ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY UNDERSTANDING HESYCHASM AND THE HESYCHAST CONTROVERSY SUBMITTED TO DR. JEFF CHILDERS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF BIBH651.01 ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL CHURCH HISTORY BY MICHAEL SCOTT PUGH DECEMBER 3, 2019  The Hesychast controversy of the 14th century is the greatest theological controversy the Eastern Orthodox Church ever faced. The theological positions on prayer and the nature of God that emerged from this controversy formed the foundation of Orthodox spirituality for the coming centuries. Consequently, these theological developments intensified the theological divide between Eastern Orthodox theology, and intellectually rigorous Scholasticism of the Catholic Church. In this paper, I will argue that the theological positions that arose from the Hesychast Controversy created a theological point of divergence for the East and West that further cemented the realities of the Schism. I will first explore the rise of contemplative prayer in the East and its development into the practices formally recognized as Hesychasm. Next, I will explain the background of the major figures involved in the controversy and their theological positions. Then I will narrate the chronological events of the controversy. Finally, I will discuss the outcomes of this debate and offer a brief interpretation of its consequences for the Eastern Church and its relationship to the West. The Rise of Contemplative Prayer Teachings on contemplative prayer go all the way back to the first monastics. As long as people have been going out into the desert to devote themselves to meditation and contemplation of the divine, there have been historical records of their spiritual practices. Evagrius Ponticus (d. 399) was the first person to codify these various contemplative practices into a unified doctrine of prayer. Evagrius was a monk who analyzed traditional monastic teachings om prayer through the lens of Neoplatonic philosophical thought. In his text, The Praktikos, Evagrius explained what the act of praying is, and what its effect is on the individual. His Neoplatonism led him to understand the human mind as naturally divine. The goal of monasticism was not to proclaim the Kingdom of God through a particular kind of material existence but to attain the total disembodiment of the mind through prayer. John Meyendorff, St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998), 14. Proper activity of the mind is to detach itself from the body so it can be united to God. Prayer for Evagrius is “The highest act of the mind…it is a habitual state of imperturbable calm. It matches the heights of intelligible reality to the mind which loves wisdom, and which is truly spiritualized by the most intense love” (The Prakitkos). Evagrius connected contemplative prayer with union to God. His Neoplatonic understanding of matter (which borders on Gnostic at times) was controversial and he was posthumously condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553), Ibid, 17. but his less troubling teachings on prayer became the foundation for future discussions on contemplative prayer and provided the basis for Hesychastic teaching in later centuries. Gregory Palamas, The Triads, Ed. by John Meyendorff (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1983), 2. His thought, though influential, had to be refined if it was to be seen as acceptable by the Church. The person most responsible for making Evagrius’s ideas more compatible with Orthodox teaching was Ps. Macarius (d. 391). Ps. Macarius in his Fifty Spiritual Homilies, shifts the focus of contemplative prayer away from the mind and its detachment from the body and locates the Incarnation as the focal point for contemplative prayer. Just as Christ in his physical body was transfigured before the disciples, so too are we able to transfigure our soul and body into greater degrees of spiritual purity. Ibid, 3. To Macarius, the presence of the incarnated God meant that God had become accessible through physical reality. By attaining what Macarius called “certitude (sometimes rendered “purity”) of heart,” we can enter into the eschatological reality of Christ’s presence in our mind, body, and spirit. This mystical method was centered around unceasing prayer that opened the monk to the way Christ was present in him. Michael Angold, ed., Eastern Christianity, vol. 5 in the Cambridge History of Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014), 100. This new understanding of Evagrius’s teachings still emphasized union with God through unceasing contemplative prayer but was seen as theological orthodox by the ancient Church, laying the foundation for specific schools of contemplative prayer to arise. Hesychasm: Its Origins and Growth Early Teachers Hesychast, from the Greek ἡσυχία meaning “stillness,” was originally used in the 4th century to denote any kind of hermit or anchorite monk. The term appears in the writings of Gregory of Nyssa, Evagrius Ponticus, and in imperial legislative texts as a legal designation for Roman citizens who were monastics. Palamas, Triads, 2. Hesychasm as a specific way of practicing contemplative prayer is referenced as early as the 13th century, although the practice is likely much older. Angold, Eastern Christianity, 102. The first references to practices resembling the Hesychastic method come from St. John Climacus (d. 649), St. Symeon the New Theologian (d. 1022), St. Nikepheros the Monk (d. 13th Century), and St. Gregory of Sinai (d. 1346). Climacus, who claims to be inspired by the work of Evagrius, wrote in his text The Ladder of Paradise, that prayer ought to be centered on one’s breath and the recitation of the name of Jesus. Contemplative prayer is not limited to mental activity but involves the whole person. “Let the memory of Jesus be united to your breathing; Then you will understand the usefulness of hesychasm.” (The Ladder) John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (New York: Fordham University Press, 1987), 71. He saw the goal of the Christian life as a spiritual climb aimed at being totally unified to God, as far as humans are capable, through the making our minds one with the divine mind of God through prayer. Katerina Ierodiakonou Katerina Ierodiakonou, Byzantine Philosopohy and Its Ancient Sources (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 141. His main innovation was the fixation on the Jesus Prayer. “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Because the name of Jesus is identifiable with the presence of Christ Himself, Climacus encouraged the monks to constantly repeat the name of Jesus either verbally or in their minds. Palamas, Triads, 4. He further refined the thinking of Evagrius by explaining how the mind is not left behind during the process of contemplation. He built on Ps. Macarius by further explaining what the Hesychastic method might actually look like. Climacus’s teachings became extremely influential, particularly his emphasis on breathing and invoking the name of Jesus. There are even records of spiritual fathers recommending to their monastic students that they beg, if necessary, to be able to acquire a copy of The Ladder. Placide P. Deseille, Orthodox Spirituality and the Philokalia (Wichita, KS: Eighth Day Press, 2008), 27. Symeon the New Theologian was a mystic who taught that contemplative prayer was an effective means of receiving spiritual visions. Angold, Eastern Christianity, 102. He was critical of the view that only a few select individuals could experience spiritual visions and instead taught that such visions were an important part of the Christian life for everyone. Ibid, 103. Contemplative prayer how we are able to receive visions. Symeon advised the monks to look intently at their stomach until it becomes illuminated by light and transparent. At this point, the heart will become visible to the Hesychast. Breathing techniques and the Jesus prayer are only mentioned in passing. He saw spiritual experiences as crucial to the development of faith and taught an intensely Christocentric mysticism founded on a realist understanding of the sacraments. Meyendorff, Orthodox Spirituality, 45. If Christ is really present in the Sacraments, then He is really present in us. If we open ourselves up to this reality, we can perceive the spiritual reality of Christ’s presence. For Symeon, the essence of experiencing God is the ability to know what is unknowable and to be united to that which is unattainable. God draws us out of sin and grants us eternal life. This radical transformation is meant to be experienced through real sensations. Ibid, 48. Nikepheros the Monk, one of the first teachers to refer to his method explicitly as Hesychasm, David Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 230. agreed with Symeon in principle but wanted to temper his thinking. Nikepheros lived as a monk on Mt. Athos in the 13th century. By the 14th century, his texts on hesychasm were considered some of the best authorities on the subject, and his method became the basis for the Hesychastic practices on Mt. Athos. Angold, Eastern Christianity, 103. While both Symeon and Nikepheros wanted to make experiences of the divine available to the average monk, Nikepheros was concerned by Symeon’s insistence that these monks can receive visions on their own without the guidance of a spiritual father. He feared that such an individualistic approach to these visions could expose oneself to demonic interference. Ibid. Nikepheros maintains that beginners can use his method, but that they should only do so under the guidance of a senior monk or abbot. He makes no mention of the posture of the body during prayer but focuses more on breathing and the recitation of the Jesus prayer. He taught that the monks should concentrate on the path of their breath through their bodies to prevent their minds from wandering. Those who have reached this state of focus then recite the name of Jesus until they receive a spiritual vision. Ibid, 104. Gregory of Sinai also attempted to soften previous teachings on prayer by limiting visionary experiences to those who were already deeply involved in spiritual discipline and under the authority of experienced monks. He tried to make this new spiritual movement more compatible with traditional Orthodox thinking and bring it in line with established hierarchies in the Church. Ibid, 108. He explained through philosophical reasoning how these Hesychastic practices lead to authentic spiritual visions to assuage those whom were keeping their distance from the emerging Hesychasm out of concern for its legitimacy. Ibid. His work of applying philosophical reasoning to the Hesychastic method was met with resistance by some of the more well-educated Athonites who accused him of creating unnecessary innovations. Gregory responded by saying that reason controls the senses and that the purpose of Hesychasm is to return ourselves to the kind of rational beings that God intended us to be before the fall disrupted our mental faculties. Ibid, 114. These educated monks, who greatly valued reason, were satisfied by this argument. Eventually, Gregory was seen as such an authority on hesychasm, that monks would bring accounts of their visions to him for judgment on their authenticity. Ibid. As a result of this continued theological reflection, hesychasm became widespread amongst Byzantine monks throughout the 14th century. It was most practiced on Mt. Athos which at the time was the most important center of Orthodox Monasticism. During this time the Syriac Messalian movement emerged.They denied the necessity of baptism and the sacraments, rejected the need for any kind of social responsibility, and claimed they were able to have a full experience of God. The movement would be condemned as heretical. Unfortunately, various Hesychastic teachers like Macarius and Palamas were accussed of being Messalians. Palamas, Triads, 4. The Hesychasts saw themselves as the true disciples of the Desert Fathers. The first monastics fled to the desert to resist temptation and worldliness, and the Hesychasts believed their method produced the greatest defense against sinful thoughts and demonic temptation. Angold, Eastern Christianity, 102. However, they also tended to disapprove of monks who did not practice hesychasm. The saw the ascetic monks as neglecting the inner life and accused the intellectual monks of wasting their time on the pursuit of worldly wisdom. Ironic, given that such worldly wisdom was employed in the defense of the Hesychasts and was their savior in the conflict that came after hesychasm’s rise to prominence. The Technique The technique of hesychasm was an intentional synthesis of various teachings on contemplative prayer that had come before. To practice hesychasm a person assumes a seated position with the head bowed in such a way that the heart is fixed in front of the person’s eyes. Then they begin breathing slow shallow breaths while reciting the Jesus Prayer in synchronicity with their breath. David Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West, 230. Gregory of Sinai instructed the Hesychast to “Restrain your breathing, so as not to breathe unimpededly. For when you exhale, the air, rising from the heart, beclouds the intellect and ruffles your thinking, keeping the intellect away from the heart.” Ibid, 231. Although the monks cautioned against seeking visions for their own sake, they taught that the practice of hesychasm often caused the Hesychast to experience a vision of the “Divine Light of God.” Ibid, 232. This phenomenon is described in The Philokalia: “The mind plunges its thought into light and itself becomes light; it grows luminous and immaterial, becoming through ineffable union a single spirit with God; a light that can be known from God by His activity.” Philokalia, vol. 4, On Commandments and Doctrines. The Hesychastic technique was meant to be a summary of the entire Christian life. We move from restlessness to rest, then to contemplation, and finally to illumination. George Maloney, Prayer of the Heart: The Contemplative Tradition of the Christian East (Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 2008). The Goal of Hesychasm The purpose of these exercises was to “lead the nous back to the heart” so that prayer becomes an action conducted by the whole person: body and soul. Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West, 230. This process is described as “drawing the intellect back into the heart.” The goal is more than mental tranquility or concentration, it is a transformation that affects an individual’s state of being. The hope is that the Jesus Prayer becomes so much a part of the person’s nous that they can pray it without conscious attention, and even while sleeping. Ibid, 231. Gregory referred to this change of being as the discovery of the “energy” of the Holy Spirit present in us since our baptism. This energy becomes fully manifested through obedience and prayer. Prayer is the energy of the noetic activity of the Spirit. Ibid, 231-232. This energy of God is God Himself, thus the prayer of the Hesychast is God Himself. Hesychasm is God, reaching out to God, from creation, through His creatures. The Hesychast Controversy (1337-1351 A.D.) The Major Players Barlaam of Calabria Barlaam was an Orthodox Monk, Greek by both language and culture. He was educated in the West, Augustinian in thinking, and a supporter of humanistic renaissance thinking. John Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998), 42. He was a faithful proponent of Orthodoxy. Even his future opponent, Gregory Palamas, referred to him in his early years as possessing “true piety.” He represented the best synthesis of eastern and western thinking available at the time. He came to Constantinople in 1330 and was supported financially by Grand Domestic John Cantacuzene. Ibid. He was an avid student of Pseudo-Dionysius and had a reputation for being highly ambitious, and highly argumentative. He incorporated the teachings of Augustine and Ps. Denys into his theology rather extensively. He believed that there could be no apodictic demonstrations of any propositions about the Trinity. Ibid, 43. For Barlaam the only way we can approach God is by purifying the mind of all concepts; the only way to seek God is to transcend the senses and the body. Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West, 233. This thinking is what led him to oppose the practices of the Athonite Hesychasts. His principal concern was to their incorporation of the body in prayer. Ibid. He rejected their claim to bodily awareness of the divine presence and their visions of the “uncreated light.” For Barlaam, the only thing that could be uncreated is the divine essence of God, and no person can perceive all of God’s essence. He thought the monks claimed to see the totality of God’s essence, something Barlaam would have considered both heretical and extremely arrogant. Ibid, 233. He was concerned that these visions, if they were occurring, were not affecting the monks in ways he thought they should. Barlaam believed that spiritual visions should produce within the person mortification of the passions and exaltation of reason. He had a negative view of emotions and the body and an extremely high view of reason and believed that any kind of spiritual enlightenment would further clarify that distinction in the recipient. Angold, Eastern Christianity, 112. His objections likely came from his Augustinianism. For Augustine, any theophany must be an appearance of the divine essence itself or the appearance of a creature. He also likely shared Augustine’s view of divine simplicity (hence his rejection of an uncreated light) and saw Augustinian theology as incompatible with Hesychastic teaching. Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West, 234. Gregory Palamas Born from nobility, St. Gregory Palamas was a leader among the monks at Mt. Athos and lived there as a hermit (except on weekends and feast days). He first published in the early 1330s works on monastic spirituality and two treatises in defense of the Orthodox position on the procession of the Holy Spirit. He first became acquainted with his future opponent Barlaam through exchanging cordial correspondence about the filioque. Ibid. Palamas’s theology was formed by the monastic spirituality of his brothers on Athos. He taught in the spirit of Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, and Ps. Dionysius, but his essences-energies distinction is what makes him distinct from his inspirations. Torstein Tollefsen, Activity and Participation in Late Antique and Early Christian Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 200. His thought was based on affirming God’s absolute transcendence while also affirming the reality of the individual’s experience of God. Jean-Yves Leloup, Being Still: Reflection on an Ancient Mystical Tradition (Hertfordshire: Gracewing, 2003), 62. He saw the drawing of the mind into the heart as essential to the monastic task of controlling one’s thoughts. The physical actions and bodily movements of the monks are not only helpful but essential because they mirror the inner movement of the soul during prayer. Prayer causes an inward reflection that stills the mind and returns it to its proper function as a vessel for the Holy Spirit. For Palamas, the light the Hesychasts see during their meditations is the light of Mt. Tabor during the Transfiguration; it is a foretaste of the light that will eternally illuminate the saved. The light is infinite and our progress of illumination by it is infinite. In his second Triad, Palamas writes: “God, while remaining entirely in Himself, dwells entirely in us by His super-essential power, and communicates to us not His nature but His proper glory and splendor. This light is beheld, not by sensory power, but by the intellect through bodily eyes. With the light, the intellect clearly beholds the light…the light is the energy of God.” Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West, 235-239. The divine names of God are really names of the energies. In contrast to Barlaam, when we approach God, we do not shed the concepts and mental faculties of the mind but rather “leave them behind in their proper place.” Ibid. Because God is absolutely transcendent, and also able to be experienced, Palamas speaks of a transcendent divine essence and of God’s uncreated, but revealed energies. Gregory Palamas, Triads, 7. Rather than compromising divine simplicity, Palamas asserts that God simplicity itself is one of God’s divine energies. God is no more multiple because of his activities than the center of a circle is because of how it produces all the points of the circle. Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West, 240. It is this distinction that would prove to be the most controversial as the Hesychast controversy developed. Chronology of the Debate The history of Byzantine thought since the 9th century was influenced by the conflict that emerged between the advocates of renaissance humanism and the traditionalist monks. By the 14th century, this conflict worsened, and these monolithic intellectual traditions became paradigmatic of two opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum in Byzantium. Meyendorff, A Study of Palamas, 42. Barlaam had written a few anti-Latinist treatises which had used the basic framework of Dionysius’s aphotic theology to refute the use of the filioque. Palamas and the other monks saw his position as fundamentally Orthodox but also feared that it could be used to justify a theological relativism that would counterproductively undermine the Orthodox position. Their initial correspondence over this issue was cordial, but it sowed the seeds of rivalry between the two figures. Ibid, 44. In the early 1330s, Barlaam met the monks of Mt. Athos and was skeptical about their Hesychastic method of prayer. The monks he encountered were poorly educated (if not completely illiterate) and could not answer Barlaam’s questions about their practices. Angold, Eastern Christianity, 115. After his encounter with the monks, he was insistent that their use of the human body in prayer and their direct experience of God was misguided at best and heretical at worst. He wrote treatises condemning their practices and referred to the monks as omphalopsychoi (men-with-their-souls-in-their-navels), mocking the bodily positions involved during Hesychastic prayer. Meyendorff, A Study of Palamas, 46. He then attempted to have the monks officially sanctioned by John Calecas, Patriarch of Constantinople, but his request was dismissed and he was asked by the Patriarch to leave the monks alone and honor their “simple faith.” Ibid. He did not obey this order and continued to publicly criticize the monks so Isidore, the new Patriarch of Constantinople, called on Palamas to defend them. In the early days of the disagreement, Palamas tried to meet with Barlaam in person several times to settle the dispute. When these meetings failed, Palamas wrote the first of his Triads For The Defense of Those Who Practice Sacred Quietude. Barlaam is not mentioned in this text by name, and Palamas had not yet read a full text of Barlaam’s anti-Hesychast writings; In response, Barlaam dropped the navel-gazing slurs but still continued to attack the monks. He also never mentioned Palamas by name. Ibid, 46-47. After this initial exchange, Barlaam presented a plan, founded on his theological apophatacism, for the reunification of the Eastern and Western Churches to a Synod in Constantinople. It was never formally rejected by Byzantium, but it was not supported by the Orthodox Church. Angold, Eastern Christianity, 117. Barlaam traveled to Avignon to present his plan to Pope Benedict the XII, but the Pope could not accept his theological apophatacism. When Barlaam returned to Constantinople, he found another of Gregory’s Triads waiting for him. Another Bishop, Gregory Akindynos warned Barlaam in letters not to fight Palamas and chastised Barlaam for his pride. Despite these waringns, Barlaam continued to attack Palamas. Meyendorff, A Study of Palamas, 48. Palamas’s second Triad was aimed at Barlaam’s apophatacism. Once again, Palamas never mentions Barlaam by name. Palamas argued that true apophatacism is negative theology based on positive experience, and positive experiences can be understood. Therefore, apophatacism cannot be purely speculative. Palamas also traveled to Athos and wrote the Hagioretic Tome, a complete manifesto condemning Barlaam’s theology. Again, without naming him. This text put Barlaam and his followers out of communion by the Bishop of Hierissos and the monks of Athos and received signatures of support by Patriarchs, students of Gregory of Sinai, and Hesychasts from around the world. The two men attempted to resolve the issue in person once more. Palamas claims Barlaam wanted to drop the argument. Barlaam agreed to modify his writings and have Palamas approve them. Palamas agreed. Meyendorff, A Study of Palamas, 48-49. Despite these meetings, Barlaam wrote Against the Messalians, where he accused the monks of heresy and attacked Palamas by name for the first time. Barlaam presented his case to a Synod that denounced him on the grounds that, even if the monks are in error, Barlaam is not their authority. After the synod, Barlaam went throughout Constantinople claiming that Palamas and the monks were infringing on the Patriarch’s authority by defining dogma. He demanded the intervention of the emperor, and Palamas was summoned before a synod, presided over by Cantacuzene in the emperor’s absence, as a defendant. Ibid, 52. On June 10, 1341, Palamas came to Constantinople to answer the synod. Barlaam had amassed many supporters during the seven months it took for Gregory to arrive from Athos and it appeared Palamas was to be condemned. Before the council, Palamas wrote his third Triad that explained the essences-energies distinction, while refuting accusations of Messalianism. The synod was persuaded by his text and the emperor forbid Barlaam from accusing Palamas of heresy during the proceedings. Ibid, 52. The Synod, which only lasted one day, was public and the emperor presided in person. Barlaam’s points were refuted and he was forced to confess his error. He confessed and Palamas pardoned him without demanding penance or restitution. It appeared the controversy was over. Ibid, 55. Shortly after the council the emperor died, and a civil war erupted in Byzantium. Calecas took power and dismissed Cantacuzene. Palamas, who was seen as a friend of Cantazuzene was condemned and imprisoned. While in prison Calecas, gave support to Akindynos who began condemning Palamas’s essences-energies distinction. The civil war ended and the newly crowned Cantacuzene freed Palamas. Cantacuzene summoned Akindynos and he was forced to sign a document accepting the condemnation of Barlaam. Akindynos consented but made Palamas appear before another council in 1347 where Palamas was again victorious. Ibid, 57. Then from 1347-1351, the Byzantine Philosopher Nicephoras Gregoras gathered another opposition against Palamas. Bradshaw, Aristotle East and West, 235. Cantacuzene called new councils in 1351 that endorsed the theology of Palamas against Nicephoras, and Palamism was declared the official doctrine of the Orthodox Church. Gregory Palamas, Triads, 7. The Outcome After the death of the emperor, Barlaam used his death to continue his attacks on Palamas uninhibited, but once it became clear that his ideas were no longer gaining support and that Constantinople was overwhelmingly against him, he left the East, joined the court of Avignon, and became a bishop in the Greek Uniate Catholic Church. Meyendorff, A Study of Palamas, 55-56. Because of his apostasy, Patriarch John denounced Barlaam and threatened excommunication for anyone who had copies of his work and did not give them to the Patriarchate. Ibid. Palamas was elected archbishop of Thessalonica and his students Isidor, Kallistos, and Philotheus all became Patriarchs. He spent a year a prisoner of the Turks in Asia minor in 1355 until he was ransomed by the Serbs and returned to Thessalonica where he died on November 14, 1359. In 1368 the Synod of Constantinople, presided over by his own disciple Patriarch Philotheus, canonized him as a saint. His theology influenced all of Eastern Orthodoxy and was cited by numerous spiritual leaders as an inspiration, with some crediting his writings as being instrumental to the survival of Orthodoxy under the Ottoman Empire. Gregory Palamas, The Triads, 7. His relics are venerated to this day at the Cathedral of Thessalonica. The Athonite monks survived, and Mt. Athos is still seen as the center of Orthodox Spirituality and the authoritative teachers of the Hesychastic tradition. Deseille, Orthodox Spirituality, 35. Palamism and the West Despite the rising tensions between Western thought and the East, Palamas never displayed any animosity toward the Latins in his writings and would not have thought of his teachings as an “answer” to medieval scholasticism. Marcus Plested, Orthodox Readings of Aquinas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 59. He simply saw his work as a continuation of earlier Patristic teaching. However, when Gregoras and Palmas debated before John V and Paul of Myrna, a papal legate from Rome, the east-west divisions between Palamism and Scholasticism begin to emerge. Paul saw Palamism, particularly the essences-energies distinction, as incompatible with current trends in Latin thinking and based on initial responses to Palamas, Rome seemed to agree. Ibid. If Palamas is considered the apex of Byzantine theology for his time, his counterpart in the West would be Thomas Aquinas. They never read each other’s work, but their disciples saw their thinking as irreconcilable. Some have even accused Palamas of embracing a quasi-polytheism. Plested, Aquinas, 62. The essentialist Aristotelian conception of God, defined as actus purus by Aquinas and the Scholastics was diametrically opposed to Palamas’s existentialist God who is beyond essence and willfully acts through His energies. Ibid, 60. Divine simplicity, a cherished doctrine in Medieval Scholasticism, had been irrevocably changed in Byzantium by Palamas’s formulation. And while the East could claim there were a variety of nuanced perspectives on simplicity in the West, Palamism had been made dogma in the East. The Byzantines could disagree with Aquinas or other Scholastics and still not reject the entire tradition of Medieval theology, but the West could not do the same with Byzantium. Palamism’s elevation from sound teaching to official church dogma deepened the theological divide between the West and the East. While it would be foolish to say that Catholic and Orthodox believers worship different gods, it is true that Catholicism’s commitment to furthering the teachings of its Scholastic masters has put their systematics at odds with the East. Barlaam is often portrayed as emblematic of the problems of Western thinking by modern Orthodox thinkers: An educated man whose rigid philosophical categories led him to apostasy. Often Palamism is portrayed with similar disapproval in the West: An intelligent monk whose well-meaning effort to defend his brothers led to the destruction of divine simplicity. The dichotomy between Scholasticism and Palamism is not merely one of esoteric theological formulations about God’s nature; It is a disagreement over how someone should do theology and is paradigmatic of what is most valued in the respective traditions. Do we begin with rationalistic philosophical speculation and stop when we reach the point of mystery, or do we begin with the inexplicable experiences of Christian spirituality and use philosophy to show how deep the mystery goes? Conclusion Although many significant steps have been taken in repairing the divide between the Catholic and Orthodox, there is still work to be done. Some may wish to see the Schism of 1054 as primarily a product of political and cultural differences between the East and West with theological conflicts functioning as secondary considerations. But the Hesychast Controversy teaches us that, even if the Schism was reducible to those factors in the beginning, in the following centuries the divide was intensified by genuinely divergent paths of theological teaching and method. If we sincerely hope to heal the damage caused by the Schism, we must begin taking such theological disagreements seriously and do the difficult work of bringing the monumental contributions of Eastern and Western thinking into harmony with one another.  Bibliography Angold, Michael, ed. Eastern Christianity. Vol. 5. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014. Bradshaw, David. Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom. Cambridge University Press, 2010. Deseille, Placide P. Orthodox Spirituality and the Philokalia. Translated by Anthony P. Gythiel. Wichita, KS: Eighth Day Press, 2008. Ierodiakonou, Katerina. Byzantine Philosophy and Its Ancient Sources. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Leloup, Jean-Yves. Being Still: Reflections on an Ancient Mystical Tradition. Translated by M. S. Laird. Herfordshire: Gracewing, 2003. Maloney, George. Prayer of the Heart: the Contemplative Tradition of the Christian East. Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 2008. Meyendorff, John. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. New York: Fordham University Press, 1987. Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1998. Meyendorff, John. A Study of Gregory Palamas. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1998. Palamas, Gregory. The Triads. Edited by John Meyendorff. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1983. Plested, Marcus. Orthodox Readings of Aquinas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Tollefsen, Torstein. Activity and Participation in Late Antique and Early Christian Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. 1