International Journal of Orthodox Theology 6:4 (2015) 69

urn:nbn:de:0276-2015-4050

Nichifor Tănase

“Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite

Theology of the Uncreaded Divine
Energies as Fundament of an
Ontological Epistemology

Abstract
During the Transfiguration, the
apostles on Tabor, “indeed saw the
same grace of the Spirit which would
later dwell in them”.1 The light of
grace “illuminates from outside
(ἔξωθεν) on those who worthily
approached it and sent the Rev. Lecturer Dr. Nichifor
illumination to the soul through the Tanase, Department of
sensitive eyes; but today, because it is Theology and Social
confounded with us (ἀνακραθὲν ἡμῖν) Sciences, Eftimie Murgu
and exists in us, it illuminates the soul University Reșita, Romania

1
Gregory Palamas, The Triads (edited with an introduction by John
Meyendorff, translation by Nicholas Gendle, preface by Jaroslav Pelikan,
Paulist Press: New Jersey, 1983); cf. Tr., III.iii.9, p. 106.
70 Nichifor Tănase

from inward (ἔνδωθεν)”.2 The opposition between knowledge,

which comes from outside (ἔξωθεν) - a human and purely
symbolic knowledge - and “intellectual” knowledge, which
comes from within (ἔνδωθεν), Meyendorff says3 what it already
exists at Pseudo-Dionysius: “For it is not from without that God
stirs them toward the divine. Rather he does so via the intellect
and from within and he willingly enlightens them with a ray
that is pure and immaterial”.4 The assertions of the Calabrian
philosopher about an “unique knowledge”, common both to the
Christians and the Hellenes and pursuing the same goal, the
hesychast theologian opposes the reality of the two knowledge,
having two distinct purposes and based on two different
instruments of perception: “Palamas admitted the authenticity
of natural knowledge, however the latter is opposed to the
revealed wisdom, that is why it does not provide, by itself,
salvation”.5 Therefore, in the purified human intellect begins to
shine of the Trinity light. Purity also depends on the return of
the intellect (its proper energy) to itself.6 In this way, we see

2
Grégoire Palamas, Défense des saints hésychastes (introduction and notes
by John Meyendorff, 2 volumes, Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 30,
Louvain: Peeters 1959, Tome I) cf. Tr. I, 3, 38, p. 124 and in Gendle ed., p.
193.
3
John Meyendorff, Introduction à l’Étude de Grégoire Palamas (Patristica
Sobornensia, 3, Paris: Les Éditions du Seuil, 1959) pp. 216-217. See, also:
Panayiotis Christou, “Double Knowledge According to Gregory Palamas”,
Studia Patristica, vol. 9 (Leuven: Peeters, 1966), pp. 20-29.
4
The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy I, 4, in Pseudo-Dionysius, The Complete
Works (translation by Colm Luibheid, foreword, notes, and translation by
Paul Rorem, preface by Rene Roques, introductions by Jaroslav Pelikan,
Jean Leclercq and Karlfried Froehlich) New York: Paulist Press, 1987), p.
198.
5
John Meyendorff, Introduction, p. 186.
6
Grégoire Palamas, Défense (ed. Meyendorff, t. I), p. 88; idem, Triads I.ii.8:
“Thus, the man who seeks to make his mind return to itself needs to propel
it not only in a straight line but also in the circular motion that is infallible.
How should such a one not gain great profit if, instead of letting his eye
roam hither and thither, he should fix it on his breast or on his navel, as a
point of concentration? For in this way, he will not only gather himself
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 71
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

how the true knowledge of God is an internal meeting or “inner

retrieval”7 of the whole being of man. As well as in the Syrian
mystic, on several occasions we have to make the distinction
between the contemplative ways of knowledge: intellection
illuminated by grace and spiritual vision without any
conceptual or symbolic meaning. For example, Robert Beulay

together externally, conforming as far as possible to the inner movement

he seeks for his mind; he will also, by disposing his body in such a
position, recall into the interior of the heart a power which is ever flowing
outwards through the faculty of sight. And if the power of the intelligible
animal is situated at the centre of the belly, since there the law of sin
exercises its rule and gives it sustenance, why should we not place there
‘the law of the mind which combats’ (Rom. 6.23) this power, duly armed
with prayer, so that the evil spirit who has been driven away thanks to the
‘bath of regeneration’ (Tit 3.5) may not return to install himself there with
seven other spirits even more evil, so that ‘the latter state becomes worse
than the first’ (Lk. 11.26)?”, (Gendle ed., 1983), p. 46-47 and Pseudo-
Dionysius, The Divine Names (DN) 4,9, in: The Complete Works (Colm
Luibheid, ed.), p. 78: “The soul too has movement. First it moves in a
circle, that is, it turns within itself and away from what is outside and there
is an inner concentration of its intellectual powers. A sort of fixed
revolution causes it to return from the multiplicity of externals, to gather in
upon itself and then, in this undispersed condition, to join those who are
themselves in a powerful union. From there the revolution brings the soul
to the Beautiful and the Good, which is beyond all things, is one and the
same, and has neither beginning nor end. But whenever the soul receives,
in accordance with its capacities, the enlightenment of divine knowledge
and does so not by way of the mind nor in some mode arising out of its
identity, but rather through discursive reasoning, in mixed and changeable
activities, then it moves in a spiral fashion. And its movement is in a
straight line when, instead of circling in upon its own intelligent unity (for
this is the circular), it proceeds to the things around it, and is uplifted from
external things, as from certain variegated and pluralized symbols, to the
simple and united contemplations”.
7
Amphiloque Radovic, Le Mystère de la Sainte Trinité selon saint Grégoire
de Palamas (Paris: Cerf, 2012), pp. 83.87 (“rassemblement intérieur”).
72 Nichifor Tănase

shows that, “The term of ‘intellection’ first of all, is employed by

John of Dalyatha to be applied to operations caused by grace”.8

Keywords

Gregory Palamas, essence-energies distinction, ontological

epistemology, theological methodology, Aristotelian logic,
deification

1 Anchoring of the Ontology in the Mystery of Christ

During late Antiquity, an interesting doctrinal shift can be

observed: Aristotelian logic and its Neoplatonic complements,
in particular the teachings of Aristotle’s Categories and
Porphyry’s Isagoge, was progressively accepted as a tool in
Christian theology. Various authors - Basil of Caesarea, Gregory
of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, John Philoponus, Leontius of
Byzantium, Maximus the Confessor, Theodore of Raithu, John of
Damascus and Boethius can be mentioned on different accounts
- used concepts which originated in logic in order to support
their theological thinking. But, also, the influence of Aristotle is
being especially felt in the philosophical underpinnings of the
post-Chalcedonian Christology and in the widespread adoption
of Aristotelian modes of argumentation (Theodore the Studite,
Photios of Constantinople, Michael Psellos, Eustratios of Nicaea,
Michael of Ephesus and Nikephoros Blemmydes).9

8
Robert Beulay, L’enseignement spirituel de Jean de Dalyatha, mystique
syro-oriental du VIIIe siècle, (coll. Théologie historique no 83, Paris:
Beauchesne 1990), p. 240.
9
Marcus Plested, Orthodox Readings of Aquinas (Oxford: University Press,
2012), p. 51-52. Stressing the importance of Aristotle in Byzantium,
Plested says: “In speaking of the dominance of Aristotle in the Byzantine
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 73
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

Unlike scholastic theology, Greek Fathers created a new „meta-

ontology”. Distinguishing between existence-energy (the fact
that God exists), being-nature (what is God) and hypostasis-
person (who and how God is) Cappadocian Fathers and St.
Gregory Palamas have done ontology (these categories are
ontological).10 Some still consider an open issue the energies.11
Therefore, „truth and objectivity [aletheia te kai bebaiotes]”
could be identified as „the basis of faith”.12
There was, in the perspective of Cappadocian thought, no
contradiction or disjunction at all between such a seemingly

theological tradition some caveats are necessary. Firstly, no one seriously

opposed Plato and Aristotle until the very last days of the Empire: they
were viewed as complementary and not as antagonistic. Further-more,
when I speak of ‘Aristotle’ or ‘Plato’ this is shorthand for a more or less
Platonized Aristotelianism or Aristotelianized Platonism. Aristotle was still
chiefly encountered through the neo-Platonic prism of Porphyry’s
Eisagoge while neo-Platonism itself was decisively shaped by Peripatetic
principle. Eclecticism was the norm.” (p. 53).
10
Christopher Stead, Divine substance (Oxford: University Press, 1977), pp.
209-210, pp. 214-215.218, discusses the idea of the substance of God in
theological tradition having as central point the Nicene homoousios. So he
says, from Origen’s Commentary on Hebrews, the word homoousios is
associated with phrases describing the Son’s derivation „from the
substance” of the Father. Neo-Platonist writers roughly contemporary with
Origen also used the term homoousios but only to suggests that the soul is
akin to and consubstantial with divine things (Ennead, iv. 7.10). Porphyry
also appears to have used the term homoousios to state the affinity of the
human intellect with divine Mind (the second hypostasis of his trinity).
However, Origen also used the term homoousios to indicate the Son’s
relationship to the Father; and he was the first greek writer to do so. It is
therefore in Origen that we find the first suggestion of the trinitarian use of
homoousios (being of the same nature with the Father).
11
Bernard Pottier, Dieu et le Christ selon Grégoire de Nysse, Namur 1994, p.
140f: „An open question: energies”.
12
Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on the Song of Songs (translated with an
introduction and notes by Richard A. Norris Jr., Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2012, Number 13), p. 422-455, cf. Jaroslav Pelikan,
Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural
Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism (Yale: University
Press, 1993), pp. 117-119.
74 Nichifor Tănase

intellectualistic formula as that and the seemingly more

personalistic thesis, „God remains the object of faith”.13 For in
spite of his radically apophatic emphasis, especially in the
polemics against Eunomius14, on the unattainability of any
positive knowledge about the divine ousia, Gregory of Nyssa
also insisted, specifically in opposition to Eunomius, that the
two formulas, „What God is” and „What God is also believed to
be,” had to be identical. That was what was meant by
Nazianzen’s axiomatic definition of faith as „the fulfillment of
our reasoning”.15
For Paul L. Gavrilyuk the “direct human contact with God
possible is both epistemologically and metaphysically
problematic”. As a mental act, intellectual vision is less overtly
tied to the body. The non-Christian Platonists as a rule treated
embodiment as hindering, if not altogether blocking, the vision
of the divine. “Christian theologians ‘baptized’ the ‘Platonic’
version of intellectual vision with different results, tending to

13
Gregory of Nyssa, Adversus Macedonianus, De spiritu sancto (translation
Volker Henning Drecoll in Gregory of Nyssa: The Minor Treatises on
Trinitarian Theology and Apollinarism. Proceedings of the 11th
International Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa, edited by Volker Henning
Drecoll and Margitta Berghaus, Leiden: Brill, Supplements to Vigiliae
Christianae 106, 2008), pp. 45-70, apud Pelikan, Christianity, p. 220; see
also: Giulio Maspero, “The Fire, the Kingdom and the Glory: the Creator
Spirit and the Intra-Trinitarian Processions in The ‘Adversus
Macedonianos’ of Gregory of Nyssa” Gregory of Nyssa: The Minor
Treatises, pp. 229-250.
14
Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium II, 89 (edited by Lenka Karfíková et
al., Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. 79-80.
15
Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ. The Five Theological Orations
and Two Letters to Cledonius (translated into English by Frederick
Williams and Lionel Wickham, New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
2002), Oration 29, 21, apud Pelikan, Christianity, p. 229. In their
celebration of the uniqueness of faith, therefore, the Cappadocians could
emphasize that no amount of philological learning was sufficient for the
correct understanding of Scripture, which was accessible only “through
spiritual contemplation [dia tes pneumatikes theorias]” and true faith. Yet
that did not keep them from exploiting a natural knowledge of philology to
the fullest;
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 75
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

maintain an ambivalent attitude towards the role of the body in

the contemplation of God. This ambivalence is already evident in
Origen, who in some cases views embodiment as an impediment,
and in other cases construes it as instrumental to the
contemplation of God”.16 This is manifestly a metaphysics of
mystery, in every sense of the term: antinomy, mystical union,
and sacrament.
For Eric Pearl „any philosophy which does not include
mysticism will be false as philosophy, that is, as an account of
reality. If reason impels us to mysticism, then our metaphysics
must be mystical in order to be rational”. In Maximus’ doctrine,
then, Christ comes not to destroy but to fulfill the metaphysics
of mystery elaborated by the philosophers. For him there can
be no separation between philosophy and theology, or between
natural and revealed theology. Thereby, Christology and
liturgical mysticism are not additional to a neoplatonic,
aristotelian, and other methaphysics: “What is unique to
Maximus is the anchoring of this ontology in the mystery of
Christ. …he sees all ontology summed up in that mystery, which is
itself the first principle of metaphysics. And it is precisely this
Christocentric doctrine that allows Maximus, not to reject, but to
retain and perfect the Neoplatonic metaphysics”.17
For Gregory Palamas this essence/energies distinction is rooted
in God’s very being, as „transcendent and immanent reveald in
the Incarnation itself”. This distinction may seem „incoherent in
light of formal logic, but coheres perfectly with the logic of
deification”.18 Paweł Rojek tried to show that „Palamas’

16
Paul L. Gavrilyuk and Sarah Coakley, The Spiritual Senses. Perceiving
God in Western Christianity (Cambridge: University Press, 2011), pp. 7-8.
17
Eric David Perl, Methexis: Creation, incarnation, deification in Saint
Maximus Confessor (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale: University Press, 1991), p.
314-315.
18
Aristotle Papanikolaou, Being with God. Trinity, Apophaticism, and
Divine-Human Communion (Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press,
2008), pp. 13.30. Dionysius and Gregory Palamas are the two great
synthesizers of theological apophaticism and the essence/energies
76 Nichifor Tănase

teaching on energies and deification is no less rational than any

other ontological positions”.19 Palamas, therefore, „neither
sacrificed revelation to philosophy nor contented himself with a
dry repetition of patristic opinions, but tried to base his teaching
about God on the Church’s faith and experience”.20
Deification, however, is the event of a real divine-human
communion and leads necessarily to antinomy, insofar as it
attempts to express this distinction grounded in the very being
of God, and Theology, insofar as „it attempts to express this
being, which is beyond being (essence) and radically immanent
(energies), must be antinomic” but „it is validated doxologically,
in that the soteriological principle of deification is a prais of the
love of God toward creation”.21 Palamas is only a witness of this
Tradition of union with the transcendent and immanent God in
which theosis sums up the divine economy.
Within a „mystical realism”22 based on participation in God as
light, St. Gregory Palamas identified three fundamental themes
of Eastern Christian spirituality: theology as apophaticism,
revelation as light and salvation as deification (Triad I.3.17).23

distinction. To Palamas this distinction at the heart of Christian ontology

become the dogmatic basis for union with God in terms of a real
communion between the created and the uncreated (p. 11 and 25).
19
Paweł Rojek, „The Logic of Palamism”, in Andrew Schumann (ed.), Logic
in Orthodox Christian Thinking (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), pp. 74-75.
20
Georgios I. Mantzaridis, The Deification of Man: St. Gregory Palamas and
the Orthodox Tradition (New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1984),
p. 106.
21
Papanikolaou, Being with God, pp. 25-27.
22
Håkan Gunnarsson, Mystical Realism in the Early Theology of Gregory
Palamas (Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet, 2002).
23
Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of
Doctrine, Volume 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom 600–1700
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), p. 264.
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 77
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

2 The ant(i)logical movement whithin the palamite

distinction. Aristotelian logic versus antinomy as
paradoxical or dialectical truth

The debate among Byzantine philosophers and theologians

about the proper attitude towards ancient logic is just one
episode in the turbulent history of the reception of ancient
philosophy in Byzantine thought, but it certainly raises one of
the most complicated and intriguing issues in the study of the
intellectual life in Byzantium.
There is no doubt that ancient logic, and more specifically
Aristotle’s syllogistic, was taught extensively throughout the
Byzantine era as a preliminary to more theoretical studies.
This is amply attested not only by biographical information
concerning the logical education of eminent Byzantine figures,
but also by the substantial number of surviving Byzantine
manuscripts of Aristotle’s logical writings, in particular
Aristotle’s Prior Analytics, and of the related Byzantine scholia,
paraphrases, and logical treatises.
Katerina Ierodiakonou shows how “in fact, the predominance in
Byzantium of Aristotle’s logic is so undisputed that, even when
Byzantine scholars suggest changes in Aristotelian syllogistic, or
attempt to incorporate into it other ancient logical traditions,
they consider these alterations only as minor improvements on
the Aristotelian system”.24

24
Katerina Ierodiakonou, „The Anti-Logical Movement in the Fourteenth
Century”, in Idem, Byzantine Philosophy and its Ancient Sources (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 2004), p. 219. Nevertheless, Byzantine authors are not all
unanimous as to the importance of the study of Aristotle’s logic, and more
generally, as to the importance of any kind of logical training: „There is
plenty of evidence that, in diferent periods of Byzantine history, some
Byzantine philosophers and theologians stress that, when it comes to
theology, we should not rely on logical arguments, whereas others insist
that we should avail ourselves of logic either in the exposition of Christian
dogmas or even in the attempt to prove their truth” (Ibid, p. 220). See also:
Basil Tatakis, Byzantine Philosophy (translation by Nicholas J.
78 Nichifor Tănase

H. Schäder says that “Christianization of Aristotelian logic in

Byzantine theology” was made by modifying the terms which
are related: a fundamental Platonic idea of fundamental
phenomenal participation (methexis) to the “idea” of eternal
Good together with central Aristotelian notion of energy, the
divine-earthly actualization (energeia), which Aristotle brought
it in opposition to the platonic scheme. However, the Christian
exceeding of the Aristotelian-Platonic opposition between
absolute divine energy and divine-earthly participation should
have appeared to the Greeks as a paradox.
For Aristotle, divine being (ousia) is, in the fullest sense of the
word, an absolute energy in divinity, arelational, the two words,
ousia and energeia, being identical. Schäder underlines that this
identification between being and divine energy was taken from
Arabic and scholastic Western philosophy, but not from
Byzantine theology. During the Christological disputes from 4th-
8th centuries, the personalization of the ancient concept of

Moutafakis, Cambridge/Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2003);

Idem, „La Philosophie grecque patristique et byzantine”, in Brice Parain
(ed.), Histoire de la Philosophie, tome I: Orient - Antiquité - Moyen Âge
(Paris: Gallimard, 1969), pp. 936-1005; Gerhardt Podskalsky, Theologie
und Philosophie in Byzanz: Der Streit urn die theologische Methodik in
der spatbyzantinischen Geistesgeschichte (14.,15. Jh.) (München: Beck,
1977); Herbert Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der
Byzantiner (München:C. H. Beck, 1978), pp. 3-62; Klaus Oehler, Antike
Philosophie und byzantinisches Mittelalter (München: C. H. Beck, 1969),
and in his article “Die byzantinische Philosophie”, in Guttorm Fløistad
(Ed.), Contemporary Philosophy: A New Survey, vol. 6. Philosophy and
Science in the Middle Ages (Dordrecht: Springer, 1990), pp. 639-649. And
another, like: Günter Weiss, Byzanz.Kritischer Forschungs und
Literaturbericht 1968-1985 (Historische Zeitschrift 14, München:
Oldenbourg Verlag, 1986); Alain de Libera, La philosophie médiévale
(Paris: PUF, 1995, 2e édition); L. Brisson, “L‘Aristotelisme dans le monde
byzantine” in Lambros Couloubaritsis, Histoire de la philosophie ancienne
et médiévale (Paris: Grasset, 1998).
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 79
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

energy was completed by correlating it with the concept of the

divine will (thelisis).25
The historical-systematic significance of Christianization,
mentioned above, of Aristotelian categories in Byzantine
theology lies in the fact that ontological-personal relation, which
is found in Greek philosophy, was accomplished in a Christian
sense: a) the personal principle was not subordinated to the
ontological one and reduced to it (the risk of Roman Catholic
theology) and b) personal ontological relation was not shortened
in favor of a single valid personal thinking (the risk of
neoprotestantism and existentialism).
The revealed trinitarian theology of the Byzantines dynamited
the Aristotelian schemes to use them in a modification which is
Christological conditionated.26 In patristic Greek, the romanian

25
Hildegard Schäder, Die Christianisierung der aristotelik Logik in der
byzantinischen Theologie repräsentiert durch Johannes Damaskus und
Gregor Palamas”, Theologia 33 (1962), pp. 1-21. In Aristotle’s
Metaphysics Platonic-Aristotelian concept of movement is energeticaly
explained: all categories can be viewed under the aspect of “becoming”,
namely the transition (“motion”) from potency to actuality, from dynamis
to energeia. Aristotle says that Divinity itself is an actual pure energeia
with no pontentiality and no relation: pure self-activating, moving
unmoving/still, pure thought of itself or thinking of thinking (noeseos
noesis).
26
Ibidem. It also takes place the Christianization of another notional couple
from classical antiquity: the polarity physis - Thesis / nomos (nature -
establishing / law). According to him, Jesus Christ is called the Son of God
by nature (physei) , but people are getting God's sons through
establishment (thesei) or more precisely through adoption (hyo-thesia), and
thus they become “partakers of the divine nature” ( 2 Ptr I , 4). St. John of
Damascus uses, based on Cappadocians, the notion of “proper” element
(idion, idioma) of Divinity; for Porphyry, in his famous Isagog, at the
Categories of Aristotle the proper is what it is, particular from the
variable accidents, it is inseparably united from being / substance that of
thing. For St. John Damascene, “properties” divinity - from staying in first
divine will and energy - are “irradiation”, “exits/outputs” of God in
creation and revelation, without that through this the impenetrable being of
God can be reached or that He appears as something compound. Energy
80 Nichifor Tănase

theologian John I. Ică jr. shows that it was introduced “a process

of transformation of concepts of classical ontology to appropriate
them to new realities revealed by the personal mysteries (the
Trinity and Incarnation)”.27
Podskalsky insist that the Palamite controversy was not a
struggle against either Latin scholasticism (Romanides28) or
Byzantine humanism (Meyendorff29), but rather a retreat into
monastic anti-intellectualism motivated by experiency with a
rejection of the knowledge of God by syllogistic reasoning
method. It is a tension to be seen, according to Podskalsky, in
Gregory Palamas himself, who, after an early humanistic
education, goes on “to develop into a rigorous champion of
monastic anti-intelectualism”.30
For him the 14th-century Methodenstreit have two phases:
validity of the theological use of syllogistic argumentation and
the vision of the uncreated light with the distinction between
essence and energies in God. Podskalsky goes on to suggest that
Palamas introduces a “radically new theological doctrine of
knowledge”31 because he has placed the knowledge of God
beyond the domain of public verification, independent of
syllogistic reasoning. The effect of this line of thinking was to
sharpen the prevailing tension between theology and

and other properties of God “accompany the nature, but does not reveals”
(Dogmatic I, 9, 837b).
27
Ioan I. Ica jr., “’Dialectic’ of St. John of Damascus - logical-philosophical
prolegomena of ‘Dogmatic’,” Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Orthodox
Theology 40:1-2 (1995), pp. 85-140, p. 116.
28
J. S. Romanides, “Notes on the Palamite Controversy”, Greek Orthodox
Theological Rewiew 6 (1960-1961), pp. 186-205 and 9 (1963-1964), pp.
225-270.
29
Jean Meyendorff, Introduction à l’étude de Grégoire Palamas, (Patristica
Sorbonensia 3, Paris: Les Éditions du Seuil, 1959); G. Schiro, J.
Meyendorff, “Humanismus und Palamismus”, in Actes du XIIe Congrès
international des études byzantines (3 volumes, Belgrade, 1963, tome 1),
pp. 323-327, 329-330.
30
G. Podskalsky, Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz, p. 47.
31
Ibid., p. 155, pp. 170-172.
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 81
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

philosophy into a radical division. But, according to Duncan

Reid “It would be more reasonable to hypothesize that Palamas
was making use of an older way of doing theology, based on
doxology rather than logic, and on personal experience rather
than syllogistic deduction. For this reason I am not convinced
that Palamas’ position was a simple retreat into anti-
intellectualism”.32 La solution du problème en question, la
relation entre Palamas et la philosophie antique, qui occupa de
nombreux chercheurs, nous est donnée par Palamas lui-même:
“Les uns, en effet, ont, selon Paul, l’intelligence du Christ, et les
autres experiment au mieux un raisonnement humain”33.
We can regard Palamas as a conservative in his theological
method, he was defending a doxological method of thinking
theologically, which is similar to patristic theology. Our
knowledge of God has its place not within a metaphysical
system, but in mystical experience.34
Therefore, St. Gregory Palamas is “drawing a distinction
between our descriptive speech about God on the level of the
economy and our ascriptive or doxological speech to God,
pointing to the beyondness of God, to that of God wich lies beyond
our logical names and concepts”.35
Paweł Rojek, also, tried to show that „Palamas’ teaching on
energies and deification is no less rational than any other
ontological positions. No true antinomy was found. Moreover, his
teaching may be analyzed with the help of some logical tools.
Even the most mystical elements of Palamism, such as the
divinization of human nature, can be expressed in a formal way

32
Duncan Reid, “Hesychasm and Theological Method in Fourteenth Century
Byzantium” Ostkirchliche Studien 46 (1997), pp. 15-24, here p. 19.
33
Grégoire Palamas, Défense, I, 1, 1 (Meyendorff ed. 1959), p. 34.
34
Pierre Miquel, “Grégoire Palamas, Docteur de l’Expérience”, Irénikon 37
(1964), p. 227-237; Arthur Macdonald Allchin, “The Appeal to Experience
in the Triads of St. Gregory Palamas”, Studia Patristica 93 (1966), pp.
323-328.
35
Duncan Reid, “Hesychasm and Theological Method”, p. 23.
82 Nichifor Tănase

consistently”.36 The consequence of this methodology was

modification of the existing ontological conceptual scheme. For
instance, he modified the Greek philosophical categories of
accident and property to reach the appropriate ontological
concept of energy. That is why some of his theses may seem
‘antynomic’. Palamas’ ontology might be called a ‘theology of
being’. Palamas, therefore, „neither sacrificed revelation to
philosophy nor contented himself with a dry repetition of
patristic opinions, but tried to base his teaching about God on the
Church’s faith and experience. Thus, man has knowledge of God’s
existence through His energies which are sent into the world”.37
B. Schultze considers that the distinction between essence and
energy abolishes the apophasis of palamite theology38, while
scholastic realizes a rational synthesis between anthropomor-
phism and rationalism, synthesis which is absent in the
palamisme, who had not managed to overcome the
contradictions.39 We can answer to the above mentioned that
the Palamas mystical thought is neither illogical nor antilogical
but surlogical. The irrationalism consists in transporting the
antinomic thought from the domain of the divine in the
metaphysics of created.
In any case, the palamisme refuses to distinguish into a
cataphatical way the essence and divine energies, like two
different “things”, which would introduce a composition in God.
Also, the mediating realities as principles of communion could
not be an intermediary ontological sphere between the uncreated

36
Paweł Rojek, „The Logic of Palamism”, in: Andrew Schumann (ed.), in:
Andrew Schumann (ed.), Logic in Orthodox Christian Thinking (Berlin:
De Gruyter, 2012), pp. 74-75.
37
Georgios I. Mantzaridis, The Deification of Man: St. Gregory Palamas and
the Orthodox Tradition (New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1984),
p. 106.
38
P. B. Schultze, “Die Taten des einfachen Gottes”, Orientalia Christiana
Periodica (OCP) 36 (1970), pp. 135-142.
39
Idem, “Die Bedeutung des Palamismus in der russischen Theologie der
Gegenwart”, Scholastik 26 (1951) pp. 390-412, here p. 411.
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 83
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

and the created, but had to be located either in God himself

(palamitic approach, through the doctrine of uncreated
energies), or in the creature itself (scholastic approach, through
the doctrine of created grace). Here again the human logic is
antinomically transcended in God: „because the Palamites only
wanted to defend the authenticity of their mystical experiences
and not to find an ontological formula to understand the
emergence of creation and the finite being outside God”.40
B. Schultze simply sees the antinomy as self-contradiction, and
he asks himself how antinomic thinking can possibly be related
to logical reason. For him the idea of antinomy as paradoxical
or dialectical truth it can not be received, because the rules of
Aristotelian logic seem to be the final criteria of truth.
Kallistos Ware’s answer to this position is to try to explain the
notion of antinomy not simply in negative terms as
contradiction, but positively by refernce to dialectic: „By
‚antinomy’ in theology I mean the affirmation of two contrasting
or opposed truths, which cannot be reconciled on the level of the
discursive reason although a reconciliation is possible on the
higher level of contemplative experience. Because God lies
‚beyond’.., the human reason or...language...the christian tradition
speks in ‚anti-nomic’ fashion... ‚saying and unsaying to a positive
effect’. If we rest satisfied with a strictly ‚logical’ and ‚rational’
theology – meaning by this the logic and reason of fallen man –
then we risk making idols out of our finite, human concepts.
Antinomy helps us to shatter these idols and to point, beyond
logic and discursive reason, to the living reality of the infinite and
uncreated God”.41
For Rowan Williams the essence-energies distinction, although
possessing some validity to the epistemological level, should

40
Endre von Ivanka, Plato Christianus. La réception critique du platonisme
chez les Pères de Eglise (Paris:PUF, 1990), p. 373.
41
Kallistos Ware, “The Debate about Palamism”, Eastern Churches Review
9/ 1-2 (1977), p. 45-63, here pp. 46-47.
84 Nichifor Tănase

not be projected into that of metaphysics.42 “But we should reply

that the Orthodox tradition looks, in fact, the distinction in
objectives terms and not only in subjective one. The distinction is
real, a πραγματικὴ διάκρισις, not just a concept, a distinction
κατ’ἐπίνοιαν. The 1351 council openly says that the stasis or
distinction between essence and energy exists ‘not only from our
poit of view’ but ‘even in the natural order’ that is to say, in God’s
being. There is also an axiom of Orthodox theology which says
that we have no direct knowledge of the inner being or ousia of
God; everything that is vaguely grasp are His activities and His
revelation in the world, and when we speak of divine things we
can never really overcome the epistemological level and reach to
that of pure metaphysics; we always talk about God as He
manifests Himself to us and not of God as He is in Himself”.43
Therefore, Rowan Williams sees Palamas as a Neoplatonist
who, like all Neoplatonists, is guilty of reifying what are
properly merely logical distinctions.
In Neoplatonism “attributes are conceived as having a kind of
substantiality,” and thus they are both capable of participation
and of distinction from their participants. This fundamental
error leads to the triadic scheme of Proclus, in which each
reality exists as unparticipated (ἀμέθεκτον), participated
(μετεχόμενον), and participatory (μετέχον).44
According to Williams, when this scheme is being transferred
by Dionysius into Christian thought, the One qua unparticipated
becomes the divine ousia, whereas the henads become the
divine proodoi or dynameis. Palamas takes a further step to the
rechristenization of the divine proodoi as energeiai and to

42
Rowan Douglas Williams, The theology of Vladimir Nikolaievich Lossky:
an exposition and critique (DPhil. University of Oxford), 1975.
43
Kalistos Ware, “Dieu cache et révélé”, pp. 55-56.
44
Rowan Douglas Williams, “The Philosophical Structures of Palamism,”
Eastern Churches Review 9 (1977), pp. 27-44, here p. 35. The
unparticipated is in general the level of ousia, whereas the participated is
that of procession (πρόοδος). In the case of the One the processions are the
divine henads.
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 85
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

emphasize the fact that these energies are a real plurality, thus
making clear that they are really distinct from the ousia.45
Williams has two objections to what he sees as the attempt by
Palamas (and Dionysius) to impose a Neoplatonic ontology
upon Christianity. The first objection is that of conceiving the
divine ousia along the lines of the One qua unparticipated, as
“the perfectly simple, indivisible, imparticipable interiority of
God,” Palamas effectively privileges the ousia above the persons
of the Trinity.
As a proof, Williams quotes Palamas’ assertion, the one that the
divine energeia is distinct from the ousia “in the same way as
the hypostasis is doing.”46 He also says that, since the energies
are intrinsically relational, and, at the same time, they are truly
God, they implicate Palamas in pantheism. He replies: “The
unity of God is far more gravely imperilled by this than any
Palamite or neo-Palamite seems to have grasped; it is the
purest Neoplatonism, an affirmation of two wholly distinct
orders of reality in God”.47
Rowan Williams characterises the palamite distinction as a
piece of „dubious scholasticism”48, based on a confusion of
Aristotelian and neo-Platonic philosophical terms. This
criticism is suppemented by a positive appreciation of the
personalist and existentialist elements in Orthodox theology,
elements which in the end render the Palamite distinction
unnecessary.
Kallistos Ware attempts to defend the palamite position by
reducing the gap between ontology and epitemology. Se, where
Williams argues that the essence-energies distinction is merely
a rational distinction, a reflection on the human thought that is,

45
Ibidem, pp. 36-37.
46
Grégoire Palamas, Theophanes 12; cited by R. Williams, “Philosophical
Structures,” p. 5.
47
Rowan Douglas Williams, “The Philosophical Structures of Palamism”, p.
38.
48
Ibid., p. 44.
86 Nichifor Tănase

a matter of epistemology, rather than an ontological distinction,

Ware offers this reply: „If we say, as the Cappadocians for
exemple are concerned to do, that God is unknowable in a unique
sense, we are not merely making a statement about the
limitations of our human understanding, but a statement about
God himself”.49
Antinomic thinking does not mean incomprehensible or
irrational thinking, but the antinomic method recognizes the
ineffability of God. Ware distinguishes between discursive
reason (διάνοια, ratio) and spiritual understanding (νοῦς,
intellectus)50 and as such this distinction is not irrational. For
him irrationality occurs only when this spiritual understanding
is misused.
According to David Bradshaw the conclusion that Williams
draws is that Palamas leaves us with “two eternal realities, God
in se and God as participated by creatures,” and no way to unify
them. So, the errors of Williams fall into two groups, those
related to Dionysius and to Palamas. “The notion that the henads
of Proclus are the immediate source of the proodoi of Dionysius
can only be made good by ignoring the Cappadocian elements in
Dionysius’ thought”51.
And, likewise, “Williams overlooks that the henads are not simply
reified divine attributes, but quasi-personal agents possessing
intellects, souls, and bodies” and “henads come about not by
procession but by ‘derivation’ (ὑπόβασις)”.52 Bradshaw does not

49
Kallistos Ware, “The Debate about Palamism”, Eastern Churches Review
9 (1977), p. 60. Cf. David Coffey, „The Palamite Doctrine of God: a New
Perspective,” StVladTHQ 32 (1988), pp. 329-358, p. 329: „Palamas
nowhere goes so far as to characterize his distinction as ‚real’”.
50
See Nichifor Tănase, “Nous (energeia) and kardia (dynamis) in the Holistic
Anthropology of St. Gregory Palamas”, in: Eric Austin Lee and Samuel
Kimbriel (eds.), The Resounding Soul: Reflections on the Metaphysics and
Vivacity of the Human Person (Eugene, Oregon, Wipf & Stock, 2015), pp.
149-174.
51
David Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West. Metaphysics and the Division of
Christendom (Cambridge: University Press, 2004), pp. 179-186 and p. 270.
52
Idem, Aristotle East and West, p. 270.
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 87
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

agree with placing the Palamite distinction being-energies

within the context of philosophical distinction between
unparticipated-participated, stating vigorously that the latter is
not the source of the former: “Turning to Palamas, the notion
that the essence-energies distinction derives from the
unparticipated-participated distinction might seem to present
firmer ground, and has been affirmed by other critics. But
although it is certainly true that Palamas makes use of the
unparticipated-participated distinction to explicate that of
essence and energies, that is far from proving that it is his
source.”53
Instead, the Norwegian theologian, T. Tollefsen, builds his last
work about the uncreated energies exclusively on the concept
of participation in Late Antique and Early Christian Thought.
The aim of Torstein Tollefsen about activity (he prefers this
term instead of the energy) and participation is to interpret the
Palamite doctrine of the experience of light according to the
principles of the ontology. He says that here are three
ontological aspects to be considered concerning the divine
being, namely the essence, the activity, and the triad of divine
hypostases. Palamas only tries to secure a unified dynamic of
the Trinity, according to which the three hypostases eternally
move out from and into one another in a perfect communion of
goodness and love: „the divine nature or essence eternally
manifests within its eternal Triadic dynamics, and that is
independent of any divine relatedness to something other than
God. God is dynamically Himself eternally, and only relates to
otherness when He wills otherness to exist”.54
God is the Form in forms as the primal Form, and this has to do
with participation. Palamas says that all things participate in
God, and they are constituted by this participation in His

53
Ibidem.
54
Torstein Theodor Tollefsen, Activity and Participation in Late Antique and
Early Christian Thought (Oxford: University Press, 2012), p. 189.
88 Nichifor Tănase

activity, but says Tollefsen „still we have to find out how

Palamas thinks that such a transcendent activity is
accommodated to created otherness”.55
For Palamas activity or energie is the essential movement of
nature (ἡ οὐσιώδης τής φύσεως κίνησις) [Capita 150.143]. A
couple of other texts, analyzed by the norwegian theologian,
bear witness to the same dynamic character of the activity.
Therefore, according to the Triads (3.2.11), Palamas says –
quoting Dionysius – that the activities are certain powers
(δυνάμεις) which are deifying, essence-making, life-making, and
giving wisdom (ἐκθεωτικὰς ἢ οὐσιοποιοὺς ἢ ζωογόνους ἢ
σοφοδώρους).
Here, Tollefsen points out that „the activities, as we can see, are
not at all beings in the sense of ‘things' that mysteriously
emanate from God’s essence, rather they are God-in-activity”.56
Further, in his third letter to Akindynus, Palamas used a phrase
that disturbed his addressee, speaking of the „activity as a
‘lower divinity’ (θεότης ὑφειμένη57)”. Palamas himself, in a
second version of the letter, appealing to the authority of
Dionysius, specified the term to indicate, says Tollefsen, „the
gift of deification received as such from God’s transcendent
essence”.58
One of Palamas’ most vigorous defenders is Eric Perl who
argues that the divine energeiai are nothing other than God’s
single, eternal creative act: “activity is pre-contained in the one
eternal act of creation by which God, in his eternal present,
creates the entire expanse of time and all things in it”.59 But,
Palamas says specifically that God’s creative act has both a

55
Ibid, p. 190.
56
Ibid, p. 193.
57
Gregory Akindynos, Letters of Gregory Akindynos (ed. and trans. Angela
Hero, Corpus Historiae Byzantinae, 21, Washington: Dumbarton Oaks
Research, 1983), pp. xv-xvi, note 44.
58
Torstein Theodor Tollefsen, Activity and Participation, p. 194.
59
Eric Perl, “St. Gregory Palamas and the Metaphysics of Creation,”
Dionysius 14 (1990), p. 105-130, here p. 122.
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 89
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

beginning and an end.60 Regarding this assertion of Perl,

Bradshaw to emphasize that “The exegetical foundations of this
interpretation are rather slim. None of the texts cited by Perl
actually says that the energeiai are differentiated solely by their
relation to creatures, much less that they are identical with
God’s creative act.
Palamas does identify the divine logoi with God’s creative
energeia, but that is a different and much more limited
statement. After all, the energeiai also include the gifts of the
Holy Spirit, the uncreated light, and the “things around God.”
Perl ignores these other categories, apparently simply
assuming that the energeiai are equivalent to the logoi.”61
Is the palamite distinction between essence (or
superessentiality) and energies a real or merely a rational
distinction? In other words, is it a question of ontology or
epistemology?62 Western theology, if it concedes a distinction at
all between inner and economic Trinity, allows this only as a
rational distinction (distinctio rationalis), that is, as a
distinction that has its basis in the limitations of human
thought. But, according to Duncan Reid, „a logical problem
arises here. The ineffability of God’s inner being must be ineffable

60
Triads iii.2.8 (Gendle ed. 1983), p. 96: “There are, however, energies of
God which have a beginning and an end”; also in Chap. 130: “For in
creating, God initiates and ceases, as Moses says, ‘God ceased from all
the works which he had begun to create’. However, this act of creation,
wherein God makes a beginning and an end, is a natural and uncreated
energy of God [ώς καί ό Μωϋσής φησιν, ότι κατέπαυσεν ό θεός άπό
πάντων τών έργων ών ήρξατο ποιήσαι. τό μέντοι δημιουργεΐν τοΰτο, καθ '
ο άρχεται ό θεός καϊ παύεται, φυσική καϊ άκτιστός έστιν ενέργεια θεοΰ]”,
in Saint Gregory Palamas, The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters (edition.
and translation by Robert E. Sinkewicz, C.S.B.,Studies and Texts, 83,
Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1988), pp. 234-235.
61
Duncan Reid, Energies of the Spirit. Trinitarian Models in Eastern
Orthodox and Western Theology (Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 87;
see also, Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West, pp. 270-271.
62
Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life
(San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993), p. 186-197.
90 Nichifor Tănase

to ‚someone’, someone who is not God... It seems illogical to

regard the distinction as anything more than a purely rational
distinction”.63 Therefore, if this is an illogical distinction it’s „a
question of the Eastern doctrine of God” says Duncan Reid,
while „the subject of the discussion is not humanity, but God;
that the distinction is theological, not anthropological – as it
would be if it claimed to say something about human
intellectual capacity, that is to say, what we can or cannot know
about God”.64
For Palamas himself, however, the central questions were not
primarily philosophical or speculative ones but questions
arising out of ascetic praxis and experience.65 It is not an purely
intellectual exercise but he is seeking to explain this living
mystical tradition. The starting point of speculation is ontology,
but „Theology finds it imposible to regard being as the supreme
concept”.66
Therefore, Jewish philosopher Abraham Heschel says that the
God of the prophets is constantly active (semper agens). This
means that in our experience there is no distinction between
God’s being and God’s activity. D. Reid concludes: „Being and act
are identified with one another in the biblical understanding of
God, but not in the way in which western theology has
traditionally identified them with one another, that is, not as
actus purus. Heschel argues that the biblical God is beyond any
notion of being”.67

63
Duncan Reid, Energies of the Spirit, p. 88.
64
Ibid, p. 90.
65
In relation to this methodological question, see Gerhard Podskalsky SJ,
“Zur Bedeutung des Methodenproblems für die byzantinische Theologie”,
in Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 98 (1976), p. 385-399; Idem, “Die
griechisch-byzantinische Theologie und ihre Methode. Aspekte und
Perspektiven eines ökumenischen Problems”, in: Theologie und
Philosophie 58 (1983), pp. 71-87.
66
Abraham Joshua Heschel, The prophets (New York: Harper & Row, 1975,
vol. 2), p. 42-44; cf. Duncan Reid, Energies of the Spirit, pp. 97-98.
67
Ibidem.
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 91
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

It is evident, says Aristotle Papanikolaou, from Lossky’s

discussion of the nature of mystical union with God, that a „non-
negotiable axiom of theological discourse for Lossky is the
realism of divine-human communion”.68
On the other hand, it is a union with the transcendent God, Who
is ontologically „other”. Therefore, cataphatic and apophatic
theologies are grounded in and have as their goal this union
with the transcendent and immanent God.
That’s why, according to Papanikolaou, „The challenge for
theology is how to conceptualize this divine-human communion
with the God who is simultaneously transcendent and
immanent”.69 Such an attempt we can find to Dionysius with his
distinction between enoseis and proodoi. A case in point is also
Palamas with his distinction between ousia and energeia. He is
only a witness of this Tradition, to defend the very essence of
this tradition. Lossky is saying that it was „a dogmatic basis for
union with God which impelled the Eastern Church to formulate
her teaching on the distinction between God’s essence and His
energies”.70
According to Palamas, if God’s energies are not uncreated, we
will speaking not of deification, but absorption. therefore we
agree with Papanikolaou that „Distinction between uncreated
and created essence, a distinction at the heart of Christian
ontology”.71 Philosophical concept of essence is validated
doxologically, through the soteriological principle of deification.
Therefore, we get the understanding the divine simplicity by
the logic of deification. But, says Aristotle „The question still
exists, however, how created existence is, in fact, «created» when
it is a product of divine energies that are uncreated”.72 Palamite

68
Aristotle Papanikolaou, Being With God, pp. 24-25.
69
Ibid, p. 25.
70
Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church
(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976), p. 71.
71
Aristotle Papanikolaou, Being With God, p. 26.
72
Ibidem.
92 Nichifor Tănase

distinction is „antinomic”, because deification leads necessarily

to antinomy. The realism of divine-human communion, should
not be limited by formal rules of logic. The logic inconsistency,
thus, it can’t be invoked because, as Papanikolaou stresses, „It
would be incorrect to characterize the essence/energies
distinction as illogical, for the paradoxical nature of the
distinction is grounded in the paradoxical event of divine-human
communion”.73
For Ch. Journet the fundamental „difficulty” of Palamas is
rooted in the concept of deification as an ontological
participation (entitative) and his refusal of the created grace.74
For G. Florovsky the first element of St. Gregory’s theology was
the history of salvation, and not an abstract or speculative
thought. Then, he characterized St. Gregory’s theology as a
„theology of facts”, biblical and patristic at the same time.75
On the same subject, E. von Ivanka also says that there is a
resemblance between the palamite pattern and the
neoplatonists systems.76
H. Schäder maintains the thesis that, on the one hand, St.
Gregory rejects the Aristotelian conception of the simplicity of
God and, on the other, he “christianized” the platonic-
aristotelian notion of the divine energies.77 For J. Kuhlman
there is a “complementarity” between Thomism and
palamisme,78 while D. Wendebourg unilaterally criticizes what

73
Ibidem, p. 27.
74
Charles Journet, “Palamisme et thomisme. À propos d’un livre récent”,
Revue Thomiste 60 (1960), pp. 430-452.
75
Georges Florovsky, “Grégoire Palamas et la patristique”, Istina 8/1 (1961-
1962), p. 125.
76
Endre von Ivánka, Plato Christianus. Übernahme und Umgestaltung des
Platonismus durch die Väter (Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag, 1964), p. 393.
77
H. Schäder, “Die Christianisierung der Aristotelischen Logik”, pp. 1-21.
78
Jürgen Kuhlmann, Die Taten des einfachen Gottes. Eine römisch-
katholische Stellungnahme zum Palamismus, (Würzburg: Augustinus-
Verlag, 1968), pp. 108-125.
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 93
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

it is presented at Palamas, according to her, as an insufficiently

personaliste and economic trinitarian theology.79
Thus, the basic contradiction faced and resolved by Palamas in
an orthodox manner is that of a God both totally unknowable
and fully participable. God does exist as imparticipable within
His participation, and absolutely incomprehensible in His total
presence. Palamas’ doctrine does not differ from that of earlier
Fathers, but he tried to explain this distinction received from
the Fathers by making it more clearly: „His attempt hadn’t had
as a purpose the invention of an ontological definition and a logic
understanding of the ineffable relationship between God and the
world, but the defense of the Church experience and of
truthfulness of Revelation”.80
On the other hand, Amphiloque Radovic demonstrates the
weakness of rational logic regarding mystical phenomenology:
“Human logic always runs the danger either to confuse or to
divide: when it tries clearly to describe and to define the mystery
in fact, through concepts and descriptions, it divides what it is in
itself indivisible by nature. When human logic deals with the
mystique description, it confuses it with what it exists by nature
without confusion. Nevertheless, man can not deny neither one
nor the other method. Gregory also combines the two methods,
however, giving priority to mystical contemplation”.81
For Palamas, Radovic emphasizes, the Christological antinomy
is a crucified logic: “Palamas did not need to take refuge in the
patterns of secular philosophy, but he begins from the «crucified»
Trinitarian logic. This logic is truly antinomical [...]The internal

79
Dorothea Wendebourg, Geist oder Energie. Zur Frage der innergöttlichen
Verankerung des christlichen Lebens in der byzantinischen Theologie
(Münchener Monographien zur historischen und systematischen Theologie
4, Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1980).
80
Radovic, Le Mystère de la Sainte Trinité, p. 244.
81
Ibid, p. 250.
94 Nichifor Tănase

rhythm of the Palamas’s thought is actually antinomical because

it is Trinitarian and, at the same time, Christological”.82
Biblical revelation and its internalization is the criteria of true
theology. The logic is not removed, yet crucified, for the
purposes of resurrections of hermeneutics. So, says Radovic,
“these antinomical formulations, having as a unique base the
biblical faith and the revelation as ‘folly’ of the Cross and
‘crucifixion’ of the logic, find that the Trinitarian theology of
Palamas is rather the holy and mystical inner vision of a faithful
heart illuminated by the Holy Spirit, than a theology in the usual
sense of the word”.83
In the recent works the authors intend to show that in his
framework, Thomas reaches to an intuition of divination if not
identical to that of Palamas, at least very close to it.84 But, the
question of uncreated grace remains, more than ever, “an issue
between the East and the West.” So that, for Antoine Levy, “the
controversy between Gregory and Barlaam does not refere only
to a dogmatic point, but also the status of the theologian and the
very legitimacy of his research were at stake. Who, in fact, had
the authority to tell the truth about God? The one whose
intelligence had been impregnated by attendance to the
philosophy and secular sciences (Barlaam) – or the one whose
spiritual experience had been grown into a life of asceticism and
prayer (Gregory Palamas)?”85
For Antoine Levy, “the issue regards the delimitation of the
respective spheres of created and uncreated, their mode of

82
Ibid, pp. 292-293.
83
Ibid, pp. 285-286.
84
Jacques Lison, L’esprit répandu. La pneumatologie de Grégoire Palamas
(Paris: Cerf, 1994); Anna NgaireWilliams, The Ground of Union:
Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (Oxford: University Press, 1999);
Constantinos Athanasopoulos, Christoph Schneider (ed.), Divine Essence
and Divine Energies: Ecumenical Reflections on the Presence of God in
Eastern Orthodoxy (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2013).
85
Antoine Lévy, Le créé et l’incréé: Maxime le confesseur et Thomas
d'Aquin: aux sources de la querelle palamienne (Paris: Vrin, 2006), p. 16.
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 95
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

mutual communication is envisaged here and there with all

different accents and so to speak opposites”86 and therefore, in
conclusion, Levy said there is no doctrinal question, but rather
a linguistical one: “As we have seen, it is rather about the
astonishing discovery of a lack of common language due to
previously unnoticed cultural gaps”.87
But André de Halleux warns us that the theologian must
renounce herein to the logic of the created. Because for the
patristic tradition, conceptual and dialectical thinking became
incompetent in the field of experience and, indeed, the One God
of palamisme is neither of Aristotle, nor even of Plotinus, but of
Christian tradition: “The Palamas paradoxical thought allows
him to go beyond the rational design of the divine simplicity by a
‘supernatural simplicity’, overcoming to any contradiction. It is
not a logical balance, dosing and compensating the affirmations,
one another, but it is a transcendental synthesis, fully
maintaining their opposition in the unity where they join
together. God transcends our category of uniqueness as well as
that of plurality, which is why both of them do not apply to Him in
the same level of inadequacy”.88
The Augustinian tradition placed the supreme end of man in
beatifying knowledge of God, wherein God will be in His
kingdom contemplated totum, etsi non totaliter. On the
contrary, the Orthodox mystical theology of face-to-face vision
does not contemplate the essence, but the divine face turned to
the world, because, “if palamisme insisted so much on the eternal
and uncreated nature of energy, it was in order to conciliate the
biblical axiom of the unknowable essence with the affirmation of
the immediate vision of God in person”.89

86
Ibid, p. 10
87
Ibid, p. 15.
88
André de Halleux, “Palamisme et Scolastique. Exclusivisme dogmatique
ou pluriformité théologique?”, Revue theologique de Louvain 4 (1973), pp.
409-442, here p. 421.
89
André de Halleux, “Palamisme et Scolastique”, p. 414.
96 Nichifor Tănase

Distinction between essence and energies should no longer

threaten the divine simplicity90 as the reciprocal distinction of
hypostases does, because „the idea of the absolute and final
simplicity of the One is it itself essentially neo-Platonic.
Christian mysticism does not seek the Alone, the absolutely
simple One, but the Triune God”.91
On the other hand, the neo-palamite movement does not
consider the palamite distinction as a christian ontological
axiom, but rather as a datum of „mystical theology” transmitted
through the tradition of the Eastern Church. The doctrine of the
essence and energies, says Halleux, has been located „within a
biblical and personalistic, christological and sacramental
synthesis, thus avoiding locking up his theology in the categories
of philosophical systematization, which gave it even a higher
rationality”.92
Undoubtedly the mystery of the communion of the creature
unto God will always remain inaccessible to a satisfactory
rational synthesis. But the patristic doctrine of deification
implies the palamite dogma of the essence and energies real
distinction in God. The Palamite doctrine of divine energies
constitutes the divine pole of the deification and does not
constitute an eternal emanation and which should establish an
intermediate scale between the participants and the
Participated, because the humanity of Christ is the principle of
deification: “For the Greek Fathers, however, says Halleux, it’s less
about explaining the presence of Christ starting from a human
image, than to reveal to man his proper iconic dignity from the
incarnation of the Son of God. Therefore, for them, anthropology
is only a deficient analogy not an explanatory principle of the

90
Sébastien Guichardan, Le problème de la simplicité divine en Orient et en
Occident aux XIV et XV siècle: Grégoire Palamas, Duns Scot, Georges
Scholarios (Lyon: Anciens établissements Legendre éd., 1933).
91
Duncan Reid, Energies of the Spirit, p. 89.
92
André de Halleux, “Palamisme et Tradition”, Irenikon 48 (1975), pp. 479-
493, here p. 481.
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 97
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

divine mysteries. This is why the Eastern tradition carefully

avoids confusing the synergy of grace between God and man with
Trinitarian perichoresis of the hypostases into the one divine
nature or with that of christological natures in the unique Person
of the Incarnate Word”.93
We can easily understand how difficult is for a theologian to
handle a logical discourse, if he isn’t resonate in himself with
the patristic author, inside of the same experience that it is
offered to him for his own research. If he finds himself in this
patristic testimonies, the divine Logos’ hidden meanings will be
reveiled to him, beyond his reasoning.
Therefore, I agree with Behr-Sigel’s assertion that “the true
theology is an experiential knowledge of God”.94 Thus the
human logic should follow (ἀνάβασις, anábasis) the same path
of divine revelation (κατάβασις, katábasis). In this synergistic
movement the human logic also must be enrolled, because, says
Behr-Sigel, “logical knowledge, i.e. in conformity with the divine
reason, the Logos who created everything, is the knowledge
according to the Logos. It culminates in the contemplation of the
Divine Trinity Kingdom”.95

3 Higher Ousia and the problem of the ontological gulf.

Distinction between the essence and the energies as
the starting-point of all knowledge about God

For Yannaras, the distinction between the essence and the

energies is the starting-point of all knowledge about God.
Knowledge implies participation, but if he is nothing more than

93
André de Halleux, “Palamisme et Tradition”, p. 489.
94
Élisabeth Behr-Sigel, Le lieu du Coeur. Initiation à la spiritualité de
l’Église orthodoxe (Paris: Cerf, 1989), p. 66.
95
Ibidem, pp. 64-65.
98 Nichifor Tănase

essence, „theosis, the participation of human beings in the

divine life, is ultimately impossible”.96
Thus, the divine energies call to an experience of participation
with the imparticipable Godhead, and this conceptual
contradiction constitutes a „real (unique) possibility of
knowledge with the reference to the accessibility of the reality
of God”.97 God is both absolutely transcendent and immanent
with his creation, so that revelation and redemption are
possible through God’s energies.
Divine energies are God Himself as He has manifested Himself
to us. These energies were originally identified as the
„uncreated light” encountered through theophanic experiences.
For example, all the anthropomorphisms in Scripture refer not
to God in his essence, but to how he acts according to and
through his energies.98
Father Staniloae argues that „We know God through cataphatic
knowledge only as the creating and sustaining cause of the world,
while through apophatic knowledge we gain a kind of direct
experience of His mystical presence”.99
Dionysios and Maximus seemed to resolve the problem of the
ontological gulf by highlighting the fullest possibilities of being
in Christ: „Communion is not being in itself, but allows the
ground of being to be fulfilled. This ontological context to
communion does not mean that communion has substance in
itself but that it is generated by the uncreated activity established

96
Christos Yannaras, Person and Eros (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox
Press, 2008), p. 65.
97
Idem, On the Absence and Unknowability of God: Heidegger and the
Areopagite (New York/London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2007), p. 87.
98
Jordan Cooper, Christification. A Lutheran Approach to Theosis (Eugene,
Oregon: Wiph&Stock), 2014, p. 5.
99
Dumitru Staniloae, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: The Experience of God,
Vol. 1: Revelation and Knowledge of the Triune God (Brookline: Holy
Cross Orthodox Press, 1998), p. 95.
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 99
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

from the enhypostatic source of the tri-hypostalic Godhead”.100

This notion of union through participation was echoed by
Dionysius and Maximus who considered that the Divine
revelatory deification experience had significant ontological
implications to human being-ness and existence.
Patristic theology did have an essentialist context visible in St
Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, St Maximus the Confessor, and
later expressed through the energetic theology of Gregory
Palamas of Thessaloniki. In this energetic model “Higher-
Essence” in God becomes inaccessible and provides the need to
assert a participation in uncreated acts: “Gregory Palamas’ need
to focus on the Divine uncreated energies, for the superior ‘Higher
Essence’ remains ontologically far beyond the realm of human
experience while the operational hypostases do not: we cannot
partake of the Divine essence, we can only know the hypostatic
operations (…). Nevertheless, the focus on the Divine essential-
Esse to explain how the Divine nature relates to the very Being of
God in a substantialist model is supported through a Pseudo-
Dionysius and Palamite focus on Higher Ousia and even Lossky
also argues that for Palamas the Divine Essence was the ‘superior
divinity’, while the operations were inferior”.101
Palamas uses the term “essence” in the Dionysian sense of
“dynamic-essence” (ousiopoios dynamis, cf. Divine Names V,

100
Nicholas Bamford, Deified Person. A study of deification in relation to
Person and Christian Becoming (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of
America, 20), pp. 14 and p. 29. Also, see Andrew Louth, “The Place of
Theosis in Orthodox Theology,” in M. J. Christensen, Partakers of Divine
the Nature (Michigan: Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2007), p. 34; Norman
Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition,
(Oxford: University Press, 2004), pp. 115- 205; N. Russell, “Theosis and
Gregory Palamas: Continuity or Doctrinal Change,” St. Vladimir’s
Theological Quarterly 50/4 (2006), pp. 357-379; Paul Collins, “Event: The
How of Revelation,” in Trinitarian Theology West and East: Karl Barth,
the Cappadocian Fathers, and John Zizioulas,(Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2001), pp. 7-33; Stephen Finlan and Vladimir Kharlamov, Theosis:
Deification in Christian Theology (Eugene: Wiph & Stock, 2006).
101
Nicholas Bamford, Deified Person, p. 37.
100 Nichifor Tănase

1102): “If we call the super-essential hiddenness God, or life, or

essence (ousia), or light, or reason, we mean nothing else than
those divinizing, or essence-making (ousiopoious), or vivifying, or
wisdom-giving powers which come to us from it (the super-
essential hiddenness)”.103
So, the name essence is here one of the eternal power of God,
actived in the world, but not identical with supra - essential
essence which has no name. We should remember that for
Palamas and for all Eastern patristic tradition, the Logos was
the one who told Moses “I am who I am”. Thus, Palamas says,
that the essence as dynamic essence (power-giving) comes
from super-essential essence and from Logos. He does not say,
as Father John Meyendorff thinks, that super-essential essence
comes from the hypostasis or person.104
According to Papanikolaou, because the apophaticism tends to
prioritize the hyper-essence of God over the trinitarian persons,
„the primary soteriological concept is the energies of God, rather
than trinitarian personhood”.105 Essence and energies are not,

102
Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology
(english translationby Clarence Edwin Rolt, Lake Worth: Ibis Press, 2004),
see Chapter V. “Concerning ‘Existence’ and also concerning ‘Exemplars’”:
“1. Now must we proceed to the Name of ‘Being’ which is truly applied by
the Divine Science to Him that truly Is. But this much we must say, that it is
not the purpose of our discourse to reveal the Super-Essential Being in its
Super-Essential Nature” (On the Divine Names, p. 68).
103
Grégoire Palamas, Défense des Saints hésychastes, ( Meyendorff ed. 1959,
Tr. III, 2, 11), p. 663; Dionysius the Areopagite, (On the Divine Names (II,
7), p. 40-41).
104
J. Romanides, “Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics II,”
The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 9:2 (1963-64), pp. 225-270 at p.
270. See also: Saint Gregory Palamas, The one hundred and fifty Chapters
(edited and translated by Robert E. Sinkewicz, C.S.B., Studies and Texts
83; Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1988), Chap. 106, p.
203: “Thus, it must be called both substance and nature, but properly the
substance-bestowing procession and energy of God, for the great
Dionysius says that this is "the proper way for theology to name the
substance of the One Who Truly Is.
105
Aristotle Papanikolaou, Being with God, p. 106.
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 101
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

for Palamas two parts of God, but two different modes of

existence of God, within His nature and outside His nature.
Aristotle Papanikolaou, which examines the being-energies
distinction as a way of being with God, says that ”unlike the
neo-platonic view, God is not diminished in God’s natural
processions ouside the essence. God is in the energies and the
energies are God. Since the energies are God, God is not divided.
The energies are simply a distinct mode of existence.”106 But the
main objection is its pantheistic overtones. If the energies are
God, then everything is God. Therefore, „the attempts to express
the God’s being, which is beyond being (essence) and radically
immanent (energies), must be antinomic”.107
Gregory Palamas begins to assert the impossibility of grasping
God by reason and to express it in words. To speak about God
and about the communion with Him (συντυγχάνειν) is not the
same thing. Gregory teaches that man owns the divine likeness
at a greater degree than the angels. Because man has a body, he
is being sealed by the divine likeness in a much more manner
than the purely spiritual angelic natures: „The intellectual and
rational nature of the soul, alone possessing mind and word and
life-giving spirit, has alone been created more in the image of God
than the incorporeal angels”.108
Although there can be no separation between the two, „the
Incarnation gives priority to ontology over epistemology”.109 In
God’s act of revelation He remains, at the same time, hidden and
it should always be an ontological and epistemological gap
between the Creator and the creature. God’s radical

106
Ibid, p. 26.
107
Ibid, p. 27.
108
Gregory Palamas, The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, 39, pp. 126-127:
„Ή νοερά καί λογική φύσις τής ψυχής, μόνη νουν έχουσα καϊ λόγον καί
πνεΰμα ζωοποιόν, μόνη καί τών ασωμάτων αγγέλων μάλλον κατ' εικόνα
τοΰ θεοΰ παρ' αύτοΰ δεδημιούργηται.”.
109
Aristotle Papanikolaou, Being with God, p. 44f: „The type of knowledge
that results from union with God is manifested for Lossky in one person
immediately after Christ’s resurrection – the Theotokos”.
102 Nichifor Tănase

incomprehensibility has been pronounced as a reaction against

the extreme rationalism of the arians (anomeans). St. Gregory
Palamas remains unyielding: „Every nature is utterly remote and
absolutely estranged from the divine nature. For if God is nature,
other things are not nature, but if each of the other things is
nature, he is not nature: just as he is not a being, if others are
beings; and if he is a being, the others are not beings”.110
Thus, through negations, an immediate experience of God is
being expressed. Thus the ‘essentially’ unknowable God is
‘existentially’ revealed through the ‘energy’: “To express this
double truth, that God is both hidden and revealed, transcendent
and immanent, Orthodox theology distinguishes between the
divine essence and divine energies. Essence (οὐσία) means God as
He is in Himself, energies (ἐνέργειαι) indicate God in action and
Self-revelation… This doctrine of immanent energies implies an
intensely dynamic vision of the relationship between God and
world. The entire cosmos is a vast burning bush, penetrated but
not consumed by the fire of the uncreated divine energies. These
energies are ‘God with us’”.111
The energies are common to the three Persons of the Trinity.
The essence-energies distinction is applied by St. Maximus the
Confessor to Christology: each physis has its proper energeia.
Man may experience the divine energies in the form of
uncreated light which was manifested during the
Transfiguration on the Tabor. There is, also, a significant
difference between energeia and energema: “the energema
forms a part of the created order as a consequence God’s action,

110
Gregory Palamas, The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, 78, pp. 172-173:
“Πάσα φύσις ώς πορρωτάτω έστι καί παντάπασι ξένη τής θείας φύσεως, εί
γάρ ό θεός φύσις, τάλλα ούκ έστι φύσις· εί δέ τών άλλων εκαστον φύσις,
εκείνος ούκ έστι φύσις· ώς ούδ' όν έστιν, εί τάλλα όντα εστίν· εί δ ' έστιν
εκείνος ών, τάλλα ούκ έστιν όντα.”
111
Kallistos Ware, “Dieu cache et révélé, la voie apophatique et la distinction
essence-energie”, Messager de l’Exarchat du patriarche russe en Europe
occidentale 89-90 (1975), p. 45-59, here p. 49.
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 103
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

but energeia that causes this consequence is in itself uncreated

and eternal”.112

4 CONCLUSION

Along with the trinitarian ontological character of the

uncreated energies, their epistemology also leads us to
christological and pneumatological connotation. Therefore,
Vladimir Lossky affirme that the union is necessary if the
anthropos is to experience God. Here the notion of the energies
becomes important.
In the person of Christ, human nature is deified through the
energies of the divine nature. The two natures maintains their
ontological integrity: „Lossky uses the Greek patristic norion of
perichoresis to express the energetic relationship between the
two natures in Christ (...) indwelling of persons, the one with
the other, rather than an energetic exchange between two
ontologically distinct natures.”113
According to Lossky, Chalcedon’s adequacy is judged by the
soteriological principle of deification, which Nestorianism and
Monophisitism threate. Chalcedon ultimately affirmed that „if
there is no real unity in Christ, a union between man and God is
no longer possible. The whole doctrine of salvation loses its
ontological foundation. We remain separated from God,
Deification is forbidde.”114
On the other hand, for C. Journet the distinction between
Spirit’s hypostasis and His grace is “the central node of

112
Kallistos Ware, “Dieu cache et révélé”, p. 53.
113
Aristotle Papanikolaou, Being with God, p. 108.
114
Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction (New York: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978), p. 97; cf. Aristotle Papanikolaou, Being
with God, p. 107.
104 Nichifor Tănase

palamisme itself.”115 Palamas clearly distinguished between the

hypostasis of the Holy Spirit and His energy;116 he probably
took advantage of the clarification made by Gregory of Cyprus.
The latter shows that he is familiar with the distinction
between essence and energy in God, and he speaks of
“uncreated light” in connection with divine energy which he
considers it as being eternal. He also makes a convergence
between the notions of manifestation, on one hand and the
concept of energy, on the other hand, suggesting us that his
view is close to that which will be developed by Palamas.117

115
Ch. Journet, “Palamisme et thomisme. À propos d’un livre récent”, Revue
thomiste 60 (1960), p. 430-452. See also: Grégoire Palamas, Traités
apodictiques sur la procession du Saint-Esprit (translation by Emmanuel
Ponsoye, Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1995), II, & 6-7; 10-11; 18, pp. 82-
84, 86-88, 95.
116
Gregory Palamas, Apodictic Treatise on The Procession of The Holy Spirit,
II, 6, pp. 11-12, 48, 69 (ed. P. Chrestou, Γρηγορίου τοῡ Παλαμᾶ
Συγγράμματα, t. I, Thessalonique, 1988), pp. 82-83, 87-89, 121-122, 140-
142. See also, Ralph Del Colle, Christ and the Spirit: Spirit-christology in
trinitarian perspective (Oxford: University Press 1994), p. 8-33; According
to George C. Papademetriou, the essence-energies distinction “is contrary
to the Western confusion of the uncreated essence with the uncreated
energies and this is by the claim that God is Actus Purus”, cf. George C.
Papademetriou, Introduction to St. Gregory Palamas (Brookline: Holy
Cross Orthodox Press, 2004), p. 61; John Meyendorff, „The Holy Trinity
in Palamite Theology”, in M.A. Fahey and J. Meyendorff, Trinitarian
Theology East and West: St Thomas Aquinas – St Gregory Palamas
(Brookline: Holy Cross Press, 1977), p. 26; C.N. Tsirpanlis,
“Epistemology, Theognosis, the Trinity and Grace in St Gregory Palamas”,
in: Patristic and Byzantine Review 13 (1994), p. 5-27, here p. 15;
117
Gregory Palamas, Apodictic Treatise, II, 9 (ed. P. Chrestou, t. I), pp. 122-
123; Grégoire de Chypre, Discours antirrhétique, (Ἀντιρρητικὸς τῶν τοῦ
Βέκκου βλασφήμων δογμάτων, ἐκδοθεὶς πρὸ τοῦ ψήφῳ θεοῦ εἰς τὸν
πατριαρχικὸν ἀνελθεῖν αὐτὸν θρόνον) & 54, 55, 63, 65, PG 142, 250D-
251A. See also: A. J. Sopko, Gregory of Cyprus: A Study of Church and
Culture in Late Thirteenth Century Byzantium (London: King’s Colledge,
1979), p. 146-149; Idem, “Palamism before Palamas and the Theology of
Gregory of Cyprus”, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 23 (1979), p.
141; Joost van Rossum, “Gregory of Cyprus and Palamism”, Studia
 “Crucifixion” of the Logic. Palamite Theology of the Uncreaded 105
Divine Energies as Fundament of an Ontological Epistemology

It must be noted that Palamas doesn’t quote the Cypriot in his

work. But in his Apodictic Treatise about the procession of the
Holy Spirit, Palamas “uses some principles established by the
Cypriot, without being a testimony of his dependence towards
him. Palamas’s reference to Gregory of Cyprus’ main idea
(Spirit‘s eternal manifestation through the Son) is unquestionably
accepted and embedded”.118
In addition, states J.-Cl. Larchet “Palamas has based his theology
of the energies on a much broader basis than that of Cyprus
(limited to the interpretation of the phrase «through the Son»), in
a new epistemological context (in part relating to the critics of
Barlaam and Akindynos)”.119 In this regard, Palamas shows
himself much dependent on Maxim the Confessor and Gregory
of Nyssa, to which the notion of Spirit’s eternal manifestation
had been theologically understood, and where the distinctions:
essence-nature, essence-energy(s), person-energy(s) found
their sources.
Starting from the great Cappadocians until Gregory Palamas, as
it has been expressed in the patristic thought, “Hesychast
epistemology is based on the true nature of divine Revelation
(apophatic and kataphatic) of living God’s mystery”.120 In the
hesychast epistemology, for Athanase Jevtitch love is the
foundation for knowledge: “God comunicates with us (into
Christ and into the Holy Spirit) – because he is the biblical,

Patristica 37 (2001), pp. 627-630; Olivier Clément, “Grégoire de Chypre,

‘De l’ekporèse du Saint-Esprit’”, Istina 17 (1972), pp. 443-456.
118
See Jean-Claude Larchet, “Introduction à Grégoire Palamas” in Palamas,
Traités apodictiques sur la procession du Saint-Esprit, pp. 97-102.
119
Jean-Claude Larchet (ed.), La vie et l'œuvre de Georges-Grégoire II de
Chypre (1241-1290), patriarche de Constantinople (Paris: Édition du Cerf,
2012), pp. 121-124.
120
Athanase Jevtitch, Études Hésychastes (trad. Jean-Louis Palierne,
Collection La lumière du Thabor, L’Age d’Homme, Lausanne 1995), p.
12.
106 Nichifor Tănase

immanent, present and life-giving Emmanuel (‘God is with

us’)”.121
According to Papanikolaou, which closely follows to Lossky,
„knowledge of God is possible through God’s economy, or in the
realm of oikonomia”. Knowledge of God in Godself, or theologia,
is not possible according to Lossky, since God’s life is eternal
and ontologically distinct from created existence and, hence,
beyond any human knowing: „Not even God’s economy can
reveal anything positive about theologia or God in Godself.
Though the revelation of God’s economy in Christ reveals that
God is trinity, nothing more can be said of God’s trinitarian
existence since ‚Trinitarian being belongs to the transcendent
nature of God’, i.e., theologia.”122

121
Ibid., p. 13.
122
Aristotle Papanikolaou, Being with God, p. 102: „The core of theological
discourse is an ontology of divine-human communion. Lossky and
Zizioulas, both also reject the traditional metaphysial link between being
and thought. An ontology of divine-human communion demands... an
apophatic approach to theology. For Lossky, however, an ontology of
divine-human communion translates into an apophatic ontology”.