Life and iconography of St. Gregory Palamas, texts of prayers and troparions

Gregory Palamas
(Greek Παλαμα̃ζ; 1296 - 1359), Metropolitan of Thessalonica, saint, theologian of hesychasm, father and teacher of the Church Commemorated November 14, the week of the 2nd week of Great Lent, in the Councils of the Athos Saints and Vatopedi Saints (Greek), and also together with his holy family (on the first Sunday after November 14, as well as December 18) (Greek)

Born in 1296 in Constantinople into a wealthy family. The education and training of Gregory Palamas was led by the best teacher of his era - Theodore Metochites, a major political figure, philosopher and writer, a great logothete under Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos [1].

Refusing the secular career of a dignitary offered to him, at the age of 20 he accepted monasticism in one of the Athos monasteries. He spent about three years with his spiritual mentor Nicodemus the Hesychast of Vatopedi, from whom he took monastic vows. Later, his spiritual mentor was St. Gregory of Byzantium. The teacher of Saint Gregory in hesychast practice was the Venerable Nicephorus the Solitary, who labored on Mount Athos. His teachers also became the Patriarchs of Constantinople Gregory II of Cypriot and Athanasius I, as well as Saint Theoliptus of Philadelphia [2].

In 1336, at the monastery of St. Sava, he began theological works, which he did not abandon until the end of his life.

His dispute with Barlaam of Calabria and Akindinos about the Tabor light is especially famous; In this dispute, Palamas defended the teaching of the Church that this light is not creation, but ever-present light (uncreated; see also hesychasm). On this occasion, in 1341, a Council was convened in the St. Sophia Church of Constantinople under the chairmanship of the Patriarch, at which Palamas exposed the error of Varlaam so that the latter decided to retire to Italy.

In 1344, Patriarch John XIV Cripple, an adherent of the teachings of Varlaam, excommunicated Saint Gregory from the Church and imprisoned him. In 1347, after the death of John XIV, the ascetic was freed and elevated to the rank of Archbishop of Thessalonica by Patriarch Isidore I Vukhir, his friend and comrade-in-arms. On one of his trips to Constantinople, a Byzantine galley fell into the hands of the Turks, and the saint was sold in various cities for a year. Only three years before his death, Saint Gregory returned to Thessaloniki.

Died peacefully on November 14, 1359.

Controversy with Varlaam

The Athonite monks were extremely agitated by Varlaam’s attacks and turned to one of the outstanding Byzantine ascetics and scientists, Gregory Palamas, with a request to talk with Varlaam and convince him to stop verbal and written attacks on them and not to insult the holy men who worship the divine fire.

Palamas, who had previously had reason to speak out against the theological and philosophical views of Varlaam, now with all the strength of his scientific talent and literary skill spoke out against the detractor of Byzantine monasticism and his harsh judgments about godly hesychia.

He wrote (during the period 1338-1340) nine words against Varlaam, dividing them into three triads. Varlaam responded to his literary opponent with the essay “Κατα ̀ μασαλιανω̃ν” (“Against the Messalians”). Other persons also intervened in the dispute: Palamas found sympathy for himself with the Ecumenical Patriarch Philotheus, Queen Anna and her son John Palaeologus, with the courtier, and later emperor, John Cantacuzene and, of course, among the Byzantine, especially the Athonite silent ones, and Varlaam had supporters in personified by the theologian and philosopher Gregory Akindinus and the historian Nikifor Grigora. Thus, two parties were formed - the Barlaamites and the Palamites - and the dispute flared up with great force.

The whole burning subject of the dispute was focused on the question of the being in the energy of the Divine (ή Θεία ουσία καὶ ὲνέργεια): whether energy is the very being of God or not. We came to the formulation of this question through another: what was the light of the Lord's Transfiguration on Tabor - the being of God or not.

Varlaam's main idea was that divine insight is science and knowledge, which is given to those who are pure in heart and fulfill the commandments of God. Such was precisely the illumination of the disciples by the light of the Lord during the awakening on Mount Tabor; it had the purpose of communicating the highest knowledge to the apostles and was not by its nature something immaterial or an outpouring of the very essence of God, but only a ghost, a mental image created precisely for this purpose.

Palamas and the Athonite monks defended the opinion that the light that shone on Tabor, according to the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, although it is not the very essence of God, is not a mental image: it is an inseparably inherent manifestation and realization of the Divine being, otherwise it is a natural property and energy (φυσικη ̀χάριζ καί ένέργεια) of the Deity.

Varlaam objected to this: if the illumination of the disciples on Tabor was the effect of the communication of the Divine being to them, then we must conclude that this light is identical with the being of God and that the being of God can be communicated to man and is accessible to human feelings.

Not a being, answered Palamas, but Divine energy, grace and glory, given from the essence of God to the saints. Moreover, Divine energy is inseparable from the essence of God, just as the Son is inseparable from the Father or the Holy Spirit, or as a ray is inseparable from the sun and heat from fire; This means that in such a teaching there is no thought of bitheism. And just as the being of the sun, i.e. His disk is indivisible above the rays and radiance sent by the human eye, in the same way, according to the teachings of the church, the divine being is indivisible and invisible above the radiances, energies and goodness sent to him, which is communicated to the saints by the Most Holy Trinity.

Varlaam and his supporters objected to this understanding of the relationship between the essence of the Divine and His energy and in further polemics came to pantheistic views.

Varlaam's teaching as heretical caused condemnation by the Church. Councils were convened about him in 1341, 1347, 1351, 1352 and 1368. At these councils, the teaching of Palamas and his supporters was recognized as being in agreement with the teaching of the church, and Varlaam and his disciples were anathematized. In 1351, the saint himself, following Patriarch Callistos, signed the Council Tomos against like-minded people Varlaam and Akindinus [3].

The results of the conciliar decisions were expressed in the following articles of the Synodik, proclaimed on the Week of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, which were included in its composition in 1352:

1. Anathema to those who accept the light that shone from the Lord during His Divine Transfiguration, either as an image or a creature or a ghost, or as the very being of God, and who do not confess that that Divine light is neither a being of God nor a creature, but an uncreated and physical grace and the radiance and energy that always comes from the very being of God.
2. Anathema to those who accept that God has no physical energy, but only one being, and that there is no difference between the being of God and energy, who does not want to think that just as the union of the Divine being and energy is unmerged, so the difference is immutable.
3. Anathema to those who accept that every physical possibility and energy of the Divine is a creation.
4. Anathema to those who say that if we allow differences in the essence and energy of the Divine, then it means thinking of God as a complex being.
5. Anathema to those who think that only the being of God is characterized by the name of God, and not by energy.
6. Anathema to those who accept that the being of God can be communicated (i.e. to people), and who do not want to admit that communion is characteristic of grace and energy.
7. Eternal memory to His Holiness Metropolitan Gregory Palamas of Thessaloniki, who overthrew the heretics Barlaam and Akindinus, who dared to call the physical and indivisible energy and possibility of the Divine, as well as all the physical properties of the Holy Trinity, created, and also to introduce the doctrine of Platonic ideas and Hellenic myths.

The path to monasticism

Saint Gregory Palamas came from a famous aristocratic family (at the end of the 12th century the saint's ancestors moved to Constantinople from the territory of Asia Minor). The approximate date of his birth is considered to be 1296.

Gregory's father, Constantine Palamas, an influential senator, was one of the nobility close to the imperial court. On his deathbed, having repented of his sins, he took monastic vows. After his death in 1301, the reigning emperor, Andronikos II, took his son, Gregory Palamas, under his personal guardianship and protection.

During that period of time, friendly relations began between the orphaned Gregory and Andronikos III, the future emperor, as close as the rules of subordination allowed. Subsequently, Andronik repeatedly provided him with help and assistance.

According to his social status, Gregory received an excellent education. Having the opportunity to study at the Imperial University, he mastered such disciplines as grammar, rhetoric, physics, and logic. Considering the position in society in which Gregory was located, an enviable career could have opened up before him, but he preferred spiritual life to secular well-being.

It is difficult to say when exactly he began to think seriously about monasticism. It is only known that during his studies he had contact with Svyatogorsk monks. This communication affected him in the most positive way: he changed his attitude towards life and rebuilt his behavior pattern.

The spiritual revival of Byzantium occurred precisely thanks to people like St. Gregory

“I can imagine St. Gregory Palamas in his time - such a brilliant young man, the son of a major dignitary, brought up at the imperial court: talented, well-educated, handsome, in general, as they say today, “packed in all respects.” And this promising young man gives up all this for the sake of an ascetic life. It is somehow difficult to imagine a modern young man who would give up his career, all material wealth and, without hesitation, go to a monastery. What time was it then?

— Saint Gregory Palamas lived in a unique time for the Byzantine Empire. It must be understood that at the time of St. Gregory, the Byzantine Empire was a state whose territory was reduced in size significantly compared to the classical Byzantine Empire, from Justinian to the reign of the Macedonian dynasty.

If we look at the map of Byzantium from the time of St. Gregory, we will see that it occupies a relatively small geographical space. But even with such an external decline, which is associated with the fact that the empire lost vast territories in the east, this time is considered to be a period of amazing prosperity of Byzantium, named after the ruling dynasty - “Palaeologian heyday”.

This time was characterized by an unprecedented development of culture, church culture, primarily iconography, architecture and theology. In addition, it was a time of amazing growth in church ascetic life. People have shown increased interest in what is called the "tradition of mystical, ascetic practice." During this period in Byzantium, deep inner piety was a necessity not only for peasants and artisans, but also for aristocrats of the highest rank.

Saint Gregory Palamas came from a family of aristocrats. But the fact that he became a monk at a young age, preferring a silent life to a brilliant career, was very much in the spirit of that time. Many famous monastics of that era were precisely people of noble birth.

Apparently, humanity has come to understand that in order to revive the empire (and then many dreamed of this) a spiritual revival is needed. And this spiritual revival took place precisely thanks to people like St. Gregory. Young aristocrats who abandoned the world for the sake of solitary prayer not only improved their souls, but also served as lamps of faith, elevating the country to a higher spiritual level.

This was especially important at a time when, against the backdrop of the people’s ever-increasing need for spirituality, some aristocrats and members of the imperial family were ready to abandon the most important thing - the Orthodox faith - in order to receive financial and military support from Latin Europe.

It so happened that the founder of the Palaiologos dynasty, Michael VIII Palaiologos (1224-1282), wanted to conclude a union with the Latin world at the Council of Lyon, and the last of the dynasty - John VIII Palaiologos (1392-1448) and Constantine XII (1448-1453) - also carried out a union politics. In fact, despite the presence of many pious people in various strata, there were those who were ready to renounce their faith for the sake of financial and military support for the empire from the outside. The departure of people of noble birth into monasticism served as a kind of reminder that love for Christ is more important than love for everything else. Among such people was Saint Gregory Palamas.

Angelic image

According to various estimates, by the age of 18–20, Gregory, having decided to abandon secular temptations and connect his life with ascetic deeds, went to Athos.

At the same time, he renounced the property inherited from his father and convinced his mother and other family members, as well as some servants, to leave meaningless vanity, renounce the blessings of this world and enter the monasteries of Constantinople.

The emperor looked at Gregory's plan without much joy or sympathy. Either not fully realizing the seriousness of his intentions, or not wanting to lose a loyal and promising subject, he did not want to let Gregory go. But he was persistent and eventually achieved his goal.

On the way to Athos, where Gregory went with two brothers, Theodosius and Macarius, all three stopped on Mount Papikon. By God's providence they spent several months in those places. There is a legend that when Gregory entered into a controversy with the local Bogomils (about prayer), he was almost poisoned.

Having finally reached Athos, Gregory stood under the spiritual guidance of the wise and experienced ascetic, the Monk Nicodemus of Vatopedi. After a two-year test of obedience, monastic difficulties, and temptations, he took monastic vows.

After the blessed death of his mentor, St. Nicodemus, Gregory, with the blessing of his superiors, entered the Lavra of St. Athanasius. The abbot of the monastery assigned him to the singers. In this Lavra, in fasting, obedience and prayer, he labored for three years, and then, guided by the best considerations, retired to the Glossia desert for his labors. Here his spiritual mentor was the famous saint of God, Gregory Drimis.

A couple of years later (around 1325), in order to avoid the consequences of Turkish robbery, Gregory, along with eleven other monks, moved to Thessalonica. From there the brethren planned to move to Jerusalem. But the Lord intervened: the friends were kept in place by the appearance of the patron saint of Thessalonica, the Great Martyr Demetrius.

A time of controversy and imprisonment

The educated monk Varlaam, who came from an Orthodox Greek family, prompted Gregory to enter into a controversy that lasted six years. Varlaam directed his own writings against certain theologians and authoritatively emphasized that the Lord is incomprehensible, and judgments about Him cannot be proven. Gregory, in turn, criticized Varlaam’s outright “agnosticism” and his endless trust in the teachings of pagan philosophy.

• In 1337, Palamas refuted the attacks against the literature of the hesychast fathers (those who taught “mental prayer, vision”). The contradictions escalated after a personal meeting between Gregory and Varlaam. Four years later, the latter, who accused the hesychasts of an unconventional method of oral ministry, was condemned at the Council of Constantinople. Varlaam had to ask for forgiveness, after which he left for Italy and converted to Catholicism.
• Gregory was opposed by other opponents who criticized the teachings of the hesychasts about grace, the energies of the Lord and the uncreated light. Unexpectedly, Palamas entered into political controversy, which led to his frequent imprisonment.
• In 1341, the saint retired to the monastery of St. Michael, and a year later he withstood accusations at two church councils. From Byzantine Iraklia, Gregory was sent under escort to the capital and imprisoned. In 1344, the Monk Palamas was unjustly excommunicated from Orthodoxy, and his opponent in theological disputes, Akindinus, received the rank of clergyman. However, after a change in the political situation, Gregory was acquitted.
• After the Patriarchal throne was received by the Monk Isidore, Gregory was elected the Thessalonian hierarch. Once again a controversy arose, but this time with the monk Nicephorus. Political unrest began in Thessalonica, which was resolved after the city was captured by those who favored the hesychasts. While in the city, Palamas helped pacify the population.
• However, Gregory's religious opponents did not stop in their criticism. Fortunately, at the next council, held in Constantinople, the name of Palamas was justified, calling him “the defender of piety.” The Fathers of the Church officially accepted Gregory's teaching on the unity of God, and included 6 dogmas in the Synodik of Orthodox Christianity.

On a note! While at the monastery of St. Athanasius, Gregory demonstrated to the brethren a great example of spiritual perfection and life in piety. Palamas showed the world the gift of miracles that the Almighty God awarded him. The brethren said that the saint cast out demons, restored fertility, and also prophesied about future events. During his life he endured a lot, as he was a true follower of Christ the Savior.

Priestly ministry

Remaining in place, Gregory, to the joy of the brethren, was awarded the elevation to the rank of priest.

Around 1326 he retired to a mountain located near Verria. There he lived the life of an ascetic, engaged in prayer, devoted himself to labor, vigil and fasting; on Saturdays and Sundays he went out to the local hermits.

The death of his mother prompted Gregory to break his solitude. In 1331 he left for Constantinople. Arriving in the capital, meeting with the sisters - nuns - he had a serious conversation with them, and then, to everyone’s joy, he took them with him to Verria. After some time, the eldest of the sisters, Epicharida, died.

It is likely that even before leaving for the Byzantine capital, Father Gregory met Akindinus, a grammar teacher. There is reason to believe that for some time Father Gregory was his mentor, and that it was he who encouraged him to make a choice in favor of monasticism.

In 1331, Gregory Palamas returned to the Holy Mountain and settled in the desert of St. Sava. During this period he was engaged in writing.

There is evidence that for some time Father Gregory served as abbot at the monastery of Esphigmen.

Controversy over Divine Light

In the second half of the 30s of the 14th century, the Orthodox Church was faced with yet another false teaching. Its authorship belonged to Barlaam of Calabria. The immediate reason that pushed him to form the heresy were conversations with the Thessalonian hesychast monks, who testified that during deep concentrated prayer it is possible to contemplate the Divine light.

Varlaam, who had never experienced anything like this (which was quite consistent with the level of his spiritual age), treated these testimonies with distrust and even ridicule. He accused the monks of the heresy of Messalianism, not realizing that he had encroached on the most valuable thing in their ascetic experience: the experience of meetings and communication with God (supporters of Messalianism also contemplated visions, but not of a Divine, but of a demonic nature).

Not limiting himself to criticizing the monks, Varlaam began to criticize some patristic writings. The heated disputes reached the Patriarch, and he, in order to avoid disturbing church order, ordered Varlaam not to bother the monks with his “denunciations.”

In 1337, Gregory Palamas, who arrived in Thessalonica, tried in personal communication to reason with Varlaam and encourage him to renounce blasphemy. But Varlaam did not even think of refusing. On the contrary, he began to express his thoughts in written treatises, wanting to dedicate as many people as possible to them.

The result of the development of this false teaching was the denial of the indisputable fact that in God there are different essences and energies. Since the Divine essence is invisible, and no creature can unite with God in essence, according to the heretics, it turned out that God cannot be contemplated either in the light or in any other way, and that union with Him is impossible in principle. And this despite the fact that union with God in the Kingdom of Heaven is the main subject of Christian hope.

Not wanting to put up with this state of affairs, Father Gregory wrote a number of response essays against the teachings of Varlaam. In these works he proved the rightness of the contemplatives of the Divine Light and exposed the heretic.

In 1341, a Council was held on this occasion in Constantinople. Gregory Palamas, who was present at the Council, revealed and substantiated his point of view. His teaching was recognized as correct, and the teaching of Barlaam was condemned (although he himself was not anathematized).

Soon another Council meeting was held in Constantinople, at which Gregory Akindinus was present. At first, he participated in the heated disputes as a conciliator, but then took Varlaam’s side. At the Council he was present as an accused. Despite his resistance and allegations of violence against conscience, he was convicted.

After these events, Father Gregory remained in the capital for some time. This was due to the difficulties that arose in the sphere of public administration after the death of Andronikos III. In addition to dignitaries, representatives of the highest clergy were drawn into this situation, including Patriarch John Kaleka.

Participation in what was happening did not correspond to the monastic aspirations of Gregory Palamas. At the end of the year, he distanced himself from these political events and retired to the monastery of St. Michael of Sosthenes.

The Patriarch, annoyed by Gregory’s reluctance to support his political ambitions, began to act against the “offender.” As if in revenge, he changed his attitude towards Akindinos and gave him the opportunity to spread the teaching condemned at the Council.

In 1342, John the Cripple convened a Synod against Saint Gregory. This meeting did not have serious consequences, however, the clouds were gathering. A few months later, Gregory Palamas was taken to Constantinople, where he was taken into custody in a monastery. The imprisonment did not last long, and soon the sufferer was transferred to another monastery.

Some time later, Gregory left the monastery. Arriving at the Church of Hagia Sophia, he used it as a more or less safe refuge, remaining there, along with his disciples, for two months. Then the Patriarch nevertheless forced Gregory to leave the temple, after which he was imprisoned in the palace dungeon.

In 1344, the Synod convened by the Patriarch decided to excommunicate Saint Gregory from the Church. This definition was confirmed by the heads of the Jerusalem and Antioch Local Churches.

In the same year, despite the condemnation of Akindinos (in 1341), the Patriarch, to the surprise of many, ordained him to the rank of deacon, and then elevated him to the priesthood. Inspired by high support and belonging to a hierarchical rank, Akindinus began to oppose Gregory Palamas in the fight against heresy with even greater bitterness.

Soon the Patriarch fell under the disgrace of the imperial court, and he was reminded of the consecration of the heretic. In 1347, a Council was held that deposed him from the patriarchal throne. The Council dropped the charges against Gregory Palamas and condemned his ideological opponents. Soon the decision to condemn Akindinus was supported by the authority of the imperial power.

Elected to the patriarchal see, Isidore ordained several bishops from among the supporters of Gregory Palamas, and he himself was elevated to the metropolitan see in Thessalonica.

Another thousand years will pass - the teaching of St. Gregory will not lose its relevance

— The saint’s teaching about the Light of Tabor—about uncreated Divine energies. The saint argued that the Orthodox faith does not give knowledge about God, but leads to deification. This is the real task of true religion. It is the most important in Orthodoxy; it is important to “introduce” it into the lives of Orthodox Christians, despite the fact that it is clogged with knowledge. We need to shout about deification, and not remember it once a year...

— As for the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas, it should be noted that it is not the fruit of personal fabrications, no matter what the saint’s opponents say. The essence of the teachings of Gregory Palamas has a deep soteriological meaning. And this approach - an explanation of the principles and dogmas of our faith, based on soteriological principles - has always been characteristic of the holy fathers of our Church. They defended a principle of faith not only because that principle was logically well founded or could be proven by the Holy Scriptures.

There are soteriological implications of religious statements. From the statements of Saint Gregory’s opponents it followed that there was no real communion with God. There is a decoding of the Revelations that are given to us through Scripture, there is an improvement of the mind and knowledge, as Barlaam of Calabria believed, but this is not real deep communication with God. This is not the kind of communication that is expressed in the idea known as “deification.”

Saint Gregory Palamas insisted that the Orthodox faith is a faith leading to the possibility of deification. Not just to increase knowledge about God, but to deification. Therefore, Orthodoxy is sometimes called the religion of transfiguration.

St. Gregory's discussions about the Light of Tabor are directly related to our faith. And they are relevant not only for the times of the saint, but also for our time.

The Memorial Day of St. Gregory Palamas in the Orthodox Church is usually celebrated in the second week of Great Lent. And this is no coincidence. During the first week of Great Lent we strictly fast. And we do not fast to cleanse the body or to prove that we can limit ourselves. We fast for the sake of our faith. That is why the first week ends with the Triumph of Orthodoxy, the Triumph of our faith. In the second week, we remember that we fast not only for the sake of faith and its affirmation: our deeds - fasting, abstinence, prayer - are performed for the sake of one thing, for the sake of deification, for the sake of the state into which we must gradually enter through God-likeness.

The teaching of Gregory Palamas, in essence, is precisely that Orthodoxy is a faith that gives us the opportunity to actually (and not in some allegorical or figurative sense) become involved in His Divine energies, to be deified.

Another thousand years will pass - the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas will not lose its relevance. This is truly a universal teaching because it goes to the core of our faith.

Saintly activity

Saint Gregory arrived in Thessalonica only a few years later, after the suppression of the rebellious unrest that flared up there and the restoration of proper administrative order.

Meanwhile, in the highest circles of the clergy, dissatisfaction was brewing with the installation of Isidore to the Patriarchal See and the rehabilitation of Gregory Palamas. Accusations began to fall on the saint again.

As a precaution, the opposition distanced itself from Akindina, but did not abandon his false ideas. Controversy broke out again. This time, the role of the leading polemicist on the part of the opponents of Gregory Palamas went to Nikifor Grigora. He composed a rather harsh essay against the saint, but the saint skillfully exposed his arguments.

In 1351, another Council was convened, confirming the orthodoxy of Gregory Palamas. The result of the work of the Council was the final approval of the dogmatic teaching about the difference in God's essence and energies, about the uncreated origin of the Divine light; signed by Patriarch Callistos of Constantinople and (then metropolitans) Gregory Palamas and Philotheus Kokkin “Conciliar Tomos against like-minded people Varlaam and Akindinus.” The “Synodik of the Triumph of Orthodoxy” was also replenished.

In the autumn of the same year, Gregory Palamas reached his department, but did not rule it for long. Contributing to the settlement of the internal political struggle that had broken out, he left for Constantinople. Along the way, he and those accompanying him were captured by the Turks. He remained in captivity for several months (according to some sources, about a year) until he was released for a ransom.

In the period from 1355 to 1357, Saint Gregory was engaged in affairs in the diocese entrusted to him. It is reported that through his prayers God performed healings.

The blessed death of the saint occurred on November 14, 1357 (according to other sources, 1359), when he was 63 years old. His glorification took place in 1368, less than ten years after his death.

Relics and veneration

Saint Gregory was canonized soon after his death, for during his lifetime he was granted revelations and had the gift of healing. His body was buried in the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in Thessaloniki, where miracles began to occur from his relics, and in the monastery of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos and in Kastoria, his local veneration as a saint began. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Saint Callistus I, requested from the Thessalonians an exact statement of information about these miracles, on the basis of which Callistus’s successor at the See of Constantinople, Saint Philotheus Kokkin, compiled a Eulogy and service in honor of the newly-minted saint [4]. The glorification took place in 1368, when the synodal act established its celebration on the day of his death - November 14.

A retelling of the Life of St. Gregory in modern Greek, made by the Monk Athanasius of Paros, was published in Vienna in 1784 and was included in the collection “Neon Eclogion”, compiled by the Monk Nicodemus the Holy Mountain (Venice, 1803).
This Life spoke of new miracles of the saint and described the miraculous drowning of the Catholics who anathematized Gregory Palamas on the island of Santorini (Thira) in 1660, witnessed by the Patriarchs of Jerusalem Nektarios and Dositheos II. After the St. Sophia Cathedral in Thessaloniki was converted by Muslims into a mosque in 1523, the relics of Gregory Palamas were transferred first to the Vlatad Monastery and then to the Metropolitan Cathedral of the city, where they remained until the fire of 1890. Having remained unharmed in the fire, the holy relics were placed in the new cathedral, consecrated in the name of St. Gregory in 1914. Nowadays, particles of the relics are also kept in the Thessalonian Monastery of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Panorama area; in the Athonite monasteries of Esphigmen, Xenophon, Dionysiatus, Panteleimon and the New Thebaid monastery belonging to it; and also in the Lavra of Savva the Sanctified [5]. In 1628, 1631, 1632 and 1642, particles of the saint’s relics were brought from Northern Greece to Moscow as a gift to the Russian sovereigns [6]; Now in Russia, a particle of his relics is kept in the Meshchovsky St. George Monastery [7].

In the iconographic tradition, he is depicted in liturgical vestments (chassis, epitrachelion, belt, armbands, club, phelonion [simple or baptized] or sakosa, omophorion) and boots with a blessing right hand and the Gospel in his left hand [8]. Greek type, grey-haired, curly hair, large, wide beard; pleasant face with tearful eyes; meek, very smart [9].

Creative heritage

Saint Gregory left an extensive legacy for the edification of believers. He is rightly considered a theologian of the uncreated light. Meanwhile, the palette of his works is much more extensive. Traditionally they are divided into the following groups.

Dogmatic-polemical: Svyatogorsk tomos in defense of the sacredly silent, Treatise [On the fact that] Varlaam and Akindinus truly impiously and godlessly divide the one Divinity into two unequal deities, Triads in defense of the sacredly silent, On Divine energies and their communion, On Divine union and division, Confession of the Orthodox Faith, Interview of the Orthodox with the Barlaamites, Antirrhetics against Akindinus, One hundred and fifty chapters devoted to questions of natural science, theology and morality, Interview of the Orthodox Theophan with Theotimos, who returned from the Barlaamites, On the Divine and deifying Communion, or on Divine and supernatural simplicity, Dispute with Chions, Omilia, etc.

Moral and ascetic: Explanation of the Ten Commandments, About the fact that all Christians in general should pray unceasingly, To Xenia about the passions and virtues, Decalogue on the Christian Law, Word on the Life of St. Peter of Athos, Reply to Pavel Asen, etc.

Letters: Letter to his Church, Letter to Akindinus, sent from Thessalonica before the conciliar condemnation of Varlaam and Akindinus, etc.

Prayers: Prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos.

GREGORY PALAMA

St. Gregory Palamas. Painting of the Catholicon of St. Nicholas (parekklision of St. John the Baptist) of the Stavronikita monastery on Athos. Ser. XVI century

St. Gregory Palamas. Painting of the Catholicon of St. Nicholas (parekklision of St. John the Baptist) of the Stavronikita monastery on Athos. Ser. XVI century

Due to the fact that from 1334/35 until his death G.P. conducted polemics alternately with Varlaam, Akindinus and Gregoras, most of his works consist of texts of a theological and polemical nature, including letters addressed to his opponents.

1. 2 words “Against the Latins” (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 1. Σ. 23-77, 78-153; 1st ed.: Μεταξᾶς); full headings: “The first word is apodictic. That the Holy Spirit also does not proceed from the Son, but from the Father alone" ; “The second word. About the procession of the Holy Spirit, which does not [come] also from the Son, and in response to [quotations] from Scripture that the Latins offer in their defense" ἁγίου πνεύματος, ὅτι οὐχὶ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ, καὶ ?? εν προτεινόμενα); 2nd half 1335 (another dating, according to A. Firigos (Fyrigos. 1998. R. 228-229), - 1334). For the 2 editions of this work, see section. “Translations of G. P.’s works into the Slavic language before the 18th century”). It is precisely the publication of the 2nd edition that Philotheus Kokkin testifies to, noting the publication after 1355 (when G.P. returned from captivity) of 2 antilats. treatises by G.P. (Philotheus. Encomium // PG. 151. Col. 627).

2. “Against John Becca” (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 1. Σ. 161-175; 1st ed.: Arcudius. 1630. P. 4-64 [= PG. 161. Col. 243-288]); full title: “Inscriptions to replace those that Veccus, in defense of the Latins, attached to the quotations he collected from the [patristic] writings; [the new inscriptions] show that the inscriptions of Veccus are impious and contrary to the sayings of the saints he collected" ????? ικνῦσαι δυσσεβῶς ἐχούσας τοιαύτας ἐπιγραφὰς καὶ ἀντιθέτους οὔ σας ταῖς συνειλεγμέναις τῶν ἁγίων ῥήσεσιν) ; G.P. refutes the work of Patriarch John XI Veccus (PLP, N 2548), which is a collection of patristic quotations compiled by the patriarch and accompanied by his “inscriptions” (ἐπιγραφαί), explaining that these quotations agree with the lat. teaching about the Filioque, in place of these “inscriptions” Vecca the saint offers his “anti-inscriptions” (ἀντεπιγραφαί). Dating the treatise is difficult. According to the assumption of the protopr. I. Meyendorff, it could have been written after the words “Against the Latins”, i.e. approx. 1334/35. But a later date is more likely - ca. 1355 (Sinkewicz. 2002. R. 138; 163-164).

3. “Triads in defense of the sacredly silent” (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 1. Σ. 359-694; 1st ed.: Grégoire Palamas. Défense des saints hésychastes / Introd., texte crit., trad. et notes: J. Meyendorff Louvain, 1959, 19732. P. 1-223, 225-555, 557-727); 3 series of 3 treatises each; written in 1338-1340, during the 2nd stage of the polemic with Varlaam. One of the most significant works of G.P.

Full titles of the treatises of the 1st “Triad”: “The word in defense of the sacredly silent is the first of the first. For what purpose and to what extent is it useful to engage in [pagan] sciences? “The word in defense of the sacredly silent is the second of the first. What is not useless for those who have chosen to listen to themselves in silence, try to keep their mind inside the body ”( χειν αυτοῖς οὐκ ἀσυντελὲς ἔνδον τοῦ σώματος πειρᾶαι κατέχειν τὸν οἰκεῖον νοῦν; 1 -th ed.: Θιλοκαλία. Σ. 955-961 [= PG. 150. Col. 1101-1118]) and “A Word in Defense of the Sacredly Silent, the third of the first. About light and divine enlightenment, sacred bliss and perfection in Christ" ?? ς ἐν Χριστῷ τελειότητος).

The treatises were written in the spring of 1338 in Thessalonica, where G.P. arrived at the end. 1337 in order to protect the hesychast monks from the attacks of Varlaam. At this time, the saint was not directly familiar with the anti-hesychast writings of his opponent, since they were not then in public circulation, so Barlaam is not mentioned by name. The treatises are written in the form of questions and answers. The 1st is dedicated to pagan philosophy and the dangers it brings. 2nd - the method of prayer of the hesychasts and its protection. In the 3rd, the issue of knowledge of God is considered: G.P. shows that true knowledge of God is carried out through divine grace, received through “mental feeling” (νοερὰ αἴσθησις). The saint notes the uncreated nature of divine grace, but does not touch upon the question of the difference between the essence and energy of God.

Treatises of the 2nd “Triad” - “A word in defense of the sacredly silent, the first of the following. Presentation and refutation of the works of the philosopher Varlaam against the sacredly silent. What is the truly saving knowledge that true monks strive for, or against those who say that knowledge from external education is truly saving? ὁ πρῶτος̇ διήγησις καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ φιλοσόφου Βαρλαὰμ συ γγραφέντων κατὰ τῶν ἱερῶς ἡσυχαζόντων̇ ἡ ὄντως σωτήριος γνῶσις καὶ τοῖς ὄντως μοναχοῖς περισπούδαστ ? ιον), “The word in defense of the sacredly silent is the second of the following. About prayer" ρὶ προσευχῆς) and “The word in defense of the sacredly silent is the third of the following. About the sacred light" ὶ φωτὸς ἱεροῦ); written in the spring/summer of 1339, after the publication of the works of Varlaam (1338), and represent a public refutation of his views. Thematically, they are arranged in the same order as the treatises of the 1st “Triad”: a refutation of pagan philosophy (1st), an exposition of the essence of the hesychast prayer (2nd) and a discussion of the question of true knowledge of God (3rd).

Treatises of the 3rd “Triad” - “Exposure of the absurdities arising from the second series of works of the philosopher Varlaam, or about deification. The first word against the second [series of treatises of Barlaam]" οσόφου Βαρλαὰμ συγγραμμάτων, ἤ περὶ θεώσεως. δευτέρων), “List of absurdities arising from the premises of the philosopher Varlaam. The second word against the second [series of treatises of Barlaam]" λαὰμ προτάσεων) and “List of absurdities arising from the conclusions of the philosopher Varlaam. The third word against the second [series of treatises of Barlaam]" ρλαὰμ συμπερασμάτων. Κατὰ τῶν δευτέρων ὁ τρίτος); written in the spring/summer of 1340 as a refutation of a collection of edited treatises against the hesychasts published by Varlaam in the winter of 1339/40 under the title “Against the Messalians” (Κατὰ μασσαλιανῶν). The 1st treatise contains a systematic presentation of Orthodoxy. teachings about deification and the Light of Tabor as the uncreated energy of God. In the 2nd G.P. for the first time outlined his understanding of the difference between the essence and energies of God. In connection with the accusations of Messalianism brought forward by Barlaam against the Hesychasts, the treatise also talks about the difference between the Messalians, or Bogomils, and the Orthodox in their understanding of participation in the Divine: if the Messalians, led by Blachernites, spoke about the possibility of contemplation and communion with the divine essence, then , according to G.P., only participation in the energies, or free and personal actions of God, is possible. The 3rd treatise speaks of the heretical essence of the teachings of Varlaam with reference to the Svyatogorsk tomos, already published by that time, and provides new arguments in favor of the doctrine of the necessary difference between the essence and energies of God.

4. Svyatogorsk Tomos in defense of the priests (γπς. Τ. 2. σ. 567-578; 1st ed.: Δοσίθεος. Σ. 34-39; etc.. 150. Col. 1225-1236]; Porfiry (Uspensky), bishop, History of Athos. St. Petersburg, 1892. Part 3. T. 2. pp. 683-688 - Greek text given in PG); full title: “Svyatogorsk Tomos in defense of the sacredly silent. Regarding those who, due to lack of experience and faith in the saints, reject the indescribable mysterious energies of the Spirit, which act in those who live according to the Spirit better than reasoning, and reveal themselves actively, and are not proven through reasoning" ρῶς ἡσυχαζόντων διὰ τοὺς ἐξ ἰδίας ἀπειρίας καὶ τῆς πρὸς ἁγίους ἀπειθείας ἀθετο ῦντας τὰς τοῦ πνεύματος μυστικὰς ἐνεργείας κρεῖττον ἢ λόγος ἐν το ῖς κατὰ πνεῦμα ζῶσιν ἐνεργουμένας καὶ δι᾿ ἔργων φανερουμένας ἀλλ᾿ οὐ διὰ λόγων ἀποδεικνυμένας). The tomos was compiled by G.P. in the spring/summer of 1340 and signed by the most authoritative Athonite monks, led by Archpriest Isaac, as well as Jacob, bishop. Jerissa and the Holy Mountains (PLP, N 92063). In the tomos, without mentioning the name of Varlaam, all the main provisions of his teaching are condemned: about the uncreatedness of only the essence, but not the energies of God; about imitation (μίμησις) as the only path to deification; about the messalianism of those who call divine grace uncreated, ungenerated and hypostatic (ἐνυπόστατον); about the Tabor light as a transitory phenomenon and sign (φάσμα καὶ σύμβολον); denial of the participation of the body along with the soul in the grace given by God to the mysteriously and ineffably purified mind.

5. “On divine unity and distinction” (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 2. Σ. 69-95); full title: “In how many senses [can we speak of] divine unity and distinction, and that we have been taught that not only concerning the hypostases there is distinction in God, but also according to general appearances and energies, and that we have inherited [the tradition of] thinking of Him as uncreated both according to unity and according to differentiation, even if Barlaam and Akindinus do not like it" ὰ τὰς ὑποστάσεις μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ τὰς κοινὰς προόδους καὶ ἐνε ργείας διάκρισιν ἐδιδάχθημεν ἐπὶ θεοῦ, καὶ ὅτι καθ ᾿ κατέραν ἕνωσίν τε καὶ διάκρισιν ἄκτιστον φρονεῖν παρελάβομεν αὐτ όν, κἂν Βαρλαὰμ καὶ ᾿Ακίνδυνος ἀπαρέσκωνται); the treatise was written in the summer of 1341. According to the publishers, this and 2 subsequent treatises constituted the “Apology against Barlaam and Akindinus” - one of the first works, along with the “Dialogue of the Orthodox with the Barlaamite”, written by G.P. after the Council of 1341 (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 2. Σ. 45-46). The treatise “On Unity and Distinction” is devoted to the interpretation of op. “On the Divine Names” from the “Areopagitik” corpus, which served Varlaam and Akindinus as a source of theological grounds for accusing G.P. of bitheism.

6. “On Divine Energies” (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 2. Σ. 96-136); full title: “A more extensive apology to those who expect to prove the existence of two gods on the basis of what the saints call the idolizing gift of the Spirit, which God surpasses in essence, not only uncreated deification, but also Divinity, or On the divine energies and participation in them » ? ?? ?? εως) ; written in the autumn of 1341; G.P. refutes accusations of bitheism and through references to the works of St. Fathers proves the need to distinguish between essence and uncreated energies, because by essence God does not participate, but by grace (deifying energy) we participate. Akindinus, like Varlaam, defending the simplicity (ἁπλότης) of the inaccessible divine essence (without the necessary distinction between essence and energies in God), denied the possibility of real communion with God, accessible to saints.

7. “On divine and deifying participation, or On divine and supernatural simplicity” καὶ ὑπερφυοῦς ἁπλότητος - ΓΠΣ. Τ. 2. Σ. 137-163); the treatise was written in the winter of 1341/42; is a logical continuation of the previous one. At the beginning of the treatise, G.P. says that the saints are granted the uncreated deifying Spirit, acquire the divine action (energy) itself, and do not simply improve their nature through natural imitation. In the 2nd part of the treatise, the saint shows that the necessary distinction between essence and energies does not lead to the introduction of complexity into the Divinity, since energies are not other essences (like Hypostases) in relation to the single and simple divine nature, but natural manifestations (αἱ φυσικαὶ πρόοδοι) God.

8. “Dialogue of the Orthodox with the Barlaamite” (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 2. Σ. 164-218); full title: “Dialogue of the Orthodox with the Barlaamite, partly refuting the Barlaamite delusion” σκευάζουσα τὴν βαρλααμίτιδα πλάνην); written in the fall of 1341 (Nadal Cañellas. 1995. P. XXXII-XXXIII). By “Barlaamite” we mean Akindin, whose name is not mentioned in the dialogue. The purpose of the “Dialogue” is to show that the accusations against G.P. spread by Akindinos are identical to the accusations of Varlaam (the main of which was the accusation of bitheism) and, therefore, also fall within the definitions of the conciliar tomos of 1341. Based on a comparison of the existing text “Dialogue” by G.P. with quotes from it contained in Akindin’s refutations of this dialogue (Greg. Acind. Refut. duae), J. Nadal Cañellas proposes to distinguish between 2 editions of the “Dialogue”: the original and corrected as a result of controversy (Nadal Cañellas 1995. P. L-LVII).

9. “Theophanes” (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 2. Σ. 219-262; 1st ed.: Matthaei. T. 2. P. 7-37 [= PG. 150. Col. 909-960]); full title: “Dialogue of the same Orthodox, Theophan, with Theotimos, who converted from the Barlaamites. Theophanes, or About the Divinity and what can be participated in it and what cannot" πὸ βαρλααμιτῶν ἐπιστρέψαντα Θεότιμον. οῦ κατ᾿ αὐτὴν ἀμεθέκτου τε καὶ μεθεκτοῦ); written in the autumn of 1342; plot-wise, “Theophanes” continues the “Dialogue of the Orthodox with the Barlaamite”, as a result of which the Barlaamite Theotim converts to the Orthodox Church. faith. The traditional nature of the terminology used by G.P. in the doctrine of the divine essence and energies is proven. Perhaps the first time “Dialogue” was published under the pseudonym Feofan (Meyendorff. Introduction. P. 359; for a detailed analysis of “Dialogue” see: Candal. 1946).

10. Treatise “[On] the fact that Varlaam and Akindinus truly wickedly and godlessly divide the one [Deity] into two unequal deities” ?? ν - ΓΠΣ. Τ. 2. Σ. 263-277); written in 1342; G.P. shows that letters. interpretation by Barlaam and Akindinos of St. fathers, who argued that God’s essence surpasses His divine energies and powers, leads them to recognize the existence of a “created deity.” Consequently, the accusation of bitheism should be directed against them: “It is not Palamas who is of the opinion that there are two deities, but Barlaam” (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 2. Σ. 276).

11. “Antirritics against Akindinus” (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 3. Σ. 39-506); 7 treatises written in 1342 - no earlier than the spring of 1345 (for clarification of dating, see: Hero. 1982. P. 223; Eadem. 1983. P. XXVIII. Not. 106); the largest work by G.P. The titles of the treatises and chapters, reflecting their content, were copied from a 15th-century manuscript. (Paris. Coislin. 98) by B. Montfaucon and published from Lat. translation in the Patrology of J. Minh (PG. 150. Col. 809-828).

According to the publishers, this work refutes 7 treatises of Akindinus against G.P. (Monac. gr. 223. Fol. 16v - 26r, 65r - 363v). However, in Antirritika G.P. it is not possible to identify a single quotation from these treatises of Akindinus, so Christ put forward the hypothesis that G.P. had before him not the treatises themselves, but only brief retellings of them, prepared by his students, which contained the main provisions of the theology of Akindinus (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 3. Σ. 17-19). And V. Fanourgakis suggested that the works of Akindinus, with which G.P. polemicizes, are lost (Θανουργάκης. 1972. Σ. 285-302).

In turn, Nadal Cañellas (Nadal Cañellas. 1995. P. XXIX-XXXI) showed that only 4 treatises of Akindinus out of 7 in the Monac manuscript. gr. 223 are directed against the “Dialogue of the Orthodox with Barlaamite” (4, 5, 6 and 7th: Fol. 164r - 363v), and 1, 2 and 3rd are independent. These 4 treatises constitute the “Great Refutation,” which was published by Nadal along with the “Small Refutation” (Marc. gr. 155), written in the form of interlinear comments to the “Dialogue” and not completely preserved. G.P.’s antirritiki, according to Nadal, do not represent a single corpus, but the 1st is a continuation of the treatise “On Divine Unity and Distinction,” which immediately precedes it in the manuscripts and to which G.P. refers as to the “previous word” (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 3. Σ. 84). Nadal explains the absence of quotations from Akindina’s “Refutations” in the Antirritika by the fact that G.P. deliberately cited the quotations in a free presentation and interpretation: Christ’s assumption that he was not familiar with them cannot be accepted, because in in the letter “To John Le Havre” G.P. quotes verbatim passages from Akindinus’ “Great Refutation” (Nadal Cañellas. 1995. P. XXIX. Not. 3).

“The 1st antirritik against Akindinus, containing a list of heresies into which he and his followers, who claim that the essence and energy in God are completely one and indistinguishable, risked (play on words: ἐκινδύνευσεν and ᾿Ακίνδυνος. - M. B.) to fall " ? καὶ ἀδιάφορον παντάπασιν ἐπὶ θεοῦ λέγοντες οὐσίαν καὶ ἐνέργειαν). G.P. refutes the accusation of bigism brought against him by Akindinus; shows that the essentialism of his opponent brings him closer to the ancient heretics, already condemned by the Ecumenical Councils.

“The 2nd antirritik against the same Akindinus, a champion of the heresy of Barlaam, who, after the expulsion and conciliar condemnation of the latter, wrote in defense of his heresy” (Πρὸς τὸν αὐτὸν αἱρεσιώτην τῆς τοῦ Βαρλαὰμ ? ικὴν καταδίκην ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς συγγραψάμενον, λόγος ἀντιρρητικὸς δεύτερος). G.P. accuses Akindinus of Arianism, since he recognizes the created nature of grace. The works of Akindinus, refuted in this treatise, were presented to the saint by the monks of Thessalonica and Verria, who received them from the author (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 3. Σ. 88, 90).

“3rd anti-rhythic against the writings of Akindinus, [directed] against divine grace and those who were divinely overshadowed by it” ? ἀντιρρητικὸς τρίτος). G.P. through numerous references to St. Maximus the Confessor and other St. Fathers proves the perfect reality of the presence of the Divine in the Body of Christ and in His members - people who have been granted grace.

“4th antirritik against the writings of Akindinus, [directed] against the light of divine grace and those who were divinely blessed by it” ?? γος ἀντιρρητικὸς τέταρτος) . G.P. defends the possibility of contemplating the Divine. The last 2 chapters of the treatise consist of poetic homilies, the so-called. songs (ὕμνοι) about the divine Light.

“5th antirritik against the writings of Akindinus, [directed] against the light of divine grace and spiritual gifts” ?? τικὸς πέμπτος). Dedicated to proving the uncreatedness of divine grace.

"6th antirritik against the writings of Akindinus, [directed] against the divine Light and divine energies common to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" υ φωτὸς καὶ τῶν θείων κοινῶν ἐνεργειῶν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ ? κτος). The beginning of the treatise is devoted to proving that Akindinus opposes the Council of 1341, in support of which his letter “To George Lapith” is quoted, followed by a discussion of the terms “essence”, “hypostasis” and “energy”.

“The 7th antirritik against the writings of Akindinus, [directed] against the light of grace and those who were enlightened by it at different times” ? μμένα, λόγος ἀντιρρητικὸς ἕβδομος). Along with criticism of pagan philosophy, accompanied by quotes from G.P.’s first letters to Varlaam, it contains historical digressions about Akindinus and Irina Humnen and the expulsion of Akindinus from Athos.

12. “Exposition of the extraordinary multitude of evils of Barlaam and Akindinus” ἀλλοκότου πληθύος - ΓΠΣ. Τ. 2. Σ. 579-586; 1st ed.: Δοσίθεος. Σ. 13-17) ; written ok. 1344; contains a list of 40 heresies of Varlaam and Akindinus and a summary of the main polemical arguments of G.P.; a similar list, but consisting of 50 heresies, is contained in the 1st Antirritika against Akindinus (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 3. Σ. 25-26).

13. “Refutation of the patriarchal letter” (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 2. Σ. 587-623); full title: “[That] the patriarchal letter against him [Palama] is a complete lie and contradicts the Svyatogorsk and conciliar tomos and, therefore, [is directed] against all the pious and their emperor and piety itself, but in fact more against that who dared to write this" ?? ὸ καὶ κατὰ τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἐστι πάντων καὶ τοῦ τῶν εὐσεβῶν βασιλέως κα ὶ τῆς εὐσεβείας αὐτῆς, κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ δὲ μᾶλλον ὡς ἀληθῶς τοῦ τοῦτο γράψαι τετολμηκότος); written in the beginning 1345 Directed against the “District Charter” of Patriarch John Kalek (beginning 1345), which justified the excommunication of G. P. and the ordination of Akindinus (RegPatr, N 2252; PG. 150. Col. 891-894).

This work is one of the most important sources on the history of hesychast disputes. G.P. regrets that the K-Polish Patriarch, “the guardian and teacher of truth and wisdom,” became a heretic and, despite the fact that the majority (the Athosians who signed the Svyatogorsk tomos, the Thessalonica monks who compiled another tomos addressed to Kaleka, a larger part of the population of K-field, Emperor Anna of Savoy, who did not recognize the ordination of Akindinus) was on the side of G.P., unreasonably hoped to deceive the rest. The saint compares the patriarch's letter with the conciliar tomos of 1341 and shows that the patriarch's assertion that the council of 1341 settled the dispute only disciplinaryly, prohibiting the raising of dogmatic questions, but avoiding their resolution, has no basis: after all, the patriarch himself signed the tomos and he himself ordered the burning of Varlaam’s writings. According to G.P., the letter was also directed against the emperor, since, when ordaining Akindinus, the patriarch did not take into account the opinion of the emperor. Anna.

14. “Refutation of the message of Ignatius of Antioch” (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 2. Σ. 625-647). Full title: “[That] the letter of Antioch [Ignatius] against Palamas is a complete lie and contradicts in everything the Svyatogorsk tomos and the conciliar tomos and, therefore, [is directed] against all the pious and their emperor and piety itself, but in fact more against the one who was inspired by the lies of the Barlaamites to write this" ? ἀντίθετον, διὸ καὶ κατὰ τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἐστι πάντων καὶ τοῦ τῶν ε ὐσεβῶν βασιλέως καὶ τῆς εὐσεβείας αὐτῆς, κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ δὲ μᾶλλον ὡς ἀληθῶς τοῦ γράψα ι τοῦτο παρὰ τῶν Βαρλααμιτῶν ἐξηπατημένου).

15. Refutation of the presentation of the tomos by Kaleka (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 2. Σ. 649-670). Full title: “[About] that what the patriarch [Kaleka] falsely calls an interpretation of the tomos and what he wrote in agreement with the Barlaamites is a clear distortion and refutation of the tomos” (῞Οτι παρεξήγησίς ἐστι καὶ ἀνασκευ ὴ τοῦ τόμου σαφής, ἣν ὁ ?? πρὸς ἀπάτην καλεῖ); written in the beginning 1346

16. “Confession of Faith” (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 2. Σ. 494-499; 1st ed.: Combefis. T. 2. P. 172-176 [= PG. 151. Col. 763-768; Καρμίρης. Τ. 1. Σ. 343-346]; other edition: Δοσίθεος. Σ. 85-88); full title: “The Confession of Gregory Palamas, Metropolitan of Thessalonica, read before the divine and sacred Council for all to hear and confirmed and approved by all as the most pious in everything” (῾Ομολογία τοῦ μητροπολίτου Θεσσαλ ονίκης Γρηγορίου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ ἐπὶ τῆς θείας καὶ ἱερᾶς συνόδου εἰς ε ὐήκοον πάντων ἀναγνωσθεῖσα καὶ ὑπὸ πάντων ὡς διὰ πάντων εὐσεβεστάτη στερχθεῖσά τε καὶ σεφθεῖσα); was originally part of a letter from G.P. to Dionysius dated 1343-1344, written while in custody in the palace prison. The title “Confession” was given later, after its solemn reading at the 2nd meeting of the Council in 1351. G.P. considered this work to be the most adequate expression of his teaching, including from the viewpoint. formulations: in polemical treatises he was less concerned about terminological accuracy, which served as one of the reasons for the accusations of G.P. and his supporters by Nicephorus Gregoras at the Council (see: Meyendorff. Introduction. P. 143-144, 366).

17. “A word explaining the opinion of Varlaam and Akindinus” (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 4. Σ. 85-100); full title: “A word briefly explaining the opinion of Barlaam and Akindinus, as well as those who oppose them on the side of piety. This refutation is directed against the treatise of Akindinus, in which he tries, among other things, to ridicule the theological troparion of Isidore, the most holy patriarch. ὶ ᾿Ακινδύνου δόξαν καὶ τῶν ὑπὲρ εὐσεβείας ἀντιλεγόντων αὐτοῖς̇ ἔσ τι δὲ οὗτος ἀντιρρητικὸς πρὸς ᾿Ακινδύνου λόγον ἐν ᾧ διασύρειν ἐπιχειρεῖ καὶ θεολογικὸν τροπάριον ᾿Ισιδώρου τοῦ παναγιωτάτου πα τριάρχου); written in the beginning 1348; G.P. refutes Akindinus’s treatise “Apology”, in which he, distorting the meaning of one of the saint’s letters, attributes to him the confession of two Deities: the lower and the higher; G.P. also defends the text of the troparion of the Most Holy. Trinity, compiled and included in the divine service by Patriarch Isidore and which became the subject of the patriarch’s polemics with Nicephorus Grigora (Niceph. Greg. Hist. 16. 5; Meyendorff. Introduction. P. 140).

18. “Excerpt from the “Treasury” of St. Cyril" (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 4. Σ. 101-107; other edition, independent from ΓΠΣ, taking into account the text of “150 chapters”: Sinkewicz. 1988. P. 263-269); full title: “Excerpt from the “Treasury” of St. Kirill [PG. 75. Col. 244], which turned out to be distorted here, since it was proposed by the supporters of Akindinus in order to prove that there is no difference between divine energy and essence: “If the Father, as is said, has life in Himself, then He is something different from the life that in Him, as if a certain duality and addition could be thought in relation to Him. How then can God be simple and uncomplicated in essence? But this is ridiculous. Therefore, the life that the Father has in Himself is nothing other than the Son. In turn, life in the Son is nothing other than the Father, and He speaks the truth who said: I am in the Father, and the Father in Me [John 14:10].” The answer of the wisest and most holy and most venerable bishop of Thessalonica, Mr. Gregory Palamas, to the one who received this excerpt from the supporters of Akindinus and sent it to him. λλου̇ κεῖται δὲ παρακεχαραγμένη, καθάπερ αὐτὴν οἱ ᾿Ακινδυνιανοὶ προή νεγκαν, κατασκευάζοντες ἐκ ταύτης μηδὲν διαφέρειν τῆς θείας οὐσίας τὴν θείαν ἐνέργειαν̇ “Εἰ ἔχειν ἐν αυτῷ ζωὴν λέγεται ὁ πατήρ, ἕτερόν τί ἐστιν αὐτὸς παρὰ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ζ ωήν, διπλόη τις ὥσπερ καὶ σύνθεσις περὶ αὐτὸν νοηθήσεται. πλοῦς καὶ ἀσύνθετος κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ὁ θεός; ᾿Αλλὰ τοῦτο ἄτοπον. Ζωὴ ἄρα ἣν ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ἐν ἐαυτῷ οὐχ τέρα τίς ἐστι ? ?? μοί.” ? κης κυροῦ Γρηγορίου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ, πρὸς τὸν παρὰ τκινδυνιανῶν λαβ ​​όντα τὴν ῥῆσιν ταύτην καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀποστείλαντα); OK. 1348

19. “On an excerpt from Basil the Great” (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 4. Σ. 382-389). Full title: “Message to the one who asked about the excerpt from Basil the Great, which is in the cathedral tomos and which, according to Grigora’s slander, is forged” (᾿Επιστολὴ πρὸς τὸν ἐρωτήσαντα περὶ τ ῆς ἐγκειμένης ἐν τῷ Συνοδικῷ Τόμῳ τοῦ μεγάλου Βασιλείου ῥήσεως κα ὶ παρὰ τοῦ Γρηγορᾶ συκοφαντουμένης ὡς μὴ γνησίας); 1356/57 Tomos of 1351 contained a quotation from the treatise of St. Basil the Great “Against Eunomius”: “Who gave birth to drops of dew (cf. Job 38.28) did not equally give existence to drops and to the Son” τε βώλους καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ὑπεστήσατο - Adv. Eunom. II 23) . Nikephoros Gregoras, convicted in 1351, denied the accuracy of this quotation (Niceph. Greg. Antirrh. 2. 7 // Florence. Laur. Plut. LVI 4. Fol. 129-130; see: ΓΠΣ. T. 4. Σ 383), arguing that one should read not ὑπεστήσατο (gave into existence), but ἐτεκνώσατο (gave birth). For anti-Palamites, places in the writings of St. fathers, where God is called ὑποστάτης the grace of deification, were one of the proofs of the creatureliness of this grace. G.P., having examined the manuscripts of the treatise of St. stored in Thessalonica. Vasily and finding that they contain both reading options, came to the conclusion that they are identical in meaning (ΓΠΣ. Τ. 4. Σ. 384-385).

20. “150 chapters devoted to questions of natural science, theology, moral and ascetic, intended for cleansing from the Barlaamite destruction” (κεφάλαια κατὸν πεντήκοντα φυσικὰ καὶ θεολο ? No. 5. No. 37 -119; 1st ed.: Θιλοκαλία. Σ. 964-1009 [= PG. 150. Col. 1117-1226]; other ed.: Porfiry (Uspensky), Part 3. T. 2. S. 797-806 (excerpts); St. Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters / Ed., transl. and study by R. Sinkewicz (Toronto, 1988).

The treatise was written in 1349/50 (the dating of Sinkewicz, which also adheres to Christ - Sinkewicz. 1988. P. 49-55; ΓΠΣ. Τ. 5. Σ. 29-30), in the period after the Council of 1347 and before the start of the controversy with Nikifor Grigora. Starting from Evagrius of Pontus, in the genre of chapters, as a rule, works of moral and ascetic content were written, but G.P.’s “150 chapters” is a dogmatic work, the sum of his philosophical, theological and ascetic doctrine (Jugie. T. 2. P. 76 ).

The treatise is divided into 2 parts (Sinkewicz. 1988. P. 1-49). The 1st examines the question of the nature of human knowledge and its application to natural and spiritual areas (chapters 1-34), followed by a discussion of the image of God in man (chapters 34-40). At the end of the 1st part (chapters 41-63) G.P. dwells on the question of the consequences of the Fall and the need for salvation; in the 2nd part (chapters 64-150) the saint proceeds to a review of the main issues of controversy and a refutation of the Barlaamite heresy, where he briefly outlines the Orthodox Church. teaching about God.

The editions of “150 chapters” by Sinkevich and Christ do not take into account the letters in this work. borrowings from the treatise of the blessed one. Augustine “On the Trinity” (De Trinitate) (chapters 125-135; chapters 34-37 are also marked by the influence of St. Augustine), Greek. the translation of which, carried out by Maxim Planud, was first published in full only in 1995 ? ης I-II / Ed. M. Papathomopoulos, I. Tsabare , G. Rigotti. ᾿Αθῆναι, 1995). The fact of the influence of the treatise of the blj. Augustine on G.P. was almost simultaneously proven by G. Dimitrakopoulos and R. Flogaus (for more details, see: Flogaus. 1996; Idem. 1997; Idem. Palamas and Barlaam. 1998; Idem. Theologie. 1998; Δημητρακόπουλος. 1997). In addition, Flogaus also established the influence of this treatise of the blj. Augustine on such works by G.P. as the ascetic treatise “To Xenia on the Passions and Virtues” and homily 16, “On the economy of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” According to Flogaus's assumption, G.P. should have read “On the Trinity” no earlier than 1344, since in his Antirritiki against Akindinus there are traces of the influence of the theology of the blj. Augustine is missing. Based on the dating of Antirritik A. Hiro, Flogaus’s assumption can be corrected: after the spring of 1345. And since the treatise “To Xenia” was written in 1345/46, it is likely that G.P. read “On the Trinity” in 2- th floor 1345

21. 4 words “Against Grigora” (1st ed.: Porfiry (Uspensky), ep. Part 3. T. 2. P. 737-739, 740-741 - excerpts from words 1, 3 and 4; ΓΠΣ . T. 4. T. 231-377); words 1-2 were written in 1355-1356. and are directed against the presentation of the events of the discussion that took place in 1355 in the presence of the emperor proposed by Nicephorus Grigora (Niceph. Greg. Hist. 30-31). John V Palaiologos. Published under the pseudonym Athonite Hieromonk Constantius (for possible reasons for using the pseudonym, see: ΓΠΣ. Τ. 4. Σ. 176-177). Words 3 and 4, written in 1356-1357, are refutations of the 2 final Antirritiks of Gregoras (Niceph. Greg. Antirrh. 2).

In “1st word. About the false writing of Gregoras and about his wickedness" γος πρῶτος) examines the inaccuracies contained in Grigora’s story about the emperor’s attitude to the discussion, about the circumstances and duration of the debate, about the education of G.P.

“2nd word. About the false writing of Gregoras and about his wickedness" γος δεύτερος), is a continuation of the 1st; G.P. refutes Grigora's theological statements contained in his account of the discussion.

“3rd word. Refutation of all possible blasphemy of Gregoras against the most divine light of the Transfiguration of the Lord and proof through antithesis that this light is truly uncreated and eternal" ος. ς παντοδαπῆς τοῦ Γρηγορᾶ βλασφημίας, καὶ παράστασις ἐξ ἀντιθέσεως ὅτι ἄκτιστον τοῦτό ἐστιν ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ ἀΐδιον).

“4th word. Refutation of all kinds of blasphemy by Gregoras against the most divine light of the Transfiguration of the Lord and further proof through many [arguments] that this light is truly uncreated and eternal and is not the divine nature, which is completely incomprehensible to everyone, but, according to the inspired [fathers], the true and most desirable beauty, surrounding this nature, for some saints can be participated and contemplated already now, as part of the deposit, and continuously in the next century" ς. σεως παντοδαπῆς τοῦ Γρηγορᾶ βλασφημίας ? ἀΐδιον, οὐχὶ θεία φύσις ἣ πᾶσι παντάπασιν ἀνέκφαντος ὄν, ἀλ ? λλος μόνοις τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ νῦν ὡς ἐν ἀρραβῶνος μέρει κἀπὶ τοῦ μ έλλοντος αἰῶνος ἀδιαλείπτως ὑπάρχον μεθεκτόν τε καὶ θεωρητόν).

Prayer

O truly blessed and honorable and most beloved head, the power of silence, the glory of monastics, the common adornment of theologians and fathers and teachers, the apostles' companions, confessors and martyrs, the bloodless zealot and crowner of words and deeds and piety, the champion and chosen commander of divine dogmas, the high expounder and teacher, the delights of various heresies to the consumer, the representative, guardian, and deliverer of the whole Church of Christ! You have reposed in Christ, and now you watch over your flock and the whole Church from above, healing various diseases and governing all your words, and driving out heresies, and delivering manifold passions. Accept our this prayer and deliver us from passions and temptations, and worries, and troubles, and grant us weakness and peace and prosperity, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to Him be glory and power, together with His beginningless Father and the Life-giving Spirit, now and ever and ever. Amen.

Prayer to Saint Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica

Oh, all-praiseworthy saint of Christ and wonderworker Gregory! Accept this small prayer from us sinners who come running to you and with your warm intercession beg the Lord our God Jesus Christ, that, having looked upon us mercifully, He will grant us forgiveness of our voluntary and involuntary sins, and by His great mercy He will deliver us from troubles, sorrows, sorrows and illnesses, mental and physical, that beset us; May the land bear fruit and everything that is needed for the benefit of our present life; May He grant us the end of this temporary life in repentance, and may He grant us sinners and unworthy of His Heavenly Kingdom to glorify His endless mercy with all the saints, with His Beginningless Father and His Holy and Life-giving Spirit, forever and ever. Amen.