Sadly, the ossification you're writing about is rife in our politics, economics and cultural discourse as well. As someone once wrote, "You may be the strongest and survive - only to win a life not fit for living."
Thanks for the essay, David. I enjoyed reading it. And I wanted to send my condolences regarding Adley Rutschman. I don't know why, but I simply considered it settled he would retire an Oriole.
Thank you for this careful "précis-like" essay! I am "betwixt and between" in achieving a living equilibrium of language, life, and mind or the "making" and "being made" of tradition, or history. Is Orthodoxy acquired, or better understood as visited upon us?
I am yet somewhat suspended over your conclusion to the study of Hegel. I did not clue in early on in my learning the history of modern philosophy how extensive so much of the background of those who have taught me was either pervaded by the actuality of Hegel as an influence, or intensive the point of contention between Kant and Hegel weighs in comparison to the sort of presentation and turn around between Hume and Kant may prove to be. Whether philosophic adequacy or integral orthodoxy, I feel I should have gone the distance with your book on Tradition and Apocalypse - I am by turns at work within my given tradition, learning the tradition I am being taught among the various takes on this, as well as other traditions, having and being in the midst of our culture, as well as learning of other cultures, and living out as well as toward what all this may mean - and am remiss in not yet having done so (as well as analogously remiss in the other directions I have indicated). You at once keep before me what is overwhelming and grant hints and clues toward not being totally done in by being overwhelmed by turning me toward "the words of life."
I am still relatively new to Orthodox life, so please excuse me if my questions are foolish or ignorant, but if Palamism was never an accurate reading of the holy fathers, why do we commemorate St. Gregory on the calendar? Related to this, when you say that Neo-Palamism has dubious claims to authority, do you mean only those theologians’ interpretation and application of the Palamite Councils, or are the Palamite Councils themselves dubious in their authority as well? Part of the reason that I ask is I see some sources even listing them as a 9th ecumenical council. Thank you for your thoughts.
Those who speak of the Palamite synods as ecumenical councils are simply asserting something for which there is no actual authority. Those councils have no worth one way or the other. Palamas is commemorated in the calendar for his saintliness. That says nothing about neo-Palamism as a system.
I gotta say, a non-ecumenical council in 2016 retroactively declaring a non-ecumenical council in the 1300s to be ecumenical has strong "the Pope declaring himself infallible" vibes, which you would think the Orthodox wouldn't be okay with.
If that’s the case, I can’t help but be curious and ask: Between Palamas & his supporters, and his opponents such as Barlaam of Calabria, Gregory Akindynos, and Nikephoros Gregoras, who had a better understanding of the Patristic witness?
None of them, really, but Barlaam and his allies were closer to the metaphysics of the Fathers. On trinitarian theology, Palamas was clearly out of step with Nicene tradition.
Sadly, the ossification you're writing about is rife in our politics, economics and cultural discourse as well. As someone once wrote, "You may be the strongest and survive - only to win a life not fit for living."
Thanks for the essay, David. I enjoyed reading it. And I wanted to send my condolences regarding Adley Rutschman. I don't know why, but I simply considered it settled he would retire an Oriole.
Thank you for this careful "précis-like" essay! I am "betwixt and between" in achieving a living equilibrium of language, life, and mind or the "making" and "being made" of tradition, or history. Is Orthodoxy acquired, or better understood as visited upon us?
I am yet somewhat suspended over your conclusion to the study of Hegel. I did not clue in early on in my learning the history of modern philosophy how extensive so much of the background of those who have taught me was either pervaded by the actuality of Hegel as an influence, or intensive the point of contention between Kant and Hegel weighs in comparison to the sort of presentation and turn around between Hume and Kant may prove to be. Whether philosophic adequacy or integral orthodoxy, I feel I should have gone the distance with your book on Tradition and Apocalypse - I am by turns at work within my given tradition, learning the tradition I am being taught among the various takes on this, as well as other traditions, having and being in the midst of our culture, as well as learning of other cultures, and living out as well as toward what all this may mean - and am remiss in not yet having done so (as well as analogously remiss in the other directions I have indicated). You at once keep before me what is overwhelming and grant hints and clues toward not being totally done in by being overwhelmed by turning me toward "the words of life."
I am still relatively new to Orthodox life, so please excuse me if my questions are foolish or ignorant, but if Palamism was never an accurate reading of the holy fathers, why do we commemorate St. Gregory on the calendar? Related to this, when you say that Neo-Palamism has dubious claims to authority, do you mean only those theologians’ interpretation and application of the Palamite Councils, or are the Palamite Councils themselves dubious in their authority as well? Part of the reason that I ask is I see some sources even listing them as a 9th ecumenical council. Thank you for your thoughts.
Those who speak of the Palamite synods as ecumenical councils are simply asserting something for which there is no actual authority. Those councils have no worth one way or the other. Palamas is commemorated in the calendar for his saintliness. That says nothing about neo-Palamism as a system.
I gotta say, a non-ecumenical council in 2016 retroactively declaring a non-ecumenical council in the 1300s to be ecumenical has strong "the Pope declaring himself infallible" vibes, which you would think the Orthodox wouldn't be okay with.
Yes, because the Orthodox are famously consistent in their ecclesiastical principles.
Well, it's part of the charm.
If that’s the case, I can’t help but be curious and ask: Between Palamas & his supporters, and his opponents such as Barlaam of Calabria, Gregory Akindynos, and Nikephoros Gregoras, who had a better understanding of the Patristic witness?
None of them, really, but Barlaam and his allies were closer to the metaphysics of the Fathers. On trinitarian theology, Palamas was clearly out of step with Nicene tradition.