On the life and theological heritage of St. Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica

Saint Gregory Palamas (c. 1296–1359, November 14; his memory is celebrated on the 2nd Sunday of Great Lent and November 14 of the Old Style) grew up as the eldest child in a large family of a high-ranking Byzantine dignitary. His father, Constantine Palamas, who came from an aristocratic family in Asia Minor, moved to Constantinople at the end of the 13th century. The family lived according to the rules of strict piety; Constantine was so immersed in mental prayer amid current affairs that one day at a Senate meeting he did not hear the words of the emperor addressed to him. 1 As soon as they began to speak, monks were invited to the children for spiritual guidance. It is no coincidence that Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282–1328) entrusted Constantine with the education of his grandson, the future Emperor Andronikos III. Gregory became a comrade of the prince, his own age, and after the death of Constantine Palamas (c. 1303; before his death, the pious senator took monastic vows) was taken by the emperor for education and training. Saint Gregory did not study at the Patriarchal School, but, apparently, at the Imperial School, that is, he was prepared for public service. The soul of the school was the most prominent figure in the Palaiologan revival, the “Olympian of wisdom,” astronomer, philosopher and tireless writer, the great logothete 2 Theodore Metochites (1260 or 1261–1332). Palamas did not complete the full course. His opponents never forgot to hint on occasion that he studied only until he was 15, and unanimously called him “ignorant and ignorant.” There is no evidence that he studied the philosophy of Plato, which in Byzantium began to be studied after the “circle of sciences” based on the Aristotelian system. But the following story has been preserved about serious studies and even a temporary passion for Aristotle. Saint Gregory speaks about himself in the third person: “When one day the great king Andronicus, the grandfather of the kings, asked him [Gregory] to speak with him [in the imperial palace] about the logical works of Aristotle, Palamas, being 17 years old, philosophized in such detail and so well that all the chosen philosophers who were with the emperor were amazed, and the famous and all-knowing great logothete, full of surprise, said to the king: “He himself Aristotle, if he were here, would praise him, and added: “These are the natural properties that people who want to engage in Aristotelian logic should have.” 3 It can be noted that Palamas’s judgments about Aristotle seem to always be less harsh than about Plato with his “evil chatter” or about Pythagoras, Socrates and other “Hellenic philosophers” with their “base teachings”; There are echoes of Aristotle's teachings in the Palamite concept of energy. Of course, in no case should St. Gregory Palamas be represented as an Aristotelian, nor, as his enemy Nikephoros Gregoras insinuated, 4 as a Platonist or Neoplatonist, nor as a follower of realism in the fight against nominalists. Whoever classifies him as one or another philosophy unwittingly joins his learned opponents, who certainly wanted to involve Saint Gregory in philosophical debates and were indignant when he opposed it. Saint Gregory acted according to the rule described in his “Triads”: it is good to become familiar with secular science and literature in youth, but to become sophisticated in them until adulthood is ridiculous, and even harmful to the soul. He already dedicated his secular activities to God; Before starting his studies, he knelt down in prayer three times before the icon of the Mother of God, asking him to enlighten his ignorance 5 . But his soul lay “more towards the monastic lifestyle, the study of the holy fathers and the instructions of virtue.” When Bishop Theoliptus of Philadelphia (see about him in Saint Gregory in the Triads, I. 2, 12 and II. 2, 2) and other monastic mentors advised him to go to a monastery, he immediately indulged in extreme asceticism, always got up before dawn, lived on bread and water 6 . At the age of about 20, he went to the Holy Mountain, convincing two brothers to follow him. Under the influence of this, his mother, sisters and many servants of the house also went to various monasteries in Constantinople. On Athos, Saint Gregory first subordinated himself to the leadership of the hesychast elder Nicodemus, who lived in the vicinity of the Vatopedi monastery, “an amazing man both in deeds and in contemplation,” and for three years he was a novice, laboring “in fasting, vigils, sobriety and unceasing prayer,” 7 and after the death of Nicodemus, he and his brother Macarius were accepted into the Great Lavra of the saint Athanasius, where he also lived for three years in the cinnamonium, being assigned by the abbot to the choir of singers, but then retired to live alone in a certain deserted place of Glossia, located, perhaps, in the vicinity of Caracalla and Provata, on the north-eastern slopes of Athos. There his asceticism continued for two years under the guidance of the hesychia teacher Gregory, famous at that time on Athos, nicknamed Drimis (which means “steep” or “sharp”); the relics of this elder, who went to Constantinople shortly before his death, were later glorified by the signs of God’s mercy. Even if this teacher of Palamas was, as is now considered proven, not Saint Gregory the Sinaite, who lived on Athos with his disciples Isidore and Callistus (future patriarchs) in the Magul monastery, not far from the supposed place of Glossia, and died in Bulgaria (†l346), still the spiritual discipleship of Palamas with Gregory the Sinaite is undoubted. And if no source contains any mention of personal relations between them, then this may also be a sign of the unusual depth of continuity that connected Saint Gregory Palamas with the renovator of hesychasm on Athos. In any case, Isidore, the student and spiritual son of Gregory Sinaite, was a friend of Palamas, starting at least from 1325, when, due to the raids of the Seljuk Turks, who forced Gregory Sinaite to leave Athos, both had to settle in Thessalonica. Fulfilling the obedience of his spiritual father, Isidore preached asceticism and severe severity of morals in this large and rich city. Palamas, who shared with him the “youthful enthusiasm” of monastic missionary work in the world 8, accepted the priesthood here at the age of 30, in which in Byzantium usually, in accordance with the canons of the Church, they were ordained as a presbyter, but soon went into the desert again for 5 years 9 on one of the mountains near the city of Veria (about 75 km southeast of Thessaloniki), where He spent five days a week in complete solitude, silence and mental prayer, and on Saturday he came to his fellow hermits to serve the Divine Liturgy and conversations - a way of life that has long been considered the best for a hesychast 10 . From continuous vigils, fasting and dampness in the cave, which served as his cell, he became seriously ill, and his mentors blessed him to move to another place. Saint Gregory performed his asceticism again on Athos, in the hesychastery (for explanation, see note 9) of Saint Sava, near the Lavra of Saint Athanasius. Athos was at that time experiencing the spring of hesychast renewal. When Saint Gregory of Sinaite came here from Crete, he, as it says in his life, at first found only three monks familiar with real hesychia, and even then only to a small extent. Apparently, there were actually more hesychasts (see about them in Saint Gregory Palamas in “Triads”: I. 2. 12 and II. 2, 3), and the condemnation of Saint Gregory of Sinaite is too harsh, but it well reflects the heightened and high concept of the monastic calling that entered the life of Athos through the hesychasts, sometimes even leading to clashes with the usual way of monastic life. Philotheus 11, probably, it is not by chance that he talks about this fact: once at a vigil on Holy Thursday, Saint Gregory Palamas was indignant at the conversations of the monks during chanting and preferred solitary mental prayer to the general service. Some time later, Saint Anthony appeared to him in a vision, reproaching him for this and forbidding him to withdraw from general worship, even if mental prayer seemed to be a greater matter. In Discourse 7, “On Fasting,” delivered by Saint Gregory during his bishopric in Thessalonica, this question receives a final solution: “Prayer done in private and at home, and even on the bed, encourages prayer that is done in church, just as prayer done inside, in the mind, encourages prayer on the lips.” From this example, one can once again see that the essence of the renewed Byzantine hesychasm of the 14th century was not so much in deepening prayer as such, but in an intense search for agreement between personal illumination of the grace of God and the life of the whole world. Various testimonies speak of Saint Gregory in connection with the elements of “Messalianism,” Marcionism and other heretics, which have long been agitated near Athos and Thessalonica, in the ancient land of religious ecstasy and Dionysianism 12 . According to Philotheus, Saint Gregory entered into a theological dispute with the Bogomils back in 1316–1317, when, on the way to Athos, he had to spend the winter with his brothers in one of the monasteries on Mount Papikion, between Constantinople and Thessaloniki, on the border of Thrace and Macedonia, and it allegedly came to an attempt by irritated heretics to poison him. On the contrary, Barlaam of Calabria in the anti-hesychast work “Against the Messalians”, Akindinus in some of his letters and Nikephoros Gregoras in “Accusatory and Refuting Speeches against Palamas” (1347) - about all these main participants in the Palamite disputes, see below - assure that Palamas was almost among the famous near-Athos heretics, that he “sang as a prophetess” some the heretical “nun” Porina, a student of the iconoclast George, and personally destroyed icons in churches. What the accusation of Palamas as a Bogomilian is worth can be judged by the fact that Nikephoros Gregoras did not repeat it even in his “Byzantine History,” although this huge work otherwise contains attacks against Palamas. Behind the contradictory messages of Palamas’s friends and enemies, it is not difficult to guess what was happening: Saint Gregory condemned the heretical thinking of the Bogomils, but he was attracted to them by the enthusiasm of faith, deep prayer, and asceticism. “The hesychasts, precisely because their activity unfolded in the very circles in which heresy was spreading, were able to fight against it better than anyone else: they satisfied the same need for a more intense spiritual life, while offering, however, a genuine and traditional teaching on prayer and a direction for spirituality. And it is quite obvious that their final success in the Byzantine world should be attributed to the fact that they were able to direct into the mainstream of the Orthodox Church that popular movement towards spiritual awakening, which was carried away by Bogomilism along detours” 13. Around 1334, Saint Gregory wrote and, according to the custom adopted by the monks from the schools of rhetoric, brought to the judgment of the brethren his first work, “The Life of Saint Peter of Athos” (it is possible that this is not a completely independent work, but a reworking of an unnamed work of the 9th century). This was followed by a large “Sermon on the Entry of the Mother of God into the Church.” Apparently, at the same time, “Chapters on prayer and purity of heart” and “Answer to Pavel Asen about the great monastic tonsure” were written. On Athos, Palamas also wrote and delivered a sermon “On the All-Honorable Forerunner of Christ and the Baptist John” 14. There, at Saint Sava’s, Palamas, around 1336, regarding the visit of the papal legates to Constantinople and the new plans for the union, spoke with “Apodictic (evidential - Ed.) words on the procession of the Holy Spirit.” In those same years, he was appointed abbot of the Esphigmen monastery in the north of Athos, from where, however, he soon left, not getting along with the brethren, most likely because of the severity that he began to introduce into the liturgical order 15. Byzantine hesychasm, like later hesychasm among the southern Slavs and in Rus', was not limited to silence and prayer, as the word itself, meaning quietness and silence, suggests, but led to the flourishing of theology and icon painting 16, to the reform of the way of monastic life, liturgical creativity, to the movement of spiritual and civil renewal 17. So the twenty-year asceticism of Saint Gregory on Athos, Thessalonica and Veria was filled with anxiety about the world, concern for faith, and the desire to make monastic life a source of common salvation. For the sake of these concerns, he forever left his lonely cell in the hesychastery of St. Sava and devoted himself to theology and political activity. Speaking about the activity and creative pathos of hesychasm, historians are usually surprised, and sometimes even indignant, that the “sacredly silent ones” spoke, wrote and argued so much. But in their ascetic concentration, the hesychasts did not at all fence themselves off from the events of external history; in them took place that accumulation of spirituality on which, ultimately, the world rests, reborn in beauty, enriched in culture. From the high dignity to which the human heart rises in communion with God, came revelation about the world, and responsibility for it, theological and civil daring. The new ministry of Saint Gregory began with the writing of his book - the first "Triad" - against the learned monk Barlaam (1290-1348), an Orthodox, at least that's what he called himself at first, a Greek from the city of Seminara in Calabria; this region in southern Italy had Greek settlements since ancient times 18. It is sometimes believed that the dispute began only when Palamas decided to defend the hesychasts from Barlaam, who called their states of prayer fantasies. But the confrontation began much earlier. Saint Gregory must have heard about Varlaam around 1330, when this forty-year-old brilliant scientist, an expert on Euclid, Aristotle, Plato and Ptolemy, a prolific and keen writer, appeared in Constantinople, immediately becoming a celebrity, close to Andronikos III, who needed a learned diplomat for negotiations with the pope. Varlaam even became abbot of the Monastery of the Savior in Constantinople and received the title of didaskal (Greek - “teacher.” - Ed.) of theology. But he fiercely quarreled with Constantinople scientists and writers, whose recognized luminary Nikifor Grigora never wanted to give up primacy to the newcomer. A public debate took place, in which Gregoras won; at least, this is how he himself presented the matter in his dialogue “Florentius,” where Varlaam is depicted as a braggart whose only interest is to discredit other philosophers 19 . Varlaam, “full of confusion and anger, fled to Thessalonica” around 1332, to a city that, in his opinion, was also “devoid of all education” and needed his educational activities. Regarding the theological discussions with the papal legates in Constantinople in 1334–1335, Barlaam, even earlier than Palamas, wrote several “anti-Latin treatises” with the following main idea: since God is mysterious and unknowable, the attempts of Roman theologians to convincingly prove the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son are meaningless; in matters of faith one cannot rely on reason. These works were known to Gregory Palamas. His two “Apodictic Treatises” were undoubtedly a hidden polemic against Barlaam: here, too, the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son was refuted, but from the standpoint that evidence in matters of faith is possible and necessary. Of course, by “evidence” in theology, Gregory Palamas did not mean the logical conclusions that Varlaam speaks of, but the reliability of spiritual experience, which is discussed in the Triads. Is it not, Palamas asks, that God, who revealed great secrets about Himself to Saint Dionysius the Areopagite and other early teachers of the Church, cannot reveal Himself with the same clarity and certainty through the Holy Spirit to the theologians of today’s Church? In an era when dogmatic, and indeed any other church creativity, for example, liturgical, seemed to have died out long ago 20, St. Gregory Palamas announced the possibility of its revival 21. His friends in Thessalonica, to whom he sent his Apodictic Treatises, immediately saw their polemics. Palamas himself, through his spiritual son and disciple, who later betrayed him, Gregory Akindinos, who then lived in Thessalonica and communicated with Varlaam, tried to bring his objections to the attention of the learned monk 22 . Then he exchanged several letters with Varlaam and argued with him during personal meetings. Either outraged by the courage of a young theologian little known outside Athos and planning to test him, or deciding to extend his educational activities to Athos, Varlaam met some unknown hesychasts, saying that he wanted to learn sacred silence from them. Very quickly he developed the conviction that prayerful unity with God is achieved by hesychasts almost mechanically, through a special, “curled” position of the body, holding back one’s breath, focusing one’s gaze on oneself, and endlessly repeating the Jesus Prayer. In fact, only a few lines in the writings of the hesychast of the second half of the 13th century are devoted to these so-called “psychotechnical techniques”. Nikephoros the Confessor, Saint Gregory of Sinai and other hesychast teachers (unfortunately, these few passages are talked about more than anything else by these writers), and one can only guess to what extent similar techniques were used in the practice of prayer, which, of course, existed among medieval Eastern monasticism. His hesychast teacher’s reduction of the entire vision of God to technology unpleasantly struck Varlaam (according to John Cantacuzene, he was a very narrow-minded, “almost wild” monk). It was undoubtedly about some kind of excessive exercise, but Varlaam decided to consider just such a deviation as hesychast practice. The fact is that for the “Kantian of the 14th century,” as modern researcher A.F. calls Varlaam. Losev, in general, any talk about the mysterious premonition of God during prayer, in principle, seemed absurd: God is absolutely unknowable and invisible, and words about his clear vision are simply a description of various human sensations. Confident in the strength of the foundations of his theory, Varlaam verbally and in numerous writings attacked the most secret things for hesychasts, calling the practice of prayerful contemplation of the uncreated Light a sensual and seductive vision of other forces. And soon, as if prepared in advance, the first “Triad” of the main work of St. Gregory, “In Defense of the Sacredly Silent,” followed in response. As earlier in relation to theology, so now in relation to mysterious contemplations, Saint Gregory boldly asserted that these contemplations did not end in the age of the apostles and great ascetics, but are accessible to the pure hearts of today’s prayer books. Leaving the way for reconciliation, he did not yet call Varlaam by name. For his part, Akindinus, even when he was a disciple of Saint Gregory, did not advise Varlaam to enter into an open dispute with the hieromonk, already known on Athos for the holiness of his life. “Leave it! - said Varlaam. “I will humble him!” - and gave free rein to mockery and ridicule of the “ignorant” and “ignorant”, who dares to assert the divine dignity and the right of rude monks to the knowledge of God, and they, perhaps, have not left the walls of the monastery all their lives and know only one Holy Scripture. For Varlaam, it was important to refute thoughts about the direct vision of the uncreated Light not only for the sake of prestige and protection of his beliefs, but also for the implementation of the plan of his whole life: from the impossibility of knowing the Mysteries of God with evidence, he wanted to deduce the secondary nature of any dogmas and propose this view as the basis for the unity of the Churches. In 1339, on behalf of the emperor, he went to Avignon, where he outlined this plan. But Pope Benedict XII did not accept the concept of dogmatic relativism, and the embassy did not bring significant success. When Barlaam returned to Byzantium, the second “Triad” of St. Gregory spread in Thessalonica. It is characteristic that the hesychasts did not accept Barlaam, driven by the same religious jealousy because of which his teachings were rejected in the West. The complex and deep theological work carried out in the “Triads” goes beyond the scope of polemics with Barlaam, but for all that it is fueled by a single and immediate impulse of the believing heart: Saint Gregory fears most of all that man is disheartened before God, that speculative constructions will separate the soul from the living love of God and that communication with God in prayer will remain somewhere in the past, in the times of the great seers of God, or will move somewhere into the distant future, behind the veil of speculation, without which, according to Varlaam, we cannot “accurately elevate sacred symbols to their immaterial prototypes” (see: “Triads”, I.1:5), that is, we cannot correctly understand Scripture. To justify the living experience of the believer, Saint Gregory formulates and defends the doctrine of eternally shining energies, freely and mysteriously flowing from God’s Essence, or actions, before which every human heart has equal rights and through which everyone can commune with God, that is, achieve deification, if only he has loved God with pure love, without an admixture of selfishness and selfishness. For St. Gregory, the “uncreated Light of the Transfiguration of Christ” serves as the Gospel confirmation and natural (that is, consubstantial) symbol of these Divine energies. Communion with the Divine Light is true only when it embraces not only the mind, but also the whole soul and the whole body. It seems that Barlaam was overcome with glee when he read this from Palamas: he decided that he had succeeded in identifying an outright theological heresy. Is the light of Tabor uncreated? No! These are ditheism and messalianism; Only God is uncreated 23. Varlaam writes directly about Palamas the essay “Against the Messalians” and submits it to Patriarch John XIV Kalekas (1334–1347) with the demand that Palamas be judged at the next synod. Varlaam insisted on a plenipotentiary synod-cathedral, with the obligatory presence of the emperor, which met only once a year. Using his fame at court, he ensured that Palamas, as a guilty monk, was requested through the authorities of Thessalonica to the capital in a disciplinary manner. Palamas immediately came to the call - this was in the spring of 1341, but he had already written the third “Triad” against Varlaam. He was accompanied by Isidore and other faithful monks, and most importantly, he had in his hands the so-called Svyatogorsk Tomos - a kind of manifesto of Athonite monasticism, compiled by Palamas himself (possibly with the help of the future Patriarch Philotheus Kokkin, then an Athonite hieromonk), which affirms the prophetic significance of “spiritual secrets, cognizable by those who have been purified through virtue,” confirms the doctrine of uncreated energies and support was expressed for “our brother Gregory, the most venerable hieromonk, who wrote books in defense of the hesychasts.” The tomos was signed by the Bishop of Ieris and Athos, Archpriest Isaac of Athos and the abbots of the main monasteries, including the Georgian Iveron and Serbian Hilendar 24. The Council-Synod took place in the Church of St. Sophia on June 10, 1341, but in advance an “oikonomia” was developed between the patriarch, bishops and the emperor (here: agreement. - Ed.), which boiled down to not bringing the matter to a theological discussion, not allowing Varlaam’s lawsuit against Athonite monasticism to proceed, getting the philosopher to admit that he did not understand something in the ancient and complex practice of hesychasm, and reconcile the parties as being in a personal quarrel. When Varlaam, who acted first as an accuser, began to condemn the theology of Gregory Palamas, Patriarch Philotheus interrupted him by pointing out that, according to the canons of previous councils, only bishops could deal with issues of dogmatic teaching. Varlaam moved on to specific claims (the Light of Tabor, which the hesychasts see, is in fact sensual; the constant practice of the Jesus Prayer brings the hesychasts closer to the Bogomils, and clarifications also need to be introduced into the prayer itself) and thus quickly found himself in the losing position of a person who came out with “inferences and geometric proofs” against the thousand-year-old practice of Eastern monasticism. While he said that visible light cannot be called uncreated, he firmly relied on the teaching of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite and could not be refuted, but as soon as he tried to apply this position of apophatic theology in the utmost sense and declared the Tabor light created, from an accuser he turned into an accused: the light of the Transfiguration of Christ cannot be called created, since the Lord Himself was revealed in it. Fearing that he would be accused, Varlaam hastened to make a not very sincere confession: (“... Now I am fully convinced that they [the hesychasts] thought better about the subject of our dispute, but otherwise I have no disagreements with them and believe and confess that the light that shone on the disciples’ Tabor is eternal” 25). The council on the same day ended with general reconciliation, but, going out into the city, Varlaam immediately declared that everything there was “set up.” Almost the next day he left for Avignon, accepted the union (or perhaps returned to it?), was appointed by Pope Clement V, not without the patronage of Francesco Petrarch, whom he taught Greek, to the episcopal see of Hierax (Gerace) in Calabria (1342) and wrote from there to “friends in Greece” several letters about the advantages of Roman Catholicism. There is a tendency to simplify the interpretation of the fact of Varlaam’s departure to the West, presenting the matter as if, in the person of Varlaam, Saint Gregory was arguing with a Roman confessor, as well as with “nominalistic humanism” and even with the “beginning Renaissance,” but this is incorrect 26 . Firstly, be that as it may, criticism of Palamas was primarily caused by the “anti-Latin” writings of Varlaam. The continuer of the “Barlaamite heresy,” Akindinus, was much more intolerant of “Latin thought” than Saint Gregory, and blamed the latter for the correspondence that he later, in captivity from the Turks (1343–1347), conducted with Genoese Catholics in Galata and with the Grand Master of the Hospitaller Order in Rhodes, seeking their understanding of his theology. Secondly, the dispute with Varlaam was about the experience of Orthodox monasticism; nominalist theses were put forward only later by Nikifor Grigora, and even then unilaterally, because Palamas decisively abandoned the discussion on this basis. Thirdly, Varlaam was a Greek-Byzantine, and not a Western humanist, and certainly not a humanist of the Italian Renaissance 27 . For Petrarch, he is “an example of Greek wisdom” 28, a Byzantine polymath, “as abundant in Greek as helpless in Latin eloquence, flexible in mind, but clumsy in expressing feelings” 29. If we remember that the art of speaking out was for Petrarch the main criterion of a humanist, these words meant an irrevocable verdict on Varlaam. Theology of the Barlaamite sense was also completely alien to Petrarch 30. Petrarch, paradoxically, stood, in fact, much closer to Palamas than to Varlaam, when he denounced the arrogance, depravity and unbelief of Avignon, said that “to philosophize means to love wisdom, and true wisdom is Jesus Christ” 31, and on behalf of Blessed Augustine addressed people who had forgotten about God’s living love: “Why do you tirelessly work in vain, unfortunate ones, and occupy your mind with whimsical subtleties? Why, forgetting about the essence of existence, do you grow old among words and, with gray hair and a wrinkled forehead, indulge in childish nonsense? God grant that your madness only harms you and does not destroy the noblest young minds!” 32. After the Council of 1341, Patriarch John Kalekas, in a District Message, ordered the residents of Constantinople and other cities of the empire, under threat of excommunication, to hand over all the books of Varlaam against the hesychasts in their hands to the church authorities for public burning. From now on, Saint Gregory Palamas could definitely call the opinion about the created and sensual nature of the Tabor light the Barlaamite heresy. One may ask: why, after this worthy defense of hesychasm, did he not return to his cell during the hesychastery of Saint Sava on Athos, but remained in Constantinople? The fact is that, as he could see, Patriarch John Kalekas and the synod were in a hurry to restore peace and unanimity in the Church and did not want to discuss substantive theological issues. They were satisfied that Varlaam recognized the Tabor light as eternal. But Saint Gregory brought the “Triads” to Constantinople, where the energy of God’s illumination was called not only eternal, but also uncreated, that is, belonging to God Himself. As soon as he spoke about it openly, he met strong resistance. First of all, his student Akindinus, who had recently opposed Varlaam, sharply opposed him. “In God,” he declared, “there is only self-identity and indistinguishability, except for the particularity by which the Divine Persons are distinguished.” Following Varlaam, Akindinus proved the philosophical groundlessness of separating God’s Essence from energies: after all, unlike the essence of created things to which God gives existence, His Essence is the very Being of God, and this Being, of course, really, that is, effectively exists as Wisdom, Truth, Will and other Divine Powers, so there is no point in introducing, in addition to the Essence, the energy of God separately 33. Many were afraid that the theology of St. Gregory Palamas would shake the foundations of the Church. Patriarch John Kalekas, by a special decree, extended to Palamas a ban on any believer below the rank of bishop to theologize about the dogmas of the Church. Saint Gregory disobeyed the order of the patriarch. He was sure that he was not introducing innovations into Orthodox theology, but returning it to its living roots. It is no coincidence that throughout the debate, his main argument remained the patristic texts. The task of Saint Gregory, as he formulated it, was to “unfold” the numerous judgments about God’s action (energy) that the teachers of the Church already have. “There is no essence by nature without energy (action),” writes St. Basil the Great, “nor any kind of energy without essence, and, moreover, we know the essence through energy, having for identification this very energy as an indication (deigma) of the essence: after all, no one has ever seen God’s Essence, but we still reliably know this Essence through its energies” 34. “The actions [=energy] are varied, but the Essence is simple, and we say that we can know our God by His actions, but we do not affirm that we can get closer to His Essence Itself: after all, His energies descend to us, but His Essence remains inaccessible” 35. Saint Gregory of Nyssa, in a dispute with Eunomius, derived from the unity of action of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit the unity of Their Essence and Nature 36. “In the Divinity,” he writes, “no distinction of either nature or energy is discerned” 37. The unity of the nature of God means, as St. Cyril of Alexandria says, that the “active side” in Him “is not separate, although one can imagine that it acts in diverse and different ways” 38 . Saint John Chrysostom also says that the one energy of God is diversified in the world, as evidenced by the multiplicity of the angelic hierarchy; the variety of actions allows God to be given various names, although these names in no way mean a difference in God’s Essence 39 . “We call Jesus Christ One,” writes St. Cyril of Jerusalem, “so that the multiplicity of His actions does not lead us to the unholy multiplication of sons: after all, He is called the Gate... and the Way... and the Lamb... and the Shepherd” 40. Long before Saint Gregory Palamas, they spoke about the spiritual action of God's energy as light. Thus, St. Basil the Great regarding the text of the Epistle to Ephesians 1:17-21: “... so that God... may enlighten the eyes of your heart, so that you may know... how immeasurably the greatness of His power is in us who believe through the action [=energy] of His sovereign power, which He exercised in Christ, raising Him from the dead and seating Him at His right hand. Heaven, above all principality, and power, and strength, and dominion, and every name,” writes: “As the power of vision is in a healthy eye, so the energy of the Spirit is in a purified soul” 41. Thus, the teachers of the Church speak in detail about Divine energies. In no case should the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas be understood only in the sense of a simple interpretation, comprehension or generalization of patristic judgments. Palamas was not a scientist of an academic mindset; he took from the Fathers of the Church, first of all, boldness in the approach to dogmatic creativity and put forward in the thesis about Divine energies not some kind of summing up rational concept, but a mysterious symbol designed to continue the biblical and gospel history of the Living and Creating God. Therefore, Palamite theology is not clearly derived from previous Christian theology, despite all its roots in it, and this is understandable: if the thought of the Church is the living history of the Spirit, then any continuation of it must also be a living testimony. The Byzantine hierarchs were not ready for such innovation. As mentioned above, it seemed to everyone that the time for creating doctrinal dogmas had long passed. It is not without reason that in order to express the idea of ​​​​continuing church teaching “even in a time not long ago from us,” the Athonite monks who supported Saint Gregory had to make a special reservation 42. The introduction of significant clarifications into Christian dogmatics by Saint Gregory Palamas would not have been realized if not for his reliance on monastic experience and spiritual practice, which for some learned theologians meant nothing (for example, for Saint Demetrius Kydonis, Saint Simeon the New Theologian and the “so-called hesychasts” are simply dark heretics 43), but meant a lot for the believing people. If Saint Athanasius the Great, the Cappadocians, Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, Saint Maximus the Confessor and other early teachers of the Church were perceived by Saint Gregory as unanimous exponents of the truth, and everyone who spoke the truth had to necessarily agree with them, then “who lived shortly before us,” as Saint Gregory says, Nikephoros the Confessor, Bishop Theoliptus of Philadelphia, Patriarch Athanasius I of Constantinople and other pious men, whom the saint calls his immediate teachers, were for him living examples of the truth, their example called for the continuation of the same tireless righteous activity. Although Gregory Palamas does not mention Saint Gregory Sinaite anywhere, this does not mean, as has already been said, that there was nothing in common between them: rather, on the contrary, Palamas apparently accepted many of the thoughts of Saint Gregory Sinaite and his way of life so deeply that he himself said the same thing, only in a preaching and doctrinal, and not in a esoteric and psychological way. Sometimes when reading St. Gregory of Sinaite, only the characteristic last consonance and graceful (reminiscent of the style of St. John Climacus) rhythmicity prevents us from thinking that we are reading Palamas, their thoughts are so identical. “Without intelligent feeling,” writes Saint Gregory of Sinai, “it is impossible to taste the pleasure of the Divine Mysteries with feeling. Just as one who has dulled his senses has made them inactive (anenergetous) in relation to sensory things and does not see, does not hear, does not smell them, like a paralytic, or rather, like a half-dead person, so one who has killed the natural forces of the soul with passions has made them insensitive to energy (energeian) and the communion of the Spirit: he who does not see, does not hear, does not feel is spiritually dead, because neither Christ lives in him, nor does he move. and does not work (energoumenos) in Christ” 44. Here not only are there all the concepts and themes that will later occupy the main place in St. Gregory Palamas, but, most importantly, there is absolutely the same understanding of the need for a person to actively strive for God with all the strength of the soul, without killing its natural forces. Saint Gregory Palamas in the “Triads” (for example, II. 2, 12–24), can be considered to simply continue and defend this teaching about the action of Divine energies in the human soul. In his theology, he developed a dogmatic expression of the spirituality in the atmosphere in which he himself labored and lived. This justifies and explains the tenacity that distinguished him at the Councils and in polemics. In the same 1341, Gregory Palamas found unexpected support from the former patron of Varlaam, the great domestic (palace minister) John Kangakuzen (1282–1383; from 1347 to 1354 - Emperor John VI), although this support was perhaps not entirely sincere. Tsar Andronikos III died on the fourth day after the Council, June 10, according to doctors, from fasting and overexertion. He left behind a young son, the future Emperor John V, and a struggle for power began between the great domestic and the patriarch. In August 1341, Cantacuzene, taking advantage of his temporary political advantage, decided to again convene the Council-Synod to strengthen his position, which, generally speaking, only the emperor had the right to do. This Council rejected the thesis that recognizing the Light of Tabor as uncreated leads to bitheism, and condemned Akindinus as a “Barlaamite” for “blasphemous and slanderous speeches about the unapproachable and Divine Light” and for the opinion that the saints commune – “above feelings, mind and reason” – not with energies, but with the very Essence of God. The August Council-Synod met in the catechumen room of the Church of Hagia Sophia with an incomplete composition. It is not even clear whether the patriarch was present at it, who signed the decision of the Council not immediately and only under pressure, and combined it with the decision of the June Council, so that in the documents these two Councils appear as one. And yet, the main question for Gregory Palamas about God’s Essence and energies was again touched upon only indirectly; at the insistent desire of the patriarch, everything possible was again done for the personal reconciliation of the disputants and the immediate cessation of the dispute over dogmas. In October 1341, Cantacuzene, forced to leave the capital during the political struggle, was deprived of all positions and ranks in absentia; power was assumed by Patriarch John and megaduk (commander) Alexei Apokavkos, who began to rule together with the widow of Andronikos III, Anna of Savoy. The new regime sharply opposed the feudal aristocracy, from which its wealth was confiscated, and in its policies relied on the plebeian masses. On October 26, Cantacuzene in the city of Didimotica, for his part, proclaimed himself emperor-co-ruler of the heir; A civil war began, which continued intermittently until 1357. The Patriarch offered Saint Gregory the episcopal see in exchange for help against Cantacuzenus. Gregory Palamas responded that the Great Domestic was a capable and faithful statesman to Orthodoxy, who had been “unjustly slandered.” Relying on his acquaintance with the imperial family, he tried to reconcile them with Cantacuzenus, and after failure in these attempts he remained in Constantinople, awaiting the decisive Council. At the end of 1341 - beginning of 1342, he wrote “Dialogue between the Orthodox and the Barlaamite”, “Apology” in three treatises against Akindinus and, possibly, the dialogue “Theophanes, or on the Divinity and His non-participation and inclusion”. These and subsequent polemical works repeat and clarify the theological thought of the Triads. By the end of Lent 1342, it became clear that the “patriarch-politarch,” as Gregory Palamas called John Kalekas, wanted to silence the persistent theologian. In May, the next Council-Synod decided in absentia to destroy all the works of Gregory Palamas written after August 1341. Four months later, a search was made in the cell of the monastery in Herakleia, where Palamas had retired, in order to discover suspected correspondence between him and Cantacuzenus; no letters were found, but Gregory Palama was still arrested and brought to the royal palace. Here something like a cathedral-court took place, after which, by order of the patriarch, Saint Gregory was imprisoned without the right to communicate with the outside world, first, as one might think, at the residence of the patriarch himself, and then in the monastery of the Unknowable God, so that, according to the plan of the persecutors, in thoughts about the Divine incomprehensibility, Palamas would abandon overly bold attempts to penetrate into the mystery of God's actions. At the end of 1342 or the beginning of 1343, Palamas, who had earlier achieved the removal of armed guards from the monastery through the megaduk Apokavka, entered the Church of Hagia Sophia with 11 other monks and, citing the ancient privilege of this church to be a refuge for the persecuted, remained there for two months, demanding the convening of a great Council. Until the end of 1344, not counting letters to Athonite monks, friends and other persons, Gregory Palamas wrote 7 treatises “Against Akindinus,” that is, he responded to all 7 books in which Akindinus, by agreement with the patriarch, accused Saint Gregory of “ditheism.” On November 4, 1344, the patriarch and the synod announced a decree excommunicating Palamas for his theology (“...those who dare to say that God’s grace is uncreated, but different from God’s Essence is anathema” 45), for the “unauthorized reinterpretation” of the conciliar tomos of 1341 (Palama understood it not only in the sense of condemning Varlaam and Akindinus, but also in the sense of complete agreement with doctrine of energies) and for refusing to remember the name of the patriarch at the liturgy. The Patriarch also deposed Isidore, who was already a bishop in Monemvasia, intensified the persecution of the “Palamites” and installed many “anti-Palamites” as bishops, among whom was Akindinus (first ordaining him as a deacon). Now the word of Akindinus, soon as a bishop, was to acquire decisive importance, and Palamas was destined for voicelessness. And then Saint Gregory unexpectedly received help from Empress Anna: she did not approve the installation as bishop of a man who, as evidenced by the cathedral tomos of 1341, under her husband Andronikos III, and even ordered the arrest of Akindinus. She also carefully examined two “Dogmatic Words” in defense of St. Gregory Palamas, which Philotheus Kokkin composed on behalf of the Athonite monks. (It was mentioned above that Philotheus Kokkin would later become a patriarch; for now he is a hieromonk on Holy Mount Athos. - Author) The empress's help to her captive may seem incomprehensible without clarification of one circumstance. The patience, perseverance of Saint Gregory, the invariability of his position in conditions of civil and church turmoil inevitably made him the focus from which the active minds of Orthodoxy emanated and were drawn. Thus, almost independently of him, the “Palamite” and “anti-Palamite” parties were formed. He himself did not encourage this division, striving only for unity in truth. Even in prison, he simultaneously expressed sympathy for Cantacuzinus and remained faithful to the dowager empress and the young heir. When the victorious Cantacuzene occupied the capital and Anna found herself besieged in her palace, she again sent Saint Gregory Palamas to negotiate with him, releasing him from prison specifically for this purpose. The impartiality of Saint Gregory also manifested itself later, in 1354–1355, when John V, having established himself in Thessalonica and claiming his rights to the throne, sent the Archbishop of Thessalonica to negotiate with Cantacuzios 46 . In those same years, Saint Gregory acted as a reconciliator between two contenders for the Patriarchal throne of Constantinople - Callistus and Philotheus. “Until the very end,” Cantacuzene writes about Saint Gregory, “despite the numerous misfortunes that he had to endure for the sake of justice and truth, neither in deed nor in word was he guilty of a single baseness” 47 . It is sometimes said that Palamas belonged to the party of large landowners and aristocrats, who fought against the zealots - the party of the poor. However, in the first conversation, delivered at the beginning of 1350, on the third day after his arrival in Thessaloniki, which had not yet cooled down from the fire of the civil war, Saint Gregory blames all misfortunes not on this or that political group, but on human sinfulness and calls for mutual unanimity. A year later, he reproaches the rich who emerged victorious in the civil war: “We can only boast that we harm each other and offend the poor... Even if for a moment it may seem that there is a visible agreement among us, in reality we are increasing the violence committed against the poor, imposing increasingly heavy taxes on those who work with their own hands. Where is the soldier who is satisfied with his salary? Where is the official who does not indulge in theft?.. The poor can no longer endure the ruthless inhumanity of tax collectors, the constant violence and injustices to which you subject them, since you are more powerful than those who cultivate the land...” 48. Let's go back to February 1347. Cantacuzene returned to the capital, Patriarch John Kalekas had been deposed by Empress Anna a little earlier (he died at the end of the same year at the age of about 65), Akindinus was re-convicted and exiled (he also died a year later), the “Palamite” Isidore (May 1347 - December 1349) became patriarch. The theology of Saint Gregory was approved at the Council held in the spring of 1347. The Palamite formulas concerning Essence and Energy were added to the confession of faith required of bishops before their consecration. A whole “Palamite” literature appeared: David Disipate, Joseph Kalofet, Patriarchs Isidore and Philotheus, Mark Kurt, as well as many others whose names remained unknown, wrote in defense of Saint Gregory and in refutation of Akindinus. However, about twenty bishops, starting from the same year 1347, opposed the theological and canonical innovations. Despite the deposition and other punishments to which they were subjected by the emperor and patriarch Callistus (December 1349 - early 1354), this opposition did not subside. It was headed by the most prominent scientist and writer Nikifor Grigora (1295 - ca. 1360). The need arose to convene a new Council. It took place in 1351 in the refectory of the Blachernae Palace, which under Alexei Komnenos was decorated with frescoes depicting the Ecumenical Councils. The cathedral of 1351 was unusually numerous. It was held with great solemnity. At the meetings on May 28 and 30, June 8 and 9, the few “anti-Palamite” bishops who were still at large, as well as Nicephorus Grigora 49, had the opportunity to speak out. First of all, they were dissatisfied with the innovations as such, especially with the changes in the episcopal formula for the confession of faith and in the liturgy. Protest was caused, for example, by Isidore’s hymn to the Most Holy Trinity: “We call Your action [= energy] Divinity, but more so Your Nature, for they equally belong to You; We sing You, the Trinity, as the One Uncreated Divinity.” Saint Gregory pointed out in response that his theology does not contradict the teachings of the holy fathers and the acts of the Ecumenical Councils, especially the VI Council with its definition of the two energies, or wills of Christ. Gregory Palamas and the hesychasts were also accused of “disrespect for holy icons, sacred vessels and other Christian deanery.” What was meant here was the stern simplicity that hesychasm contrasted with the official pomp of worship, as well as the benevolent attitude of the “Palamites” towards the seizure of monastic and even church properties in favor of the state. Behind the rude and obviously unfair reproach for the rejection of icons was hidden a deeper and not everyone realized fear, which only Nikephoros Gregoras could clearly formulate: according to his thought, if God’s energies sanctify to the state of deification not only the mind of the inner man, but also the external flesh, then the flesh of the saint is thereby excluded from the natural order of nature and can no longer be depicted as such. Through the action of uncreated energies, it is as if the earthly flesh of the saint itself is “burned up”, leaves the visible world, and eludes ordinary gaze. The reproach of “iconoclasm” from these positions, convincing at first glance, was essentially caused by the fact that hesychasm spoke with new depth about the mystery of the Incarnation brought into the world by Christianity. Further, Nikephoros Gregoras and the anti-Palamite bishops, like Akindinus, declared that transferring the meaning of the concept of Divinity to energy leads to polytheism. When it came to this accusation, the calm discussion at the Council seemed to have finally ceased. Due to their numerical superiority, the “Palamites” won. Metropolitan Arsenios of Tyre, representing the Patriarch of Antioch, left the Council. The unrepentant “anti-Palamites” were anathematized, imprisoned or placed under house arrest. Nikifor Grigora was imprisoned in the Khorsky monastery, from where he came out only in 1354. In July, “another Council” 50 met, or, rather, the last meeting of the same Council took place, where, in the absence of the “anti-Palamites,” Cantacuzene proposed that the Patriarch and the Council discuss several “dogmatic chapters.” Unambiguous answers were given to the latter, supported by extracts from the holy fathers. (1) Is there a “god-worthy distinction” of Essence and energy in God? - Yes; in the One God there is the Essence and its essential (natural) energy, and they “distinguish without divergence” (ἀδιάστατος διαφορά), as that which exists in itself, and that which does not exist in itself, as a cause and caused, as that which does not allow participation in Itself, and that which allows participation in Oneself, as that which is spoken of only in the singular, and that which can be spoken of in both the singular and the plural, as the nameable and the unnameable. (2) Is energy then created or uncreated? – Uncreated: energy is “uncreated and natural grace and illumination, emanating inexorably” from God’s Essence. (3) How then can compositeness in God be avoided? – By attributing both Essence and energy to the One Living God: “and after this God-worthy distinction, God’s simplicity is perfectly preserved.” (4) Is it possible to attach the name of “Divinity” to energy without completely avoiding bigism? – Yes, because this is what the Fathers of the Church did, who cannot be accused of bitheism. (5) Is it correct and in accordance with Tradition to say that the Essence is higher than energy? - Yes. (6) Is participation in God a participation in His Essence or His energy? – Energy. (7) Has the light of Transfiguration been created? – No 51. These “dogmatic chapters” were subsequently little revised and in this form were gradually officially accepted by the Orthodox Churches during the 14th century, although at first they were rejected by many, including Metropolitan Theognostus of Kiev. In 1470, Arseny of Tire, having become Patriarch of Antnochia, prepared materials and a draft conciliar decision for the decanonization of St. Gregory Palamas and the abolition of the provisions put forward in his theology, but was deposed. The dogma of the incomprehensible difference of Essence and energies in the absolutely simple Deity at the Council of 1351 was accepted by the Orthodox Eastern Church. The wording of the Council of 1351 is not entirely clear in all respects. The comprehensive development of the “most difficult theological question” raised here 52 was undoubtedly hindered by the hasty removal of opponents of these definitions. Saint Gregory himself made the least claim to believe that the “house of truth” was built entirely by him (see “Triads” I 3, 48–51). As in many of his writings, and at the Council of 1351, he spoke about the insufficiency of any verbal formulas in comparison with the truth: “The essence of things is not in names, but rather, on the contrary, in things the essence of names is,” and readily admitted that in his polemical writings expressions were often inaccurate. True, he insisted on the finality of the condensed formulas of his episcopal “Confession of the Orthodox Faith.” Next to God’s Essence, it is said here, there is “grace, power, energy, radiance, the Kingdom, incorruptibility and in general everything that [in God] allows participation in Himself.” The energy is “one in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” God in His One Divinity “does not deviate from simplicity either because of the separateness and difference of the Hypostases, or because of the separateness and diversity of forces and energies,” because “no one will call the strong either composite because it manifests its strength, that is, on the basis that it has strength or forces” 53 . But precisely because of their brevity, these formulations require new clarifications. Such clarifications were demanded by John V Palaiologos when, having overthrown Cantacuzenos, he freed Nicephorus Gregoras from the monastery and after some time invited him and Saint Gregory to his palace for a dispute. Nikifor Grigora proposed the following dilemma. If there are many Divine energies, that is, if they are different, then they can no longer be uncreated, because “it is impossible to think of a difference between the uncreated and the uncreated” 54: in the One Uncreated there is only the inconceivable difference of unmerged and indivisible Hypostases, and the introduction of any new, incomprehensible difference actually introduces a new hypostasis. And if God’s energy itself is one and multiplies only in the created world, as St. John of Damascus taught, for example, 55 “then there is no need to distinguish it from the Essence: after all, unlike the human personality, which always looks not fully realized, which can only yet come true and is never equal to its actions, God abides in the fullness of reality, has in Himself nothing unrealized, nothing that would not be limitless energy. Saint Gregory abandoned the philosophical dispute and repeated the old argument: God cannot be seen and it is impossible to join His Essence, but we live only by God, which means that the One and Indivisible God is to some extent inaccessible, and to some other extent accessible, and God, to the extent of His accessibility, that is, in other words, to the extent of His action (energein) on us, is also God Eternal and Uncreated. Nikephoros Gregoras indignantly declared that “this does not fit into either natural concepts or the concepts of scientific knowledge” 56, and he was right: the “indivisible difference” proclaimed by Saint Gregory between Essence and action in the One and absolutely simple God became an insoluble riddle for rational thought 57. This doctrine grew not from systematic reasoning, but from personal experience of God's presence 58 and from paternal concern to firmly establish it in the formulas of doctrine - a concern alien to Palamas' opponent, for whom the whole world was centered around his own literary writings. Nikifor Grigora was painfully proud, sharp-tongued, theatrical, sarcastic, prone to malicious or bilious observations of fate and completely devoid of the main thing that determined the life of St. Gregory: the spirit of secret shepherding. The contemplations leading to deification that Palamas spoke of were for the skeptic Gregoras simply “lust, intoxication and luxury of the sensual eyes” 59 . Nikifor Grigora depicted his behavior at the night debate of 1355 (it is unknown on what date it took place) very favorably for himself in the large 30th book of his “Byzantine History” 60; Saint Gregory is presented here as a malicious heretic, worse than Arius, a rude ignoramus and a hypocrite. Palamas responded with two treatises under the pseudonym “Constantius, Hieromonk of Svyatogorsk,” and in 1358, at the request of Philotheus, he compiled two more treatises of objections to Nikephoros Grigora. Apart from the last dogmatic dispute at the Council of 1368, at which St. Gregory was canonized, the debate about “Essence and Energies” began to move into a purely literary sphere from the 1350s. This was greatly facilitated by the fact that Emperor John V Palaiologos (ruled intermittently from 1341 to 1391), who converted to Catholicism in 1369, had long before ceased to be interested in the internal affairs of the Church, and, according to tradition, important church issues could not be resolved without the participation and conclusion of the emperor. In the 14th century, the hieromonk David Disipate wrote in defense of Palamas (“The Lay of the Blasphemy of Barlaam and Akindinus” 61), Patriarch Philofenus Kokkin (“Against Nicephorus Gregoras” in 14 books), Emperor John Kantakouzenes (refutation of the work of John Kyparisiotis “Palamite Crimes”, “Refutation of Prochorus Kydonis”, “Refutation of Isaac Argyres”, an apology for the Palamite doctrine intended for Paul of Smyrna, "the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople"), Metropolitan Theophan of Nicea (response to Paul of Smyrna), successor of St. Gregory in the Thessalonian see, Nile, Nicholas Cabasilas, who was also Archbishop of Thessalonica (†1371), and finally Metropolitan Philotheus of Silimvria, who wrote “Dialogue on Dogmatic Theology” is a drama in which Varlaam, Nikephoros Gregoras, Palamas, Akindinus, Philotheus Kokkin and the “chorus of sophists” participate, which, like the choir in ancient tragedy, judges, advises, weeps, sympathizes and ends with generous praises of Saint Gregory. In the 15th century, Palamas’ thought was developed by Joseph Bryennius, Bishop Mark of Ephesus (a refutation of Manuel Kalekas’s book “On Essence and Energy”, defense of Palamism at the Council of Florence), and Patriarch Gennadius (George) Scholarius. Hieromonk Niphon, the Cypriot humanist George Lapith, Patriarch John Kalekas of Constantinople, Patriarch Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop Matthew of Ephesus, Hieromonk Prochorus Kydonis (“On Essence and Energy” in six books), Theodore Dexius, Isaac Argir, as well as supporters of the union: Demetrius Kydonis (the great logothetos), John Kyparisiotis (the already mentioned “Palamite Crimes”, as well as “Exposition of Theological Principles” in 10 Decades) and the Catholic Manuel Kalekas. Disputes “about Essence and energies” continued until the fall of Byzantium. The teaching of Saint Gregory (after his death) met a harsh and prepared critic in the person of the Athonite hieromonk Prochorus Kydonis, an expert in Western theology and translator of Thomas Aquinas into Greek. Patriarch Philotheus and his bishops were apparently unable to follow the course of his thoughts when he alone spoke out against everyone at the Council of 1368: for them, it was more common to prove “from Divine Scripture” by “quoting the words of the holy fathers”, and Hieromonk Prochorus Kydonis used “his own reasoning, and evidence, and Aristotelian syllogisms” 62. It seemed to the Fathers of the Council that Kydonis constantly contradicted himself, “like a chameleon, changing his appearance” 63. But Philotheus, willy-nilly, had to introduce large passages of his reasoning into the cathedral tomos. In the fragmentary presentation one can guess the consistent train of thought of the Byzantine Thomist. First of all, Kydonis considered it incredible that in the Gospel words “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us” (John 14:8) the desire to see not God, but only His energies is expressed. Even when we cognize only Divine goodness, truth, beauty, Kydonis argued, we see all of God in His Essence, although not in a perfect way. After all, good and so on are not “states” of God, God does not “manifest” through good, does not move from the possibility of being good to real and effective goodness: both His truth, and goodness, and beauty are He Himself in His eternally effective Essence. Is the all-pervading Spirit of God really not enough, Kydonis asked, to bless all things, and additional, lower energies are required? The Tabor light, he continued, was not directly the Divinity: after all, due to the omnipotence of God, this light could have been infinitely brighter, and this means that an incommensurable difference remained between the appearance that appeared to the apostles on Tabor and the true appearance of God. Also, where did the Transfiguration take place? - In Caesarea Philippi. When? – About six days after another gospel event. What was the light like? - As if white. By calling the Light of Tabor a direct manifestation of God Himself, we will assimilate to His incomprehensible and unthinkable Truth these spatial, temporal and material definitions, which are completely unbecoming of the Divine. Finally, the light of the Transfiguration of the Lord is not the only Epiphany, and by attributing to it uncreatedness, that is, Divinity, Palamas will ultimately have to introduce many deities limited in space and time. The Tabor light, according to Kydonis, was somehow both uncreated and created, just as in Christ, from Whom it emanated, the uncreated and created natures were united. It seemed to the conciliar fathers that they had caught Hieromonk Prokhor Kydonis in a gross contradiction 64: on the one hand, he says that every comprehension of goodness, truth, beauty, light, and so on is the comprehension of God Himself in His Essence, and on the other hand, that even the light of the Transfiguration is not in the proper sense the Divinity; this was recorded as a blatant self-refutation of the antipalamite. However, this was precisely the essence of Kydonis’s thought: truth, goodness and other energies and powers of God are God Himself in His simplest effective Essence, and His effective Essence is also perceived; but, since it is perceived by created beings, it becomes commensurate with those who perceive, that is, also, at least in some respect, created. After all, even with grace-filled deification, a person does not part with his created human essence. Therefore, according to Kydonis, it is quite possible to say, as Palamas did in his youthful writings, that there are “lower and higher deities and deifications,” if only we remember that these differences take place in the created deity of idolized people, and not in the Divine nature itself 65. Dividing Essence and Energy in God Himself, Palamas, in the opinion of Hieromonk Prochorus Kydonis, attributed to Him a distinction that began only after Creation and is rooted not in God, but in the created personality. As was the case during the dispute between Palamas and Nikephoros Grigora, the dispute between the conciliar fathers and Prokhor Kydonis did not actually take place. In preparation for canonization, the Council began to analyze documents testifying to the asceticism of Saint Gregory and the miraculous healings he performed during his life and after his death. Kidonis did not come to this last meeting 66 as a sign of protest. All subsequent criticism of "Palamism" revolves around the above arguments of Kydonis. However, a hundred years later, another Byzantine Thomist, the head of the Orthodox opponents of the Florentine Union, Patriarch Gennady (George) Scholarius (c. 1405 - c. 1468) presented an equally convincing philosophical justification for the doctrine of Essence and energies. Scholarius took as his basis the argument once used against Palamas by Akindinus and Nicephorus Gregoras: unlike everything we see in the created world, where the essence of things is seen separately and their actions are separately observed, which, even being “essential,” are still accidental (i.e., they could not have happened and could have happened differently), with God His action is always equal to His nature, that is, also infinite, uncreated and eternal. But only if the Essence of God is “formally” (in its idea) infinite, then its action is not formally infinite, because God’s action manifests itself in many things and circumstances, and there cannot be many actual (i.e., really existing) infinities. Moreover, “since, as required by God’s simplicity, they [Essence and energy] have the same mode of existence, they are both One Infinity and One God, and their formal difference cannot produce [in God] either real difference or composition: after all, it [the difference of Essence and energy] rests on a single underlying basis, on the absolute simplicity of God’s nature” 67. The “formal” difference between actions from the Essence and from each other is not imaginary, not introduced by our consciousness - God Himself, having “conceived” a non-infinite world, “agreed” to the non-infinity of His actions in it - however, it is not as strong as the difference between the Divine Persons. The difference between Essence and energies, Scholarius writes in another work, is neither entirely real nor entirely mental: a completely real difference would destroy God’s simplicity, a purely mental distinction “would make our theology empty and superfluous.” Each Divine perfection (action) “is a certain special reality in God, if we understand reality in the weaker sense of the word, since it is clear that for the mutual delimitation of secondary mental concepts there must necessarily be something real in the reality they designate” 68. In other words, although the concepts of Divine truth, love, beauty, and so on do not express real distinctions in God, God Himself gives us some very real, albeit incomprehensible, basis for our distinctions between these concepts. In the 20th century, the Greek theologian X. Androutsos, in the book “Dogmatics of the Orthodox Eastern Church,” sets out the doctrine of Essence and energies according to Scholarius: “The true understanding of God’s properties lies in the middle, between their real and nominalistic understanding; they are not opposed differences in God’s Essence, and not empty names, but our subjective ideas about the real relations of the infinite God to the finite world” 69. Scholarius's arguments, it must be said, did not stop opponents of the doctrine of energies. Severe criticism of the teachings of Palamas from the standpoint of rationalistic, especially Thomist and neo-Thomist Western theology continued until the middle of the 20th century, when the revival of “Palamism” in the works of Orthodox theologians led to the gradual realization of the fact that the concept of energy in St. Gregory Palamas does not at all correspond to the Thomist concept of “act”, despite the terminological identity (“act” is a translation of the Greek “energy”). By the Byzantine theologian, this concept was filled with mystical-symbolic and moral meaning and moved from a series of rational truths about the Divine to a series of super-rational dogmas of faith 70. Therefore, Patriarch Gennady Scholarius “proved” not exactly what Saint Gregory had in mind. The concept of saving and saving actions of God, even without proof, retains the irrefutable power of experimental evidence that in our visible material world, through pure hearts, the invisible, eternal and uncreated meaning is constantly manifested. Saint Gregory also used the concept of “essence” in relation to the Divinity not in the philosophical and Thomistic sense of “active existence”, but in the sense of “objective content”. Therefore, the incomprehensibility of God’s Essence does not mean for St. Gregory Palamas the absolute inaccessibility of God, but only the impossibility, either now or in the next century, of exhausting Him with meaningful definitions: “the incomprehensibility of the Essence of God” is simply a conventional designation of His incommensurability with His likeness in man, a reverent recognition of the great and incomprehensible difference in our created and His creating Nature. Saint Gregory’s God is so great that He is neither an essence, nor even a super-essence, but “infinitely higher than the super-essence itself” (“Against Akindinus”, IV 7). Gregory Palamas calls God not an “essence,” but a Being, and a personal one at that. “Conversing with Moses,” he writes, “God said not “I am the essence,” but “I am the One who is” (Ex. 3:14), because it is not from the essence that the One exists, but from the Being the essence: the One who exists embraces in Himself the whole of existence” (“Triads”, III 2, 12). “Essence is necessarily also being, but being is not necessarily reducible to one essence” (“Against Akindinus”, III 10). In the end, essence and energy are just distinctions introduced by us, although not created by us, but justified by the Divine reality in the One Personal God. In God’s energies, Saint Gregory Palamas emphasizes, what acts is not some impersonal “one,” but “the One” (“Against Akindinus,” V 13), not an essence, but the Existing One, the Existing One. Therefore, strictly speaking, energy is not the action of God’s Essence, but of that “wholly Present” (“Apology”), Personal God, with whom both energy is as His uncreated reality, and Essence as His incomprehensible all-containing Fullness. The doctrine of God's saving energies appeared not as the fruit of interpretative theology, but as a new link in the ongoing history of spiritual Revelation 71 . It grew in the greenhouse of faith, in the hidden and silent depths of the prayer world, the constant support of which was ascetic righteousness and holy eldership. The Light of Tabor, says the Synod of the Week of Orthodoxy, is “the unspeakable glory of the Divine, the timeless glory of the Son, the Kingdom of God, the true and beloved Beauty.” This confession of love for God can be considered the real testament of Saint Gregory Palamas, the essence of his teaching. It seems to us that St. Gregory would not be very worried about subsequent philosophical refutations or proofs of his teaching. “Every word fights with a word,” he says at the beginning of “Triads” to the student, instructing him to rely on deeds and experience, “that is, it means that another word also fights with it, and it is impossible to invent a word that is completely victorious and does not know defeat, which the followers of the Hellenes and those whom they consider wise men proved by constantly refuting each other with seemingly stronger verbal evidence.” It is no coincidence that in a dispute with Nikephoros Grigora in 1455, Palamas passed by the masterful arguments of his opponent. Saint Gregory openly said that he fights not about words, but “about dogmas, that is, about deeds” (περὶ δογμάτων καὶ πραγμάτων 72); dogma was for him part of the life of the Church. Beginning in 1350, thanks to the victory of Cantacuzenus over the Zealots 73, Saint Gregory was able to accept his episcopal see in Thessalonica and devoted himself entirely to pastoral service. It was interrupted only from March 1354 to the spring of 1355, when, due to the unexpected capture of the port of Gallipolis by the Turks, he was captured by the Turks. It tells about his meetings with Christians living under the rule of the Turks, about a dispute with certain “chions” (according to one assumption, these were Byzantine “Judaizing” Karaites 74), about his missionary work among the followers of Islam. Gregory Palamas was ransomed either by the Serbian king, in whose sphere of influence Athos was at that time, or, perhaps, by the just overthrown Cantacuzenus, whose daughter Theodora had been married to Emir Urhan since 1345. If the second is true, then one can see further evidence of the political independence of Saint Gregory in the fact that already in the summer of 1355 he returned to Thessalonica with letters issued to him by the enemy of Cantacuzenus, Emperor John V. In the collection of the Discourses of St. Gregory, which cover practically the entire liturgical year, there is almost no trace of debate about energy and Essence. These Conversations are remarkable for the richness of their pastoral instructions and the depth of their living interpretation of Scripture. The skill of Saint Gregory as an interpreter of sacred symbolism is striking on every page of his Conversations. He understood the task of the exegete as “transforming the letter into spirit.” “There are some limits of the sea,” he said, “where great animals are found - whales; Those sailing within those limits therefore hang bells from their ships, so that, struck by their ringing, the animals will flee. The sea of ​​our life also breeds many more terrible animals, I mean bad passions and their masters - crafty demons; this sea floats across, like a certain Ship, the Church of God. And instead of bells, she has spiritual mentors, so that with the sacred ringing of their teaching she can drive away spiritual beasts... And we, diligently translating the letter into the spirit, will ring for you in the spiritual sense” (Conversation 13). Saint Gregory always spoke about the most vital things for the daily life of the city: about abstinence and the fight against debauchery and greed, about helping the poor, about the need for peace, work, and a relentless desire for God. His sermons are full of questions, exclamations, and direct appeals to his listeners. Frequent use of the Holy Scriptures helps to understand that there is nothing so modern and so directly addressed to the immediate life of a person as biblical, gospel words and images. They seem to illuminate a person, and in their light a person is restored as a whole being, created with wonderful wisdom by God and called to love God. The fame of Saint Gregory as the “healer, guardian and intercessor” of the city of Thessalonica and the surrounding area increased after his death on November 14, 1359. The miraculous power of his remains, placed in the Thessalonica Cathedral in the name of Hagia Sophia, and his icons, which were painted from him during his lifetime, were revealed 75 . The Lavra of St. Athanasius on Athos, where St. Gregory lived, also became a place of veneration. In 1368, Patriarch Philotheus and the Council blessed the veneration of a new saint in the Great Church - Hagia Sophia of Constantinople, following the example of which the veneration of St. Gregory Palamas spread to other churches of Byzantium and throughout the Orthodox world. At the same time, as another remembrance of the feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, the memory of St. Gregory was supposed to be celebrated on the 2nd Sunday of Great Lent; The Service for this day included stichera, troparia and kontakion composed by Patriarch Philotheus, as well as the canon of the holiday compiled by a certain George 76. The Synodic of the Week of Orthodoxy began to end with the proclamation of “eternal memory” to St. Gregory, His Holiness Archbishop of Thessalonica 77. Filofey (Kokkin). A word of praise in the saints to our father Gregory, Archbishop of Thessalonica, Palamas, which partly contains the history of some of his miracles. – PG 151, 555 BC. The great logothete under the Palaiologos was in charge of issuing certificates to local rulers, state libraries and archives, although initially the logothete was the custodian of the state treasury. Gregory Palamas. Against Grigora, I; also see: Philotheus. Decree. cit., PG 151, 559 D – 560 A. Nikifor Grigora. Byzantine history, XXXV 4. – PG 149, 425 B – 428 A. Filofey. Decree. cit., 559 V. Filofey. Decree. op., 560 V, Filofey. Decree. cit., 566 V. Meyendorff J. Introduction à l'étude de Grégoire Palamas. Paris, 1959, ch. 2. Cantacuzene says (History, II, 39. – PG 153, 665 C): “...in the frontisterium of the Berean monastery.” The old word “frontisterium” (it is found in Aristophanes’ comedy “Clouds”, v. 142, etc., denoting Socrates’ “thought room”), asceticism or hesychastirium referred to secluded places for prayer and contemplation - monasteries of ascetics or simply monastic cells and caves. John Mosch. Spiritual meadow, 4 and 5, – PG 87, 2856 VS. Filofey. Decree. cit., 579 VS. Messalianism is a heresy condemned by the Church in the 5th century. for the assimilation of excessive importance to personal prayer to the detriment of the Sacraments and church discipline. Messalians were also called Euchites (from the Greek “eyche” - prayer), enthusiasts (due to the state of excitement that overcame them at prayer meetings), jumpers, etc. In the 6th century. The Messalians were identified with the Marcianites - followers of the heretic Marcian, a money changer by profession, who founded his own Euchite “church”. The Marcianites were often confused with the Marcionites - disciples of the Gnostic Marcion, who also created it back in the 2nd century. a special “church” that considered itself the only true church of Christ and His Apostle Paul. The communities of the Marcionite Church “were scattered throughout the space from Gaul, Italy and Africa to Asia Minor, where they existed until the 10th century, only to then, merging with the Manichaeans, be reborn in the Bulgarian Bogomilism (XI–XII centuries) and Western European Catharism or Albigensianism (XI–XIV centuries).” (Karsavin L.P. Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church. Paris, 1926, p. 42.) In Byzantine during the time of St. Gregory Palamas, the Messalians and Marcionites, due to the similarity or continuity of heretical errors, were called Bogomils. The latter were especially active in places near Athos and Thessaloniki. Mevendo rff J . Decree. op. PG 151, 496–513. Rus. lane see in the book: Conversations of St. Gregory Palamas. Montreal, 1968, p. 139–152. Filofey. Decree. cit., 581 D – 583 C. Uspensky L. Hesychasm and humanism: paleologian flourishing. – Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate, 1967, No. 58. The hesychasts "breathed new life into the ossified and sclerotic Christian society of Byzantium." – Meuendo rff J . Decree. op. (see Chapter I, section “The Nature of the Hesychast Renewal”). On the paradoxical, at first glance, combination of contemplative and active in Orthodox asceticism - hesychia, see the report of Abbess Euphrasia at the VI Assembly of the WCC in Vancouver. – ZhMP. 1984, No. 2, p. 68–71. About Varlaam, see: Schir ó G. V- αἰῶνα. Θεσσαλονίκη. 1959. Wed. Medvedev I.P. Byzantine humanism of the XIV–XV centuries. L., 1976, p. 15–16; see there for descriptions of the literary environment of that era. Wed. modern opinion: “Maximus the Confessor († 662) is the last bearer of the creative theological spirit in the patristic Church... Theological thought has not died, of course. But her ways have changed. On the one hand, it seemed to concentrate in itself, going into the contemplative silence of cells and deserts, and there it was realized in the true life of the world; on the other hand, it remained the real basis of life and knowledge for the world itself.” – In the book: Karsavin L.P. Decree. cit., p. 243, 246–247. On the “new horizons of theology” opened by Saint Gregory, see: Cyprian, archimandrite. Spiritual ancestors of St. Gregory Palamas (experience of mystical genealogy). – Theological thought. Paris, 1942, issue. IV, p. 102. Meyendorff J. Un mauvais théologien de l'unité au XIV siècle: Barlaam le Calabrais. – “L'Eglise et les Eglises”, II, Chevetogne, 1954, p. 48–50. John Cantacuzene. History, II, 39. – PG 153, 669 pp. Svyatogorsk tomos in defense of the silent, against those who, due to their inexperience and distrust of the saints, belittle the mysterious spiritual energies that act above reason in those who live by the Spirit and are manifested by deeds, but not provable by reasoning. – PG 150, d 1225–1236. Translation (with amendments) cit. by: Sokolov I.I. Review of the book Γ. Παπαμιχαήλ. Ὁ ἅγιος Γρηγόριος Παλαμᾶς, ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Θεσσαλονίκης. Πετρούπολις – Ἀλεξάνδρεια, 1911. – Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, new series, part 44, June 1913, p. 411; Sokolov I. I. Saint Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica. His works and teaching on hesychia. St. Petersburg, 1913, p. 46. ​​G. Papamikhail quotes the words of Varlaam according to Kantakuznn (History, II, 39. – PG 153, 676 B) for lack of a more reliable source. Cp. Jugie M. Palamite (Controverse). – Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. 11, 2-me p. Paris, 1932, col. 1778; Lossky V. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. – Theological works. M., 1972, coll. 8, p. 196–197. “First of all, a theologian and mathematician, Varlaam had nothing of a humanist and, although he was slightly involved in Greek secular literature, remained almost completely alien to Latin literature” (Voigt G. Wiederbelebung der klassischen Altertums: Das erste Jahrhundert des Humanismus, 2. Aufl. Bd. II. Berlin, 1880, S. 105). Petrarch Francesco. About your own and other people's ignorance. – Pera rcha Franciscus, Opera omnia. Basileae, 1581. Petrarch Francesco. The Book of Everyday Affairs, XVIII, 2. In the book: Petrarch F. Aesthetic fragments. M„ 1982, p. 172. P. de Nolhac. Petrarque et Barlaam.– Revue des études Grecques, vol. 5, 1892, p. 97. Quote no: Foscolo U. Saggi sopra il Petrarca. Lanciano, 1911, p. 104. Petrarch Francesco. Dialogues on contempt for the world, I (in the book: Petrarch F. Selected. M., 1974). Compare in St. Gregory Palamas: “Triads”, I. 1, 6, etc., where almost the same literal expressions. Akindin Gregory. On essence and energy, 1. 4 (“On the Essence of God and His Being”); II. 11 (“On the fact that God’s intelligent energy is His Essence”). – PG 151, 1201 A – 1205 A; 1220 A (only header available). The words of St. Basil the Great, cited in a work of the 7th century. “The Teaching of the Fathers on the Incarnation of the Word,” 14, 9. – Diekamp F. (ed.). Doctrina patrum de incarnation verbi. Münster, 1907, p. 88. Saint Basil the Great. Letter 234, 1– PG 32, 869 A. Saint Gregory of Nyssa. To Eustathius on the Trinity, 6.–PG 32, 969, I ff.; Against Eunomius 1; 4; 7.– PG 45, 373 CD; 384 AB; 676 A; 765 A. That there are no three gods. –PG 45, 133 A. Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Interpretation of the Gospel of John, 10, 2, – PG 73, 859 D. Saint John Chrysostom. Conversation 32, 1, on the Gospel of John. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem. The word catechetical to the enlightened, 10, 3, – Reischl W. K. Cyrilli opera, I. Munchen, 1848 (= PG 33). Saint Basil the Great. Book of the Holy Spirit, 61.– PG 32, 180 C. Svyatogorsk Tomos, ending. – PG 150, 1236 D. Kidonis Dimitri. Against Palamas, beginning. – PG 154, 840 A. Saint Gregory of Sinai. Chapters with edges [acrostics], very useful, their edges are as follows: Various words about commandments, dogmas, threats and promises; more about thoughts, passions and virtues, and more about silence and prayer, 97. – PG 150, 1272 A. Patriarch Philotheus. Commendation. – PG 151, 626 A. Cantacuzenus John. Story. III 100: PG 153, 1300 V. Saint Gregory Palamas. Conversation 63. See: The conciliar tomos given by the Divine and Holy Council, which gathered against those who think one with Barlaam and Akindinos during the reign of our pious and Orthodox kings Cantacuzenus and Palaeologus: PG 151, 717–764. See: Cathedral Tomos...: PG 151, 732 A. Cathedral Tomos...: PG 151. 732 A–754 D. Monax Vasily (Krivoshein). The ascetic and theological teachings of Saint Gregory Palamas. "Seminarium Kondakovianum", vol. VIII. Praha, 1936, p. 128. Confession of the Orthodox Faith given by His Holiness Metropolitan of Thessalonians, Mr. Gregory Palamas: PG 151, 766 VS. Nikifor Grigora. Byzantine history. XXX 4: PG 149, 241 D. God's radiance, i.e. energy, being something single, simple and without component parts, remains simple even when it beneficially diversifies in separate things and endows everything in the world with the creative power of its nature (St. John of Damascus. Four books on the Orthodox faith. I 14: PG 94, 860 C). Nikifor Grigora. Decree. cit., XXVIII 15: PG 149. Monk Vasily (Krivoshein). Decree. cit., p. 125. Wed: Lossky V. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. – Theological works. M., 1972, coll. 8, p. 39–50, 197. Nikifor Grigora. Decree cit., XXXV 12: PG 149. 381 pp. PG 149, 233–308. The following XXXI–XXXVI “dogmatic” books are also devoted to the refutation of Palamas. Old Russian translation of the work of David Dispat “On the hedgehog not to fall into the heresy of Varlaam and Akindinus, the exposition of David the thinker and philosopher,” see in the collection. TODRL, XXXIII, L., 1979, p. 47–54. The conciliar tomos against the hieromonk Prokhor Kndonis, who adheres to the convictions of Varlaam and Akindinus, from which it is clear not only the holiness of Gregory Palamas, but also the fact that, according to the decision of the Council, the celebration of his annual memory was established: PG 151, 699 V. Patriarch Gennady (George) Scholarius. To Cyrus John, asking about the expression of the blessed Theodore Graptus, about which the empty-minded Akindinists are making a fuss, and also about what they invent regarding the Holy Spirit: Georges Scholarios. Oeuvres complètes. Paris, 1930, vol. III, p. 225–226. About how God's actions differ from each other and from God's Essence, whose actions they are and in which they reside. - In the same place, r. 235–239. Ἀνδρούτσος Χ. Δογματικὴ τῆς ὀρθοδόξου ἀνατολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας. Ἀθῆναι, 1907, σ 44. Lossky V. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. – Theological works. M., 1972, coll. 8. p. 39, 41–42, 49; Lossky V. Palamite synthesis. - In the same place, s. 197. Florovsky G. St. Gregory Palamas and the tradition of the Fathers. – In: Florovsky G. Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox view. Belmond (Mass.) 1972, vol. 1 p.m. III. Cathedral Tomos... [1351]: PG 151, 725 a. The Thessalonian Zealots, a party of merchants and small city owners, relying on the strength of military sailors, had little relation to the religious Arsenite Zealots, who fought for the authority of the Church in secular affairs. Prokhorov G.M. Debate of Gregory Palamas with "Chions and Turks". – TODRL, L., 1972, vol. XXVII, pp. 334–338. Patriarch Philotheus. A word of praise. 647 AB. Karabinov I. Lenten Triodion. St. Petersburg, 1910. p. 200. A recent work on St. Gregory Palamas, repeating in a softened form the “Western” criticism of Palamism (Wittig A. Gregorios Palamas - Metropolit von Thessaloniki. Lehrer der Kirche. - “Der christliche Osten”. Wurzburg. XXXVIII, 1983, No. 3-4, S. 93, 96-100), is not free from old errors this criticism. Hesychia as “the art of arts” - techne technon (Triads, 112, 2) where technai includes artes in the medieval sense of the logical-philosophical sciences, does not oppose itself in St. Gregory to rational thinking, as A. Wittig thinks, but subordinates it to higher spiritual work. Moreover, the Gospel and Church Tradition retain all their relevance, since, according to hesychast thought, the very personality of the ascetic is formed only in their life assimilation. A. Wittig, apparently, did not have the opportunity to take into account that Saint Gregory Palamas always speaks of Divine energies in connection with the human response to them. The energy of God is also the highest “action” of man, who, uniting with the Creator, achieves his own existence; the presence of the Uncreated is revealed among earthly things through man, and only through him. Thus, Divine energy as grace accepted by the world differs from that in Divine reality that takes place without the participation or assistance of man. The Divine essence in the understanding of Palamas is not the Personal God Himself, but the Divine nature. The inaccessibility of the essence of God in the pragmatic, ontological-ethical anthropology of Palamas is therefore not “a step back in comparison with the classical Trinitarian teaching” (Wittig, S. 99), but, at a minimum, a reminder of the truth that even in gracious deification (theosis) the difference between the Divine and human natures remains.