St. Gregory Palamas’s gnoseology in light of the dogma of the incarnation of Christ

Abstract

This article is devoted to the problem of correspondence between the gnoseology of St. Gregory Palamas and the teachings of the Orthodox Church. His gnoseology contains two theses that caused a significant controversy in the 14th century in the Byzantine Empire. These are the uncreated nature of the Tabor Light and the possibility to know God by His uncreated energies, but not by His essence. The author turns directly to the Christological confessions and other dogmatic texts of the Ecumenical Councils to solve the problem. This method has not been largely used. As a general rule, the “palamites” and “antipalamites” used to refer to some particular father or plunged into a strictly philosophical discourse. At the same time, it was not fully taken into the account the fact that the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils contain information to adequately assess St. Gregory’s gnoseology. The article concisely presents the main theses of St. Gregory Palamas’s gnoseology, approved by the local Council of 1351 held in Constantinople. The theses are compared to the confession of the Council of Chalcedon. The texts of the subsequent Ecumenical Councils are considered to be as clarifying as the Chalcedonian confession. The views of St. Gregory’s main opponents are also analyzed in the article. Particular attention is paid to the meaning of key terms in the considered dogmatic texts. The article also takes into account the philosophical aspect of the problem, and expounds one of the arguments of St. Gregory in favor of the uncreated nature of the Tabor Light, which is based on the idea of the inability of human nature to emit light. As a result of the research, it was established that both theses of St. Gregory contradict the doctrine of the Ecumenical Councils about Christ. Instead of St. Gregory’s dubious gnoseology, the Ecumenical Councils offer to cognize the divinity of the Trinity inseparably from the flesh of Christ, and not only in energy, but also essence and hypostasis. As for the natural science argument of St. Gregory, it is refuted by the data of modern science, which proved the existence of biophotons. This discovery, according to the author, does not contradict, but only confirms the Christology of the Ecumenical Councils.

Keywords:

Christ, hesychasm, palamism, antipalamism, Tabor Light, neoplatonism, uncreated energies, Ecumenical Councils, Сhalcedonian confession, essence