That’s poetically reductive, one might say. One might also say that God’s words to St. Catherine of Siena (I AM HE WHO IS, YOU ARE SHE WHO IS NOT) were too.
The transparency of every existent to esse subsistens, as every existent only has its existence through God’s donation and their participation, would be a less poetical/more technical formulation.
Spot on exactly, re: creatures relative to God are the not-beings. The difference is beyond our understanding! It is exactly as St Thomas explains it numerous times and as St Catherine knew as well. An excellent treatment of the matter is available in Pieper’s, “The Silence of St Thomas”. The best short exposition of the theological-philosophical via negativa in the Western Church; and so beloved by the Eastern Churches! Jolly good show.
My theo-ry is simple. The allegorical Adam and Eve did NOT ever know happiness because in order to
feel and understand it would require exposure to its opposite (sadness) which didn't happen until after
they sinned (brought death into the world in the only way possible: birth). So, sin was allowed and given access (the insertion of evil into paradise) in order to both what was needed to be redeemed. Of course, I'm an evolutionist and do not believe in ...Falls .. but just the opposite ... rises.
After 57 years of doing-living Catholic philosophy I must humbly propose the following for consideration: sin is NOT a something. It is a freely chosen tearing down of that which should be, or ought to be. In a certain way sin can virtually exist as an attitude or image in the human heart and mind. Evil, whether “natural” or sinful is always a privation of some good that ought to be present but is not. A simple way to think of it is that without a good no evil can “exist”. Try to imagine evil without any thing good existing first. Good can exist without evil, but evil cannot exist without a good. ☦️♥️☦️
The answer is that nothing is but God.
That’s poetically reductive, one might say. One might also say that God’s words to St. Catherine of Siena (I AM HE WHO IS, YOU ARE SHE WHO IS NOT) were too.
The transparency of every existent to esse subsistens, as every existent only has its existence through God’s donation and their participation, would be a less poetical/more technical formulation.
Spot on exactly, re: creatures relative to God are the not-beings. The difference is beyond our understanding! It is exactly as St Thomas explains it numerous times and as St Catherine knew as well. An excellent treatment of the matter is available in Pieper’s, “The Silence of St Thomas”. The best short exposition of the theological-philosophical via negativa in the Western Church; and so beloved by the Eastern Churches! Jolly good show.
My theo-ry is simple. The allegorical Adam and Eve did NOT ever know happiness because in order to
feel and understand it would require exposure to its opposite (sadness) which didn't happen until after
they sinned (brought death into the world in the only way possible: birth). So, sin was allowed and given access (the insertion of evil into paradise) in order to both what was needed to be redeemed. Of course, I'm an evolutionist and do not believe in ...Falls .. but just the opposite ... rises.
After 57 years of doing-living Catholic philosophy I must humbly propose the following for consideration: sin is NOT a something. It is a freely chosen tearing down of that which should be, or ought to be. In a certain way sin can virtually exist as an attitude or image in the human heart and mind. Evil, whether “natural” or sinful is always a privation of some good that ought to be present but is not. A simple way to think of it is that without a good no evil can “exist”. Try to imagine evil without any thing good existing first. Good can exist without evil, but evil cannot exist without a good. ☦️♥️☦️
Thank you for that comment, Richard.
Wonderful and thought provoking for me.
Thank you, Greg.
"God holds all creation in existence" - ergo: God holds all sin in existence, and thereby it has its place.
No. Aquinas deals with that elsewhere.