Hesychasm attracted the attention of
Barlaam, a man who either converted to Orthodoxy or was baptized Orthodox who encountered Hesychasts and heard descriptions of their practices during a visit to
Mount Athos; he had also read the writings of Palamas, himself an Athonite monk. Trained in Western
Scholastic theology, Barlaam was scandalized by hesychasm and began to combat it both orally and in his writings. As a private teacher of theology in the Western Scholastic mode, Barlaam propounded a more intellectual and propositional approach to the knowledge of God than the hesychasts taught. On the hesychast side, the controversy was taken up by Palamas, who was asked by his fellow monks on Mt Athos to defend hesychasm from the attacks of Barlaam. Palamas was well-educated in Greek philosophy. Gregory wrote a number of works in its defense and defended hesychasm at six different synods in
Constantinople, ultimately triumphing over its attackers in the synod of 1351.
Early conflict between Barlaam and Palamas Although Barlaam came from southern Italy, his ancestry was Greek, and he claimed Eastern Orthodoxy as his Christian faith. Arriving in Constantinople around 1330, Barlaam was working on commentaries on
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite under the patronage of
John VI Kantakouzenos. Around 1336, Gregory received copies of treatises written by Barlaam against the Latins, condemning their insertion of the
Filioque into the
Nicene Creed. Although this condemnation was solid Orthodox theology, Palamas took issue with Barlaam's argument in support of it, namely that efforts at demonstrating the nature of God (specifically, the nature of the Holy Spirit) should be abandoned, because God is ultimately unknowable and undemonstrable to humans. Thus, Barlaam asserted that it was impossible to determine from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. According to Sara J. Denning-Bolle, Palamas viewed Barlaam's argument as "dangerously agnostic." In his response titled "Apodictic Treatises", Palamas insisted that it was indeed demonstrable that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father but not from the Son. A series of letters ensued between the two but they were unable to resolve their differences amicably.
Triads In response to Barlaam's attacks, Palamas wrote nine treatises entitled "Triads For The Defense of Those Who Practice Sacred Quietude." The treatises are called "triads" because they were organized as three sets of three treatises. The Triads were written in three stages. The first triad was written in the second half of the 1330s and is based on personal discussions between Palamas and Barlaam, although Barlaam is never mentioned by name. In response, Barlaam drafted "Against the Messalians", which attacked Gregory by name for the first time. Barlaam derisively called the hesychasts
omphalopsychoi (men with their souls in their navels) and accused them of the heresy of
Messalianism, a name also attributed to
Bogomilism. According to Meyendorff, Barlaam viewed "any claim of real and conscious experience of God as Messalianism". Barlaam also took exception to the doctrine held by the hesychasts as to the uncreated nature of the light, the experience of which was said to be the goal of hesychast practice, regarding it as
heretical and
blasphemous. It was maintained by the hesychasts to be of divine origin and to be identical to
the light which had been manifested to Jesus' disciples on
Mount Tabor at the
Transfiguration. Barlaam viewed this doctrine of "uncreated light" to be
polytheistic because it postulated two eternal substances, a visible and an invisible God. Barlaam accuses the use of the
Jesus Prayer as being a practice of
Bogomilism. The second triad quotes some of Barlaam's writings directly. In response to this second triad, Barlaam composed the treatise "Against the Messalians" linking the hesychasts to the
Messalians and thereby accusing them of heresy. In the third Triad, Palamas refuted Barlaam's charge of Messalianism by demonstrating that the hesychasts did not share the antisacramentalism of the Messalians nor did they claim to physically see the essence of God with their eyes.
Role in the Byzantine civil war Although the
civil war between the supporters of
John VI Kantakouzenos and the regents for
John V Palaeologus was not primarily a religious conflict, the theological dispute between the supporters and opponents of Palamas did play a role in the conflict. Steven Runciman points out that "while the theological dispute embittered the conflict, the religious and political parties did not coincide." The aristocrats supported Palamas largely due to their conservative and anti-Western tendencies as well as their links to the staunchly
Orthodox monasteries. Although several significant exceptions leave the issue open to question, in the popular mind (and traditional historiography), the supporters of "Palamism" and of "Kantakouzenism" are usually equated. Thus, the eventual triumph of Kantakouzenos in 1347 also brought with it the conclusive triumph of the Palamists over the anti-Palamists.
Fifth Council of Constantinople It became clear that the dispute between Barlaam and Palamas was irreconcilable and would require the judgment of an episcopal council. A series of six patriarchal councils were held in Constantinople on 10 June 1341, August 1341, 4 November 1344, 1 February 1347, 8 February 1347, and 28 May 1351 to consider the issues. Collectively, these councils are accepted as having ecumenical status by
Orthodox Christians, some of whom call them the
Fifth Council of Constantinople and the Ninth Ecumenical Council. The dispute over hesychasm came before a synod held at Constantinople in May 1341 and presided over by the Emperor
Andronicus III. The assembly, influenced by the veneration in which the writings of
Pseudo-Dionysius were held in the Eastern Church, condemned Barlaam, who
recanted. The ecumenical patriarch insisted that all of Barlaam's writings be destroyed, and thus, no complete copies of Barlaam's treatise "Against Messalianism" have survived. One notable opponent of Palamism was
Nicephorus Gregoras who refused to submit to the dictates of the synod and was effectively imprisoned in a monastery for two years.
Gradual acceptance of the Palamist doctrine housing his
relics, in
Thessaloniki (architect:
Ernst Ziller) Kallistos I and the ecumenical patriarchs who succeeded him mounted a vigorous campaign to have the Palamist doctrines accepted by the other Eastern patriarchates as well as all the metropolitan sees under their jurisdiction. However, it took some time to overcome initial resistance to his teachings. For example, the Metropolitan of Kiev, upon receiving tomes from Kallistos that expounded the Palamist doctrine, rejected it vehemently and composed a reply in refutation. Similarly, the Patriarchate of Antioch remained steadfastly opposed to what they viewed as an innovation; however, by the end of the fourteenth century, Palamism had become accepted there. Similar acts of resistance were seen in the metropolitan sees that were governed by the Latins as well as in some autonomous ecclesiastical regions, such as the
Church of Cyprus. One notable example of the campaign to enforce the orthodoxy of the Palamist doctrine was the action taken by Patriarch
Philotheos I to crack down on
Prochoros Kydones, a monk and priest at Mount Athos who was opposed to the Palamites. Kydones had written a number of anti-Palamist treatises and continued to argue forcefully against Palamism even when brought before the patriarch and enjoined to adhere to the orthodox doctrine. Finally, in exasperation, Philotheos convened a synod against Kydones in April 1368. However, even this extreme measure failed to affect the submission of Kydones, and in the end, he was excommunicated and suspended from the clergy in perpetuity. The long tome that was prepared for the synod concludes with a decree canonizing Palamas who had died in 1357/59. Despite the initial opposition of some patriarchates and sees, over time, the resistance dwindled away, and ultimately, the Palamist doctrine became accepted throughout the Eastern Orthodox Church. During this period, it became the norm for ecumenical patriarchs to profess the Palamite doctrine upon taking possession of their see. == Later years ==