GREGORY PALAMAS' TWO APODEICTIC TREATISES CONCERNING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
But O God of all, the only giver and guardian of true theology and of the dogmas and words according to it, the only most monarchical Trinity, not onl
Since also for this reason, having been taught and enlightened, they were sent forth, that they might teach as they were taught, that they might enlig
being refuted by those who have recorded the details of all the holy councils, and by the very agreement, from them until now and indeed forever, of t
hearing that He was begotten of the Father before all ages, and having the word “alone” understood and implied with that which is from the Father, jus
shall we fall from this? May you not suffer this, or rather, may you not remain incurable having suffered it for the correct way has already become k
of the Father, is it not understood by necessity? When it has been said so many times, therefore, concerning the Son that He is from the Father, and
of the Father but the one by adoption is not from him alone but through the Son from the Father, and yet he is not Son only, but also Spirit by grace
But nowhere did any of the theologians say either two or three. For just as we say that each of those three adorable hypostases is God, and each of th
They say, therefore, that the one is from the other. What then of Seth? Was he born from one principle, because Eve was from Adam, (p. 106) and are th
differs in nothing from the hypostatic [properties] therefore neither does the nature from the hypostasis, so that, according to them, God is not of
and the Son. Therefore without the cause and principle of the divinity understood in the Trinity: the Son therefore has all things of (p. 114) the Fat
mind, and that the Spirit proceeds from another because of your ignorance concerning 'alone'?
If it were possible to name these things, such as Father of light or Projector of the Holy Spirit, how would Gregory, the great in theology, not h
is the union of the Father and the Spirit. How then does the same Gregory, great in theology, say, «the unoriginate and the origin and that which is w
What of him who exhorts us in measured Epic verse, at once theologically and patristically, that if you should hear concerning the Son and the Spirit,
apostle. But if this is so, He is not a creature, but rather God, as from God and in God”. And again, “The Spirit therefore is God, existing naturally
For we heard a little above from the one named for theology, who said that the Father is the source and origin of eternal light, but the Son is in no
For if you should say that the Spirit is numbered and spoken of after the Son, which seems to you the more secure of arguments, although I would say i
he brought forth the Word. But what he says in the first book of *Against Eunomius*, that there is a form of order not according to
has been handed down to be initiated? God and Father, the principle of all things, is Father of the only-begotten Son, who even before being added to
of the consubstantiality of the Spirit, even if the Latins force the sayings, dragging their meaning into their own malevolence.
of the God-befitting and most provident economies we render through all things the most concise doxology and eucharist and remembrance not that they
he was called by none of the apostles or of the evangelists, but instead of this the voice of the Father sufficed for them. And by principle I do not
unassailable by evildoers and by those who fraudulently corrupt the word of truth by counterfeiting, known to all, both wise and unlearned, and always
immediately, but not also from the Son. We have additionally demonstrated that, since the Spirit is also called the mind of Christ, just as also of us
It is said and not from Him, but with Him, begotten from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds.
Furthermore, after this we speak concerning the principle, and how those who think in the Latin way respond sophistically to those asking them, if the
they are willing, but to those who offer a hand for correction, the power of the word of truth leading to truth, they, like some truly uneducated peop
testimonies, not well understood, might be able to assist those who excuse themselves unseasonably or to deliver them from their impiety and the etern
With God working with us, having refuted them, (p. 192) and as it were having undermined certain foundations, we will show that the whole edifice of t
John, the son of Zacharias,” according to the divine evangelist Luke, (p. 196) and “as the Lord spoke through His holy prophets to show mercy,” Zachar
But you see how this inbreathing signifies the Spirit as present and perfecting the renewal for the better of the human soul, which we believe is acco
there are varieties of service, but the same Lord and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God.” Therefore, the divine powers and en
shining in part? But concerning what the discourse is now, let us see the promise. But where is the not many days hence? Having advanced a little in
all that the Father has is mine, he takes from what is mine and will announce it for both the wealth and the gifts are common to us.
it is fitting to glorify the eternal Spirit but it is necessary for those to whom the manifestation is directed to be co-eternal, and it is added tha
of him. After him, the Holy Spirit was revealed, itself providing to the apostles by grace the same glories of the same nature,
sent, having returned whence He came down. But the Son is both God and has become man therefore He was sent also as man the Spirit did not become in
signified, but not being the inbreathing itself, so as of necessity to have its existence from that from which is the inbreathing and if also sent, i
of the relation and of the surpassing co-naturality and of the incomprehensible and ineffable perichoresis, we find and proclaim Him again, the Father
the Holy Spirit? I do not think so, unless he clearly wishes to fight against God. But, he says, the Spirit is also called of the Son Himself and His
and they set aside the essence and the hypostasis of the all-holy Spirit. Therefore, the conclusion from division of the Latin hypothetical syllogism
and there by the theologians, as indicative of the Father's hypostasis, but not as of the Son also being a joint-cause with respect to the Godhead.
Holy Spirit. But those who connect or make pretexts first refute each,
contradicting, or both theologians in accordance with them? By no means. Therefore, according to you, we shall strike this one or those ones from the
of creatures, it is by so much more magnificent for the first cause to be the origin of divinity than of creatures and to come to creatures through a
of the all-working God the Father with respect to the generation and procession of the Son, the creator of all things and who consummates all things,
of the Father and proceeds from Me? For He was not then speaking more humbly concerning Himself, on which account He would have omitted this alone, c
proceeds, having this as a distinctive sign of its existence according to its hypostasis: to be known after the Son and with Him, and to subsist from
the discourse is about the economy?» And a little later: for here he speaks of the grace that came upon the flesh for all grace was poured out into
according to the principle of its proper cause, that is, that the Son is contemplated as being from the Father, stands in the way, preventing the Spir
To Ablabius, on why, when we speak of one divinity in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, we forbid speaking of three gods, having set forth t
to exist, just as the Holy Spirit, caused, however, by generation, and that the Holy Spirit also exists caused, but not by generation.
to theologians, for the sake of greater clarity. Cain was the son of Adam and his only-begotten before he begot the others, but Eve was a part and sh
We shall understand and take the preposition through to mean with, with Gregory, who is named for theology, saying, One God for us, the Father wi
God of all? But I do not speak of him as co-creating, he says, but as co-proceeding. Therefore, the Spirit, by co-proceeding, will perfect (p. 298) hi
But was not the sending of the Word to us also essential, having come from both the Father and the Spirit? But the sending was not generation for the
as being of one and the same nature of the Father and of the Son. For so that I might speak according to the divine Cyril himself, as he himself write
of the Spirit as more manifest and fore-announced and fore-attested˙ “And the Son has naturally in Himself the proper and excellent things of the Fath
but he entirely and if his energy is immeasurable, much more so his essence. Thus the power of the truth spoken by us conquers all things, of resour
proclaims Christ as the Son. And the divine Cyril in his Treasures concludes that the Spirit exists naturally in the Son from the Father, and says tha
the Spirit to proceed from those made like unto the Son by grace: for it is most particularly from the Father, as from Him alone having its pre-eterna
proceeding from the Father himself that is, each of them immediately and from the Father alone, that is, from the very hypostasis of the Father. But
of the divine sign from the heavens and the earth was shaken perceptibly. Do you see in such a sign that which proceeds not only being of the Spirit,
of the Spirit is given the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge.” But Christ also dwells in the hearts of those who are not reprobate,
COUNTER-INSCRIPTIONS
generation and procession».
Spirit, the (p. 352) Father will then no longer be a different person from the Son, nor the Son from the Spirit. Do you see how the sayings of the sai
Sixth Inscription. Since there are some who say that 'proceeds' and 'is poured forth' and
Eighth counter-inscription. The present collected Scriptural usages and through examples the toward the
to discern that the Spirit is also for this reason said to be proper to the Son, because it is from his essence and again for this reason it is said
somehow has its existence also from that hypostasis, and vice versa for whatever is from that hypostasis is also from that essence. But when somethin
EPISTLE 1 TO AKINDYNOS (p. 398)
saying, which would not be the case for the creative principle for that one is the same. (p. 402) Besides, if this signifies the creative [principle]
falsehood is advanced, so that it is necessary to bring upon their own heads that which is contrary to theology, which is blasphemy. Thus, one must re
Therefore here, where, even if not one, there is nevertheless the generative capacity of both, it is not possible for the one to be a single principle
thinking? So much for these things in this way. But we were taught by the fathers to reason in deed concerning such matters
glorious from glorious things, which is to say plausible from plausible things. For they know nothing certain or secure about God, but became futile
Spirit of the God-bearing divinity, like flowers and superessential lights,” if someone says the superessential Spirit is by nature from God, and that
I have wiped away the creeping censure in the inscription, so that it might not be referred to the one praising it. Therefore, in order that I might m
SECOND [LETTER] TO AKINDYNOS (p. 334)
we have written back for some time for expected immediately after the return from you to us of the wise and most excellent Thessalian Nilus was the o
A clear and common, if one must say, purification or precaution, for those still ambitiously occupied with words, with the irrational opinion from wor
Two letters, therefore, from the same person about the same subject in the same way were delivered to me, having a contrary disposition to one another
you were overturned, not only in your words against us, but also when discoursing about higher things and you suffered this from inopportune talkativ
so far were we from thinking or calling ourselves perfect, (p. 456) that we even say that the initial desire to touch upon the path leading to the mys
And here your error concerns the word, but not there concerning the word, but concerning arguments and many arguments, which you, having done well to
of the superessential divinity is the Father» for he did not say, «the only source not 'from a source'», nor «one source rather», nor «the only sourc
Thus in no way is one naturally disposed to harm the other. But that it is not for you to speak of God as “what light is, but rather a source of light
having testified to the correct view, but having summarized and abridged it in a more moderate and more common and more concise way, as much as possib
and by this the initial premise is begged through tautology, being advanced in effect. Do you wish that we further scrutinize this syllogism of yours
by which they also appropriate this and are harmonized with the melody of the Spirit. If you wish to hear what divine proof they speak of, and not sim
you string together their words which have it thus: “for the vision of things above us, it is necessary to arrive from above and for an intelligible l
pays attention with his mind as though he is about to be led through it to the knowledge of God, suffers this very thing and is made a fool, though he
of the soul, has an opportunity among those who are not most attentive and not secured by humility to slip in and mingle with them, the spirit of erro
of a root (p. 498) a most fruitful tree, but we do not have the perceptive power to adequately reach the richness of the root, come let us look again
the unholy stains impressed from these things to those enlightened ones they deem worthy to speak? Do you not hear the one who says, cast away for me
our cooperation towards lack and a falling away from him, and lowest because it is furthest from the highest, and fallen because it was formerly above
we say that divine things are removed from all things and are completely removed from demonstration, or rather, we do say it, but not of this [demonst
there is no demonstration concerning any of the divine things, and his entire struggle tends toward no end at all. For if this becomes perfectly clear
dims and mutilates by the power of those arguments, so that this obstacle might also be removed, I made the argument concerning this. But he, angered
the Spirit, from the Father alone, and if from the Father alone, not also from the Son, and they are so equally balanced to each other that in all the
But you, least of all initiated in these things, as it seems, say that of divine things there is neither knowledge nor demonstration, but only faith,
of regions. Therefore we, through the guidance of the fathers, having found a demonstration of that which is beyond demonstration, something better th
with the hypocrisy of the heterodox, you proceed against the orthodox and the patristic sayings put forward by us, I know not how, you attempt to do a
bearing witness? That it both is and is not, in one way and another way and this is what we have said, that some divine things are known and demonstr
For I see that all things need one and the same will and wisdom and power to come into being from non-being but one will and wisdom and power at the
He abolished all number. And this is, that we may speak according to his knowledge, a paralogism, the one from ignorance of refutation, which the nobl
and to all her hymnographers from eternity. Since, therefore, all things are about the thearchic super-essentiality, and those things about it are div
mocking, he has named them childish lessons. But if there is something useful for us in it, it is no wonder for even from snakes there is a good medi
I think I will pass over the things with which you boast, exalting yourself with big words as one having power in arguments. For just as above he was
to encounter a shadow of God» (p. 566) that the God-seers of the fathers encounter, shamelessly rising up against these and that one like some false w
of knowledge and of the rejected wisdom, as not having known God, he waged war against the teachers. For since they said to him, according to a tradit
and to call the detailed teachings of the Holy Scriptures images of their intellectual contemplative fulfillment. We shall say, then, from where he, h
undisputed but there are certain skeptics who also contradict everyone in common. And yet, the common notion that something does not in any way come
it has a body running under it while it is perpendicular. For when the sky is clear, it is never walled off by another body. They will say these thing
is wrestled against, but is the demonstration a word? You therefore, either accept your demonstration, which you claim, to be irrationality, or a word
For to beget is of nature, but to make is of energy and the essence of God is one thing, and the essential energy of God is another and the essence
He is nameless as He is above every name. As we were saying these and such things against the impious writings and preachings of Barlaam,
...which are called a collection and fullness of divinity according to Scripture, being equally contemplated and theologized in each of the holy hypos
Is the providence which is excelled by that essence as by a cause—this also being called divinity as not being outside the fullness of the one divinit
good-principality, if you should understand divinity, he says, and goodness as the very thing of the good-making and God-making gift of the so-call
I say unoriginate, eternal, unceasing, and, to say the same thing, it is called uncreated according to itself. For according to the divine Maximus aga
we have made in summary against the things written by him against the orthodox, signed by the most holy protos and the hegumens and the chosen elders
But we will not tolerate being remiss in speaking against their accuser. For know that both the war has been stirred up against the saints and the ins
to encounter a shadow of God» (p. 566) that the God-seers of the fathers encounter, shamelessly rising up against these and that one like some false witness and through them warring against us, or rather, to speak more truly, with them; for the great Dionysius himself says that fire and air and water and earth have manifest types of the divine property, and Paul, the greater of these great ones, says, "the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead." But if this does not hold some character from that, how could those things be seen in the things that are made? And so, even the inanimate things of creation have manifest types of God; but of those among them having a rational, noetic soul, do those who have surpassed all their kinsmen in contemplation not even have a 'shadow of a shadow' of God?
And the law had a shadow of the good things to come, but when grace appeared and the truth came, is the God-seeing of those who were well-pleasing according to it not even a shadow of a shadow? And the apostle says to all in common, "Or do you not know that Christ dwells in you, unless you are reprobate?", but you say that those who have ascended in contemplation do not encounter even a shadow of a shadow? And the Spirit of God cries in the hearts of those deemed worthy through purity, "Abba, Father," but you do not grant that this "full knowledge" and this indwelling and this intimacy are even a shadow of a shadow? And the Lord blesses the pure in heart, for they shall see God; when? When the purification is. And He says of Himself, "I will manifest myself to him," and again, "He that loves me will keep my commandments, and I and the Father will come and make our abode with him" (p. 568). Such things, then, and so many and more than these, the truth of the oracles says, but you think that those who have ascended beyond even the noetic energies and been united with the all-radiant rays do not have even a shadow of a shadow, and yet can that which has not a shadow of a shadow of God even be divine? How, then, are those not such who are godlike and have not only known, but also experienced divine things?
And why do I say that what does not have even a shadow of a shadow of God is not divine? For it is not possible for it to be among beings at all; for there is no being that is entirely deprived of participation in the good; but that which has not even a shadow of a shadow, how would it not be entirely deprived of the good? What then? He who strives for the worst life, full of impassioned impulse, and of inconsiderate and materialistic effort, according to the very one slandered by your philosophy, partakes of the good as a faint echo, but those who not only desired the best way of life, but also were fortunate in it and have ascended to impassible contemplation through a complete uplifting to the truly good, do they not have even a shadow of a shadow of the good?
And every man is in the image of God, and perhaps also the likeness; but those who by attending to God throughout their life with immaterial and most pure and unceasing prayer and through an irreversible inclination toward God have already been transformed to an angelic dignity, do they not have even a shadow of a shadow of God? Well, then, did John through the Revelation reveal to us that "the things on the white stone no one can know, except he who has received it;" for not only is he unable to know, but unless he submits a faithful ear, he does not think there is anything at all, considering the truly existing contemplation to be blindness, not as beyond sense and knowledge, like some sacred darkness, but as in no way existing at all.
(p. 570) These things, then, the philosopher also, being manifestly a soulish man and not receiving the things of the Spirit, declared that the God-seers who have appeared throughout the age have not seen even a shadow of a shadow of God, and having become a disciple of some of those who survive, through the falsely named
Θεοῦ σκιᾶς ἐντυχεῖν» (σελ. 566) ἐντυχεῖν τούς θεόπτας τῶν πατέρων, τούτοις τε κἀκείνῳ οἷά τις ψευδομάρτυς ἀναιδῶς ἐπανιστάμενος
καί δι᾿ ἐκείνων πολεμῶν ἡμῖν, μᾶλλον δ᾿ ἵν᾿ ἀληθέστερον εἴπων, σύν ἐκείνοις˙ αὐτός γάρ ὁ μέγας ∆ιονύσιος καί τό πῦρ καί τόν
ἀέρα καί τό ὕδωρ καί τήν γῆν ἐμφανεῖς τύπους ἔχειν λέγει τῆς θεαρχικῆς ἰδιότητος, καί ὁ μέν μείζων τῶν μεγάλων τούτων Παῦλος
«τά ἀόρατά» φησι «τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀπό κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασι νοούμενα καθορᾶται, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καί θειότης». Εἰ
δέ μή χαρακτῆρά τινα τοῦθ᾿ ἐκεῖθεν ἴσχει, πῶς ἄν ὁρῷτο τοῖς ποιήμασιν ἐκεῖνα; Καί αὐτά μέν οὖν τά τῶν κτισμάτων ἄψυχα ἐμφανεῖς
τύπους ἔχει τοῦ Θεοῦ˙ τῶν δ᾿ ἐν αὐτοῖς λογικήν ψυχήν νοεράν ἐχόντων οἱ τούς ὁμοφυεῖς πάντας τῇ θεωρίᾳ ὑπερακοντίσαντες οὐδέ
'σκιάν σκιᾶς' ἔχουσι Θεοῦ;
Καί ὁ μέν νόμος σκιάν εἶχε τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, ὅτε δ᾿ ἡ χάρις ἐπέφανε καί ἡ ἀλήθεια ἦλθε, τῶν εὐδοκιμησάντων κατ᾿ αὐτήν
ἡ θεοπτία οὐδέ σκιά σκιᾶς ἐστι; Καί ὁ μέν ἀπόστολος κοινῇ πᾶσιν «ἤ οὐκ ἐπιγινώσκετέ» φησιν «ὅτι Χριστός οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, εἰ
μή τι ἄρα ἀδόκιμοί ἐστε;», σύ δέ φῄς ὡς οἱ τῇ θεωρίᾳ ὑπεραναβεβηκότες οὐδέ σκιᾷ σκιᾶς ἐντυχάνουσι; Καί τό μέν Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ
κράζει ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις τῶν διά καθαρότητα ἠξιωμένων «ἀββᾶ ὁ Πατήρ», σύ δέ ταύτην τήν «ἐπίγνωσιν» καί τήν ἐνοίκησιν καί τήν
οἰκείωσιν οὐδέ γοῦν σκιάν σκιᾶς εἶναι δίδως; Καί ὁ μέν Κύριος μακαρίζει τούς καθαρούς τῇ καρδίᾳ ὡς τόν Θεόν ὀψομένους˙ πότε;
ὅτε καί ἡ κάθαρσις. Καί αὐτός περί ἑαυτόῦ φησιν ὅτι «ἐγώ ἐμφανίσω αὐτῷ ἐμαυτόν», καί αὖθις «ὁ ἀγαπῶν με τάς ἐντολάς μου πληρώσει,
καί ἐγώ καί ὁ Πατήρ ἐλευσόμεθα καί μονήν παρ᾿ αὐτῷ (σελ. 568) ποιήσομεν». Τοιαῦτα μέν οὖν τοσαῦτα καί πλείω τούτων ἡ τῶν λογίων
φησίν ἀλήθεια, σύ δ᾿ οὐδέ σκιάν σκιᾶς ἔχειν οἴει τούς καί τάς νοεράς ἐνεργείας ὑπεραναβεβηκότας καί ταῖς παμφαέσιν ἑνωθέντας
ἀκτῖσι, καίτοι τό μή σκιάν σκιᾶς ἔχον τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐδέ θεῖον εἶναι δύναται; Πῶς οὖν οὐ τοιοῦτοι οἵ γε θεοειδεῖς καί μή γνόντες
μόνον, ἀλλά καί παθόντες τά θεῖα;
Καί τί λέγω ὡς οὐδέ θεῖον τό μηδέ σκιάν σκιᾶς ἔχον τοῦ Θεοῦ; Καί γάρ οὐδ᾿ ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ὅλως εἶναι δυνατόν˙ ἔστι γάρ ὄν οὐδέν
ὅ τῆς τοῦ καλοῦ παντάπασι μετουσίας ἐστέρηται˙ τό δέ μηδέ σκιάν σκιᾶς ἔχον, πῶς οὐκ ἄν τ᾿ ἀγαθοῦ παντάπασιν ἐστερημένον εἴη;
Τί οὖν; Ὁ μέν καί τῆς χειρίστης ἐφιέμενος ζωῆς, ἐμπαθοῦς τε ὁρμῆς, ἀπερισκέπτου τε καί προσύλου προσπαθείας ἀνάπλεως, κατ᾿
αὐτόν τόν ὑπό τῆς σῆς φιλοσοφίας συκοφαντούμενον, μετέχει τ᾿ ἀγαθοῦ κατ᾿ ἀμυδρόν ἀπήχημα, οἱ δέ τῆς ἀρίστης πολιτείας μή μόνον
ἐπιθυμήσαντες, ἀλλά καί εὐμοιρήσαντες καί πρός τήν ἀπαθῆ θεωρίαν ἀναδραμόντες διά τῆς πρός τό ὄντως ἀγαθόν ὁλικῆς ἀνατάσεως,
οὐδέ σκιάν σκιᾶς ἔχουσι τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ;
Καί πᾶς μέν ἄνθρωπος κατ᾿ εἰκόνα ἐστί τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἴσως καί ὁμοίωσιν˙ οἱ δέ τῷ προσανέχειν διά βίου τῷ Θεῷ τῇ ἀΰλῳ καί ἀπειλικρινημένῃ
καί ἀδιαλείπτῳ προσευχῇ καί διά τῆς ἀνεπιστρόφου πρός Θεόν ἀνανεύσεως πρός ἀγγελικήν ἤδη μετασκευασθέντες ἀξίαν οὐδέ σκιάν
σκιᾶς ἔχουσι Θεοῦ; Καλῶς ἄρα διά τῆς Ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰωάννης ἀπεκάλυψεν ἡμῖν ὅτι «τά ἐν τῇ ψήφῳ τῇ λευκῇ οὐδείς δύναται γνῶναι,
εἰ μή ὁ λαβών˙ μή ὅτι γάρ οὐ γνῶναι δύναται, ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μή πιστόν ὑπέχει οὖς, οὐδ᾿ εἶναι ὅλως οἴεταί τι, τήν ὄντως οὖσαν θεωρίαν
ἀβλεψίαν λογιζόμενος, οὐχ ὡς ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν καί γνῶσιν, οἷόν τινα γνόφον ἱερόν, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς μηδαμῇ οὖσαν μηδαμῶς.
(σελ. 570) Ταῦτα ἄρα καί ὁ φιλόσοφος, ψυχικός ἄντικρυς ὤν καί μή δεχόμενος τά τοῦ Πνεύματος, τούς τε δι᾿ αἰῶνος θεόπτας ἀναπεφηνότας
οὐδέ σκιάν γοῦν σκιᾶς ἰδεῖν ἀπεφήνατο Θεοῦ, καί τῶν περιόντων ἔστιν ὧν μαθητής γενόμενος, διά τῆς ψευδωνύμου
