Was St. Gregory Palamas a Thomist?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 лис 2024
- Some people who style themselves as Orthodox (alongside some Roman Catholics) have been arguing that St. Gregory Palamas and the historical teaching attributed to St. Gregory Palamas was in fact "Thomistic", or at the very least, contrary to the teaching of the distinction between essence and energy and an invention of what they style as "Neo-Palamites".
In this video I analyze the main evidence for their claim, and prove that it in fact refutes their own position.
MUST see video relevant to this topic: Conceptual Distinction in Orthodox Christian Theology: • Conceptual Distinction...
All of my Links: linktr.ee/ther...
Donate to my Patreon: / therealmedwhite
Follow on Twitter: / medwhiteacolyte
Subscribe to my Telegram: t.me/therealme...
My Discord: / discord
My Substack if you want to read my articles: therealmedwhit...
Check out Patristic Faith: www.patristicf...
Rokfin: www.rokfin.com...
Odysee: odysee.com/@th...
BTC wallet if you want to donate in BTC: bc1q7lszxzfwv2vmsfyx24kzpjhpyyrzse374hhp44
For a more in depth yet quick analysis of the idea of "conceptual distinction", this is a MUST see video relevant to this topic: Conceptual Distinction in Orthodox Christian Theology: ua-cam.com/video/alJLc6iQOH4/v-deo.html
4th Palamite synod of 1368 condemns the Thomist position explicitly.
To pull from a repeated point from Saint Dumitru Staniloe's many meditations on the Trinity, how can God be a God of Love if there isn't multiplicity in some sense, or rather EVERY sense?
Without a multiplicity of Persons to love and be loved and a multiplicity of activities or attributes with which and by which to actualize this Love and without a distinct Creational "context" in which to infinitely extend this love (via the Incarnation), our God would be no different than the narcissistic pagan "gods" in "essence" .
Hearing St. Dumitru referred to as saint is so satisfying. Glory to God!
It's crazy how blatantly some people just lie so I'll comment on some of the commentors that I've blocked.
1) "Pino admits there's a notional distinction": He clearly does not throughout the whole book, as I've quoted the "notional distinction" is just a notional separation of things that are distinct yet united in reality. This guy either was fed this script by some online discord guy or is actually really stupid.
2) "Dr. Bradshaw denies real distinction": The quote is actually him denying thomistic real distinction because it entails separation, in other words he denies applying thomistic metaphysics to St. Gregory Palamas' theology, since they have completely different presuppositions. Ofc once again either a quote from some guy or the guy is flat out stupid, or just an incredibly dishonest person. Moreover, Dr. Bradshaw is quite adamant on the essence energy distinction being a real distinction to the point where he himself like St. Gregory is hesitant to even use the term "conceptual distinction" precisely because of the current misunderstanding some people have.
The video itself already sufficiently addresses all of these arguments. And I honestly don't believe that most of the people who refers to these books etc. have actually read or understood what they've read. No wonder when most students in college struggle to read and understand even a 10-15 page text and have to spend an entire lecture just trying to understand one or two pages of text.
Hello Erhan, I've been reading the D. Bradshaw articles on the Energy and Essence distinction, but also his article on Divine Glory, and I think the Thomistic mindset is set upon either a distinction on the intellect OR in reality(in re), but Bradshaw offers a third kind of distinction, an epistemological one. And I think reading the Synods I can figure that the epistemological distinction is real in epistemic realist sense(that is, mind-independent), because cause and effect are mind-independent phenomenon. Is this a reasonable reading of the distinction? Great vid, I'll read Tikhon Pino's book too when I have the chance.
A Thomistc real distinction doesn’t entail separation because Thomists say that the persons are really distinct from each other. This video doesn’t attack the Thomistic position but the Barlaamite. Of course, St Gregory Palamas wasn’t a Thomist, but not for the reasons described in this video. You need to study more Aquinas so you can successfully refute him.
thanks for putting this together David
What a great work, as usual, and I remember your debate with a thomist in which you put things in their right place
St Athanasius was an arian guys!!!!!! 🤯
St Basil was a binitarian!!
St. Pulcheria was a monophysite, and St. Polycarp was a Marcionite.
I actually heard some Oriental Orthodox Christians say Cyril was a Miaphysite 😂
Wow, the essence-energy described in such as way, (6:25) from Synodal Tome Paragraph 27, makes so much sense to me!
It makes the essence-energy distiction even more neccessary and really does show that the patristic saints did teach the distinction.
I don't know why Thomists/Catholics are so determined to make God's Essence and Energies identical:
- The Son comes from the Father, the Father is that from which the Son comes from, they cannot be identical (modalism). Yet, they are one as they are unified and not seperable.
- Likewise, the Energies come from the Essence, and the Essence is that from which the Energies come, they are not identical. Yet, they are one as they are unified and not seperable.
Thus, we say the Son is distinct from the Father, not seperate and not identical.
Why can't the Catholics/Thomists similarly just accept that the Energies are distinct from the Essence, not seperate and not identical.
It makes sense to me. Why don't they get it?
Those of them who can - leave latin heresy behing and go with Orthodox Christianity.
Those of them who can't - are trying to push their camels through the eye of the needle.
It's mostly because their saints were wrong about the topic so they want to do revisionism to cope so they don't have to humble themselves and become Orthodox.
They aren't alone in doing this this is exactly what ecumenist minded nonchalcedonians do to try and keep Severus and Dioscorus while claiming it's all just semantics and claiming "yeah we can agree with Constantinople II"
Upon further reflection, I've basically understood this distinction to be understood as a "Formal Distinciton" which is interesting.
It’s strange how badly thomist want to reconcile palamas. I honestly believe it’s because thomism provides no spiritual life or experience of the Holy Spirit at all. Dead and cold pontification like Calvinism.
Was Ronald McDonald a vegan?
Thank you very much for your work, David. God Bless
Hey man you doing ok?
@@AnonymousMan115 Do I know you?
Who actually tries to claim this? Academics that need a hot take for their phds? Uniates? Thought they had the same spitituality as us, at least thats what they claim when cornered about Rome. Which is it? Are they "palamites" or thomists, cant be both. Grace cannot be both uncreated and created. This is such clownery. Lord Have Mercy. Thanks for all you do David.
Hello David I have some questions about Orthodoxy, what is the best way to reach out to you? Thanks
I'd like to be a Christian, but I can't quite get there. I've watched a lot of videos, read a lot of books, and I can't find any answers to the core questions beyond...it doesn't make sense because it is a mystery and you just have to accept that. (Which I'm sure you can appreciate is unsatisfactory to an outsider looking for answers.) Anyhow, thanks for your work. I'll keep watching.
It is quite possible that you've been tought to ask questions that doesn't make sense.
E.g. we know that God is Uncreated Being, and that he created everything which came into being by His Will. And someone asks: Wait a minute, and who created God? Do you see how such question exposes the inability to think logically?
Try praying and asking Christ to come and find you, because you can’t make the final step. I did it every evening for several weeks
what is a mystery?
@@Sk3p5ik Something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain.
@@paulcaskey im asking in Christianity since you said you cant be a Christian because of it
Didn’t know this was actually an opinion that existed
EC's are largely concerned with it because it is easier for them to be Catholic if they continue this LARP that Palamas was actually Thomistic
Just got the Pino book pdf online. David, how can you say that the whole of the Latin west believed error on the filioque and "Augustinian theology" for so long and not be called out earlier? How much of the Latin west confessed the Greek patristic understanding and for how long?
Augustine did not believe in the Filioque as defined at Florence, no one in the west believes that. Only after Carolingians started calling the son a cause did the east have to react, although admittedly they should have reacted sooner.
They were, go read up on the Photian Councils and St. Maximus Letter to Marinus
St. Vincent of Lerins for one as his famous quote about catholicity was a direct response to Blessed Augustine's speculations. The west fell when they centered their entire faith on these abberant speculations due in part to losing access to the Greek texts and losing the tradition. Read Blessed Seraphim Rose's book on St. Augustine he goes through the camps of theology in the west in that era. St. John Cassian and his pupil St. Benedict of Nurisa would be others who are staunchly in line with the patristic consensus.
The Filioque as defined at Florence was never confessed in the west. The closest anyone got to that was St Augustine, who unfortunately subordinated the Spirit and made him an attribute of Love between the Father and the Son, but even he contradicted himself multiple times by saying that the Father is the sole cause and that the Holy spirit proceeds, or gains "existence", only from the father. St Maximus to Marinus and Anastasius the Bibliothecarian clearly show the west did not believe in the Filioque until the Charlemagne papacy, and the carolingian theologians
Dwong refuted.
ua-cam.com/video/YWuTfTHXxzc/v-deo.htmlsi=qqnCbaKNqZ15eYO- (made this accusation against the EE distinction)
Dr. Bradshaw doesn't agree that this is a real distinction either though. He actually says in the same paper you sited
"I would agree with Spencer that the Scotistic formal distinction is the nearest correlative among the scholastics to Palamas’ distinction between the divine essence and what Palamas calls God’s natural energies, such as goodness, being, life, wisdom, and power." - Dr. David Bradshaw Essence and energy what kind of distinction? Page 35
He also says in a video Jiub has
"The distinction between is fundamentally, the distinction between a agent, and the act of expression of that agent. And I don't think that's a real distinction, at least the way Aquinas defines the term." -What is a real distinction? Are E/E really distinct? [ft. Dr. Bradshaw] 3:29-3:44
@@Bro.Ywet3 “I don’t think that’s a real distinction, AT LEAST THE WAY AQUINAS DEFINES THE TERM”
Of course there isn’t going to be anything like E/ED in Thomism, because they believe distinction entails division
It's crazy how you people just blatantly lie. Thankfully Daniel already refuted you.
@@danielpopoca-logue9779 Yeah as Dr. David says it all depends on how you define the term. Dyer says a scholastic major real
72nd 👍❕️
It makes me feel so complete!
gj dav
__**Dialogue between Provincialis and St. Mark of Ephesus on Whether Essence and Persons Are Identical**__
> **Provincialis:** I would like you to better understand this proposition regarding property and essence. Do you make any distinction between property and that essence?
> **Mark of Ephesus:** A very great one.
> **Provincialis:** Is it real or according to reason (realis vel secundum rationem)?
> **Mark of Ephesus:** According to our reason (Secundum rationem), the distinction of persons is apparent, the distinction according to reason is apparent in the persons, not among themselves, but in relation to the substance of each supposit or person. Each person is distinguished from its substance by reason (distinguitur ratione). Persons are distinguished in the divine, so that the persons themselves do not exist independently.
> **Provincialis:** By what essence are these properties identical as the person, namely paternity and father?
> **Mark of Ephesus:** In reality (Secundum rem) or supposit, they are identical, but they are distinguished by reason (distinguuntur ratione).
> **Provincialis:** In the case of the Father, there is paternity and essence, which is common to the three; therefore, the person of the Father is not distinguished from paternity and essence except according to reason. Is this so?
> **Mark of Ephesus:** Yes.
[Acta Latina Concilii Florentini, Session on 5 March 1439, (Page 153)]
What did the israelites worship in Leviticus 9:23-24?
I don’t agree with this video how would you argue against St Gennadios clearly taught a conceptual distinction and also pino clearly accepted it.
>cites forgeries
Whether they accepted it or not is kinda trivial to the conclusion of the video since it clearly shows that the synod teaches a real distinction which is more autoritative than individual saints. Palamas himself and all the synods from 1341-1368 understood it to be a real distinction.
It’s not at all ridiculous when you realize that even some EO scholars think his distinction isn’t a real one there are literally Eastern Orthodox thomistic interpretations of palamas
It's utterly ridiculous when you realize that 99.9% of orthodox scholars believe his distinction is real. There's not a single orthodox saint after St. Palamas who believed that his distinction wasn't real. So the fact that a tiny minority of scholars think he taught otherwise proves absolutely nothing.
@@Firebreath56 literally the guy who ran the hesychasm synods said his distinction wasn’t a real one
GUYS I asked chat gpt on the the trinitarian teaching between the east and west which would it pick criteria on consistency and this is what i got and i quote: " If forced to pick one based on personal preference for a balanced approach to theology, I might lean towards the Eastern tradition. This preference stems from the Eastern emphasis on the relational and experiential aspects of the Trinity, which can provide a more holistic and less abstracted understanding of God that is deeply rooted in the early ecumenical councils and the church fathers' teachings. However, it's important to note that both traditions offer profound insights and are more complementary than contradictory."🥲😏😆😮
IT'S OVER
AI is ecumenistic heretic.!
@@tymon1928 😝