Essence–energies distinction (version 2) and Essence–energies distinction: Difference between pages

{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2012}}

{{Hatnote|This article is a general overview of the topic. For specific views, see: [[Essence–Energies distinction (Eastern Orthodox theology)]]}}

A real distinction between the '''essence''' (''ousia'') and the '''energies''' (''energeia'') of God is a central principle of [[Eastern Orthodox theology]]. Eastern Orthodox theology regards this distinction as more than a mere conceptual distinction.<ref name=nichols>{{cite book |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=gO6PAAAAMAAJ&q=%22substance+or+essence%22 |first=Aidan |last=Nichols |title=Light from the East: Authors and Themes in Orthodox Theology, Part 4 |publisher=Sheed and Ward |year=1995 |page=50}}</ref> This doctrine is most closely identified with [[Gregory Palamas]], who formulated it as part of his defense of the practice of [[Hesychasm]] against the charge of heresy brought by [[Barlaam of Calabria]].<ref>"accusing Gregory Palamas of Messalianism"{{snd}} Antonio Carile, [http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/en_main/catehism/theologia_zoi/themata.asp?cat=hist&contents=contents.asp&main=EH_texts&file=12.htm ''Η Θεσσαλονίκη ως κέντρο Ορθοδόξου θεολογίας -προοπτικές στη σημερινή Ευρώπη''] Thessaloniki 2000, pp. 131–140, (English translation provided by the Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece).</ref><ref>[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.15.en.notes_on_the_palamite_controversy.01.htm ''Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics''] by John S. Romanides, ''The Greek Orthodox Theological Review'', Volume VI, Number 2, Winter, 1960–61. Published by the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Theological School Press, Brookline, Massachusetts.</ref> These teachings of Palamas were made into dogma in the Eastern Orthodox church by the [[Fifth Council of Constantinople|Hesychast councils]].<ref name=Fortescue/><ref name=Vailhe/>

Historically, Western Christianity has tended to reject the essence-energies distinction as real in the case of God, characterizing the view as a heretical introduction of an unacceptable division in the Trinity and suggestive of polytheism.<ref name=Vailhe/><ref name=Meyendorff/> Further, the associated practice of hesychasm used to achieve [[Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology)|theosis]] was characterized as "magic".<ref name=Fortescue/> More recently, some Roman Catholic thinkers have taken a positive view of Palamas's teachings, including how he understood the essence-energies distinction, arguing that it does not represent an insurmountable theological division between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.<ref>Michael J. Christensen, Jeffery A. Wittung (editors), [http://books.google.com/books?id=DgtUoMqm594C&pg=PA243#v=onepage&q=%22Palamas%20taught%20no%20objective%20distinction%22&f=false ''Partakers of the Divine Nature''] (Associated University Presses 2007 ISBN 0-8386-4111-3), p. 243-244</ref>

According to [[John Romanides]], Palamas considers the distinction between God's essence and his energies to be a "real distinction".<ref name=roman/> Romanides distinguishes this "real distinction" from the [[Thomism|Thomistic]] "virtual distinction" and the [[Scotism|Scotist]] "formal distinction".<ref name=roman>John S. Romanides, [http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_notes1.aspx ''Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics'']. Orthodoxinfo.com. Retrieved on 21 January 2012.</ref> Romanides suspects that Barlaam accepted a "formal distinction" between God's essence and his energies.<ref name=roman/>)

Many writers agree that Palamas views the distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies as a "real" distinction.<ref>Joseph Pohle, ''Dogmatic Theology'', "The Essence of God in Relation to His Attributes", vol. 1, p. 146</ref><ref>Erwin Fabhlbusch, [http://books.google.com/books?id=C5V7oyy69zgC&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q=Palamism%20%22real%20distinction%22&f=false ''The Encyclopedia of Christianity''], vol. 4, p. 13, ISBN 978-0802824165. [[Eerdmans]]. Retrieved on 12 September 2014.</ref><ref>John Meyendorff (1979) [http://books.google.com/books?id=GoVeDXMvY-8C&pg=PA59#v=onepage&q=%22real%20distinction%22%20Palamas&f=false ''Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes''], p. 59. Fordham University Press, ISBN 978-0823209675. Retrieved on 12 September 2014.</ref><ref>John Farrelly (2005) [http://books.google.com/books?id=F6TJzCswmEsC&pg=PA108&q=palamas+%22real%20distinction%22#v=onepage&f=false ''The Trinity: Rediscovering the Central Christian Mystery''], Rowman & Littlefield. p. 108. ISBN 978-0742532267. Retrieved on 12 September 2014.</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=FQMmAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA258&q=%22ontological+distinction%22 Cistercian Studies], vol. 7 (1990), Cistercian Publications, p. 258. Books.google.com. Retrieved on 12 September 2014.</ref><ref>Vladimir Lossky, [http://books.google.com/books?id=dxqvWwPSCSwC&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q=palamas%20%22real%20distinction%22&f=false ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church''], p. 73, 77. St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1976 ISBN 978-0913836316. Retrieved on 12 September 2014.</ref><ref>Gabriel Bunge, [http://books.google.com/books?id=rkY4nwEACAAJ ''The Rublev Trinity''], p. 75. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1 January 2007, ISBN 978-0881413106, Retrieved on 12 September 2014.</ref><ref>Karl Rahner, [http://books.google.com/books?id=WtnR-6_PlJAC&pg=PA391#v=onepage&q=Palamas%20real%20distinction&f=false ''Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi''], p. 391. A&C Black, 1975, ISBN 978-0860120063. Retrieved on 12 September 2014.</ref> A few scholars argue against describing Palamas's essence-energies distinction in God as a "real" distinction. For example, David Bentley Hart expresses doubt "that Palamas ever intended to suggest a ''real''<!-- italics in source --> distinction between God's essence and energies".<ref>David Bentley Hart, [http://books.google.com/books?id=i238ThZzszgC&pg=PA204#v=onepage&q=palamas%20%22real%20distinction%22&f=false ''The Beauty of the Infinite''], p. 204, Eerdmans, 2004, ISBN 978-0802829214. Retrieved on 12 September 2014.</ref>

G. Philips argues that Palamas's essence-energies distinction is not an "[[ontology|ontological]]" distinction but, rather, analogous to a "formal distinction" in the Scotist sense of the term.<ref name=Partakers243>Michael J. Christensen, Jeffery A. Wittung (editors), [http://books.google.com/books?id=DgtUoMqm594C&pg=PA243#v=onepage&q=admissible%20pluralism&f=false ''Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deificiation in the Christian Traditions''] (Associated University Presses 2007 ISBN 0-8386-4111-3), p. 243–244, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 2007 ISBN 978-0838641118. Retrieved on 12 September 2014.</ref>

According to Anglican theologian Anna N. Williams's study of Palamas, which is more recent than Bentley's and Philips's, in two passages (only) Palamas explicitly says God's energies are "as constitutively and ontologically distinct from the essence as are the three Hypostases", and in one place he makes explicit his view, repeatedly implied elsewhere, that the essence and the energies are not the same; but Williams contends that not even in these passages did Palamas intend to argue for an "ontological or fully real distinction", and that the interpretation of his teaching by certain polemical modern disciples of his is false.<ref name=Partakers243/>

Philosophers differentiate between various kinds of distinction. A real distinction is drawn between genuinely separable things, each of which is capable of existing independently of all others.<ref name=Pages>[http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/3q.htm Philosophy Pages]. PhilosophyPages.com (2011-11-12). Retrieved on 21 January 2012.</ref> For [[Descartes]], the existence of such a distinction between mind and body was an important part of his philosophy.<ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/descmind/#H1 René Descartes: The Mind-Body Distinction]. Iep.utm.edu (2006-05-03). Retrieved on 21 January 2012.</ref> A merely mental or conceptual distinction is drawn wholly within our minds between aspects that in fact apply to a single thing.<ref name=Pages/> Other kinds of distinction include the virtual distinction (a conceptual distinction that, however, has a basis in reality) and the [[formal distinction]].

The concept of God's essence in Eastern Orthodox theology is called ([[ousia]]) and is distinct from his energies ([[energeia]] in Greek, [[actus purus|actus]] in Latin) or activities as actualized in the world.<ref>''Aristotle East and West'' by David Bradshaw, p. 91, 95 Cambridge University Press (27 December 2004) ISBN 978-0-521-82865-9</ref> The ousia of God is God as God is. It is the energies of God that enable us to experience something of the Divine, at first through sensory perception and then later intuitively or [[noesis|noetically]]. The essence, being, nature and substance (ousia) of God is taught in Eastern Christianity as uncreated and incomprehensible. God's ousia is defined as "that which finds no existence or subsistence in another or any other thing".<ref name="Eastern Church 1997">''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church'', by Vladimir Lossky, SVS Press, 1997, p. 50–55, ISBN 0-913836-31-1, {James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. ISBN 0-227-67919-9)</ref> God's ousia is beyond all states of ([[nous]]) consciousness and unconsciousness, being and non-being (like being dead or [[anesthetized]]), beyond something and beyond nothing beyond existence and non-existence.<ref>''Vision of God'' by [[Vladimir Lossky]], p. 123, "Knowledge is limited to what exists: now, as the cause of all being, God does not exist (St [[Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite|Dionysus the Areopagite]] The Divine Names, I, 1, col.588) or rather He is superior to all oppositions between being and non-being."</ref><ref>{{bibleref|Psalm|18:11|9}}, {{bibleref|Psalm|97:2|9}}</ref> The God's ousia has not in necessity or subsistence needing or having dependence on anything other than itself. God's ousia as uncreated is therefore incomprehensible to created beings such as human beings. Therefore God in essence is superior to all forms of [[ontology]] (metaphysics).<ref name="Eastern Church 1997"/> The source, origin of God's ousia or incomprehensibliness is the Father [[hypostasis (philosophy)|hypostasis]] of the Trinity, One God in One Father.<ref>"Oneness of Essence, and it is absolutely essential to distinguish this from another dogma, the dogma of the begetting and the procession, in which, as the Holy Fathers express it, is shown the Cause of the existence of the Son and the Spirit. All of the Eastern Fathers acknowledge that the Father is monos aitios, the sole Cause” of the Son and the Spirit." Orthodox Dogmatic Theology [[Michael Pomazansky]][http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_P14.HTM Orthodox dogmatic theology: text - IntraText CT]</ref><ref>[http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=32 The Orthodox Faith{{snd}} Volume I{{snd}} Doctrine{{snd}} The Holy Trinity{{snd}} One God, One Father]. OCA. Retrieved on 21 January 2012.</ref> The God's energies are "unbegotten" or "uncreated" just like the existences of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) both God's existences and energies are experience-able or comprehensible. God's ousia is uncreatediness, beyond existence, beyond no existence, God's hyper-being is not something comprehensible to created beings.<ref name="The Divine Names 1997">[[Vladimir Lossky]] ''Vision of God'', p. 123, "Knowledge is limited to what exists: now, as the cause of all being(The Divine Names, I, 1, col.588) or rather He is superior to all oppositions between being and non-being." SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-19-2)</ref> As St [[John Damascene]] states "all that we say positively of God manifests not his nature but the things about his nature."<ref>''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church'', by Vladimir Lossky, SVS Press, 1997. ISBN 0-913836-31-1 (James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991, p. 73, ISBN 0-227-67919-9)</ref>

For the Eastern Orthodox, the distinction as the tradition and perspective behind this understanding, is that creation is the task of energy. If we deny the real distinction between essence and energy, we can not fix any very clear borderline between the procession of the divine persons (as existences and or realities of God) and the creation of the world: both the one and the other will be equally acts of the divine nature (strictly uncreated from uncreated). The being and the action(s) of God then would appear identical, leading to the teaching of [[Pantheism]].<ref>"If we deny the real distinction between essence and energy, we cannot fix any very clear borderline between the procession of the divine persons and the creation of the world: both the one and the other will be equally acts of divine nature. The being and the action of God would then appear to be identical and as having the same character of necessity, as is observed by St [[Mark of Ephesus]] (fifteenth century). We must then distinguish in God His nature, which is one; and three hypostases; and the uncreated energy which proceeds from and manifests forth the nature from which it is inseparable.

Eastern Orthodox theologians assert that Western Christianity treats God's ''ousia'' as [[energeia]] and [[dunamis]] (Aristotle's [[Actus et potentia]]) as part of the [[scholastic method]] in theology. Which allows God's incomprehensibility to become [[comprehension (logic)|comprehensible]], by not making a distinction between God's nature and manifestation of things about God's nature. As Aristotle and Pagan philosophy taught that God was the underlying substance, nature, being, essence (ousia) of all things (as the [[Monad (Greek philosophy)|Monad]] in [[substance theory]]). Making the very thing that makes God, God (uncreated, incomprehensible) the same as God's created world and created beings. God's ousia then becomes detectable and experienced as a substance, essence, being or nature. Rather than God's hyper-being (ousia) as, infinite and never comprehensible to a finite mind or consciousness.{{Citation needed|date=September 2014}}

Therefore Pagan philosophy via [[Metaphysics|Metaphysical]] dialects sought to reconcile all of existence ([[ontology]]), with Mankind's reason or rational faculty culminating into deification called [[henosis]]. Where in Pagan henosis all of creation is absorbed into the Monad and then recycled back into created existence. Since in Pantheism there is nothing outside of creation or the cosmos, including God, since God is the cosmos in Pantheism. Or rather meaning no ontology outside of the [[cosmos]] (creation). Whereas Orthodox Christianity strictly seeks [[soteriology]] as reconciliation (via [[Synergy|synergeia]]) of man (creation, creatures) with God (the uncreated) called [[Divinization (Christian)|theosis]]. Mankind is not absorbed into the God's ousia or hypostases or energies in theosis. Ousia here is a general thing or generality, in this case ousia is the essence, nature, being, substance of the word God and concept of God. Various Orthodox theologians argue Western Christianity teaches that the essence of God can be experienced (man can have the same consciousness as God); they charge that Western Christianity's treatment is very much in line with the pagan speculative philosophical approach to the concept of God.{{Citation needed|date=September 2014}}

Since no distinction is made between God's essence and his works, acts (i.e. the cosmos) that there is no distinction between God and the material or created world, cosmos. Gregory Palamas' distinction is denied in favor of pagan Philosopher [[Aristotle]]'s [[Actus et potentia]].<ref>"There was a very faint echo of Hesychasm in the West. Latin theology on the whole was too deeply impregnated with the Aristotelean Scholastic system to tolerate a theory that opposed its very foundation. That all created beings are composed of actus and potentia, that God alone is actus purus, simple as He is infinite – this is the root of all Scholastic natural theology. Nevertheless one or two Latins seem to have had ideas similar to Hesychasm. Gilbertus Porretanus (de la Porrée, d. 1154) is quoted as having said that the Divine essence is not God – implying some kind of real distinction; John of Varennes, a hermit in the Diocese of Reims (c. 1396), said that the Apostles at the Transfiguration had seen the Divine essence as clearly as it is seen in heaven. About the same time John of Brescain made a proposition: Creatam lucem infinitam et immensam esse. But these isolated opinions formed no school. We know of them chiefly through the indignant condemnations they at once provoked. St. Bernard wrote to refute Gilbert de la Porrée; the University of Paris and the legate Odo condemned John of Brescain's proposition. Hesychasm has never had a party among Catholics. In the Orthodox Church the controversy, waged furiously just at the time when the enemies of the empire were finally overturning it and unity among its last defenders was the most crying need, is a significant witness of the decay of a lost cause." [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm Hesychasm{{snd}} Catholic Encylopedia{{snd}} New Advent]</ref> Uncreated as that which has no [[first cause]] and is not caused, in Eastern Orthodoxy therefore being the basis for understanding outside the realm of science. Atheism here being a denial of the uncreated. Pagan philosophical metaphysics being a dialectical attempt to rationalize the uncreated.<ref>[http://www.romanity.org/mir/me01en.htm ''Faith And Science In Orthodox Gnosiology and Methodology''] by [[George Metallinos]] </ref>

===Orthodox criticism of Western theology===

{{See also|Catholic–Orthodox theological differences}}

Eastern Orthodox theologians have criticized Western theology, and especially the traditional [[scholasticism|scholastic]] claim that God is ''[[actus purus]]'', for its alleged incompatibility with the essence-energies distinction. Christos Yannaras writes, "The West confuses God's essence with his energy, regarding the energy as a property of the divine essence and interpreting the latter as "pure energy" (actus purus)"<ref>Christos Yannaras, ''Orthodoxy and the West:

Hellenic Self-Identity in the Modern Age'' (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006), p. 36.</ref> According to George C. Papademetriou, the essence-energies distinction "is contrary to the Western confusion of the uncreated essence with the uncreated energies and this is by the claim that God is Actus Purus".<ref>George C. Papademetriou, ''Introduction to St. Gregory Palamas'' (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2004), p. 61.</ref>

==Kierkegaard and the relationship to existentialism==

{{see also|Christian existentialism}}

The Danish [[Lutheranism|Lutheran]] philosopher [[Søren Kierkegaard]], widely considered the father of [[existentialism]], expressed (pseudonymously as John Climacus) in ''[[Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments]]'' an approach to God which holds that the Father's ''[[hypostasis (philosophy)|hypostasis]]'' (existence) has logical primacy over his ''[[ousia]]'' (essence or substance). Hence the teaching that the core of existentialist philosophy can be understood as the maxim, "[[philosophy of existence|existence before essence]]." This has caused many Western observers to see Eastern Orthodox Christian theology as existentialistic (since the Essence–Energies distinction also somewhat holds the view).<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=lZUBZlth2qgC&lpg=PA418&pg=PA418#v=snippet&q=%22three%20central%20issues%22&f=false The encyclopedia of Christianity, Volume 5] By Erwin Fahlbusch p. 418. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008, ISBN 978-0802824172. Retrieved on 21 January 2012.</ref> This also accounts for other existentialistic works such as [[Fyodor Dostoevsky]]'s ''[[Notes from Underground]]''. In the case of Dostoevsky, his existentialist outlook would have drawn from his Russian Orthodox faith, but there is no record of Dostoevsky (and the Eastern Orthodox church in general) being exposed to or influenced by Kierkegaard's philosophical works.

==Roman Catholic perspectives on the essence-energies distinction in God==

The Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between doctrine, which is single and must be accepted by Roman Catholics, and theological elaborations of doctrine, about which Catholics may legitimately disagree. With respect to the Eastern and Western theological traditions, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes that, at times, one tradition may "come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or [express] it to better advantage." In these situations, the Church views the various theological expressions "often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html |title=UnitatisRedintegratio |quote=In the study of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed differently their understanding and confession of God's truth. It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting.}} A concrete example of the application of this principle is the separate presentation in the 1912 ''[[Catholic Encyclopedia]]'' [http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Blessed_Trinity%2C_The article on the Blessed Trinity] of the Church's doctrine on the Trinity as interpreted in Greek theology and in Latin theology, without denigrating either interpretation.</ref>

From Palamas's time until the twentieth century, Roman Catholic theologians generally rejected the idea that there is in God a real essence-energies distinction. In their view, a real distinction between the essence and the energies of God contradicted the teaching of the [[First Council of Nicaea]]<ref name=Meyendorff>John Meyendorff (editor), [http://books.google.com/books?id=8jcjtUbwptwC&lpg=PR11&pg=PR11#v=onepage&q=%22Palamas%20is%20a%20saint%22&f=false ''Gregory Palamas – The Triads''], p. xi. Paulist Press, 1983, ISBN 978-0809124473. Retrieved on 12 September 2014.</ref> on [[monotheism|divine unity]].<ref name=Vailhe/> The idea of a real essence-energies distinction in God also conflicted with Western [[Scholasticism]]'s usual insistence that, as ''[[actus purus]]'', God can contain no real distinctions besides the distinctions between the [[Trinity|divine persons]].<ref name=Fortescue>{{Citation |last=Fortescue |first=Adrian |title=Hesychasm |publisher=Robert Appleton Company |year=1910 |location=New York |volume=VII |url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm |accessdate=3 February 2008}}</ref> According to [[Adrian Fortescue]], Palamas's philosophical opponents always borrowed their weapons from Western Scholasticism.<ref name=Fortescue/> For these opponents, Fortescue claims, an uncreated energy really distinct from God's essence would be either "something neither God nor creature" or a second God. Fortescue reported that Palamas charged his opponents with fifty heresies and that Palamas himself, when condemned by a synod summoned by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1345, "outwardly" withdrew what Fortescue called Palamas's "heresy".<ref name=Fortescue/>

Resistance to the claim of a real essence-energies distinction in God continued into the twentieth century. Simon Vailhé accused Palamas's theology of "monstrous errors" and "perilous theological theories", claiming that the Eastern churches' canonization of Palamas's theories represented a "resurrection of polytheism".<ref name=Vailhe>"No doubt the leaders of the party held aloof from these vulgar practices of the more ignorant monks, but on the other hand they scattered broadcast perilous theological theories. Palamas taught that by asceticism one could attain a corporal, i.e. a sense view, or perception, of the Divinity. He also held that in God there was a real distinction between the Divine Essence and Its attributes, and he identified grace as one of the Divine propria making it something uncreated and infinite. These monstrous errors were denounced by the Calabrian Barlaam, by Nicephorus Gregoras, and by Acthyndinus. The conflict began in 1338 and ended only in 1368, with the solemn canonization of Palamas and the official recognition of his heresies. He was declared the 'holy doctor' and 'one of the greatest among the Fathers of the Church', and his writings were proclaimed 'the infallible guide of the Christian Faith'. Thirty years of incessant controversy and discordant councils ended with a resurrection of polytheism" (Simon Vailhé, [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06752a.htm "Greek Church"] in ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909)</ref> Fortescue, also writing in the 1911 ''Catholic Encyclopedia'', claimed that "the real distinction between God's essence and operation remains one more principle, though it is rarely insisted on now, in which the Orthodox differ from Catholics".<ref name=Fortescue/> Fortescue saw Hesychasm, which Barlaam called superstitious and absurd, as a form of [[auto-suggestion]].<ref name=Fortescue/> [[Ludwig Ott]] held that an absence of real distinction between the [[Attributes of God in Christianity|attributes of God]] and God's essence is a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church,<ref name="LudwigOtt">"In distinguishing between God and His attributes, one is going against a doctrine of the faith: 'The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence' (''De fide''). The reason lies in the absolute simplicity of God. The acceptance of a real distinction (distinctio realis) would lead to acceptance of a composition in God, and with that to a dissolution of the Godhead. In the year 1148, a [[Council of Reims (1148)|Synod at Rheims]], in the presence of Pope Eugene III, condemned, on the instance of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the doctrine of Gilbert of Poitiers, who, according to the accusation of his opponents, posited a real difference between Deus and Divinitas, so that there would result a quaternity in God (Three Persons plus Godhead). This teaching, which is not obvious in Gilbert's writings, was rejected at the Council of Rheims (1148) in the presence of Pope Eugene III ([http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma4.php D. 389] et seq.)" (James Bastible (editor)</ref><ref name=Ludwig28>Dr Ludwig Ott, [http://books.google.com/books?id=X6HWAAAAMAAJ&q=%22+acceptance+of+a+composition+in+God%22 ''Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma''], p.28, Tan Books and Publishers, 1960, Retrieved 12 September 2014)</ref> adding, "In the Greek Church, the 14th century mystic-quietistic Sect of the Hesychasts or Palamites [...] taught a real distinction between the Divine Essence [...] and the Divine Efficacy or the Divine attributes."<ref name=Ludwig28/> In contrast, Jürgen Kuhlmann argues that the Roman Catholic Church never judged Palamism to be heretical, adding that Palamas did not consider that the distinction between essence and energies in God made God composite.<ref name=Partakers243/> According to Kuhlmann, "the denial of a real distinction between essence and energies is not an article of Catholic faith".<ref>Catherine Mowry LaCugna, [http://books.google.com/books?id=6c_YAAAAMAAJ&q=palamas+%22real+distinction%22 ''God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life''], p. 200. HarperSanFrancisco, 1991, ISBN 9780060649128. Retrieved on 12 September 2014.</ref> The [[Denzinger|''Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum'' (Handbook of Creeds and Definitions)]], the collection of Roman Catholic teachings originally compiled by [[Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger]], has no mention of the words "energies", "hesychasm" or "Palamas".<ref>[http://catho.org/9.php?d=g1 Latin text;] [http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php English translation]</ref>

The later twentieth century saw a remarkable change in the attitude of Roman Catholic theologians to Palamas, a "rehabilitation" of him that has led to increasing parts of the Western Church considering him a saint, even if uncanonized.<ref name=Meyendorff/> Some Western scholars maintain that there is no conflict between the teaching of Palamas and Roman Catholic thought on the distinction.<ref name=Partakers243/> According to G. Philips, the essence-energies distinction of Palamas is "a typical example of a perfectly admissible theological pluralism" that is compatible with the Roman Catholic magisterium.<ref name=Partakers243/> Jeffrey D. Finch claims that "the future of East-West rapprochement appears to be overcoming the modern polemics of neo-scholasticism and neo-Palamism".<ref name=Partakers243/> Some Western theologians have incorporated the essence-energies distinction into their own thinking.<ref>Kallistos Ware [http://books.google.com/books?id=ognCKztR8a4C&pg=PA186#v=onepage&q=hesychasm%20catholic&f=false ''Oxford Companion to Christian Thought'']; (Oxford University Press 2000 ISBN 0-19-860024-0), p. 186. Retrieved on 21 January 2012.</ref>

*[[John Meyendorff|Father John Meyendorff]]

*[http://www.iocstudies.net/cathanas/St-Gregory-Palamas-Intern-Conf-Thessaloniki-1/ International Conference on the Philosophy and Theology of St Gregory Palamas, 7-15 March 2012, with links to on line material from the Conference]