In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 The following assessment of J. Van Rossum is quite typical of what I have in mind: “the Palamite distinction between essence and energies does not have to be conceived of in a human and logical sense. According to human logic, ‘distinction’ implies the notion of separability. Palamas emphasizes that this distinction in God is not according to our human understanding of ‘distinction’, but in a manner that is known to God alone. Palamas never attempted to give a philosophical explanation of this distinction. His approach was thoroughly apophatic, and that is why ‘Palamism’ remains unsatisfactory for philosophically minded theologians, especially for those who are trained in western scholasticism. Indeed, his theology raises the problem of the relation between philosophy and theology. Palamas makes clear that the mystery of God cannot be expressed adequately in the terms of our human logic. All philosophical and logical notions get a new meaning when applied to the divine mystery: essence, nature, hypostasis, distinction” (“Deification in Palamas and Aquinas,” St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 47 (2003): 368. 431 The Thomist 76 (2012): 431-71 LOST IN TRANSLATIO? DIAKRISIS KAT’EPINOIAN AS A MAIN ISSUE IN THE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN FOURTEENTH-CENTURY PALAMITES AND THOMISTS ANTOINE LEVY, O.P. Helsinki Studium Catholicum University of Eastern Finland/University of Helsinki Helsinki, Finland A S IS WELL KNOWN, the emphasis of the disciples of St. Gregory Palamas on the distinction between essence and energy in God poses a stumbling block for Western theologians. When the latter point to the fact that such a distinction would entail composition in God, the former answer that this distinction does not exclude God’s utter simplicity. To the question, why there is no contradiction in assuming a real distinction in the midst of God’s simplicity?, it is generally answered that this is not a contradiction, but an antinomy which the ratiocinating Western mind is simply incapable of grasping.1 Usually, the discussion ends with more or less courteous ANTOINE LEVY, O.P. 432 2 Le problème de la simplicité divine en Orient et en Occident aux XIVe et XVe siècles (Lyon, 1933). A considerable number of contemporary theologians, either Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant, have taken up the issue regarding the “reality” distinction and discussed its compatibility with the dogmatic standards of the Western tradition. M. Jugie’s repeated professions of anti-Palamism and the marked criticism of the Western tradition by J. Meyendorff and other neo-Palamites set up the terms and limits of the debate. Among many others, J.-M. Garrigues, A. de Halleux, C. Journet, J.-C. Larchet, A-N. Williams, R. Williams, D. Wendebourg, and K. Yannaras, have taken part in it. Few, however, have paid even slight attention to the Scholastic typology of the distinctio. considerations regarding the extent of the partner’s intellectual openness. This is most regrettable, since it can be argued that the distinction frames the dogmatic core of the neo-Palamitic opposition between the Eastern Orthodox and the Western Christian world views. Other issues, taken one by one, are no more than theologoumena or mutually exclusive views that are all equally possible, for lack of official determination, in the framework of a common confession of faith. However, the simplicity of God’s essence is the object of solemn definition in the West, paralleling the distinction between essence and energies in the East. What makes a group of theologoumena either Eastern or Western is, therefore, their reliance on one of these defined truths rather than on the other. Accordingly, the impossibility of reconciling the two definitions displays the core elements of the separation between the Western and Eastern ecclesial entities. The question is whether the two definitions are truly as irreconcilable as they appear. Before leaving the issue to the One whose truth transcends all human religious and cultural boundaries, it might be beneficial to mine the content of Palamas’s distinction with some degree of theological accuracy. Unfortunately, systematic comparison of the types of distinction developed in the framework of Western Scholasticism is rarely attempted by contemporary scholars. The only serious academic work I can think of is S. Guichardan’s dissertation on Divine Simplicity, which dates back to 1933.2...

pdf

Share