The Byzantine Scotus, is it fair to say that Palamism is a heresy? Is it fair to say that the ecclesiastical bodies that dogmaticly proclaim Palamism are, by that fact, Palimites? I grant that my questions are not the most diplomatic or politically correct, so apologies.
The couple I think it depends how one interprets Palamism. Rome has approved veneration of Palamas, so it seems the magesterium thinks that he himself was not a heretic. But I’ve also seen formulations of Palamism that would contradict divine simplicity.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 I recently listened to an EO scholar who said that Palamas definitely teaches that some of Gods uncreated energies have a beginning and or an end in time. That is very disconcerting to me, but I am trying to be honest in my approach. My High Church Anglican parish is becoming Western Rite, so I am forced to make a decision on Palamism. So far it is a no.
His passion on Scotism is contagious. I've always wondered if there's a middle ground between West's Thomism and East's Palamism. I thought they are mutually exclusive, which is one of the stumbling blocks to full unity between West and East. Now, hearing how he summarizes Scotism, I'm very optimistic. It may take another hundred or more years to reach unity, but that's what we're all praying for. May we be one as They are One.
As an Orthodox Christian, I have tremendous respect for Scotist thought, and Byzantine Palamists did too. Scholarios is a great example. There was a lot more intellectual variety in classical Palamism than in the modern Neo-Palamite movement. There are certainly present-day Orthodox theologians, such as Zizioulas, who believe the essence-energies distinction and theosis are overemphasized and need to be put back in balance. I don't think it's entirely fair to say Orthodox theology acknowledges no fundamental relationship between the Son and the Spirit. The Spirit proceeds through the Son, rests in the Son, reveals and unites us to the Son, and is the Spirit of both the Son and the Father. Maximus acknowledged there was an Orthodox interpretation of the Filioque, but the standard double-procession (one hypostasis from two, as if Father and Son were a single Arche) interpretation meant to safeguard the Spirit's divinity goes too far and, I think, does undermine the monarchy of the Father.
ya my studies of Christian intellectual history it honestly seems like a lot of Catholicism suffers from a militant Thomism and Orthodox suffers from a militant Neo-Palamism (Dyer bros cough cough). Thinkers such as Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus, and even Scotus seem to offer the best hope for restoring unity amongst Christians and allowing for a genuine dialogue of unity instead of this gnostic self imposed isolation
I'm just starting with Scotus, but it's very heartening to see someone else who came to the same conclusion about St. Bonaventure and the Franciscan tradition as an answer to Essence-Energies, and was also the thing that steered me away from going Orthodox from Novus Ordo. A really great discussion and a wonderful selection of book recommendations.
There is also among some Thomists a "distinctio rationis cum fundamento in re" (distinction of reason with a foundation in the thing itself). Depending on how you interpret this, Thomists can often come quite close to the formal distinction of Scotus. The virtual distinction is really on one side of the spectrum of embraced by this distinction, in that it indicates the power of a simple being to produce multiple concepts in the intellect. So, the virtual distinction understands the foundation to merely causal, but not formal. However, on the other end of the spectrum, the distinction of reason with a foundation in the thing itself is basically indistinguishable from the formal distinction, of which I myself approve.
This really wasmind blowing for me..especially the Primacy of Christ.. although maybe it shouldnt have been because it does resemble the idea Maximos is getting at
Do either of you know Radical Orthodoxy? John Milbank and others of this tradition believe Scotus to have generated the world as it is today thanks to the heresy which they claim is Scotus' univocity of being. It's a very interesting topic!
Sorry for the late response. Yes, I am very aware of it. It is utter garbage. See Fr. Dan Horan's book where he rips it apart. Milbank misunderstands Scotus on univocity by claiming that Scotus is denying metaphysical analogy, which is just not true. Univocity is the logical tool for Scotus which makes analogy intelligible. Milbank instead posits that analogy can be used in logic and that it is neither equivocity nor univocity. This is logically meaningless. A middle term of a syllogism cannot be analogical. Milbank also admitted to me on Twitter he has not read any of the Scotist manualist tradition. He also thinks that the greatest Scotus scholar of the 20th century, Allan Wolter, is outdated despite the fact he has never read him. Wolter's works are still seen very highly by every actual Scotus scholar around today. Ultimately, Milbank's Scotus is a made up figure. Milbank's theory seems to require a certain villain to have certain beliefs to appear around this time, and so he makes up a villain to believe these things.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 thank you! I intend to get to the bottom of RO and Milbank's thought while I study my theology MA at Durham in the UK. Fortunately an author of the RO reader, Simon Oliver, works here; hopefully I'm in good hands!
@@jonathanthompson4734 I will say that I am a little harsh towards the RO crowd because of how badly they misrepresent one of my favorite theologians in Church history. I do agree with them on quite a lot when the Franciscans don't come up. I just don't get how they can misrepresent St. Francis, Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, and Bl. Scotus so terribly. They have constructed an entire project around attacking an order of the Church and can't admit that maybe they misread a few small passages in Scotus.
Thanks for having me on.
You were very well spoken on this. Also your facial hair is interesting
I loved having you on! And, the people want you back!!!
The Byzantine Scotus, is it fair to say that Palamism is a heresy? Is it fair to say that the ecclesiastical bodies that dogmaticly proclaim Palamism are, by that fact, Palimites? I grant that my questions are not the most diplomatic or politically correct, so apologies.
The couple I think it depends how one interprets Palamism. Rome has approved veneration of Palamas, so it seems the magesterium thinks that he himself was not a heretic. But I’ve also seen formulations of Palamism that would contradict divine simplicity.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 I recently listened to an EO scholar who said that Palamas definitely teaches that some of Gods uncreated energies have a beginning and or an end in time. That is very disconcerting to me, but I am trying to be honest in my approach. My High Church Anglican parish is becoming Western Rite, so I am forced to make a decision on Palamism. So far it is a no.
I'm so glad Duns Scotus' philosophy is becoming more appreciated and understood right now. Thanks for having this guy on!
His passion on Scotism is contagious. I've always wondered if there's a middle ground between West's Thomism and East's Palamism. I thought they are mutually exclusive, which is one of the stumbling blocks to full unity between West and East. Now, hearing how he summarizes Scotism, I'm very optimistic. It may take another hundred or more years to reach unity, but that's what we're all praying for. May we be one as They are One.
As an Orthodox Christian, I have tremendous respect for Scotist thought, and Byzantine Palamists did too. Scholarios is a great example. There was a lot more intellectual variety in classical Palamism than in the modern Neo-Palamite movement. There are certainly present-day Orthodox theologians, such as Zizioulas, who believe the essence-energies distinction and theosis are overemphasized and need to be put back in balance.
I don't think it's entirely fair to say Orthodox theology acknowledges no fundamental relationship between the Son and the Spirit. The Spirit proceeds through the Son, rests in the Son, reveals and unites us to the Son, and is the Spirit of both the Son and the Father. Maximus acknowledged there was an Orthodox interpretation of the Filioque, but the standard double-procession (one hypostasis from two, as if Father and Son were a single Arche) interpretation meant to safeguard the Spirit's divinity goes too far and, I think, does undermine the monarchy of the Father.
My sentiments exactly
ya my studies of Christian intellectual history it honestly seems like a lot of Catholicism suffers from a militant Thomism and Orthodox suffers from a militant Neo-Palamism (Dyer bros cough cough).
Thinkers such as Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus, and even Scotus seem to offer the best hope for restoring unity amongst Christians and allowing for a genuine dialogue of unity instead of this gnostic self imposed isolation
@44:06
For those wanting to learn about formal distinctions.
Even the first ten minutes here are superb. Thanks and God bless!
I'm just starting with Scotus, but it's very heartening to see someone else who came to the same conclusion about St. Bonaventure and the Franciscan tradition as an answer to Essence-Energies, and was also the thing that steered me away from going Orthodox from Novus Ordo. A really great discussion and a wonderful selection of book recommendations.
Great stuff! I started gaining enthusiasm for Scotus from Gerard Manley Hopkins, also such an enthusiast. It is infectious.
There is also among some Thomists a "distinctio rationis cum fundamento in re" (distinction of reason with a foundation in the thing itself). Depending on how you interpret this, Thomists can often come quite close to the formal distinction of Scotus. The virtual distinction is really on one side of the spectrum of embraced by this distinction, in that it indicates the power of a simple being to produce multiple concepts in the intellect. So, the virtual distinction understands the foundation to merely causal, but not formal. However, on the other end of the spectrum, the distinction of reason with a foundation in the thing itself is basically indistinguishable from the formal distinction, of which I myself approve.
Very interesting discussion of Palamism, thank you.
I enjoy the enthusiasm of the Byzantine Scotist
The byzantine Scotist has an excellent sensus fidei. May God bless him+
Very interesting, glad I stumbled across both you guys
This really wasmind blowing for me..especially the Primacy of Christ.. although maybe it shouldnt have been because it does resemble the idea Maximos is getting at
I will be asking for a reduction of time in Purgatory having watched this vid.
Do either of you know Radical Orthodoxy? John Milbank and others of this tradition believe Scotus to have generated the world as it is today thanks to the heresy which they claim is Scotus' univocity of being. It's a very interesting topic!
Sorry for the late response. Yes, I am very aware of it. It is utter garbage. See Fr. Dan Horan's book where he rips it apart.
Milbank misunderstands Scotus on univocity by claiming that Scotus is denying metaphysical analogy, which is just not true. Univocity is the logical tool for Scotus which makes analogy intelligible. Milbank instead posits that analogy can be used in logic and that it is neither equivocity nor univocity. This is logically meaningless. A middle term of a syllogism cannot be analogical.
Milbank also admitted to me on Twitter he has not read any of the Scotist manualist tradition. He also thinks that the greatest Scotus scholar of the 20th century, Allan Wolter, is outdated despite the fact he has never read him. Wolter's works are still seen very highly by every actual Scotus scholar around today.
Ultimately, Milbank's Scotus is a made up figure. Milbank's theory seems to require a certain villain to have certain beliefs to appear around this time, and so he makes up a villain to believe these things.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 thank you! I intend to get to the bottom of RO and Milbank's thought while I study my theology MA at Durham in the UK. Fortunately an author of the RO reader, Simon Oliver, works here; hopefully I'm in good hands!
@@jonathanthompson4734 Read Allan Wolter’s book on Scotus and the transcendentals if you want to see what Scotus actually thought about univocity.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 Thanks!
@@jonathanthompson4734 I will say that I am a little harsh towards the RO crowd because of how badly they misrepresent one of my favorite theologians in Church history. I do agree with them on quite a lot when the Franciscans don't come up. I just don't get how they can misrepresent St. Francis, Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, and Bl. Scotus so terribly. They have constructed an entire project around attacking an order of the Church and can't admit that maybe they misread a few small passages in Scotus.