User:Adriatikus/sandbox

Palamism, the underlying theology[edit]

According to the patristic tradition, God can be thought of in cataphatic, or in apophatic terms.

The Essence-Energies distinction, a central principle in the Eastern Orthodox theology, was formulated by St. Gregory Palamas in the 14th century in support of the mystical practices of Hesychasm and against Barlaam of Seminara. It stands that God's essence ([Οὐσία] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help), ousia) is distinct from God's energies, or manifestations in the world, by which men can experience the Divine. The energies are "unbegotten" or "uncreated". They were revealed in various episodes of the Bible: the burning bush seen by Moses, the Light on Mount Tabor at the Transfiguration.

Apophatism^[1] (negative theology) is the main characteristic of the Eastern theological tradition. Incognoscibility isn't conceived as agnosticism or refusal to know God, because the Eastern theology isn't concerned with abstract concepts; it is contemplative, with a discourse on things above rational understanding. Therefore dogmas are often expressed antinomically.^[2]

For the Eastern Orthodox the knowledge of the uncreated energies is usually linked to apophatism.^[3]

Disclaimer[edit]

This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adriatikus/sandbox.

^ Eastern Orthodox theology doesn't stand Thomas Aquinas' interpretation to the Mystycal theology of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (modo sublimiori and modo significandi, by which Aquinas unites positive and negative theologies, transforming the negative one into a correction of the positive one). Like pseudo-Denys, the Eastern Church remarks the antinomy between the two ways of talking about God and acknowledges the superiority of apophatism. Cf. Vladimir Lossky, op. cit., p. 55, Dumitru Stăniloae, op. cit., pp. 261-262.
^ (in Romanian) Vladimir Lossky, Teologia mistică a Bisericii de Răsărit (The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church), translation from French, Anastasia Ed., Bucharest, 1993, pp. 36-37, 47-48, 55, 71. ISBN 973-95777-3-3.
^ (in Romanian) Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae, Ascetica şi mistica Biserici Ortodoxe (Ascetics and Mystics of the Eastern Orthodox Church), Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al BOR (Romanian Orthodox Church Publishing House), 2002, p. 268, ISBN 973-9332-97-3 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.

[1] Eastern Orthodox theology doesn't stand Thomas Aquinas' interpretation to the Mystycal theology of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (modo sublimiori and modo significandi, by which Aquinas unites positive and negative theologies, transforming the negative one into a correction of the positive one). Like pseudo-Denys, the Eastern Church remarks the antinomy between the two ways of talking about God and acknowledges the superiority of apophatism. Cf. Vladimir Lossky, op. cit., p. 55, Dumitru Stăniloae, op. cit., pp. 261-262.

[lossky-2] (in Romanian) Vladimir Lossky, Teologia mistică a Bisericii de Răsărit (The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church), translation from French, Anastasia Ed., Bucharest, 1993, pp. 36-37, 47-48, 55, 71. ISBN 973-95777-3-3.

[3] (in Romanian) Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae, Ascetica şi mistica Biserici Ortodoxe (Ascetics and Mystics of the Eastern Orthodox Church), Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al BOR (Romanian Orthodox Church Publishing House), 2002, p. 268, ISBN 973-9332-97-3 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.

[1]

[2]

[3]