What are the different phases of these theological debates? We know that Barlaam had his own perspective. Akindynus had his, Gregoras had his. Don't forget that when Barlaam dialogues with the West, when he writes against the Filioque, he's basically an agnostic. There's no direct revelation in agnosticism. Barlaam's biggest problem was his being scandalized at the way the body was included in the prayer of the Hesychasts – naval gazers and so on. And in fact his first encounter was with simple monks, who really were not articulate at all about the life of prayer. Whatever they did, they pressed the wrong buttons, they said the wrong words, and Barlaam was scandalized. Barlaam actually went to Patriarch John Calecas and said to him, “This is what these people are teaching. Would you give me your blessing and let me take care of them?” And Patriarch John Calecas was one of those churchmen who was not interested in theology. And he said, “Look, you don't have my blessing to start a polemic against these people. Let sleeping dogs lie. Let's not blow this up into something more than it is. Just stay away from it, stay calm.” Which of course Barlaam did, up to a point, but not really, because he started writing against the Hesychasts. And when St Gregory Palamas found out that he was doing this, and he didn't actually have the books that Barlaam had written himself; but he had heard what he was saying, he started to write [his] In Defence of the Holy Hesychasts. And it was only later that, when Barlaam had responded to Palamas’ criticisms – so there was this correspondence of a polemic, a debate – that he began to call them Messalians, and go into more detail, and then Palamas went into more specific details himself, because then he got hold of the actual books and saw what Barlaam was saying, and so on, and so forth. 

Barlaam was scandalized by the inclusion of the body, because his vision of the scheme of things, the spiritual life, was the spirit. He was very, actually, Augustinian in this regard. He didn't know what to do with the body. He just assumed the body should have nothing to do [sc. the spiritual life] - because, as Barlaam would say, following a Platonist line of thinking, anything composite is incapable of the real life. That's Plato. The life of the spiritual world in the “place above the heavens”, Plato's topos hyperouranios, is for spirits. There's no place for the body; the stuff out of which the furniture of the world is made. As Plato would say, the unfortunate union of the spirit with the body during this earthly existence of ours impedes our communion with reality, with the ultimate and supreme Being, which is spiritual. Spiritual, and in this world of conjecture, opinion, πίστις (faith) – this is a world which doesn't give you “sure knowledge”. “Sure knowledge”, as Augustine wrongly says, comes in the life hereafter – spiritual knowledge. So in Barlaam, on the one hand you have the problem of the body. Then you have the question, how does God reveal Himself? Well, Barlaam would say, through created symbols and images. This is pure Augustinianism. Therefore, when Barlaam is arguing against the Latins and their Filioque, he's saying, “Why would you want to add something to the Creed, whose meaning you know nothing about? You don't know what Filioque means anyway. So why do you, why do you want to add it? What difference does it make?” That's Barlaam. 

Gregory Akindynus had been a disciple of Palamas, and during the period between 1337-38 and 1341, where you have this exchange of correspondence between Barlaam and Palamas, Akindynus tries to play a pacifying role, the role of a peacemaker. And in so doing, we see that he actually agrees with Barlaam on one basic point, and therefore disagrees with Palamas on that point; and then agrees with Palamas on another point, and therefore disagrees with Barlaam. So he's somewhere in the middle. What does Akindynus agree with Palamas about? The veracity of the prayer, this was the prayer life of the Church, the Hesychasts were not inventing something new. And certainly the inclusion of the body, the main issue with Barlaam, is abundantly attested to in both Scripture and Tradition. When we make the sign of the cross, when we make prostrations, this is a form of prayer, this is part of our prayer life, and it signifies, among other things, that in our effort – we need to make an effort actually in order to come into contact with God, God wants us to make an effort, not just intellectually, but in a way that includes every aspect of our existence, body as well as soul. With the body we take ourselves to Church and with the body we stand, we sit, we process, we make prostrations, the sign of the cross, as we said, and so forth. So yes, this is not something new. Why Barlaam was so scandalized by it is another question. Why it was unacceptable to him, to that degree… because I think we could say, in all fairness to St Augustine, I don't think St Augustine ever suggested that the body should not be part of the prayer life of the Christian. 

Barlaam had this incredible, intellectualistic understanding of things – including the spiritual life. Really, really extreme. What was the point on which Akindynus and Barlaam agreed? Akindynus’ point was that Gregory (Palamas) was pushing things a bit too far when he claimed that this distinction has always been there in the life of the Church, in Scripture, in the writings of the Fathers – not always expressed in the same words, but certainly the meaning is clear: that there is that aspect of God which we can never know, the never-to-be-known essence of God; and that aspect of God which we do know, and [which] we can know fully. But “fully” in the sense, not that we comprehend, but that we experience. That this is an experience of God Himself, that aspect of God which comes down to us, which St John Chrysostom describes in terms of God's “condescension”. That, Akindynus said, was pushing things just a little too far. We have already pointed out that in the writings of St Symeon the New Theologian sometimes you see that, but sometimes you don’t. And Palamas' argument was, of course, that it is there, despite what you see at times. Indicating that, for example, Symeon sometimes says that “we know the essence of God”; [sc. After all], St Peter says we've become partakers of the divine nature. There it is!

So Akindynus was dealt with in the second council in Constantinople in 1347. And there he was obliged, after losing the debate, again to Palamas, to retract his opinions, which he did. By the way, Barlaam did the same in June of 1341. You know, that was a council of one day. That council took place on one day, and in that one day the then, we [would] call him the Prime Minister, the “Great Domesticus”, John Cantacuzenus – he became Emperor a little later – he was on the side of Barlaam. And when he heard the debate between Palamas and Barlaam – Barlaam referred to him, and he said, “I need your support and I need your advice, what do I do?” Because he realized that the Council of 1341, which was comprised of Emperor Andronicus III, Patriarch John Calecas, bishops, senators, people of the city – this was a well-attended council, albeit of one day. But they all heard what St Gregory Palamas said, and in response to his friend, the person that Cantacuzenus was protecting (Barlaam), Cantacuzenus said to him, “Look, I think it's time for you to apologize to these people and just humbly retreat. It's obvious that these people are wiser in these matters than you are. Just humble yourself, apologize and finish with it.” Barlaam actually took his advice and he did [just] that, and that was the end of the Council as such. And so they didn't have to publish an official Tomos, with the minutes of that Council. It was enough for the Patriarch to send out an encyclical and to say to the people of the Church, this matter has been resolved, all of the arguments, the accusations against the Hesychasts have been resolved, answered, and there's no more problem. Well, that Council took place on June the 10th, 1341, as we said, under the chairmanship of Emperor Andronicus III. So after Cantacuzenus advised Barlaam, Barlaam took that advice, but in the meantime the Council ended peacefully on the same day and no publication [sc. of a Tomos] was made. 

Andronikos III, who chaired the Council, died just five days after the Council took place. He died out of exhaustion. He withdrew from public life and he died on June the 15th, 1341. And so his last public duty was actually the chairing of the Council of June the 10th, 1341. So Barlaam, at this point, regrets yielding to Palamas and company, but his change of heart was too late. Palamas' prestige was in the ascendant to such a degree that it was impossible for Barlaam to amass the necessary support for a fresh assault on the Hesychasts. Realizing that there was no more soil for him to flourish in the Empire, within just a few days Barlaam beat a hasty retreat back to Italy, whence he had come 15 years earlier with such dreams and aspirations. Back in Italy, he taught the famous Petrarch Greek, he kept company with other famous intellectuals, and he was made bishop of Hieracas by the Pope, without being at all keen to perform his episcopal responsibilities. 

Akindynus does something similar, on a lower key. He accepts the decision of the Council of 1347 and signs a document to that effect. But he also, secretly and privately, continues to doubt the veracity of St Gregory's position on the essence-energies distinction. 

Gregoras had different motives. We had mentioned how remarkable it is that the presuppositions of all these theological opponents were so similar, if not the same, and how this goes back ultimately to whether you take a conceptual approach to theology or not. 

But Gregoras begins with a certain image of the Hesychasts. He sees them as anti-intellectuals. He sees them as simpletons, ignoramuses, people of little culture and insignificant learning. And basically, to put it in a nutshell, he believed that the Hesychasts were against the renaissance of Greek letters. And Gregoras' great desire was to be recognized as the intellectual leader of the Empire. So he takes up this battle against Palamas to prove that he is the intellectual leader of what was left of the Christian Roman Empire. And, just to recap what we said last time, at the first session of the 1351 Council called, if you remember, on the 28th of May. And now John Cantacuzenus VI was emperor – we actually had three emperors at the same time – but he chaired the Council. It was he who posed those six questions, very astute questions, in that fifth and final session, but I'll come to that in a moment. 

At the first session, which began on the 28th of May, the anti-Hesychasts accused Palamas and company of ditheism, if you remember. This was one of the criticisms that Akindynus had leveled against Palamas' essence-energies distinction. Not only that it was not there in the tradition of the Church, but his separation of essence and energy in the singular, or essence and energies in the plural, constituted a belief, basically, in two divinities, one higher and one lower. The higher, the never-to-be-known essence, and the lower, the energy or energies which come down to us, using the language of St Basil the Great in Letter 234 of the Basilian collection. So he's accused again, this time by Gregoras and company, of separating the divine energy from the divine essence. And St Gregory Palamas spends that time, after hearing extensive accusations against him, defending himself and the Hesychasts on that point. 

Now, at the second session, Palamas refutes the accusations of Gregoras and company by means of drawing a distinction between antilogia and homologia: debating and confessing. Gregoras and company, [the] anti-Hesychasts, said, when you were making your confession, you said this and you said that, and you were separating the two. And St Gregory is saying, “When I said this or that, I was responding to something that you had said. This was not a confession of faith. This was a dialogue, a discussion, a debate; and in that, you respond to what's being said, and you may take things to a certain point which you wouldn't want to say if you were making a confession. Where, in a confession, you balance your words, weigh them very carefully, and you make sure that what you're saying is Orthodox in every way, with the least possibility of misunderstanding. That's not the case with antilogia.” This was a brilliant distinction and it disarmed Gregoras and company. 

During the third session, the anti-Hesychasts of Gregoras protested that they were not supporters of Barlaam because, again, they seemed to be saying all the things that Barlaam had previously said. They wanted to disassociate themselves from Barlaam and his position. Well, in fact, as we said, ultimately, in the final analysis, they seem to share much more in common than they liked to think. And later, towards the end of June, John Cantacuzens calls a fifth session and submits his six questions in order to bring the Council to a conclusion. So, Gregoras is confined to Chora monastery following 1351. He's given a lot of freedom and he writes and he complains. And he writes his History, and says how he was mistreated by everyone at the Council; misunderstood –  he wasn't well; Palamas won, but he should never have been allowed to win. A lot of complaints on the part of Gregoras. Gregoras lost against Palamas again in a debate that took place in the Palace, because Palamas' arguments, again, were simply more convincing. 

Palamas returns to Thessalonica in 1355 and remains there until his death, and many of his surviving homilies were written during this period. In April 1368, some nine years later, after Palamas had reposed in the Lord, he was proclaimed a saint. His name was inscribed in the calendar of Agia Sophia, which means essentially that his sanctity was recognized for the entire Church. And by placing his commemoration on the Second Sunday of Lent, as an extension of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, his memory is celebrated with great reverence throughout the Orthodox world. Patriarch Philotheus himself composed an encomium and a service for him, as well as writing his biography. So I just wanted to say that, as a basic recap about the three theological opponents, their similarities, their differences, and what basically happened. 

There are many remarkable episodes in the life of St Gregory. One of them is when he was taken hostage by the Ottoman Turks in 1354, for about a year. So I would like to add this brief section to our overview, in order to present a fuller picture of how much Palamas was able to accomplish in times of great trouble and turmoil. It's incredible what this man managed to achieve wherever he was [went]. He was taken from city to city. He went from Lampsakos to Pegas, Brussa, Nicaea – he was dragged around by the Turks as a hostage, wherever he went [was taken]. And each place he went, by divine Providence, he ministered to the other Christian hostages, and also those now subjugated to the Turks. During this time, he had the opportunity to have conversations with the Muslims on religion, and one such discussion with the enigmatic Chiones, C-H-I-O-N-E-S. This was arranged by the Turkish Emir himself, whose name was Orhan. 

Palamas observed that almost all of Asia Minor and Mesopotamia was already in the hands of the Turks, and he could see that they were now moving into European lands. It seemed that Palamas had been convinced by all this that it was only a matter of time before the remaining parts of the Empire would also be taken, and the only practical solution to the impending doom – this is interesting – he said the only answer is to proselytize the Turks, convert them to Christianity. This was his regret, that we didn't do that. We had the opportunity – of course it's very difficult when the person you're trying to proselytize has a sword aimed at your throat – but that's the challenge, and Palamas knew this. He said, “There's no way we are going to stem this tide.” Consequently, Palamas agreed to meet with the Mullah Tassiman and he said to Tassiman, after long discussions with him, which basically didn't get very far, he hoped that “the time would come when both sides would agree, and he prayed that that time would come soon”. And each of them, of course, had his own understanding of what the agreement would be. At any rate, from Palamas' standpoint, that time never came. On the one hand, the leaders of the Church, owing to a conjunction of unfavorable circumstances, were not ready for such a great undertaking, while on the other, the Turks themselves never allowed any initiative in that direction. Every attempt of that kind was simply met with fire and the sword. 

Now much has been written about how tolerant the Ottomans were in the earlier years of their conquest. I would merely point out that it is quite clear from the sources that the Islamicization of Asia Minor, for instance, was the result of war, destruction, and a form of institutionalized enslavement and fear. In short, it's quite clear that this was not achieved by peaceful means. And I speak as one whose father is a victim of the developments that took place in Asia Minor. 

Now, after about a year, Orhan freed Palamas, having received huge sums of money as ransom for him. Philotheus tells us that the money was given by Serbian or Dalmatian merchants operating on behalf of Stefan Dušan, who was still hopeful that Palamas would side with him. The Serbs were taking over the lands of the Empire on the western side and the Turks were coming in, of course, chiefly from the east. Gregoras, in his History, tells us that the ransom was paid by Cantacuzenus, who by this time had retired to Chora monastery, and was now known as the monk Joasaph. In the same year, in 1354, Kallistos I leaves the throne, Ostrogorsky tells us that this was the result of Kallistos protesting against Cantacuzenus' installation of his son Matthew as co-emperor, and the directive not to include John Palaeologus in the prayers of the Church, or in the acclamations at public festivals. So, Philotheus Kokkinos succeeds Kallistos at this point.