Replies

"Much of the discussion regarding "energies" and so forth is speculation. Kolo is correct regarding St. Palamas, few of us Latins are well versed in his writings - they came after the Great Schism - just as few Orthodox are familiar with St. Bonaventure or St. Bellarmine..."

In general you are correct that Orthodox people are not familiar with +Bonaventure and +Bellarmine but in fact both of those worthies (and many other "scholastic" or "systematic" Latin theologians) are essentially Barlaamite in their theology in this area. And while it is true that +Gregory Palamas' theology on grace may appear as speculation, it is speculation thoroughly based in the Fathers.

"While I am not as well-versed in the Orthodox point of view regarding the Trinity and "Grace", what I do understand seems to be complimentary, rather than contradictory, to the Latin view."

I am surprised to read this. I think these positions are fundamentally different and that difference leads the Churches in different directions.

" I have found this true regarding the filioque."

Given what the Latin Church wrote on the subject originally and now again many centuries later, I think it is fair to say that, if one accepts current Latin theology on the filioque, the differences are more in how we speak of the Trinity rather than in our limited understanding of the inner workings of the Trinity.

while it is true that +Gregory Palamas' theology on grace may appear as speculation, it is speculation thoroughly based in the Fathers.

The Eastern Fathers, no doubt. I don't recall seeing the West speak about "uncreated energies", I think most of the theological development came from the East on this subject (as in the West, other matters are more defined due to controversy from heretics, such as grace/free will). I know that some Western Fathers before the Schism wrote on the Trinity, such as St. Augustine and Ambrose, but I must admit that I am not able to give a detailed difference between the two thought patterns.

I think these positions are fundamentally different and that difference leads the Churches in different directions.

That is true, but I don't see that these "different directions" necessarily means you are right and we are wrong (or vice versus). I see our respective views on the Trinity as complimentary, different ways of using fundamentally incomplete human language to explain the inner life of the Trinity. We mean the same general thing when we recite the Nicean Creed and note that John's Gospel says that the Father sends the Spirit, and elsewhere, the Son sends the Spirit. We realize that there is only ONE divine principle "sending" into time the Spirit. As I have struggled to say, we do not believe in two different essences sending forth a third!

Does our respective views of the Trinity lead to different focuses? Sure. I don't think God would have it any other way! Do you think our respective views of the Trinity makes the Latin church null and void or vice versus? Certainly not!

Regards