The Question of Negative Theology - Part Three

Not an Abdication of Intelligence, but an Avoidance of Presumption

Is It Possible to Define the Essence of God?

Considering the beings of this world, we notice that they possess being by participation. Thus, they depend on a being that is being by essence, which is the very act of being subsisting in itself. They do not have the being from themselves, but from another, from a being that possesses being in itself. They are drawn from non-being to being by God. Furthermore, they are created.

Once we acknowledge the existence of this being, whom we collectively call "God," we naturally turn our attention to His essence—seeking to understand who God truly is. What are the defining characteristics, properties, and prerogatives of His essence that make it unique, distinguishing it from the world and all other beings, rendering it recognizable and unmistakable?

Based on all this information, we can assert that we can know God and form a concept of Him, albeit one that represents the divine essence very imperfectly. This essence is mysterious and infinite, whereas our capacity for understanding is finite.

Once we uncover the First Cause, we must define it, which is to say we must articulate the essence or nature of God. If God is, as defined by the First Vatican Council, "a single spiritual substance" (Denz. 3001)—irreplaceable, individual, unmistakable, discernible, and distinguishable from all other spiritual and personal substances—then He must certainly possess a unique essence and a proper name, as God reveals to Moses: "I Am Who Am" (Ex 3:14), or "I Am," which corresponds to the famous definition by St. Thomas Aquinas as the ipsum Esse per se subsistens. God is the absolute, infinite, supreme, and eternal Being. He is, as stated in the Catechism of St. Pius X, the most perfect Being.

To define something means to establish, through a concept, the boundaries of that thing, to determine its essence, to delineate its contours through a proposition, and to clarify the form of that essence within its identity—essentially portraying the intelligible face of a thing.

Our definition of something can delineate its boundaries in two ways: either by circumscribing it and including it within our understanding, or simply by apprehending it while allowing it to exceed the limits of our reason. This is because the face or form of that thing is infinite and transcends our rational capacity endlessly. Thus, the thing is understood, known, and acknowledged, yet it remains beyond comprehension; it cannot be fully embraced, circumscribed, included, or confined within our reason. Indeed, this overflowing, abundant, and transcendent essence is the divine essence.

We assert that the divine essence is boundless not in itself, but about the limitations of our reason. If it were boundless or lacked intelligible or essential contours within itself, it would be formless, nebulous, indeterminate, vague, chaotic, and indistinct. However, the divine essence is distinctly characterized, formally articulated, intelligibly clear, and precisely defined. In this sense, it is not finite; rather, it is determined and possesses a boundary that defines its essence. Yet this boundary does not signify an endpoint from which it can be surpassed, for it is not finite but determined.

Therefore, this infinite essence is incomprehensible to our finite minds. If we were to comprehend it fully, it would cease to be the essence of God and would instead be a finite reality of this world. Alternatively, we would have to be God ourselves, which is absurd. Hence, we cannot know who God is in Himself exhaustively; rather, we can only understand Him partially and analogically by comparing Him with created beings. To behold the divine essence unveiled and face-to-face is possible only in the beatific vision.

God Is Knowable, Yet Incomprehensible

God must be affirmed, but without the presumption of knowing what we cannot know; He must also be negated, without, however, refusing to acknowledge what we can know. St. Thomas reconciles these polarities of tension by distinguishing between "comprehending" (comprehendere) and "knowing" (cognoscere) or "apprehending" (attingere).

Positive theology allows us to know God; negative theology, on the other hand, excludes what is not befitting to God. It denies that we can comprehend the divine essence as far as it is comprehensible; for it contains, beyond what we can grasp, an infinite surplus that remains beyond our reach due to our finiteness. Thomas states:

"Comprehending is sometimes understood as synonymous with 'including,' in which case the comprehender contains the comprehended entirely within itself. At other times, it is synonymous with 'apprehending’ (apprehendere), suggesting the removal of distance and the idea of proximity. In the first sense, God cannot be comprehended by any created intellect. ... When the Apostle says, 'that you may comprehend,' he means: 'to have God present and to know Him in His presence'" (Comm. In Ef 3:18, lect. V, n. 176).

Thomas elaborates on this same distinction elsewhere, again commenting on St. Paul:

"Our intellect can reach knowledge in two ways: either by knowing or by comprehending. Our intellect cannot attain comprehension of God, for then it would know God as He is knowable. ... However, there exists another way of knowing God, namely by apprehending Him" (Comm. In I Tm 6:16, lect. III, n. 269).

Furthermore, he states: "To comprehend means, in a certain way, 'to include,' just as a house 'includes' those within it. In another sense, it means 'to apprehend' or 'to hold'—we might also translate this as 'to grasp' or 'to understand' in a weaker sense. In the first sense, God is incomprehensible, for He cannot be included"—we might also say 'contained'—"within the created intellect, as you do not see and love Him perfectly, as He is visible and lovable, similar to one who does not know the demonstration: he does not know demonstratively, but only opinionatively. In the second sense, that is, by apprehending, God is comprehensible" (Comm. In Fil 3:12, lect. II, n. 127).

In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Thomas draws upon Augustine:

“The darkness did not comprehend Him” (non comprehenderunt, Jn 1:5) means that they could not include Him (includere). For it is said that something is comprehended when its terms are included (concluduntur) and seen (conspiciuntur); since, as Augustine states (De Verbo Dom. Serm. 38), "To apprehend God with the mind is a great beatitude; to comprehend Him, however, is impossible."

The Method of Negative Theology

On several occasions, St. Thomas Aquinas, inspired by the teachings of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, outlines three modalities or paths through which our intellect can ascend to God. The mind begins with the affirmation of God's existence, applying the principle of causality. Upon discovering the existence of God, it focuses on two aspects: first, it removes from God everything that is not befitting His dignity; this is known as negative or apophatic theology.

Secondly, it must emphasize the properties or attributes of the divine essence to the fullest extent. This constitutes positive or affirmative theology, which, after identifying all the spiritual perfections that can be attributed to God, elevates them to the highest eminence using absolute superlative adjectives. This approach reflects the infinite excellence or transcendence of the First Cause concerning the world. Thus, God is designated as the most perfect being, the highest, the holiest, the wisest, the most merciful, with infinite goodness, justice, mercy, and so forth. Below is a Thomistic synthesis of these three modalities of theological predication:

"Since we ascend to God starting from created things, removing all things (in omnium ablatione), surpassing (in excessu), and recognizing Him as the cause of all things (in omnium causa), God is thus known in all things. He is separate from all things and surpasses them all, since everything that falls within our knowledge is received as having come from Him. Furthermore, He is known through our ignorance, for knowing God means acknowledging our ignorance of who He truly is" (Comm. on De div. Nominibus, c. VII, lect. IV, n.731).

St. Thomas articulates this tripartite path while discussing angelic knowledge:

"The separated substance, through its essence, knows that God exists, that He is the cause of all things, that He transcends all things, and that He is separate from all things—not only those that exist but also those that can be conceived by a created mind. We can also arrive at this knowledge of God in various ways. Through His effects, we can indeed know that He exists and is the cause of other things, surpassing them and remaining separate from all.

This represents the pinnacle and greatest perfection of our knowledge in this life. As Dionysius states in his Mystical Theology, we connect with God as with the unknown (quasi ignoto); we come to know Him by understanding what He is not, while what He truly is remains entirely unknown to us (penitus ignotum). This is demonstrated by the fact that Moses is said to have entered into the cloud where God was present (Ex 20:21)" (Contra Gentes, l.III, c.49).

The concern to remove from God predicates or attributes that do not befit Him is, in principle, entirely necessary and legitimate. This practice aids in speaking of God in as worthy a manner as possible, distinguishing God from what He is not, thereby keeping us away from idolatry and pantheism.

Following Dionysius, Aquinas argues that while the negations regarding God's essence are undoubtedly true, the affirmations are not false. However, they are described as "incompactae"—meaning they are not solidly joined to the predicate of the proposition. Aquinas states:

"Dionysius asserts that the negations of these names are true when referred to God; however, he does not claim that the affirmations are false. Instead, he indicates they are incompact (incompactas): in terms of the reality signified, they are truthfully attributed to God, because in some way they exist in Him; yet, concerning the manner in which they signify, when related to God, they can be denied. Indeed, each of these names signifies a defined form, and thus they are not attributed to God.

From an absolute standpoint, these terms can be denied regarding God, as they do not pertain to Him in the manner signified. The manner of signification refers to how those contents exist in our intellect. However, in a more sublime way, these terms can be applied to God, which is why the affirmation is said to be incompact due to the different manner of signification" (De pot., q.7, a.5, 2m).

When we attribute any quality or property to God, we must deny that it befits Him in the same way that we affirm such attributes or properties in creatures. Echoing the thought of Proclus, St. Thomas asserts:

"The First Cause is above narration." By "narration," we must understand affirmation, because everything we affirm about God does not befit Him according to what we signify. The names we impose signify according to the manner in which we intend, a manner that the divine being transcends (Comm.on De causis di Proclo, Prop. VI, lect. VI, n.161).

Following Dionysius, St. Thomas presents a series of values that pertain to God in the highest sense but can also be negated in the meaning we assign to them about creatures:

"Just as the names we impose can be said of God according to some resemblance that creatures have to Him, so, to the extent that creatures inadequately represent God, they can be negated and their opposites can be predicated. Thus, Dionysius states that God can be called Reason as well as Irrationality; He is called Intellect, but He can also be called Unintelligibility; He can be named Word, but also Unnameable. This is not to say that He lacks these things, but rather that He Exists in a manner that is not like anything that exists; He does not exist according to the mode of any of the existing things. Certainly, He is the Cause of the existence of all things, imparting in some way His likeness to all things, so that He can be named based on the names of all things. He Himself is non-existent, not in the sense that He lacks existence, but insofar as He exists above all substance; and He is unnameable, such that He properly and knowingly names Himself, that is, according to the property of His being and according to His perfect knowledge of Himself, in a way that no one can name Him" (Comm. on De div. Nominibus, c. I, lect. I, n.30).

However, negative theology presupposes positive or affirmative theology, which helps us understand who God is and which attributes befit Him. This understanding lets us know the subject from which we exclude certain predicates. Otherwise, negation would hold no meaning if we do not know who we are speaking about, as we would not understand what it refers to. If I deny something of a particular thing, I must positively know that thing from which I remove it; otherwise, we would not know what we are discussing.

Thus, negative theology follows the development of affirmative theology, which is based on the application of the principle of causality, beginning with the observation of visible things, as stated in Romans 1:20. Here, the concept of the First Cause emerges, along with all those attributes found in St. Thomas's famous Five Ways: the Prime Mover, the foundation of the world, the first efficient cause, the creator of heaven and earth, the eternal being that is necessary, the highest and first being, the highest, infinite, and perfectly good being, the ultimate end, the most wise, omnipotent, and providential governor and ordainer of the world, just and merciful.

St. Thomas states:

"The method of negation is always based on some affirmation: this is evident from the fact that every negative proposition is demonstrated by an affirmative one. Thus, if the human intellect did not know something about God affirmatively, it could not deny anything about Him. Indeed, it could not have any knowledge if none of the predicates it attributes to God were affirmatively true" (De potentia, q.7, a.5).

In this way, Aquinas describes the negative way:

"When we approach God by way of removal, we first deny corporeal realities concerning Him, and then also the intellectual realities as they exist in creatures, such as goodness and wisdom. We are left with only the understanding that He is, and nothing more; thus, we find ourselves in a certain confusion.

However, in the end, we also remove from Him being itself as it exists in creatures. Consequently, the intellect remains in a certain darkness of ignorance, in accordance with which ignorance, regarding the present state, we are excellently united to God, as Dionysius states in De divinis Nominibus, c.VII: this is a certain kind of cloud in which it is said that God dwells" (Comm. a I Sent., D.8, q.1, a.1, 4m).

Two things should be noted: first, it is not a matter of denying being sic et simpliciter ( in an absolute sense); otherwise, we would fall into atheism. Instead, we deny the limited being of creatures to affirm the unlimited being. Second, the divine darkness is not the absolute darkness of the "absolute mystery" that Rahner speaks of, an absolute darkness devoid of any conceptual or rational representation, a darkness in which absolutely nothing is understood. This is not mystical darkness, but rather that of falsehood and perdition [1].

Divine darkness signifies that the divine mystery is a brilliant light for our concepts, as far as we can understand it. Simultaneously, it is darkness for us in the sense that the infinite intelligible content of the mystery possesses an ulteriority, of which we can know absolutely nothing, nor can we perceive its boundaries. Awareness of this ulteriority or transcendence is a sign of humility and theological wisdom. Further on negation:

"From negation to negation, the soul rises higher than the most excellent creatures and unites with God in proportion to what it can here below. For during this present life, our intellect never reaches to see the divine Essence but only to know what it is not. Thus, the union of our spirit with God, as it is possible here below, is realized when we recognize that God surpasses the most excellent creatures" (Comm. on De div. Nominibus, c.XIII, lect. III).

"The infinity of God is not predicated according to extension, as in continuous quantity, but according to negation, in the sense that it is neither finite nor determined by anything; ... it is not determined by our intellect: in fact, it is ineffable and unknown, such that the divine virtue, which encompasses all, cannot be conceived" (Comm. on De div. Nominibus, c. VIII, lect. n.750).

When we reach the peak of this stripping away and this wise negation, it is not the case—contrary to what some believe—that conceptualization is surpassed or ceases to function or becomes useless or inadequate to represent what we see; quite the opposite! It is more useful and necessary than ever; it is at the height of its utility for our intellect, which cannot do without the senses and imagination, even when it transcends them.

At the peak of metaphysical ascent, the intellect certainly initiates pure thought; yet, in this life, such thought remains meta-conceptual only in God, not in man. If, at this stage, the mind abandons conceptualization, it is not bathed in the serene and calming light of the absolute. Instead, a kind of psychic short circuit occurs. This is because all the psychic energy invested in the ascetic effort, which should have been channeled and tempered by conceptualization, turns inward and violently implodes without that safeguard. The result is that the mind, driven by this sudden surge of Brunian heroic fury, is consumed and completely burnt out.

This is a parody of mystical exaltation, which is, in reality, an irrational psycho-emotional excitation, an altered state of mind akin to Dervish enthusiasm or shamanistic trance, which seems to leave the mind open to preternatural histrionic forces.

To claim to understand exhaustively and totally, to remove, ignore, or despise such transcendence in the name of the power of thought, or of the immanence of the divine mystery within us, or our self-consciousness—equating our thought with divine thought—is diabolical pride, it is Gnosticism, it is utter foolishness and a cause of eternal perdition.

Negative theology is the best philosophical way to speak about God. St. Thomas states:

"This is the ultimate term to which we can arrive concerning the knowledge of God in this life: that God is above all that we can think and therefore to name Him by negation is to speak of Him in the most proper way; indeed, those who praise God in this way by negation, through a divine illumination, are truly and supernaturally informed of this by a most blessed union with God" (Comm. on De div.Nominibus, c.I, lect. III, n.83).

However, there exists a superior mode of speaking, which is that of revealed theology, based on divine Revelation, through which the theologian speaks using words not drawn from metaphysics but from the very Word of God, as occurs also in the Symbol of Faith, in the Liturgy, and the Divine Office. Indeed, the predicates of revealed theology, which are summarized in the Symbol of Faith, are primarily positive. They culminate in the proclamation of the Holy Trinity: God as Father, as Son, and as Holy Spirit.

The necessity of silence, however, also arises in revealed theology, leading us to Christian mysticism or mystical theology. Here, while apophaticism subserves, as private revelation, the Word of God, the object of divine revelation, and the public preaching of the Church, the apophaticism of natural mysticism holds greater value than natural theology because, as St. Thomas says, it better expresses the condition of our reason about the mystery of God.

What We Know and What We Ignore About God

It is crucial to strike a balance between asserting that we know nothing about God and claiming that our self-conscious, non-thematic thought aligns with absolute being. In truth, we can understand the concept here on earth and even perceive—beyond concepts—the essence of God in heaven.

However, it is not merely a matter of denying what does not pertain to God, but also of confessing our ignorance. St. Thomas states:

"God is known to us through our knowledge, because everything that falls under our knowledge we accept as coming from Him" (leading us to Him and speaking of Him); "and He is also known to us through our ignorance, in the sense that knowing God is the very realization that we do not know who He is" (Comm. on De divinis Nominibus by Dionysius the Areopagite, c. VII, lect. IV, n.371).

We ignore in the sense already discussed of "not comprehending exhaustively." God eludes full comprehension by our concepts; however, we can represent, albeit very imperfectly, His essence. St. Thomas says:

"Any form that our intellect conceives, God eludes (subterfugit) the form of our intellect; not, however, so that our intellect does not assimilate to Him according to some form" (De Potentia, q.7, a.5, 1m).

The divine essence is a form, much like our concept is a form. The key distinction is that the divine form resembles a circle with an infinite radius, which encompasses our circle, or the form of our concept. Consequently, the radius of our circle is infinitely exceeded by the radius of the divine circle. In this way, no matter how much we attempt to broaden the radius of our concept, we remain unaware of what exists beyond its boundaries. St. Thomas states:

"God always surpasses our understanding and always remains unknown to us. Therefore, the highest point to which human cognition can rise regarding Him is to know that we do not know Him; to understand that His essence surpasses all that we can think" (De Pot., q.7, a.5, 14m).

"At the end of our knowledge, we know God as an Unknown, because the mind is perfectly situated in the knowledge of God when it knows that His essence is above all that can be apprehended in the state of present life; thus, even if it remains unknown who He is, it is nevertheless known that He Is" (Comm. on De Trinitate by Boethius, q.1, a.2, 1m).

"From all beings, God is known and praised insofar as they have a proportion to Him, who is their cause. However, there exists yet another most perfect knowledge of God, namely that by negation, through which we know God through ignorance, through a certain union with the divine things above the mind. This occurs when our mind, distancing itself from all other things and even abandoning itself, unites with the superluminous rays of Deity, as it knows that God is above not only everything that is beneath it but also above itself and above all that can be comprehended by it. Thus, knowing God in this form of knowledge, it is illuminated by the very depth of divine wisdom, which we cannot fathom" (Comm. on De div. Nominibus, c. VII, lect. IV, n.732).

"In the present life, we know God through an intellectual vision, not in order to know who He is, but what He is not; and in this regard, we know His essence, understanding it placed above all things, although such knowledge occurs through certain similitudes" (De veritate, q.10. a.11, 4m).

Revealed Theology

God makes Himself known. He has an unmistakable face. He is a Person who stands before us, revealing Himself and speaking to us, with whom we can engage in dialogue, to whom we can open our hearts with confidence, certain of being understood, comprehended, and answered.

It is impossible to speak with a person without recognizing them and knowing who they are. Thus, in reality, we know very well who God is and how to recognize Him, ensuring that we do not confuse Him with a creature or with ourselves. This is the essence of negative theology. We can clearly distinguish when we speak from ourselves when we converse with others—be they human or angelic—and when we communicate with God. The voice of God is distinctly different from the voice of others.

When St. Thomas asserts that we do not know who God is and that His essence remains wholly unknown to us; when he claims that the highest knowledge of God is recognizing our ignorance of Him, finding Him only in the darkness of unknowing and negative theology, he is addressing our limited comprehension of the divine essence, which, being infinite, cannot be contained within our finite intellect.

However, Thomas does not exclude the possibility of seeing this essence immediately and unveiled in heaven, although even there it will continue to transcend the finitude of our intellect. Currently, we can only know God starting from the senses and to what we can perceive through them, namely, material realities. Even now, however, we can attain an analogical knowledge of being and thus form a concept of spiritual reality.

Gregory Palamas deemed the immediate vision of the divine essence impossible because, in his view, it would involve the identification of the human intellect with the divine intellect. However, Palamas confuses the plane of being with that of knowing. The beatific vision involves an intentional, not ontological, identity with the divine essence.

Participation in divine life pertains to the ontological level of grace, not the order of knowing. It makes no sense to distinguish within the divine essence between essence and energies, as if God were a sun that emits rays and we grasp the rays but not the sun. The divine essence is utterly simple: either it is seen or it is not. There is no manifestation to us of the essence in the phenomenon of the energies, which leaves the essence hidden from us as if the divine essence were a sort of Kantian "thing-in-itself."

Rather, grace entails a substantial grace, which is God Himself, and a participated grace bestowed upon us. Certainly, our mind, which sees the divine essence, grasps it finitely, yet it does grasp it. There is no risk of pantheism, for the divine essence is infinitely distinct from our intellect that perceives it. In grasping the divine essence, our mind does not become ontologically infinite but only intentionally so through the lumen gloriae.

The divine energies have their meaning in the context of grace, not in the realm of knowledge. There is no exclusion of a finite intellect being able to see the divine essence immediately. If this is not possible on earth, it is only because, due to sin, we do not yet have a sufficiently pure gaze.

When St. Thomas makes statements that carry an agnostic flavor—such as asserting that we do not know who God is and that His essence remains wholly unknown to us; when he claims that the highest knowledge of God is recognizing our ignorance of Him, finding Him only in the darkness of unknowing and negative theology—he is addressing our limited comprehension of the divine essence, which, being infinite, cannot be contained within our finite intellect. Let us also reflect on the fact that Thomas spent his entire life speaking about God, both as a preacher and as a theologian. What does the Dominican speak of if not God? And what does the theologian concern himself with if not God? (Bold by the editor).

Therefore, we must be very careful to understand him correctly, as Maritain wisely cautions in a valuable study appended to the Degrés du savoir [2]. Otherwise, through excessive negation, we may not arrive at mysticism but rather fall into atheism.

Indeed, God, albeit in a manner incomprehensible to us and far beyond what we can understand, is our teacher, our father, our counselor, our guide. He is our protector and defender, the one who heals, purifies, forgives, and strengthens us. He sanctifies us, saves us, and grants us eternal life.

From the Word of God arise for Christians Scripture, prayer, divine worship, sacraments, adoration, contemplation, the Church, and the observance of commandments. The Word of God is the most blessed light, a sweet guest of the soul, sweet refreshment, a comfort in tears, and an excellent consoler.

God speaks to us about Himself and reveals to us things about Him that we could never have known or hoped for through our simple reason. God reveals Himself as the Trinitarian God, the author of a plan for the salvation and celestial glorification of man, who is called in Christ and in the Church to be a child of God destined for eternal life, the resurrection of the body, and the beatific vision of the essence of the Trinitarian God.

In Christianity, a form of mysticism emerges that not only draws from the concepts of natural religion but also derives its sustenance from the Word of God, Scripture, and dogma. Fueled by this richer source, the sacred fire of mystical experience burns brightly, illuminating and quietly warming everything it touches until it reaches heaven and the farthest reaches of the universe

The Growth of Theological Knowledge and the Practice of Silence

It is interesting to compare the ways of doing theology among Lutherans and Palamites. This divergence arises from their different conceptions of theology. For Lutherans, theology resolves into prophetic and soteriological dimensions: achieving one's salvation through the revolutionary proclamation of the Word of God. For Palamites or Orthodox theologians, the focus is on aspiring to the contemplation of divine energies, progressively reducing theological discourse based on the experience of the ineffable mystery until reaching total silence.

These are two unilateral and extremist positions, conflicting with each other, neither of which fully reflects the conception of theological discourse derived from the teaching and example of Christ. He speaks to us about God and reveals His mystery so that we might proclaim the Gospel to the whole world, remaining silent before those who are unworthy, progressing in His knowledge until the end of the world, preserving His words with absolute fidelity, and with a constant and ardent desire to one day contemplate the unveiled face of the Father in heaven.

In Gregory Palamas's thought, the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, not from the Son, leading to the situation where, despite the Church being apostolic, it lacks the guidance of Peter, assisted by the Spirit of Christ, which progresses the knowledge of revealed truths through the ages.

For Luther, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, but not through the mediation of Peter. Instead, the Spirit illuminates each Christian's conscience directly, inspiring a continual renewal of theological thought that arises from personal reading of Scripture within the community, whose pastor is chosen synodally by the faithful.

The fully evangelical, beneficial, and balanced position that reconciles the best elements of the aforementioned views is the Catholic one articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas (bold added by the editor). As we have seen, he combines the theology of causality, transcendence, and positive, affirmative, scientific, and progressive eminence, which promotes a continuous increase and deepening of theological knowledge, with negative theology, culminating in contemplation, adoration, and mystical liturgical silence—a foretaste of the immediate beatific vision of the essence of the Trinitarian God.

In speaking of God, the preacher must know how to combine parrhesia with discretion. Parrhesia is required to challenge the powerful, unmask the hypocrites, and defend the weak and oppressed, even at the cost of one’s life; discretion is necessary to "not give what is holy to dogs" (Matt 7:6) and to refrain from revealing certain mysteries to those who are unprepared or unable, or unwilling, to understand.

It is essential not to confuse discretion or secrecy with reticence born of fear, opportunism, or human respect. One must know in every circumstance when to speak and when to be silent, what and how to say things, and what must remain unspoken (bold added by the editor). One should not scandalize the little ones, but it is permissible to scandalize the hypocrites.

Greece has provided Thomas with two geniuses to comment on divine revelation, both deeply contrasting yet also mutually complementary: Aristotle and Dionysius the Areopagite. Both are great theologians; the first is the theologian of causality and analogy, and the second is the theologian of negation and silence. Both aspire to divine contemplation. Aristotle seems satisfied with the theology of reason, the affirmative or cataphatic theology.

Dionysius appears to conclude with an exaggerated and disheartened apophaticism in the last words of his Mystical Theology, which resembles Buddhism and casts a dark shadow of atheism. What then becomes of reason? And faith? Here are his words:

“Regarding the cause of all realities, there is neither error nor truth; of it universally there is neither affirmation nor negation, rather affirming and denying the realities that come after it, we neither affirm it nor deny it, for the total and unique cause of all realities is also above every affirmation and every negation.” [3]

Thus, in an attempt to get along with Cusanus and Hegel, with theists and atheists, and with duplicitous people, one ends up saying that God exists and does not exist, that He is above good and evil, that in Him contradictions coincide, falling into total skepticism or theological and religious indifferentism, and the vain cunning of the world. The true God is not the God of yes and no, but the God of only yes (cf. 2 Cor 1:19).

But Thomas surpasses both Aristotle and Dionysius while taking the good from both: the strength and rights of reason from Aristotle; and the modesty in speaking of God from Dionysius. Yet for the Catholic Thomas, the Preacher Friar, prince of scholastic theology, and saint of mystical silence, the first, highest, and decisive light comes from Christ, the divine Word, who, at the end of His life, appeared to him saying: “You have written well of Me, Thomas: what do you want in return?” And Thomas replied: “Only You, Lord.”

It is well known that the Angelic Doctor, shortly before his death, after having an ecstatic experience, answered the question posed to him regarding why he had stopped writing the Summa Theologica: “After what I have seen, what I have written seems to me a straw.” He did not mean, therefore, to say: “So throw it in the trash,” given that he had received Christ's approval, but to express his awareness that this immortal masterpiece of theological wisdom, which would influence future generations, such that the Church would adopt the doctrine it contains, cannot be considered a sufficient verbal expression of what the soul thirsting for God experiences in its mystical union with Him.

P. Giovanni Cavalcoli OP

Fontanellato, June 5, 2021

source:

https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/la-questione-della-teologia-negativa_38.html

Notes:

[1] Cf. 2 Cor 6:14; 1 John 1:5; 2:9, 11; Psalm 82:5; 88:7, 19; Isaiah 42:7; 50:10; John 8:12; 12:46; 1 Samuel 2:9; Tobit 14:10; Job 15:30; Proverbs 20:20; Wisdom 17:2; 18:4; Sirach 11:16; Jeremiah 23:12; Ephesians 6:12; Revelation 16:10.

[2] Ce que Dieu est, 1959 Edition, pp. 827-843.

[3] Mistica teologia, ESD Editions, Bologna 2011, p. 263.