www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The hesychast controversy

The long out-of-date Catholic Encyclopedia has a very negative article about Hesychasm. Here is a little sample:

"The monks of Athos might have contemplated their uncreated light without attracting much attention, had not the question become mixed up with the unending Latin controversy and with political issues. They had already practised their system of auto-suggestion for a long time when Barlaam, arriving at Constantinople, began to denounce it as superstitious and absurd."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm

His Holiness Pope John Paul II seems to have a much more positive view. Yet still there seem to be some objections.

"There was no lack of tension with the Catholic viewpoint on certain aspects of this practice."


http://digilander.libero.it/benparker/HESYCHASM/Hesychasm5.htm

There are other Catholic websites where hesychasm is listed as a heresy.

Is Theoria still a controversial idea for the Latins? What is His Holiness' views on the subject? What about the sites that claim the hesychasts were contemplating their navel? I've heard this as a figure of speech before but this is the first time I've heard it as a literal accusation. Also there are accusations that the hesychasts were too literal with their view of Divine Essence vs. Divine Energies.

I would also like to add that some websites treat Hesychasm as if it disapeared into hystery but it appears to be very much alive in the Orthodox church and in the Byzantine Catholic churches as well.

So what should I make of all this contraversy?

The real problem was how hesychasm was developed within france as "quietism" and from the quietist controversy, the Western Church has read into the hesychasts all the errors/problems.

Another thing to remember -- Palamite theology was, in the East, quite dead until recently. John Meyendorff actually helped revitalize it (but not alone).

In the controversy with the "name glorifiers" in the early 20th century, Florensky and Bulgakov were shocked that the East with its hesychasm then would deny the position at its council. The question was: if you say the name of Jesus, do you have his presence.. and if you read the traditional hesychast materials, the answer was easy to say yes.

Barlaam's objections were, unfortunately, the result of a student who saw only a little of the practice and went off and complained. Hesychasm takes years to learn, and Barlaam, in spite of asking for training, ran off after only a short period of time. Hardly one qualified to complain.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Dear St Herman,

As Henry put it so well, the RC West tended to see their arch-enemy, Quietism incarnated in the Hesychast movement - and the two were interchangeable names for a long time in the West.

Fr. Meyendorff explains this in his volume in the Paulist Press Great Classics of the West spirituality series on St Gregory Palamas and the Triads.

But there was no way that Hesychasm could be equated with Quietism in the least.

For one thing, the Hesychasts were great ascetics whose feats of prayer invoking the Name of Jesus made them stand out from the passive-oriented Quietists.

And everything the Hesychasts experienced was experienced as a gift of special Grace from God - and according to His Will.

The West was also confused about "uncreated Grace" and Theosis as understood by the East.

But today St Gregory Palamas is acknowledged as a saint by Rome (it was by formal act at Rome some years ago) and there is no problem with Hesychasm.

The CCC, in fact, includes a discourse on the Jesus Prayer itself as practiced in the East.

Alex

Bless, Fr. Deacon Ed!

And Barlaam was also a nominalist - for which he and his like-minded confreres were condemned by the Palamite Council - a condemnation that is still echoed in the service to St Gregory Palamas celebrated on the Second Sunday of Lent.

Alex

Dear Alex,

It's interesting that this topic should come up. At the Melkite clergy conference hesychasm was mentioned in two of the talks. It also happens that Myendorff's book on St. Gregory Palamas was my choice for rereading for this season of preparation (a break from the Philokalia).

Edward, deacon and sinner

Bless, Fr. Deacon Ed!

Yes, the Philokalia can be so, well, ascetical . . .

I once asked Fr. Serge Keleher about the icon "The Pillars of Orthodoxy."

He told me that the first two, Gregory Palamas and Photios the Great, are Catholic Saints.

But because of Mark of Ephesus, he wouldn't put that icon up in the church.

"Our people will look at it and say, 'Oh dear!'" said Fr. Keleher.

I love all you clergy!

Alex

I beg to differ!

Most people wouldn't recognise anyone on that icon. And when you say who they are you'll most likely get the reply "Never heard of them." Or am I just being cynical?

Andrij

Dear Andrij,

A good point - and you would be right, except in the case of Fr. Keleher's parish of St Seraphim of Sarov.

His parishioners were quite well-read on these issues - a number of them chose to go to his parish simply because it was so advanced in all things "Orthodox in communion with Rome."

One of his parishioners, a Roman Catholic, actually had the Pillars of Orthodoxy icon up in his home.

When Fr. Keleher was visiting him, he saw the icon and turned to his parishioner with a smile . . .

"That icon has a special purpose for me," the parishioner told Father. "It reminds me that there are people who are even more dedicated to their Church than me!"

Alex