PALAMIS, LUMENT GENTIUM & MUSLIMS

“The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

“In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.”

“By examining the nature of sensible things, these people have arrived at a certain concept of God, but not at a conception truly worthy of Him and appropriate to His blessed nature. For their ‘disordered heart was darkened’ by the machinations of the wicked demons who were instructing them. For if a worthy conception of God could be attained through the use of intellection, how could these people have taken the demons for gods, and how could they have believed the demons when they taught man polytheism?”

Moreover, the mind of demons, created by God, possesses by nature its faculty of reason. But we do not hold that its activity comes from God, even though its possibility of acting comes from Him; one could with propriety call such reason an unreason. The intellect of pagan philosophers is likewise a divine gift insofar as it naturally possesses a wisdom endowed with reason. But it has been perverted by the wiles of the devil, who has transformed it into a foolish wisdom—wicked and senseless—since it puts forward such doctrines. But if someone tells us that the demons themselves have a desire and knowledge not absolutely bad, since they desire to exist, live, and think, here is the proper reply which I should give: it is not right to take issue with us because we say (with the brother of the Lord) that Greek wisdom is “demonic,” on the grounds that it arouses quarrels and contains almost every kind of false teaching, and is alienated from its proper end—that is, the knowledge of God; but at the same time, recognize that it may have some participation in the good in a remote and inchoate manner.

“What then should be the work and the goal of those who seek the wisdom of God in creatures? Is it not the acquisition of the truth, and the glorification of the Creator? This is clear to all. But the knowledge of the pagan philosophers has fallen away from both these aims. Is there then anything of use to us in this philosophy? Certainly. For just as there is much therapeutic value even in substances obtained from the flesh of serpents, and the doctors consider there is no better and more useful medicine than that derived from this source, so there is something of benefit to be had even from the profane philosophers—but somewhat as in a mixture of honey and hemlock. So it is most needful that those who wish to separate out the honey from the mixture should beware that they do not take the deadly residue by mistake. […]What need is there to run these dangers without necessity, when it is possible to contemplate the wisdom of God in His creatures not only without peril but with profit? A life which hope in God has liberated from every care naturally impels the soul towards the contemplation of God’s creatures. Then it is struck with admiration, deepens its understanding, persists in the glorification of the Creator, and through this sense of wonder is led forward to what is greater.”

“…This evil one has also involved himself with many other circles against the Church. Now retreating and now advancing, he attacks the truth—sometimes with doctrines containing nothing sound, and sometimes with pleasures, which he is accustomed to enjoy and the end of which is separation from God. Most recently he has found favour with Barlaam. This man, a monk of Calabrian origin, steeped in Hellenic learning and relying wholly upon it, proceeded against the truth and those who adhere to it in a holy manner, and accused them of ditheism for saying that not only is the Trihypostatic and wholly imparticipable essence of God uncreated, but also the grace of the Spirit that is eternal and deifying and participable by the worthy. When a divine synod was convoked on these matters, he was refuted and condemned by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ on the basis of the theological writings of the holy Fathers, which supported the truth of the teaching of the current most holy Metropolitan of Thessalonike, Palamas, and of the monks.”

“John shared the opinions of Akindynos and had implemented, written, and planned much against Orthodoxy and those who adhered to it, or rather, against himself (for it was he who imposed the condemnation in writing on the notorious excommunicated Barlaam). For he was condemned and deposed. And once he had been excommunicated by synodal resolution, a sacred tomos was issued by the synod which proved both his adherence to the heresy of Akindynos and his rage without any reason against the Orthodox. Indeed this tomos, bearing the signatures of at least thirty hierarchs, which the most holy Patriarch of Jerusalem later also confirmed by signing, not only expels Akindynos and the patriarch from the Catholic Church and cuts them off completely from the Christian body, but furthermore, if anyone else at all should ever be detected thinking or saying or writing the same things against the said [most honourable] hieromonk, Kyr Gregory Palamas, and the monks who are with him—or rather against the holy theologians and the Church itself—we decree the same penalties against him and subject him to the same sentence, whether he belongs to the clergy or to the laity. This frequently mentioned most honourable hieromonk, Kyr Gregory Palamas, and the monks who agree with him—who in their writing and thinking, or rather, as already said, in their fighting by every means in defence of the divine Scriptures, and our common religion and tradition, have scrutinized and comprehended with precision nothing that is not congruous with the divine Scriptures—we hold to be not only superior to all their opponents, or rather, to those who contend against the Church of God, as the earlier synodal tomos puts it, but we also declare to be the most reliable defenders of the Church and of Orthodoxy, and its champions and helpers. For thus will the tomos issued in relation to those synods possess reliability and certainty, just as it now indeed does.”

“The Metropolitan of Thessalonike, on the urging of our divine Emperor and the Holy Church of God, spoke freely and at length on the doctrinal issues to be debated by the Church, and everybody praised him and agreed with him. Then he added the following, saying that a disputation in defense of Orthodoxy is one thing and a confession of faith is another, and that in the case of a disputation it is not necessary for the disputant to be scrupulously precise about his use of words, as Basil the Great has said, but in the case of a confession of faith, precision is observed in all matters and is obligatory.” [Letter 210.5]

But if Gregory’s insight and solution are important, so is his impact on the later Palamite synthesis. Part of that synthesis was actually prepared in the thirteenth century by Patriarch Gregory II of Cyprus. In a very real sense, the fundamental distinction between the essence and the energy is none other than the “working piece” of Palamas theology. Even so, its formal ratification as dogma by the Palamite councils of 1341, 1347, and 1351 was foreshadowed in the confirmation of the tomos at the Council of 1285. Significantly, all Orthodox scholars who have written on Palamas—Lossky, Krivosheine, Papamichael, Meyendorff, Christou—assume his voice to be a legitimate expression of Orthodox tradition. Mutatis mutandis, the same is true of Gregory of Cyprus. As one of the scholars has recognized, what is being defended is “one and the same tradition… at different points, by the Orthodox, from St. Photius to Gregory of Cyprus and St. Gregory Palamas.” […] The Palamite doctrine “might be viewed as a punishment permitted by God, which has managed to be imposed as official dogma.”

—M. Jugie, Theologia Dogmatica Christianorum Orientalium ab Ecclesia Catholica Dissidentium, I (Paris 1926), 431; idem, “Palamite (Controverse),” DTC, II, pt. 2 (Paris, 1932), col. 1817.

“At these [words], the Christians who happened to be there, seeing that the Turks were already getting irritated, signaled to me to finish my speech. Turning to a milder tone and smiling gently at them, I said again, ‘Had we, after all, been in agreement in our dialogue, we would be of one and the same faith, too.’ Then one of them said, ‘There will come a time when we will agree with each other.’

I consented and I wished even further that such a time may come quicker. […] Watch not to suffer anything like these ill-minded men; I do not mean in regard to their reverence of God (i.e., their faith in God), but rather in regard to their behavior. Take heed, therefore, not to be like them and find yourself on the one hand confessing that the virtues and the biblical injunctions are righteous, and on the other hand with your deeds breaking away from them…”

They show, for one thing, the extremely tolerant attitude of the Turks toward Christians whether in occupied territory or as captives. For another, they reveal the keen interest the imprisoned archbishop took in Islam, amicably disputing with the son of Emir Orkhan, even hoping that “a day will soon come when we will be able to understand each other”… In these texts one feels that this eminent representative of the Byzantine Church, in spite of all his traditional fidelity to the Empire of Constantinople, clearly distinguished the special mission of the Church from the political interests of Byzantium.

—John Meyendorff, St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974, p. 106

Perhaps worth recalling here that a friend of Cantacuzenus, the famous Hesychast theologian and Archbishop of Thessalonica, Gregory Palamas, describes in 1354 his journey to Turkish-occupied Asia Minor in a rather mystic tone—hoping, like Cantacuzenus, for a subsequent conversion of Muslims and implying the acceptance, for the time being, of a friendly coexistence…

—Meyendorff, Byzantine Views on Islam, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 18 (1964), p. 123

“Byzantine polemical literature has largely determined the official canonical attitude of the Church towards Islam, an attitude which is reflected in the rites of the reception of Moslem converts to Christianity. One such very ancient rite contains a series of twenty-two anathemas against Moslem beliefs. The convert is required to anathematize Muhammad, all the relatives of the Prophet (each by name), and all the caliphs until Yezid (680–683). The fact that no later caliph is mentioned has led Fr. Cumont to conclude that the rite dates from the early eighth century. However, since the list lacks any chronological order (the name of Yezid is followed by that of Othman, the third caliph), the argument does not seem altogether conclusive.”

—Meyendorff, Byzantine Views on Islam, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 18 (1964), pp. 123–124

Other anathemas are directed against the Qur’an: the Moslem conception of paradise, where all sorts of sins will take place “since God cannot be ashamed”; polygamy; the doctrine of predestination, which leads to the idea that God Himself is the origin of evil; the Moslem interpretation of the Gospel stories and the Qur’an’s treatment of the Old Testament. The anathemas repeat many of the arguments used by polemicists: the Arab worship of Aphrodite, called Khabár (Chabar), and the theory that has man issuing from a leech are mentioned, and the convert to Christianity is required to renounce them formally. The author of the rite obviously knew more about Islam than did John of Damascus. He probably made use of Nicetas’ treatise and also of other contemporary sources. It seems reasonable, therefore, to place the composition of the rite in the ninth century, at a time when similar rituals for the admission of Jews and Paulicians were composed.

—Meyendorff, Byzantine Views on Islam, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 18 (1964), p. 124

At any rate, this particular rite was still in use in the twelfth century because Nicetas Choniates gives a detailed account of a conflict which opposed Emperor Manuel I to the patriarchal synod, and in which Eustathios, Metropolitan of Thessalonica, played a leading role. In 1178, Manuel published two decrees ordering the deletion of the last anathema from the rite, starting with the copy in use at the Great Church of St. Sophia. The anathema, quoted from Sura 112, reads as follows: “I anathematize the God of Muhammad about whom he says: ‘He is God alone, God the Eternal, He begets not and is not begotten, nor is there like unto Him anyone.’” The reason for this measure was that the emperor was afraid to scandalize the converts by obliging them to anathematize not only the beliefs of Muhammad, but also “the God of Muhammad,” for this seemed to imply that Christians and Moslems did not, in fact, believe in one and the same God. The imperial measure provoked strong opposition on the part of the patriarch and the synod. Eustathius of Thessalonica, who acted as the Church’s spokesman in this matter proclaimed that a god believed to be “of hammer-beaten metal” is not the true God, but a material idol, which should be anathematized as such. After some argument between the palace and the patriarchate, a compromise solution was found. The emperor withdrew his original decree; the twenty-second anathema was retained in the ritual, but now it read simply: “Anathema to Muhammad, to all his teaching and all his inheritance.”

This text was preserved in the later editions of the Euchologion. The episode is significant inasmuch as it clearly illustrates the existence in Byzantium of two views on Islam: the extreme and “closed” one, which adopted an absolutely negative attitude towards Muhammadanism and considered it a form of paganism; and another, the more moderate one, which tried to avoid burning all bridges and to preserve a measure of common reference—in particular, the recognition of a common allegiance to monotheism. Manuel I belonged to this second group, and in this respect he followed the tradition which seems always to have been predominant in official governmental circles of Byzantium.

—Meyendorff, Byzantine Views on Islam, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 18 (1964), p. 124-125

Writers of spiritual and mystical disposition, although openly critical towards the Muslims, did not hesitate to enter into a dialogue with them. On the contrary, they allowed themselves convincingly to see Islam as part of God’s wholesome and unknown scheme of human salvation. They saw Islam from the Christian point of view and as such coming short of God’s ultimate offer—the Incarnation of His own Logos. Nonetheless, they perceived Islam as the means through which the Muslims relate directly to God through word and spirit.

—Daniel Sahas, Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296–1360) and the Muslims, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review (1980), p. 432