I'm skimming through some of Palamas writings tonight. Rather interesting as some of his ideas sound very Protestanish, for an Orthodox. Also, since his writings were in the 1300+ he would be very close to the era of the Reformation. It's interesting, though not surprising, that some of his views were considered heretical until later in life.
I think there is a certain core of Christianity even among most Christians who find it more fun to argue about the differences. But yes, when I first read Palamas, his writing had such a familiar ring that I felt quite at home.
Also, since his writings were in the 1300+ he would be very close to the era of the Reformation.
I don't think there is any historical cause here. Luther didn't tack up his theses against the selling of indulgences (which I don't believe the Orthodox have never done--they don't have a treasury of merits to grant or sell indulgences from) until 1517, although John Wycliffe and the Lollards were around in the 14th century and John Huss and his Hussites in the 15th. Palamas was trying to defend some monastics who claimed they had direct experience of the light of Christ. Palamas made his defence by affirming what he saw as traditional Christianity.
It's interesting, though not surprising, that some of his views were considered heretical until later in life.
That has happened quite a bit in church history--both East and West.
" Rather interesting as some of his ideas sound very Protestanish, for an Orthodox."
Apropos of that, and the ongoing side discussion of the Most Holy Theotokos, try reading this:
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/dormition.html
Let me know if +Gregory still sounds "Protestantish"! :)