I imagine that is true [understanding Palamas] to the same degrees that it is crucial to understanding St. Thomas Aquinas for Latin Catholicism. My question is whether Palamas IS expounding the Cappodocians or not. I have not found any reference to "uncreated energies" in the three saints' writings. Nor have I received an answer on whether the Incarnation is an "energy" or God Himself in His Essence. I have decided to read Pelikan's Development of Doctrine on Eastern Christianity to give me a better understanding of how it developed and differs from the West. Until then, forgive me if I take a break from this discussion.
Regards
There are two types of "or" in logic. The "inclusive or" which may be either or both propositions, and the "exclusive or" which is either but not both. Think of this as an "inclusive or".
John McGuckin, a Romanian Orthodox priest and professor of early church history has a section in his book Standing in God's Holy Fire: The Byzantine Tradition on Hesychasm and Palamas. McGuckin discusses the Incarnation in this way:
Gregory insists that the light of Christ was not an attribute of God or a phenomenal form through which God chose to reveal himself (the appearance of an epiphany); on the contrary it was the unmediated presence of God himself. Gregory defined it as the Uncreated Energy. It could thus be distinguished from the Essence of God, the divine nature itself, which was wholly unapproachable by creation, and absolutely unknowable in its infinite transcendence, both in this age and the age to come. In the divine energy, however, the Godhead both created the world, and drew near to it in saving power. The incarnation was itself an act of the divine energy: here that energy made the impossible, possible: that a man could simultaneously be God, and that human flesh could be assumed into personal union with the divine Logos. The incarnate Lord is therefore the supreme paradigm of how God is present to the Church by virtue of his deifying energy.
Pelikan does give a fairly good summary of the Palamite controversies. Keep in mind that while he was very Orthodox in mindset, he did not actually convert to the Church until much later (just a few years before his death this last month.)
IMHO, he gives more weight to Meyendorff's analysis of Palamas than is due. Meyendorff's book had a lot of influence in the Church here in the West because he was the first one to publish works on Palamas.
But Meyendorff was fundamentally handicapped by the fact that he came out of the St. Sergius "Paris" school of Russian theology. This was a very academically oriented school, but other than Vladimir Lossky, the role of the inner life of the Orthodox spiritual life didn't seem to be understood very well.
It is worth hunting down Fr. John Romanides' two articles critiquing Meyendorff's books. While Fr. John (and especially some of his more enthusiastic followers) sometimes was a little over the top himself, he does understand traditional Greek Orthodox spirituality in general, and Palamas in particular. The articles are on line. I'll try to remember to send you links.