<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sunday of St Gregory Palamas</title>
	<atom:link href="http://vox-nova.com/2009/03/07/sunday-of-st-gregory-palamas/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://vox-nova.com/2009/03/07/sunday-of-st-gregory-palamas/</link>
	<description>Catholic perspectives on culture, society, and politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:19:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Henry Karlson</title>
		<link>http://vox-nova.com/2009/03/07/sunday-of-st-gregory-palamas/#comment-50296</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Henry Karlson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 08:00:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://vox-nova.com/?p=6324#comment-50296</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tony,

You are welcome. It was time for Palamas, and I hope, after reading this, many people who have asked me about him before will have had a good introduction.  I should probably have included this passage from Dionysius, since I think it also is where Palamas is coming from, where his work can be seen as a corrective interpretation of Dionysius: &quot;And, if any one, having seen God, understood what he  saw, he did not see Him, but some of His creatures that are existing and known,&quot; PSeudo-Dionysius (Letter 1). Palamas changes the term from &quot;creature&quot; to &quot;uncreated energy of God&quot; so to say it really is God who is experienced.

As you can guess, I don&#039;t think Balthasar&#039;s criticism remains valid, but comes from looking to Palamas through his Western tradition (which is why he ties Palamas to Eckhart). The West famously has had problems, especially in the past couple centuries, with Trinitarian theology (as Rahner pointed out in his short little book). While it is clear the distinctions between &quot;The One God&quot; and &quot;The Three Persons&quot; as separate treatises helps affirm this breakdown (though it doesn&#039;t have to, and I don&#039;t think it did with Thomas, for example, despite how people try to say it did), the East has, I would say, never separated the two, and has always been &quot;Trinity&quot; first if one were to put the two issues in context (so that I would think the Western &lt;em&gt;tendency&lt;/em&gt;. when exaggerated, is monism/modalism and the Eastern &lt;em&gt;tendency&lt;/em&gt; is Tri-theism). In this way, I think he is looking and reading Palamas outside of Palamas&#039; greater context and point, and reads too much into it. Nonetheless, I do think he got more out of Palamas than most of the Western critics, for he did point out that there is a similarity within Palamas&#039; thought and the subjectivity of the modern era. I think we could say it&#039;s not that the &quot;Deity behind the Trinitarian guise&quot; which is mysterious, but the persons themselves have it. The Trinity is revealed in Palamas, because the action always remains Trinitarian. Both of these would be in accord with what Balthasar also wants to say. I think ultimately the problem is more linguistic than real (which has often been the case East/West).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tony,</p>
<p>You are welcome. It was time for Palamas, and I hope, after reading this, many people who have asked me about him before will have had a good introduction.  I should probably have included this passage from Dionysius, since I think it also is where Palamas is coming from, where his work can be seen as a corrective interpretation of Dionysius: &#8220;And, if any one, having seen God, understood what he  saw, he did not see Him, but some of His creatures that are existing and known,&#8221; PSeudo-Dionysius (Letter 1). Palamas changes the term from &#8220;creature&#8221; to &#8220;uncreated energy of God&#8221; so to say it really is God who is experienced.</p>
<p>As you can guess, I don&#8217;t think Balthasar&#8217;s criticism remains valid, but comes from looking to Palamas through his Western tradition (which is why he ties Palamas to Eckhart). The West famously has had problems, especially in the past couple centuries, with Trinitarian theology (as Rahner pointed out in his short little book). While it is clear the distinctions between &#8220;The One God&#8221; and &#8220;The Three Persons&#8221; as separate treatises helps affirm this breakdown (though it doesn&#8217;t have to, and I don&#8217;t think it did with Thomas, for example, despite how people try to say it did), the East has, I would say, never separated the two, and has always been &#8220;Trinity&#8221; first if one were to put the two issues in context (so that I would think the Western <em>tendency</em>. when exaggerated, is monism/modalism and the Eastern <em>tendency</em> is Tri-theism). In this way, I think he is looking and reading Palamas outside of Palamas&#8217; greater context and point, and reads too much into it. Nonetheless, I do think he got more out of Palamas than most of the Western critics, for he did point out that there is a similarity within Palamas&#8217; thought and the subjectivity of the modern era. I think we could say it&#8217;s not that the &#8220;Deity behind the Trinitarian guise&#8221; which is mysterious, but the persons themselves have it. The Trinity is revealed in Palamas, because the action always remains Trinitarian. Both of these would be in accord with what Balthasar also wants to say. I think ultimately the problem is more linguistic than real (which has often been the case East/West).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony</title>
		<link>http://vox-nova.com/2009/03/07/sunday-of-st-gregory-palamas/#comment-50290</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tony]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:51:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://vox-nova.com/?p=6324#comment-50290</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you so much for this lovely piece on Gregory Palamas.  As for Balthasar&#039;s assessment of Gregory&#039;s thought on &quot;energies&quot;, I guess his concern remains valid although here it would be interesting to note the kind of reception that Palamas&#039;s thought on &quot;energies&quot; has had down through the centuries.  Balthasar is concerned about what we are able to affirm about the trinitarian God: does this God give God&#039;s self as only God can, i.e., without remainder, without holding anything back, without scrimping on is generosity?  Your defense of Palamas at this point is instructive, and I tend to agree with you that Palamas does not restrict God&#039;s giving of God&#039;s self...  Still, the concern behind Balthasar&#039;s question could perhaps be seen in that he brings in Eckhart at a particular point: a God beyond the Trinity...which seems to indicate not that the (trinitarian) God remains ever mysterious and therefore with an infinite capacity to surprise us (precisely as trinitarian God) but that the Deity hides behind the trinitarian guise because there is something that lies beyond the trinitarian God...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you so much for this lovely piece on Gregory Palamas.  As for Balthasar&#8217;s assessment of Gregory&#8217;s thought on &#8220;energies&#8221;, I guess his concern remains valid although here it would be interesting to note the kind of reception that Palamas&#8217;s thought on &#8220;energies&#8221; has had down through the centuries.  Balthasar is concerned about what we are able to affirm about the trinitarian God: does this God give God&#8217;s self as only God can, i.e., without remainder, without holding anything back, without scrimping on is generosity?  Your defense of Palamas at this point is instructive, and I tend to agree with you that Palamas does not restrict God&#8217;s giving of God&#8217;s self&#8230;  Still, the concern behind Balthasar&#8217;s question could perhaps be seen in that he brings in Eckhart at a particular point: a God beyond the Trinity&#8230;which seems to indicate not that the (trinitarian) God remains ever mysterious and therefore with an infinite capacity to surprise us (precisely as trinitarian God) but that the Deity hides behind the trinitarian guise because there is something that lies beyond the trinitarian God&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

