Заключение

In previous chapters we saw that when comparing the teachings of Thomas Aquinas and Gregory Palamas, one finds that the topics they explore rarely have direct overlap, and one should speak more about the different theological emphases of these authors, rather than about the mutual contradiction of their teachings. Often researchers focus on what distinguishes these two theologians, and perhaps even specifically look for points of divergence. But if we pay attention to some points that have traditionally been considered to demonstrate the antagonism of the Byzantine and Latin theological traditions, we will find that the goals achieved by Palamas and Aquinas are often very similar. As we have seen, the question of the created or uncreated character of grace is one of those theological problems that have been artificially inflated, and an analysis of the context of the works of Palamas and Aquinas does not show that they have a literally contradictory position on this. The absence of genuine contradiction is evident both from the theological goals that the authors achieve and from the consideration of Aquinas's holistic teaching on grace. The most significant point for the works of Aquinas and Palamas is their commitment to the patristic teaching of deification as the participation of man in God. This is one of the fundamental similarities in the theologies of these two authors, although they emphasized different elements of Tradition. We have seen that modern researchers of the theology of Gregory Palamas do not always agree in their conclusions; When studying their works, one should generally keep in mind their own theological and philosophical concepts, which they impose on the texts under study. Of course, the style of Thomas Aquinas and Gregory Palamas differs - Aquinas is more consistent in the presentation of his themes - but these differences should not be exaggerated and the matter should be represented as Thomas representing ratio, and Palamas mystical experience. Thus, Palamas actively uses metaphysical arguments in his works, and does not appeal to his own mystical experience. At the same time, it is well known what an important role prayer and the Sacraments played for the theology of Thomas Aquinas. For him, the primary sources are Holy Scripture and Tradition. In cases where Aristotle's metaphysical approaches contradict these sources, Thomas resolutely refuses to follow the Greek philosopher. It is also worth noting that the metaphysics of participation, on which, like Palamas, Thomas largely relies in his doctrine of deification, is in no way characteristic of Aristotle, but is one of the most important themes of patristic theology. The Thomistic doctrine of God as pure Esse takes its inspiration from biblical Revelation, and is completely alien to the thought of Greek philosophers. Considering that already from the first centuries of the Church there were certain differences in the development of the Latin and Greek traditions, it would be difficult to expect much similarity in the style of the works of Palamas and Aquinas. However, if we remember that on the issue of divine contemplation and deification, many Fathers of the Church had differences in approaches, then there is hardly any reason to evaluate the teachings of Thomas Aquinas and Gregory Palamas as mutually exclusive. It seems more correct to say that these two authors testify to the diversity within the single Christian tradition.