussion about Palamism and Catholic theologians. They had no idea of what they were talking about. They came to the point of saying that no Catholic theologian or

respectable clergy had ever claimed Palamism logically leads to polytheism. This is another very clear demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect in the “internet Orthodox”, who to themselves are sure they completely grasped Catholicism and think our theologians are as limited as

theirs.

This thread is an exposition of a small portion of the thought of the theologians who I was able to remember mentioning Palamism. I did not include Eastern Catholic theologians such as Kalekas and Kydones because their opposition to Palamism is already well-known.

This is a brief compilation, and is certainly not even a hundredth of what could be listed. I believe the translations are good, but I don’t have the intention to make them as precise as possible, I just want to show what the writers thought. For this reason, I also omit their

arguments and only show their conclusions. Most of the names I mention here should be familiar to those who have a good knowledge of Catholic theology, so the authority of the authors should be evident. But in any case, I added a short description of who the authors are.

I made sure to include authors from the most varied schools of thought and religious orders.

Now, I want to make very clear what this thread is not. It is not an endorsement of my part to all the conclusions these authors adduce from Palamas–it is an exposition of their thought.

It is also not a thread on the supposed licitude of his veneration nor on the person of Palamas. It is on what Catholic theologians say about his doctrine and whether they believe a Catholic can take the same positions as him.

Also, note that basically all theologians – including Scotists – conclude from Palamas’ writings that he believed in a real distinction among essence and energies. In my view, they are correct in their interpretation, and the thesis that Palamas only believed in the Scotist

“formal” distinction — as some believe — is nothing but a failed attempt to minimise his mistakes. But to prove this is not my aim here, and in any case, it would not excuse Palamas from the accusation of heresy, even to the eyes of the Scotists, as I will show.

Card. Vicenzo Ludovico Gotti, O. P. (1664 – 1742)

He was educated by Jesuits, became a Dominican at 16. Studied in Salamanca and lectured at several places, including the Dominican College of St. Thomas in Rome, the future Angelicum. In 1708, he became Prior of the Dominican

monastery in Bologna. In 1728, Benedict XIII made him cardinal, and he was appointed Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. He was almost elected pope in the conclave of 1740. Pope Benedict XIV called him a saint. He was quoted as an authority and as one of the greatest Thomists of his

time by Pope Benedict XIV, St. Alphonsus and Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange.

He says in his Theologia Scholastico-Dogmatica Juxta Mentem Divi Thomae Aquinatis, In Primam Partem, Quaest. III De Divinis Attributis, Dubium 1:

“The Greek Gregory Palamas (from whom the Palamite sect

receives its name) was first a monk, and then a schismatic bishop of Thessalonica in the middle of the 14th century.”

After this, Gotti describes the Palamite doctrine and says:

“Against them, I say: Palamas’ sentence of a real distinction among the divine essence and its

operations is a foolish [stolidus] and impious error…

And their impious error which makes the operations of God not only distinct from Him, but also uncreated, consequently makes more Divinities, and more Gods; because those Deities are either subsistent substances, and

therefore there are many Gods, or they are accidents, therefore positing accidents in God, which cannot be admitted, as we have shown above… They also say that this plurality of uncreated objects and of deities can exist in superior and inferior ways. But who does not see that

all of this collapses into paganism…?”

In a later question, when talking about the possibility of the beatific vision, he opposes the “view of the Palamite sect” with the “Catholic view”.

François Jacques-Hyacinthe Serry, O. P. (1659 – 1713)

He was a Dominican theologian. Lived sometime in Rome as the theologian of Cardinal Altiere, due to his vast erudition in philosophy, theology, and history. In 1697, he obtained the degree of doctor, and was invited to be

professor of Theology at the University of Padua. He says in one of his works:
 
“…Gregory Palamas, archbishop of Thessalonica, whose error the whole Greek schismatic Church adopted in the synod of Constantinople, called the 9th ecumenical by some. They anathematized Barlaam and

Akyndous…
 
It cannot be said that this error is different from the Porretan Heresy…” (Quaest. Theol., Prima Pars)
 
He then explains that Palamites posit a real distinction between essence and energies, and concludes:

“It is of Catholic Faith, according to the definitive explanation of the Council of Rheims, that neither between the relations and the essence, nor between one and another absolute property, nor between them and the essence, there is a real distinction simpliciter.” (ibid.)

Charles René Billuart, O. P. (1685 –1757)
 
Notably one of the greatest French Thomists. He was educated by Jesuits and joined the Dominican Order. Received the honours of doctorate in 1729.
 
In his Summa Summae S. Thomae, De Attrib. Div. in Com., dissert. II, art. II, he places

Palamites with condemned heretics and says that the opposite sentence was defined by the Church.:
 
“First, I say against Gualterum, Abbot Joachim, the Palamites, and Gilbert, that neither the attributes among themselves, nor among them and the essence, nor the relations and

the essence distinguish entitatively in reality: because the opposite sentence is in the Councils of Lateran and Rheims…”

Alexander Natalis, O. P. (1639 – 1725)

He was a historian, a Dominican and a very respected member of the Thomist school. He was well-known in his time for his eloquence. He obtained his doctorate from Sorbonne. In his very famous Ecclesiastical History, he calls the Palamites

“crazy”. After describing the origin of the controversy, he says:
 
“The ‘champion’ of their infamous doctrine was the most obstinate Gregory Palamas… This Palamas claims that the operations of God are really distinct from His essence, inferior from it and protected by it after

the manner of a cause… He calls these operations nothing less than deities. Thus, very rightly Demetrius Cydones, in lib. adv. Palamam, and Manuel Calecas, lib. de essentia et operatione, object that he admits many gods.” (Hist. Eccl., Tomus 15, Cap. 3, Art. 14)

Garrigou-Lagrange, O. P. (1877 – 1964)

Probably the most well-known Thomist among English speakers. He is a well know authority and one of the most preeminent enemies of modernism. He lectured at the Angelicum from 1909 to 1964. Following the Dominican tradition, he wrote a

very well-known and deep commentaries on the Summa. In his commentary on the First Part, De Deo Uno, q. 12, a. 1, which is about whether a created intellect can see the essence of God, he dedicates a small section for the condemned errors and places the Palamites there:

“Those who deny the possibility of intuitive vision of God use the arguments exposed by St Thomas in the beginning of this article... Under Innocent III, Almaricus committed the same error. But the Palamites on the 14th century, who denied the possibility of the beatific vision,

contended that the divine nature cannot be even supernaturally seen by the created intellect… The Greeks, in four pseudo-synods, accepted this doctrine.” (De Deo Uno, Ia, q. 12, a. 1)

Card. Dionysius Petavius, S. J. (1583 – 1652)

One of the most influential and erudite theologians of the seventeenth century. He was an expert in biblical languages and had an impressive familiarity with all the Fathers, mainly the Greek, whose works he helped to edit and

translate into Latin. He taught rhetoric, ecclesiastical history and theology in many universities and in 1639 became a cardinal by the appointment of Urban VIII. At the age of 60, he stopped teaching, but remained to be a librarian, and dedicated the rest of his life to write

his Opus de Theologicis Dogmatibus. “The virtues of Pétau [Petavius] were not inferior to his talent; he was a model of humility and regularity, and, in spite of his feeble health, practiced continual and severe mortifications.” (J. Ghellinck, Catholic Encyclopaedia)

In his Opus de Theologicis Dogmatibus, De Deo Deique Propriet., lib. 1, cap. XII, he repeatedly calls Palamas’ position “the heresy of Palamas”. In the next chapter, he says that Palamas’ position is “heresy in our [i.e., Catholic] understanding”, and after arguing against him,

he concludes:
 
“By what was said, it is evident how the Palamites, those modern heretics, are wrong, and how strongly they differ from Dionysius and other Fathers.”
 
In this same chapter, he also refutes Palamas by proving his doctrine leads to polytheism. After arguing for

that, he concludes:
 
“…thus, since there are several energies distinct in reality from one another and really distinct from the essence, Palamas posits the existence of several gods.”

Card. Franzelin S. J. (1816 – 1886)

One of the most remarkable theologians of the 19th Century. He was a professor of dogma at several places and was also a polyglot, which led him to lecture on Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac and Chaldean. He was also a consultor to many Roman

Congregations and served as a papal theologian during the First Vatican Council. He was one of the most influential theologians in the council. Pope Pius IX, in 1876, made him cardinal. Catholic Encyclopaedia says “as a theologian, Franzelin takes the highest rank.”
 
In his

Tractus de Deo Uno Secundum Natura, Sectio II, Cap. I, Th. XII, he says:

“Frequently, the Fathers distinguish between cognition of ‘whether God is’ from ‘what God is’…”
 
Franzelin then proceeds to quote some Fathers who make this distinction. He continues:

“But this should not be understood in an absolute sense; because if we were ignorant of ‘what God is’ [i.e., his essence] in an absolute sense, we would not be able to know ‘whether God is’, and thus we would fall in the Gnostic error of the supremely ignored God… that Irenaeus

and Tertullian fought against. For this reason, the Fathers, in their disputations against the Eunomians, frequently united cognition of the existence of God with cognition of the perfections and attributes of God, insofar as it becomes known from the divine operations and

manifestations…; but they exclude the knowledge of the essence in itself (essentia ut in se est), asserted by Eunomius…”
 
Franzelin then proceeds to explain the possible knowledges of the essence of God (in this and in the next life) according to scholastics. Franzelin leaves

the footnote for the text cited above:
 
“This most true doctrine of the Fathers was misused in the 14th Century by Palamas and his disciples, propagating the defence an absurd error among the Greeks, that the eternal operations (energies) in God are really distinct from the

essence of God, and these energies can be seen, while the essence remains inaccessible. For this, see Petavius’ De Deo Uno.”
 
Franzelin recommends, as in many other cases, the reader should see Petavius’ writings, which are very radical in their accusations against Palamas, as

we have seen.

Joanne Rupp, S. J.
 
Another Jesuit scholastic author. He lived in the 18th century. He was a highly respected doctor and professor, who wrote a book called Praelectiones Theologicae for the common use. Among the condemned sentences regarding the relation of God’s essence and

his attributes, he places the Palamite belief. According to his thought, Palamism was condemned with the condemnation of Abbot Joachim and Gilbert de la Porre:
 
“Moreover, a real distinction among them is admitted by Abbot Joachim, whose book was condemned at the Fourth Lateran

Council, under Innocent III… Similarly, this was defended by Gilbert de la Porré, whose sentence was condemned in the Council of Rheims, under Eugenius III… Gregory Palamas, …archbishop of Thessalonica, taught that both the operations of God ad intra and ad extra are really

distinct from the essence of God, which, however, he claims not to be created… Also, he says that the substance or nature of God is not operative per se, but by its energies… From this, it follows a real distinction among essence and attributes.” (Praelectiones Theologicae,

De Deo, Pars I, cap. II, artic. II)

Joseph Pohle, S. J. (1852 – 1922)
 
He is a very know Jesuit who wrote manuals with the intention to be used in seminaries. He obtained his Ph. D. in 1874, lectured at many places and was a writer for Catholic Encyclopaedia. In his book “God: His Knowability, Essence and

Attributes”, he places Palamism with the condemned heresy of Gilbert and says the following:
 
“Two centuries later there arose among the schismatic Greeks the heresy of the Palamites --so called from its author, Gregory Palamos. This heresy two Constantinopolitan synods (A. D.

1341 and 1347) did not blush to pro- claim as a schismatic dogma. The quintessence of the Palamite error may be stated as follows: Between the essence and the activity of God there is a real distinction, inasmuch as the latter radiates from the former as something inferior,

though still, in a sense, divine.
 
Except between the Divine Hypostases, no real distinction can be admitted to exist in the Godhead, because if there were in it any sort of real distinction, the Divine Essence would consist of distinct parts, which is repugnant. St. Bernard of

Clairvaux justly traces this erroneous view to Polytheism: “Multa dicuntur esse in Deo et quidem sane catholiceque, sed multa unum; alioquin si diversa putemus, non quaternitatem habemus, sed centeneitatem: habebimus multiplicem Deum.”

Ludwig Ott (1906 – 1985)
 
He was a theologian, doctor, professor and the author of the well-known “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, where he claims that the identity among the attributes and the divine essence is de fide and places Palamas among the heretics, whose doctrine was

already condemned by the Church.
 
“The reason lies in the absolute simplicity of God. The acceptance of a real distinction (distinctio realis) would lead to acceptance of a composition in God, and with that to a dissolution of the Godhead. In the year 1148, a Synod at Rheims,

in the presence of Pope Eugene III, condemned, on the instance of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the doctrine of Gilbert of Poitiers, who, according to the accusation of his opponents, assumed a real distinction between God and Godhead (Deus - Divinitas), between the Divine Persons

and Their properties (Pater - paternitas), and, according to the accounts of his opponents, also, between the Divine Essence and the Divine attributes. This accusation can hardly be demonstrated from Gilbert's writings. Against this doctrine the Synod asserted the factual

identity of God with the Godhead, that is with the Divine Nature and the Persons, as well as of God and His attributes: Credimus et confitemur simplicem naturam divinitatis esse Deum nec aliquo sensu catholico posse negari, qui divinitas sit Deus et Deus divinitas… credimus,

nonnisi ea sapientia, quae est ipse Deus, sapientem esse, nonnisi ea magnitudine, quae est ipse Deus, magnum esse est. D 389. The Union Council of Florence explained in the Decretum pro Jacobitis (1441): ‘(in God) all is one, where an opposition of the relation does not exist.’

D 703. In the Greek Church, the 14th century mystic-quietistic Sect of the Hesychasts or Palamites (so-called after the monk Gregory Palamas (†1359)) taught real distinction between the Divine Essence and the Divine Efficacy or the Divine attributes. While the former was

claimed to be unknowable, the latter was claimed to be vouchsafed to humanity in a condition of contemplative prayer through an uncreated Divine light (‘Taborlight’). With this they distinguished a higher and a lower, an invisible and a visible side of the Godhead.”

Juan de Consuegra, O. F. M.
 
He was a notable 18th century Franciscan. The reaction of the Scotists were also aggressive against Palamas. In his Cursus Dogmatico Historico, when discussing the eternity of God, he says that “the Palamite monks made an insurrection against the

eternity of God.” In his mind, clearly the Palamites were heretics. He then argues with Scripture and the testimony of the Fathers against them.

Josepho Thuring, O. F. M.
 
He is another well-known 18th century Scotist. In his Dissertatio Scoto-Theologica Dogmatico-Scholastica, on the Divine Attributes, art. 1, §3, he lists, among the errors, that of “Palamas and the Palamites”. He seems to be drawing most of the

information and language from Gotti and Natalis:
 
“The Greek Gregory Palamas (from whom the Palamite sect derive its name), was first a monk, then the schismatic Archbishop of Thessalonica in the middle of the 14th century… He asserted that the energies, or operations, of God

are really distinct from His essence, inferior from it and protected by it after the manner of a cause… He calls these operations no less than ‘deity’…
 
I say: Palamas’ sentence of a real distinction among God’s essence and His operations is a foolish and impious error. It is

foolish… because to what more conveys ‘deity’ than to the substance of God? […]
 
It is also impious because the operations of God, distinct from God, make many uncreated beings, many deities and many gods: these deities are either subsistent substances, and consequently

multiple gods, or they are accidents, and therefore they place accidents in God, which God does not admit, because by their dependence upon the subject, they cannot be uncreated.”