I recently ordered and read Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite by Gregory Palamas. For those who don’t know, Gregory Palamas is saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church and probably their greatest theologian since the 1054 AD schism.
In the first millennium of the Church there were multiple ecumenical councils on Christology, but in the second millennium the ecumenical councils focused on other issues. Of course shortly into the second millennium we saw the split between the Latin and Greek churches and they became known as Catholic and Orthodox going forward.
The discussion between Gregory and the Barlaamite can be seen as a continuing of the Christological debates in the first century. While Gregory quotes fathers to support his position, he doesn’t quote any councils since this hasn’t been dealt with in a dogmatic way.
While I mainly focus on church history I have to know Christology as well. This is because I deal with Islam which fervently denies(while grossly misunderstanding) the doctrine of the Trinity. However, with Islam the Christology that you need to know doesn’t go much beyond the Council of Chalcedon. The second and third councils of Constantinople continued in Christological discussions but that doesn’t pertain much to Islam.
Now, what’s interesting is that in the forward of the book, it talks about Gregory Palamas actually debating Muslims. There were a series of councils in the 1340s to solve this Christological which was solved and close in 1351.
Apparently after that Gregory Palamas had to deal with Muslims. Now, we know that the Quran is a train wreck when it comes to Christology so I’m guessing Gregory had a pretty easy time debating those Muslims.
While this wasn’t a unanimous belief among Chacedonian Christians in the time of Muhammad, it’s an example of what Muhammad and the early ummah would have been exposed to since similar opinions were floating around in embryo form.
Most church histories written by Catholics or Protestants ignore the post-schism Greek Church. This is unfortunate but today there is a lot of literature available on the subject.
Unfortunately for the whole Orthodox vs. Barlaamite discussion the Orthodox does most of the talking. This wouldn’t normally be a bad thing but apparently all of the writings from Barlaam were destroyed by order of the Byzantine Emperor so we can’t reference his exact position. We know his main points by the counter-arguments but maybe some of the finer details are lost.
Gregory does a fine job in my opinion. The only downside is that he seems to accuse the Barlaamite of ditheism and atheism at the same time. Obviously two false positions but one cannot hold both of these simultaneously.
If you’ve read this book, please share your thoughts below. If you want to order this book, don’t order it on Amazon as it’s being horded for over $2,000. Order it directly from SUNY Press for $17.95. Here’s the link:
https://www.sunypress.edu/p-5426-dialogue-between-an-orthodox-an.aspx
You fail to comment on Palamas’ questionable real distinction between the Essence and Uncreated Energies of God -the key doctrine opposed by Barlaam and which underlies Palamas’ concept of theosis or deification. “Saint” Gregory Palamas regarded the Pope and “Latins” as heretics for their teaching on Papal supremacy and the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. He also denied that the Saints see the Essence of God; they only see his Energies. His “Neo-Palamite” followers today (these are Orthodox who regard Palamas’ teaching on the nature of God as dogma and are the most opposed to Catholicism) deny there are any souls in heaven or hell before the Last Judgment.
Hello Mr. Likoudis,
Thanks for weighing in. Obviously he thought we were heretics as he is a post-schism(by 300 years) Orthodox theologian. In the intro to the book it says that Barlaam wrote treatises against the Filioque as well. This isn’t an Orthodox vs. Catholic debate but an internal Orthodox debate.
I’m aware of the Neo-Palamites. I wanted to read this work because I wanted to learn about the man from himself and not popular apologists with youtube channels. What I find most interesting is that this doctrine seems to have vanished between 1370 and 1900, at least with respect to anti-Catholic decrees. It’s not mentioned in the Sigillion of 1583 or the Patriarchal Encyclicals of 1848 or 1895. All of these documents contain the usual lists of Catholic doctrines the Orthodox disagree with – the papacy, the Filioque, azymes, purgatory, and similar things. In Catholic anti-Orthodox polemics it’s absent as well, specifically Soloviev and Fortescue, both of whom wrote in about 1900. In the Orthodox dialogue with the Lutherans it was never brought up. It seems to have had a resurgence in the early 20th century. Interesting stuff.
I don’t adhere to this theology but it’s interesting to read and I do believe it has a patristic pedigree though it was one of many positions in the early church. In other words, something the Muslims would have run into which is why I’m interested in it.
God bless,
Allan