Palamas and the Filioque

Since Gregory Palamas has come up recently in reference to the filioque in the comment section of a previous post, I would like to post this paper for your edification. Enjoy.


3 Responses to Palamas and the Filioque

  1. Something else to read on the topic of the “filioque” is the Tomus of the Blachernae Council (A.D. 1285), which clarified the Byzantine doctrine of the procession (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, while also explaining how the Spirit is manifested through the Son in the divine energy.

    Here’s the URL to the Tomus:

  2. For those interested in the eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son in the divine energy, I recommend reading Fr. M. Edmund Hussey’s dissertation “The Doctrine of the Trinity in Gregory Palamas,” (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Publishing, 1972), because he touches upon this issue in the later chapters of his book.

    I wrote a brief review of this book which can be found on my website at the url below:

  3. OK, I think I’m starting to see where the Triadological difficulty is arising. It’s in the intrinsic presentational aspect of “form of God” and the connection with physis in Latin thinking. It won’t allow a sharp distinction to be drawn between economy and theology where Palamas draws it. Basically, the Father can’t generate a hypostasis with the divine ousia without a corresponding morphe’/forma, so the coordinate processes are spoken of as identicial. Even though the hypostatic existence and the morphe’ are conceptually separate, no one in the West cares, since it is literally impossible for there to be a divine hypostasis without the form/glory/vision of God.

    The Western metamorphosis is from form of man to form of God, soma psychikon to soma pneumatikon; this is how we partake of the divine nature and how we see God face-to-face, becoming gods ourselves. To see God directly (in the Pseudo-Dionysian sense), we must be trans-formed, given to act in a way beyond the limits (form) of man by our own free reception, although not so as to negate the nature of man (viz., we still manifest our natural form as well). Within our creaturely limits, we walk by faith and not by sight; we understand the thing signified only by its signs and the understanding of faith.

%d bloggers like this: