www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Gregorius Palamitius

What is the nowadays's situation of Gregory Palamas in the Catholic Church (especially in the Greek-Catholic Church)? Is he recognised as a saint?

Since 1971 the Melkite Greek Catholic Church has commemorated St. Gregory Palamas on the Second Sunday of Great Lent.

Vespers Stichon of St. Gregory Palamas:

Your lips are full of grace, O Holy Father Gregory. You have become a shepherd of the Church of Christ, teaching your spiritual flock to believe in the Trinity, consubstantial in one Godhead.

More info. at: http://www.mliles.com/melkite/stgregorypalamas.shtml

(I wonder if this thread might be better suited to the East-n-West forum?)

~Isaac

His Icon is on the wall in the Ukrainian Church in Lourdes

No offense intended at all, but having his icon on the wall in a particular parish, and having him on the approved calendar issued by the Metropolia and using the proper texts to commemorate him in the divine services are two different things. St. Gregory was not listed on the calendar published by the Metropolia for the 2nd Sunday in Lent this year. Is he OFFICIALLY recognized by the Metropolitan Sui Juris Church of Pittsburgh or not? I've never gotten a real, official answer.

Dear John K,
I am a Romanaian Greek-Catholic who lives in Romania and I met the same situation, not finding Saint Gregory Palamas in the calendar in one of the Sundays of the Lent, but listening to songs dedicated to him (I think that there was the troparion and the condakion). I have asked some priests and they told me that even though he was antiunionist, his doctrine is "orthodox", so true. Moreover, there are plenty of saints and not each and every of them has to be mentioned in the calendar. So when you don't say anything, it doesn't mean that you say no.

P.S. I am happy to say that the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church is now a young Major Archibishopal Church

He is in and should never have been out. Was in the UGCC calendar 'down under'.

Dear Friends,

In fact, Rome has itself acknowledged St Gregory Palamas as a saint, in 1973 and he is listed as such on the site, "Catholic Saints Online" I believe.

Patriarch Joseph Slipyj returned him to the UGCC' calendar, but when one speaks of "calendar," - now there's the rub!

I've seen calendars that outline the saints of the Ukrainian Church, including the newly beatified Martyrs - and many others that don't.

Plus the fact that there are numerous priests in our Church that would find the veneration of Palamas as a kind of "scandal . . ."

He was NEVER anti-unionist, in fact, but he was truly Orthodox and would have, if he ever did, supported his Church.

He was definitely anti-nominalist and against Barlaam of Calabria. That doesn't mean he was anti-Catholic. Nominalism is a heresy that is condemned by both East and West.

He was villified as a "Quietist" even as late as 1924 by Fr. Holweck in his "Dictionary of the Saints" but RC theologians have long since recanted their anathemas against Hesychasm and the spirituality of the Jesus Prayer.

And Fr. Keleher himself declared to me that Palamas was a Catholic saint.

I know of no greater authority on the subject than him . . .

The Byzantine Catholic Metropolia also recognizes St Photios as a saint, but not every parish will observe his commemoration in February - and NO UGCC parish I've ever heard of would dare touch him liturgically, of this you can be sure!

So there are calendars and then there are . . . calendars.

Alex

Thank you.

I can't speak for any other "Byzantine" Churches, but I did the (non-Gospel) readings in English for our local Melkite Divine Liturgy on St. Gregory Palamas' Feast Day, and in the book for the Liturgy it clearly said "Feast of St. Gregory Palamas". He's definitely considered a Catholic Saint, though perhaps not everyone is comfortable with that idea.

I figure that if the Popes can call him Saint, so can I. His defence, against Nominalism, of real participation in Divinity is spectacular, and served the East well in preventing it from taking hold. The West, unfortunately, didn't immediately notice the danger of the heresy, though it remained the small minority view against the Realist Dominican-dominated Latin theology. Nominalism REALLY took root in the Reformers (especially with Luther and Calvin), and that's when the full danger of that particular perversion of Grace became blatantly obvious and was harshly condemned. Perhaps if we had someone as staunch as St. Gregory Palamas in the West, the Reformers wouldn't have gone so far off the rails in their theology.

Peace and God bless!

FWIW, I have a small ikon-print of the Holy Pillars of Orthodoxy in my ikon corner...

Timothy

Our parish took out the icon of this great saint and placed it in the church 2nd Sunday of Lent. We also sang the appropriate stichera, sessional hymns, apolytika, etc. for Vespers and Orthros for the him.

Ghosty-

I'm not 100% up on my history, but it's my impression that there were some staunch voices in the West. It's just that those who were admonished didn't want to listen (as, admittedly, Varlaam didn't want to listen.....).

Markos


Τη υπερμάχω στρατηγώ τα νικητήρια
Ως λυτρωθείσα των δεινών ευχαριστήρια
Αναγράφω σοι η πόλις σου Θεοτόκε.
Αλλ� ως έχουσα το κράτος απροσμάχητον
Εκ παντοίων με κινδύνων ελευθέρωσον
�Ινα κράζω σοι. Χαίρε, Νύμφη ανύμφευτε.

There certainly were staunch voices on this matter, particularily among the Dominicans and the Carmelites. The problem is more that debates tended to focus on other issues, such as how and when we receive Grace, rather than about what Grace is. When the problem of Nominalism really "hit the fan" with the Reformation, however, there was a major waking up to the danger of the problem. That's when you see things like the Summa Theologica (which doesn't utilize the theology of Essence and Energies, but fundamentally professes real participation in Divinity as the core of Grace) being placed on the altar alongside the Bible at the Council of Trent.

My main point, which perhaps wasn't clear enough, is that we didn't have a staunch enough opposition to Nominalism leading up to the Reformation, though it clearly materialized at the time of the Reformation. Or rather there was indeed a strong movement against it on the part of certain groups (especially the Dominicans), but it never ballooned into a Church-wide debate and scandal like it did between Barlaam and Gregory. That might be because Nominalists didn't initially gain as much notice in the West (at least with their Nominalistic views), versus Barlaam's notoriety in attacking the monks of Mt. Athos directly.

The "father of Nominalism" in the West, William of Ockham, didn't level any direct attacks against well renowned and orthodox figures and practices, so his subtle attacks on the core of the Faith weren't as obvious until much later. Sometimes the slow and silent poison is the strongest, I suppose.

Peace and God bless!