Dimond Brothers and Palamas

Greek "Orthodox" Gregory Palamas Is Not A Saint & He Was Condemned Before Vatican II
vaticancatholic.com, 8 Febr. 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTQbU1kqxFM

5:42 Are you aware that the French Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique has two articles on Palamas - one on Palamism, which is about as rejecting as your position, one on the rest about Palamas, which is fairly appreciative?

According to it he supported:

• the Petrine office as superior to other Apostles
• the Immaculate Conception
• the procession of the Holy Ghost "ab utroque" - coming as close to expressing it as the Photian ban on the exact formula allowed him to.

Certainly, it is not a fault free source, since it was an "early bird" in supporting Evolution, I think Theilhard himself was entrusted with an article on Adam, but still ...

As for Palamism being a heresy, it may objectively be one, but seems to have not yet been condemned on the level of the universal Church.

Toledo I in c. 400 condemned "uncreated virtues" other than the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and "virtus" and "energeia" would seem to correspond, but if Palamas had known this condemnation of Priscillianism, he would also have known the same council professed "qui a Patre Filioque procedit" ...

6:33 "Around 1336, Gregory Palamas received copies of treatises written by Barlaam against the Latins, condemning their insertion of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed. Palamas took issue with Barlaam's argument in support of it, since Barlaam declared 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.[8] A series of letters ensued between the two but they were unable to resolve their differences amicably"

So, was Catholic Encyclopedia honouring an agnostic?

As for Palamas' demonstrations of "from the Father, not from the Son" the analysis of DThC already referred to goes to the direction that Palamas except for direct verbal affirmation came close to "from the Father and from the Son" ... (I think Palamas used every preposition about the Son except "from" ...)

9:07 As a Thomist, I believe that God's acts circa creata are not really distinct from His essence.

But while they are eternal in so far as they proceed from God as His acts, they are still temporal.

Grace is an example insofar as someone in a specific moment ceases to be in original or mortal sin or both, and begins to have sanctifying grace. Therefore, seen from the view of creation, grace has a beginning. Nevertheless, it is essentially God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the infinite and the eternal, living in a soul. Who lives in the soul by grace has no beginning, but that He lives there in that soul has.

I think Palamas erroneously would have argued that, if the acts of God circa creata were not really distinct from His essence, they would not be His free acts. Hence the rest of his errors on this matter. And, yes, I believe these are errors.

10:26 Your view is not identic to the council of Zamość.

By stating "he is a heretic" you are mentioning him.

The council was however forbidding to mention him. From your resumé, it would appear, not just liturgically. It was a decision to hush up an apparently difficult question.