Energy/Essence similar to Accident/Substance

[Ghosty]

Right. And knowing about something through analogy is not the same as knowing it as it really is in itself, which is what St. Thomas and the earlier fathers are denying can be done.

If you tell me that you’re sad, I’ll know something of it by referring it to my own experience of sadness, so that I have an idea about what you may be going through. But this idea I have is only by relating to my own direct or real knowledge of my own experience of sadness (that is, by rlating it to some real knowledge I already have)- it cannot transform into a direct or real knowledge of your own sadness the way you know it. Only my own experience of my own sadness gives me some idea about yours through relating it to my own (which is what I understand analogy to mean). Since we’re both human, my idea of your sadness will be a pretty good idea about it. Yet it still will not be a real knowledge of that sadness (yours) all the same.

At the end of the day, these words ‘‘God is he who is (YHWH)’’ ‘‘One God’’ ‘‘God is love’’ ‘‘God is eternal’’ ‘‘God is Trinity’’ etc remain ideas in human minds about a being who is beyond human comprehension. These ideas have no power of becoming themselves God, or his oneness, or his love, or his infinity, or his eternality etc, so that having these ideas about him would equate to knowing these realities of God as they really are.

No one in the West seems to claim that they (the ideas we have) can give us this knowledge claimed, certainly not St. Thomas. Even the beatific vision involves possessing God but not ‘‘containing’’ him in the mind or will, which is what comprehension or the kind of knowing that Cavaradossi is speaking means, and which is what Beatific Vision would mean if this is what was believed in the West.

Spot on. Aquinas is grossly misunderstood by the East, and Palamas is grossly misunderstood by the West. Both drew from the same Fathers to deal with the same questions, but they went about answering the difficulties in different ways.

Having been fortunate enough to study the Summa under Fr. Bernhard Blankenhorn O.P. (if you haven’t heard of him, you will; he’s bound to be a big name in Thomistic theology) I’m always a bit surprised at what some in the East think Aquinas is saying, and what the West thinks Palamas is saying (I actually had to correct Fr. Bernhard on this, because his understanding was that the East didn’t believe we could ever know God at all). It’s a different theological language, just as the essence/energy distinction is foreign to the West, but it’s amusing to see how misunderstood both sides end up.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cavaradossi]

We can speak of something that is remote and hidden because we know of it through its effects, and this is how we can say that there is a Divine Essence at all. Furthermore we can signify this hidden thing with names without having direct knowledge of it, just as we speak of the Divine Essence when we only know the Divine Energy; we know it is there because of the effects, and we know it is the source of these effects. Aquinas is only speaking about this kind of signification, such as when Scripture says “God is Love”, he is never speaking of knowledge of the Divine Essence.

To use St. Basil’s example, we can speak of Timothy, we can speak of Timothy’s essence, and we can know something of the essence without knowing the essence itself, such as Timothy’s essence exists, and that it is human. All of these things can be said of the essence without having to know the essence itself. If we could not say these things of the essence then we couldn’t even speak of an essence of Timothy in the first place; if we are absolutely ignorant of the essence in every way, then we can not even acknowledge the existence of the essence.

But that is exactly the mindset of the Greek Fathers when it comes to the essence of God. The essence of God properly does not exist. The energies exist, but the essence absolutely does not exist or be. It is so beyond our comprehension that even our framework for understanding everything, being, does not apply to the essence of God, which transcends being and existence. That is the meaning of the common phrase ‘hyperousios ousia’ or supersubstantial essence (literally, the being beyond being). To paraphrase Palamas: ‘if God is nature, we are not nature; if we are nature, then God is not nature.’

I will point out, however, that even St. Basil (in your second quote) shows that he’s speaking of comprehension, not the indirect knowledge spoken of in Latin theology. In the Greek Fathers this is often the case, as “knowing the essence” involves comprehension in their terminology and approach. In Latin theology a distinction is made between “knowing” (which can refer to indirect knowledge, as knowing that there is an essence is, in a certain sense, knowing something of the essence) and “comprehending” (truly knowing the essence in the most proper sense), which is not always clearly made by the early Greek Fathers.

But that doesn’t seem to map onto the Greek Fathers’ understanding of knowledge very well. They would deny that the essence can be known even indirectly, because they deny that anything positive can be said of the essence of God, owing to its absolute transcendence.

 

[Ghosty]

The Essence of God exists, but beyond our mode of understanding existence. It is incorrect to flatly say the essence does not exist, it is more proper to say that God is beyond existence. Aquinas says the exact same thing, incidently. The Fathers do speak of the Essence, they just don’t define it because it can’t be grasped by they created mind. We can speak “around” the Essence, but this does require a real Essence even if the very term “essence” is merely analogical and does not match the thing being discussed.

Remember, if we can’t speak of the Essence at all the we can’t speak of the Trinity sharing one Essence. While it is important to remain mindful of the inaccessability of the Essence, taking it to far contradicts the Faith, makes a lie of the Creed, and ultimately destroys even the Divine Energy; if you can say nothing about the Divine Essence then you can’t confess that the Divine Energy is of the Divine Essence. No Father makes this claim, least of all Palamas.

As to your second point, it seems you don’t understand what is meant by speaking analogically. The analogy is not the proper definition, and it does not properly speak to what God is. For example, when we say that God made us we are speaking analogically because there is no definition of “made” in human understang that properly applies to this act of God. His work is a mystery, but the fact of His work is evident everywhere. The analologicalproperly applies to the creatures it derives from, not to God, but it gives us words to speak “around” the thing that we know exists because of its effects. The analogy speaks towards God, but not of God.

The East, influenced by the language and approach of hyper-Platonism, and concerned with the errors that this tendency gives rise to, is much more circumspect about using terms to explain God. Platonism can lead to the notion that speaking about a thing defines it, and to define it is to possess it in the mind. Since this can’t be done with God, the East stresses the impossibility of proper knowledge of God. The West, not having as strong a tendency towards hyper-Platonism, is freer with speaking of God, but always has the understanding that God can not be spoken of with proper definitions, that the Essence can never be spoken of with Platonic knowledge.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Zekariya]

But that is exactly the mindset of the Greek Fathers when it comes to the essence of God. The essence of God properly does not exist. The energies exist, but the essence absolutely does not exist or be.

I would appreciate some quotes to support this comment. I am sure that you must have mistyped or meant to say uncreated. I will reply just incase you really mean that God’s essence doesn’t exist. I have read the eastern Fathers say that God’s essence is uncreate. “God alone is substantially and essentially God. When I say “alone” I set forth the holy and uncreated essence and substance of God.” - St Basil the Great, ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.ix.html

God tells Moses that His Name is “I AM”. “I am” is a form of “to be”. YHVH is derived from a verb that means “to be”. Christ tells the Pharisees, "Before Abraham was, I AM. That alone proves that God is a “being”. God is the Divine Essence. He cannot have an essence if he doesn’t exist.

Essence belongs to the common; hypostasis belongs to the individual. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son, etc.

 

[Marybeloved]

The Essence of God exists, but beyond our mode of understanding existence. It is incorrect to flatly say the essence does not exist, it is more proper to say that God is beyond existence. Aquinas says the exact same thing, incidently. The Fathers do speak of the Essence, they just don’t define it because it can’t be grasped by they created mind. We can speak “around” the Essence, but this does require a real Essence even if the very term “essence” is merely analogical and does not match the thing being discussed.

Remember, if we can’t speak of the Essence at all the we can’t speak of the Trinity sharing one Essence. While it is important to remain mindful of the inaccessability of the Essence, taking it to far contradicts the Faith, makes a lie of the Creed, and ultimately destroys even the Divine Energy; if you can say nothing about the Divine Essence then you can’t confess that the Divine Energy is of the Divine Essence. No Father makes this claim, least of all Palamas.

As to your second point, it seems you don’t understand what is meant by speaking analogically. The analogy is not the proper definition, and it does not properly speak to what God is. For example, when we say that God made us we are speaking analogically because there is no definition of “made” in human understang that properly applies to this act of God. His work is a mystery, but the fact of His work is evident everywhere. The analologicalproperly applies to the creatures it derives from, not to God, but it gives us words to speak “around” the thing that we know exists because of its effects. The analogy speaks towards God, but not of God.

The East, influenced by the language and approach of hyper-Platonism, and concerned with the errors that this tendency gives rise to, is much more circumspect about using terms to explain God. Platonism can lead to the notion that speaking about a thing defines it, and to define it is to possess it in the mind. Since this can’t be done with God, the East stresses the impossibility of proper knowledge of God. The West, not having as strong a tendency towards hyper-Platonism, is freer with speaking of God, but always has the understanding that God can not be spoken of with proper definitions, that the Essence can never be spoken of with Platonic knowledge.

Peace and God bless!

Zactly! Plus the logic is as self-contradictory as sola-scriptura- If we cannot speak in any way, analogically or indirectly of the essence, then we can’t! Not even to say that we can’t, or that it is beyond us. We would not even know of such a thing as the essence so as to be able to have an argument on CAF about what it was and what it was not! If there is such a thing as that (beyond any kind of creaturely knowledge, even indirect and analogical), we (the creatures)simply are not discussing it here (Nor the Fathers in their writings) at all because we have zero knowledge about it, even the fact that there is such a thing! In other words, God has made no revelation at all about it anywhere at all, even that there is such a thing!

The East, influenced by the language and approach of hyper-Platonism, and concerned with the errors that this tendency gives rise to, is much more circumspect about using terms to explain God.

And in addition, the fact that God IS- (being) is a matter of Divine Revelation (God to Moses- I am that I am). How could we place any kind of philosophy above the Revelation of God himself about himself to us?

 

[Ghosty]

I would appreciate some quotes to support this comment. I am sure that you must have mistyped or meant to say uncreated. I will reply just incase you really mean that God’s essence doesn’t exist. I have read the eastern Fathers say that God’s essence is uncreate. “God alone is substantially and essentially God. When I say “alone” I set forth the holy and uncreated essence and substance of God.” - St Basil the Great, ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.ix.html

God tells Moses that His Name is “I AM”. “I am” is a form of “to be”. YHVH is derived from a verb that means “to be”. Christ tells the Pharisees, "Before Abraham was, I AM. That alone proves that God is a “being”. God is the Divine Essence. He cannot have an essence if he doesn’t exist.

Essence belongs to the common; hypostasis belongs to the individual. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son, etc.

The point, I think, is that what we call being doesn’t properly apply to God. We know being only by way of creatures, and the being of creatures is infinitely less than God. It’s an important point to remember so that we don’t fall into the error of thinking we can come close to understanding God, but I think Cavaradossi is carrying the language too far without providing the context.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Zekariya]

The point, I think, is that what we call being doesn’t properly apply to God.

The Fathers considered God uncreate, beyond our full understanding, etc. I do not think that it is ever right to say that the divine essence does not exist and that God’s essence doesn’t “be”. God is the ultimate “being”. He fulfills the definition of “to be” perfectly. His Name (I AM - YHVH) means “to be”.

We know being only by way of creatures, and the being of creatures is infinitely less than God. It’s an important point to remember so that we don’t fall into the error of thinking we can come close to understanding God, but I think Cavaradossi is carrying the language too far without providing the context.

Peace and God bless!

I agree with this statement.

Peace!

 

[Marybeloved]

The Fathers considered God uncreate, beyond our full understanding, etc. I do not think that it is ever right to say that the divine essence does not exist and that God’s essence doesn’t “be”. God is the ultimate “being”. His Name (I AM - YHVH) means “to be”.

Me either. God surely knows himself better than any Greek philosophy and he tells us that he IS (being). Divine Revelation. We can say that his being is not like ours, that it is transcendent to ours, that there is an infinite distance between YHWH and all his creatures. But we can never contradict Divine Revelation about YHWH (He who IS- The Great I AM), any more than we can say that God is not true!

 

[mardukm]

From an Oriental perspective, the Essence/Energy distinction only exists to help in our limited understanding of God. They do not properly apply to the ontology of God Himself. That is why Orientals, unlike Easterns, generally do not use phrases like “Essence IS God” or “Energy IS God” (though Orientals will speak of the Essence OF God, or the Energy OF God) for that seems like introducing another distinction into the ontology of God Himself aside from the distinction of Persons.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

Me either. God surely knows himself better than any Greek philosophy and he tells us that he IS (being). Divine Revelation. We can say that his being is not like ours, that it is transcendent to ours, that there is an infinite distance between YHWH and all his creatures. But we can never contradict Divine Revelation about YHWH (He who IS- The Great I AM), any more than we can say that God is not true!

I agree with both of you, and my reading of the Greek Fathers bears this out. They often say things like “essence beyond essence” and “being beyond being”, and this is analogical language by definition. The Latin tradition tends to simply take it for granted that remotion and analogy is being used when speaking of God, and, as Marybeloved points out, this is actually truer to the Scriptural mode of speaking about God.

One way is not better than the other, but the Latin way is definitely “scripture oriented”, and the Greek way is more “philosophy oriented”. Lest anyone think the Latin way is inherently better, remember where “sola scriptura” comes from.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Marybeloved]

I agree with both of you, and my reading of the Greek Fathers bears this out. They often say things like “essence beyond essence” and “being beyond being”, and this is analogical language by definition. The Latin tradition tends to simply take it for granted that remotion and analogy is being used when speaking of God, and, as Marybeloved points out, this is actually truer to the Scriptural mode of speaking about God.

One way is not better than the other, but the Latin way is definitely “scripture oriented”, and the Greek way is more “philosophy oriented”. Lest anyone think the Latin way is inherently better, remember where “sola scriptura” comes from.

Peace and God bless!

I agree that ours is in this instance the more scripture oriented approach, but surely philosophy is merely a construct, not at par with divine revelation but merely in service of it. Even Thomism with it’s heavy Aristotelian subjects philosophy to the Revelation which is always superior to any philosophy (East or West). Also, being scripture oriented does not necessitate denial of any non-scriptural revelation or rejection of any interpreting authority of the Church (sola scriptura), but it does exclude explicit contradiction of scripture (That is, in meaning not merely wording). In other words, its scripture within all Revelation (Tradition) but not contradiction of either.

 

[Zekariya]

I agree with both of you, and my reading of the Greek Fathers bears this out. They often say things like “essence beyond essence” and “being beyond being”, and this is analogical language by definition.

I agree with you, God is still considered to be divine essence and being even though He is beyond all. I mainly read the Eastern Fathers myself.

 

[Ghosty]

I agree with you, God is still considered to be divine essence and being even though He is beyond all. I mainly read the Eastern Fathers myself.

I would even go so far as to say that it is more proper to say that we are the ones without being, without essence, ect. Everything in us and about us is simply a weak participation of God, and we are literally nothing at the root. The problem is that our only context for knowledge is other things that are “nigh unto nothing”, so we have no worldly experience of true, full existence (though we can share in it through Grace).

Another point worth making is that the term “supernatural” in Latin theology refers only to God, precisely because He is a “nature beyond nature”. The meaning has been corrupted in common speech, and is used to mean anything beyond the “natural world”, but it’s true meaning is still used in Thomistic writings.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Marybeloved]

I would even go so far as to say that it is more proper to say that we are the ones without being, without essence, ect. Everything in us and about us is simply a weak participation of God, and we are literally nothing at the root. The problem is that our only context for knowledge is other things that are “nigh unto nothing”, so we have no worldly experience of true, full existence (though we can share in it through Grace).

Another point worth making is that the term “supernatural” in Latin theology refers only to God, precisely because He is a “nature beyond nature”. The meaning has been corrupted in common speech, and is used to mean anything beyond the “natural world”, but it’s true meaning is still used in Thomistic writings.

Peace and God bless!

True. Our saints say that what we really are is nothingness itself. Per St. Thomas, only God is Actus Purus. Everything else is granted its existence in an absolute sense (even then, its an infinitely inferior existence). It never belongs to anything not God to exist- only God. Which is why he chose it for his identity in scripture to set himself apart from everything else. No one else is He who IS, but YHWH.

 

[Zekariya]

“I said, O Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul; for I have sinned against You. Lord, I have fled unto You, save me, and teach me to do Your will, for You are my God, and with You is the fountain of life. In Your light shall we see light.
Let Your mercy come unto those who know You, and Your righteousness unto the upright in heart. To You belongs blessing. To You belongs praise. To You belongs glory, O Father, Son and Holy Spirit, existing from the beginning, now, and forever and ever. Amen.”

• The Agpeya (Coptic Liturgy of the Hours), 12th Hour

Not directed toward anyone in particular. I’m just saying, the way we pray is the way we believe (lex orandi, lex credendi).

 

[Vico]

“I said, O Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul; for I have sinned against You. Lord, I have fled unto You, save me, and teach me to do Your will, for You are my God, and with You is the fountain of life. In Your light shall we see light.
Let Your mercy come unto those who know You, and Your righteousness unto the upright in heart. To You belongs blessing. To You belongs praise. To You belongs glory, O Father, Son and Holy Spirit, existing from the beginning, now, and forever and ever. Amen.”

• The Agpeya (Coptic Liturgy of the Hours), 12th Hour

Not directed toward anyone in particular. I’m just saying, the way we pray is the way we believe (lex orandi, lex credendi).

I love that prayer. Similarly in the Anaphora of Saint Basil (Ruthenian) there is:
Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord. [338]

People: It is proper [339] and just to worship the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, one in essence and undivided.

The priest says quietly: [340]

Priest: O You‐Who‐Are, [341] Master, Lord, God, Father Almighty,
and Adorable! It is truly proper and just [342]
and befitting the majesty of Your holiness to praise You,
to sing to You, to bless You, to worship You, to give thanks to You,
and to glorify You ‐ the only truly existing God [343] ‐
and to offer to You this, our rational service,[344]
with a contrite heart and a humbled spirit, [345]
for You are the One who has bestowed upon us
the knowledge of Your truth. [346]
338 1 Chronicles 16:18, 41, 2 Chronicles 20:21, 31, Judith 8:25, Psalm 7:18(17), 9:2(10;1), 56:10(57:9),
137(138):1 (and etc.), Judith 8:25, Isaiah 12:4 (and etc.), 1 Corinthians 15:57, 2 Thessalonians 2:13,
Revelation 11:17.
339 2 Thessalonians 1:3.
340 Služebnik as enhanced by Ordo §133.
341 Exodus 3:14.
342 2 Thessalonians 1:3.
343 John 5:44.
344 Romans 12:1. KJV & D‐R have “reasonable service”. RSV, NASB, ESV have “spiritual worship”.
345 Daniel 3:16.
346 Hebrews 10:26.

The Anaphora of Saint Mark:
Priest: Let us give thanks unto the Lord.
Choir: It is meet and just so to do.
Priest: It is truly meet and just, holy and becoming, and advantageous to our souls, to worship Thee, the Existing One, Lord God, Father almighty, to worship Thee, to hymn Thee, to give thanks to Thee, to render Thee praise, both night and day, with unceasing mouth and lips that keep not silence, and heart that cannot be still; Thee Who madest the heaven and the things that are in the heaven, the earth and the things that are in the earth, the sea, the fountains, the rivers, the lakes, and all things that are in them; Thee Who didst make man after Thine own image and likeness, and also gavest him the delights that were in Paradise, and didst not despise him when he fell, nor desert him, O good God, but didst call him again by the Law, didst educate him by the Prophets, didst reform him and renew him by this fearful and life-creating and heavenly Mystery; all these things Thou hast done by Thy Wisdom, the true Light, Thine only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Whom, rendering thanks to Thee with Himself and the Holy Spirit, we offer to Thee this reasonable and unbloody sacrifice, which all nations offer to Thee, O Lord, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, from the north and from the south; for Thy name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to Thy name, and a pure offering.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I would appreciate some quotes to support this comment. I am sure that you must have mistyped or meant to say uncreated. I will reply just incase you really mean that God’s essence doesn’t exist. I have read the eastern Fathers say that God’s essence is uncreate. “God alone is substantially and essentially God. When I say “alone” I set forth the holy and uncreated essence and substance of God.” - St Basil the Great, ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.ix.html

You are not understanding Basil’s thought here. This is in fact no proof at all that Basil thinks that we can have knowledge of the essence of God. This demonstrates just the opposite type of statement (an apophatic one), which does not name the essence of God, but only tells us what the essence of God is not. As St. John of Damascus writes in his Exposition on the Orthodox faith: The Deity is simple and uncompound. But that which is composed of many and different elements is compound. If, then, we should speak of the qualities of being uncreate and without beginning and incorporeal and immortal and everlasting and good and creative and so forth as essential differences in the case of God, that which is composed of so many qualities will not be simple but must be compound. But this is impious in the extreme. Each then of the affirmations about God should be thought of as signifying not what He is in essence, but either something that it is impossible to make plain, or some relation to some of those things which are contrasts or some of those things that follow the nature, or an energy…

The terms ‘without beginning,’ ‘incorruptible,’ ‘unbegotten,’ as also ‘uncreate,’ ‘incorporeal,’ ‘unseen,’ and so forth, explain what He is not: that is to say, they tell us that His being had no beginning, that He is not corruptible, nor created, nor corporeal, nor visible.
Notice how he makes the same assertion that Basil does in the two epistles I linked, namely that no affirmation about God tells us what God is. Also agreeing on this matter is St. Gregory of Nyssa (that would be St. Basil’s brother, called the father of fathers by the seventh ecumenical council) who writes that there is no name known which is proper to the essence of God, and so such a name either does not exist or is not known by man:For when we gather, as it were, into the form of a name the conception of any subject that arises in us, we declare our concept by words that vary at different times, not making, but signifying, the thing by the name we give it. For the things remain in themselves as they naturally are, while the mind, touching on existing things, reveals its thought by such words as are available. And just as the essence of Peter was not changed with the change of his name, so neither is any other of the things we contemplate changed in the process of mutation of names. And for this reason we say that the term “Ungenerate” was applied by us to the true and first Father Who is the Cause of all, and that no harm would result as regards the signifying of the Subject, if we were to acknowledge the same concept under another name. For it is allowable instead of speaking of Him as “Ungenerate,” to call Him the “First Cause” or “Father of the Only-begotten,” or to speak of Him as “existing without cause,” and many such appellations which lead to the same thought; so that Eunomius confirms our doctrines by the very arguments in which he makes complaint against us, because we know no name significant of the Divine Nature. We are taught the fact of Its existence, while we assert that an appellation of such force as to include the unspeakable and infinite Nature, either does not exist at all, or at any rate is unknown to us. Let him then leave his accustomed language of fable, and show us the names which signify the essences, and then proceed further to divide the subject by the divergence of their names. But so long as the saying of the Scripture is true that Abraham and Moses were not capable of the knowledge of the Name, and that “no man has seen God at any time ,” and that “no man has seen Him, nor can see,” and that the light around Him is unapproachable, and “there is no end of His greatness ”—so long as we say and believe these things, how like is an argument that promises any comprehension and expression of the infinite Nature, by means of the significance of names, to one who thinks that he can enclose the whole sea in his own hand! For as the hollow of one’s hand is to the whole deep, so is all the power of language in comparison with that Nature which is unspeakable and incomprehensible.

newadvent.org/fathers/290107.htm

 

[Cavaradossi]

God tells Moses that His Name is “I AM”. “I am” is a form of “to be”. YHVH is derived from a verb that means “to be”. Christ tells the Pharisees, "Before Abraham was, I AM. That alone proves that God is a “being”. God is the Divine Essence. He cannot have an essence if he doesn’t exist.

This is not the proper way of understanding the ‘being’ and ‘essence’ of God in the tradition of the Greek-speaking East. One consequent of Gregory of Nyssa’s (and in general, the Eastern tradition’s as a whole) strong affirmation that no name is proper of the essence of God would be in fact that even the name ‘that which is’ (ho on) is also not proper of the essence of God. This understanding is in fact part of Gregory of Nyssa’s deconstructive argument against Eunomius. For Gregory of Nyssa, ‘being’ is predicated of God and creation equivocally, such that creation can never know in any sense that which is beyond itself (that is, what is beyond the diastema or ‘gap’), because that thing has no being. He writes:Thus the whole created order is unable to get out of itself through a comprehensive vision, but tremains continually enclosed within itself, and whatever it beholds, it is looking at itself. And even if it somehow thinks it is looking at something beyond itself, that which it sees outside itself has no being. One may struggle to surpass or transcend diastemic conception by the understanding of the created universe, but he does not transcend. For in every object it conceptually discovers, it always comprehends the diastema inherent in the being of the apparent object, for diastema is nothing other than creation itself.Applying this, he observes in Against Eunomius that being is the only (inaccurate) framework we have for understanding God, otherwise our attempts to predicate things of God would be nonsensical. This passage is a bit dense, and it needs to be read in the context of Gregory’s understanding of the diastema, a gap across which created things cannot cross:But what He is, in His own Nature, Who exists apart from generation, and what He is, Who is believed to have been generated, we do not learn from the signification of “having been generated,” and “not having been generated.” For when we say “this person was generated” (or “was not generated”), we are impressed with a two-fold thought, having our eyes turned to the subject by the demonstrative part of the phrase, and learning that which is contemplated in the subject by the words “was generated” or “was not generated,”— as it is one thing to think of that which is, and another to think of what we contemplate in that which is. But, moreover, the word “ is” is surely understood with every name that is used concerning the Divine Nature,— as “just,” “incorruptible,” “immortal,” and “ungenerate,” and whatever else is said of Him; even if this word does not happen to occur in the phrase, yet the thought both of the speaker and the hearer surely makes the name attach to “ is,” so that if this word were not added, the appellation would be uttered in vain. For instance (for it is better to present an argument by way of illustration), when David says, “God, a righteous judge, strong and patient ,” if “is” were not understood with each of the epithets included in the phrase, the enumerations of the appellations will seem purposeless and unreal, not having any subject to rest upon; but when “is” is understood with each of the names, what is said will clearly be of force, being contemplated in reference to that which is. As, then, when we say “He is a judge,” we conceive concerning Him some operation of judgment, and by the “is” carry our minds to the subject, and are hereby clearly taught not to suppose that the account of His being is the same with the action, so also as a result of saying, “He is generated (or ungenerate),” we divide our thought into a double conception, by “is” understanding the subject, and by “generated,” or “ungenerate,” apprehending that which belongs to the subject.

newadvent.org/fathers/290107.htm

Notice how he points out that when we say “this person is generated” (referring to Eunomius’ favorite tactic to assert that the essence of Christ is different from the Father’s essence, by calling the Son generated and the Father ingenerate), we first must assume that this person ‘is.’ But it is a fatal error, as Gregory of Nyssa points out, to jump from the knolwedge that ‘the person who is, is generate’ to the conclusion that ‘the essence of this person is generate,’ because in this case, the ‘being’ of the Son is from beyond the diastema, a ‘place’ (for lack of a better term) into which our created minds cannot penetrate. The same is true of the the affirmation that God is just, such we are not to understand that ‘just’ is not an account of His ‘being’ which is beyond the diastema, but only of his energy which is within the diastema.

(continued in post # 60)

 

[Zekariya]

You are not understanding Basil’s thought here. This is in fact no proof at all that Basil thinks that we can have knowledge of the essence of God. This demonstrates just the opposite type of statement (an apophatic one), which does not name the essence of God, but only tells us what the essence of God is not. As St. John of Damascus writes in his Exposition on the Orthodox faith: The Deity is simple and uncompound. But that which is composed of many and different elements is compound. If, then, we should speak of the qualities of being uncreate and without beginning and incorporeal and immortal and everlasting and good and creative and so forth as essential differences in the case of God, that which is composed of so many qualities will not be simple but must be compound. But this is impious in the extreme. Each then of the affirmations about God should be thought of as signifying not what He is in essence, but either something that it is impossible to make plain, or some relation to some of those things which are contrasts or some of those things that follow the nature, or an energy…

The terms ‘without beginning,’ ‘incorruptible,’ ‘unbegotten,’ as also ‘uncreate,’ ‘incorporeal,’ ‘unseen,’ and so forth, explain what He is not: that is to say, they tell us that His being had no beginning, that He is not corruptible, nor created, nor corporeal, nor visible.
Notice how he makes the same assertion that Basil does in the two epistles I linked, namely that no affirmation about God tells us what God is. Also agreeing on this matter is St. Gregory of Nyssa (that would be St. Basil’s brother, called the father of fathers by the seventh ecumenical council) who writes that there is no name known which is proper to the essence of God, and so such a name either does not exist or is not known by man:For when we gather, as it were, into the form of a name the conception of any subject that arises in us, we declare our concept by words that vary at different times, not making, but signifying, the thing by the name we give it. For the things remain in themselves as they naturally are, while the mind, touching on existing things, reveals its thought by such words as are available. And just as the essence of Peter was not changed with the change of his name, so neither is any other of the things we contemplate changed in the process of mutation of names. And for this reason we say that the term “Ungenerate” was applied by us to the true and first Father Who is the Cause of all, and that no harm would result as regards the signifying of the Subject, if we were to acknowledge the same concept under another name. For it is allowable instead of speaking of Him as “Ungenerate,” to call Him the “First Cause” or “Father of the Only-begotten,” or to speak of Him as “existing without cause,” and many such appellations which lead to the same thought; so that Eunomius confirms our doctrines by the very arguments in which he makes complaint against us, because we know no name significant of the Divine Nature. We are taught the fact of Its existence, while we assert that an appellation of such force as to include the unspeakable and infinite Nature, either does not exist at all, or at any rate is unknown to us. Let him then leave his accustomed language of fable, and show us the names which signify the essences, and then proceed further to divide the subject by the divergence of their names. But so long as the saying of the Scripture is true that Abraham and Moses were not capable of the knowledge of the Name, and that “no man has seen God at any time ,” and that “no man has seen Him, nor can see,” and that the light around Him is unapproachable, and “there is no end of His greatness ”—so long as we say and believe these things, how like is an argument that promises any comprehension and expression of the infinite Nature, by means of the significance of names, to one who thinks that he can enclose the whole sea in his own hand! For as the hollow of one’s hand is to the whole deep, so is all the power of language in comparison with that Nature which is unspeakable and incomprehensible.

newadvent.org/fathers/290107.htm

I never said that God can be known in his essence. You said that God’s essence doesn’t exist. I disagreed and presented evidence that the Fathers teach that God’s existence exists. I believe “The terms ‘without beginning,’ ‘incorruptible,’ ‘unbegotten,’ as also ‘uncreate,’ ‘incorporeal,’ ‘unseen,’ and so forth, explain what He is not: that is to say, they tell us that His being had no beginning, that He is not corruptible, nor created, nor corporeal, nor visible.” God’s essence, however, does exist.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The problem, as I mentioned earlier (with the quote from Gregory of Nyssa about the diastema), is that absent of the framework of being and existence, there is no way for us to think about God. As a necessity, we are forced to speak of God as being, essence, and existing, even though God is properly none of these things. The flaw in your reading of the Eastern fathers is that you do not take this part of the Eastern tradition into account, and therefore take every reference to the ‘being’ of God as meaning that the essence of God actually ‘is’. But there is a common affirmation used in the East which defies this sort of thinking: the term hyperousios. How are we to understand the use of the term hyperousios? Here is a passage from John of Damascus’ Orthodox Faith, which should make its meaning quite evident: “We believe, then, in One God,… occupying all essences intact and extending beyond all things, and being separate from all essence as being super-essential (hyperousios) and above all things” (Orthodox Faith, I.viii). If as John of Damascus says, God is above all essence, how can one say that God properly has an ‘essence’? It should be clear that we are only using the term essence as a way to speak of God, absent of which, all discourse on God would be incomprehensible.

But if you do not find this to be convincing, I can provide two further examples which are even more obvious and explicit than John of Damascus in asserting that existence and essence do not apply to God. Here is a short quote from the Scholia, traditionally attrbited to Maximus the Confessor, although believed to have been written by John of Scythopolis, commenting on a passage from Pseudo-Dionysus’ Divine Names which uses the term hyperousios ousia: “Dionysius does not present what the essence of God is for ‘essence’ is not properly predicated of God insofar as he is beyond being.” Agreeing with this understanding of God’s ‘being’, Gregory Palamas writes: “Every nature is utterly removed and absolutely estranged from the divine nature. For if God is nature, other things are not nature, but if each of the other things is nature, he is not nature; just as he is not a being, if the other are beings. And if he is a being, the others are not beings.” Again, I must reiterate that it is only in the context of these sort of radically apophatic affirmations about the so-called ‘essence’ and ‘being’ of God that we can understand what it means to talk about the ‘being’ of God in the Eastern tradition. As much as many in this thread seem ready to throw the radical apophaticism of the Eastern Fathers away, it is an undeniable part of the tradition, and it shapes very much how the essence-energies distinction should be understood. None of you have to agree with my understanding of the essence-energies distinction, but I feel compelled to post because it seems to me that very little of what I’ve seen on this thread accurately portrays the theological tradition of the Orthodox Church by which the essence-energies distinction should be understood.