I have read that Gregory Palamas repented at the end of his life, support the doctrine of the filoque and supported union with Rome.
Any Roman Catholic who puts such an emphasis on reason, logic and intellect should not repeat bizarre claims that fly in the face of historical evidence, scholarly opinion -- even the teaching of one's own Church!! -- on the basis that one has "read" such a claim (Who made this claim? Where? In what peer-reviewed journal? Based on what evidence?).
Quite an interesting standard of proof, no? I suppose that I should join the Da Vinci Code
fan club and start spreading the real truth. After all, I once read that...
Actually that is a modernist position, the position that all is subjective, the position that is creatind a philosophy today that there is no such thing as truth.
Ummmmmmmmm....the position you are describing is not a modernist one. In fact, much of your argument in this post is rather in agreement with many major tenets of modernist philosophy and science. Later research has indicated that Papist mis-remembered this bit of information--in fact, it was St. Gregory Palamas' opponent Barlaam whose misunderstanding of the Created vs. Uncreated energies of God debate was so profound that he eventually went to Rome, where his theology was commonly accepted.
Papist retracted his statement in this post:http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9936.0.htmlchris