That's not quite my position. As I noted to Kosta, I quoted St. Basil, St. John Crysostom, and St. George Nazianzus that showed THEIR view of "knowledge", or what is "seen". In the East and Western Tradition, we cannot "KNOW" the incomprehensible. As St. John says, we cannot hope to KNOW God's essence with our intellect. Catholicism has agreed with that statement. Where I differ is that man DOES contact God's essence. It just remains incomprehensible. Also, we say that God exists - which is the ONLY thing we can KNOW about God's essence. We can experience God's essence - to the degree that He allows - but we will never understand it or be able to articulate it.
As a result, I think I could sum up by saying that God's action AND God's nature comes to man. God's Nature doesn't stay home while sending His Energy. In other words, that light from Mt. Tabor was God's Essence AND Energy - as defined by the Orthodox - since God does not consist of parts. We contact ALL of God - although we will never comprehend it.
A better statement would be : The Catholic position articulated by jo kus: In the beatific vision, the blessed see the essence of God, but find it incomprehensible and beyond our intellect. Our knowledge would be "unknowing", knowing only its existence.
Barlaam was mistaken by saying that the grace that comes to man is ONLY created grace. We believe that the Giver AND His Gift is present - God Himself (Energy and Essence) as well as Sanctifying Grace - a created gift that varies with each person as God sees fit - able to improve a particular virtue of man as God wills.
If Barlaam's position does not come from the Western church, where does it come from? Is Meyendorff correct to argue that it comes from a humanist tradition in the East? This needs more clarification.
Scholasticism was largely corrupted by many following St. Thomas Aquinas, to include Barlaam. I would agree with Meyendorff - that Barlaam was a humanist Platonic who had difficulties expressing the thoughts of the Angelic Doctor. You are correct.
Regards
Thanks for the clarification. It's certainly not Barlaam's position as you note.
Jo, this is not where we differ. God is omnipresent, yet in His nature He remains outside of Creation, ineffable, invisible, undetectable. The Creation is the result of His energies, not His essence. He "was" and "is" before before all time and Creation. We come in contact with His grace.
Where we differ is on the nature of His grace, uncreated or created.
God does not "exist" in the strictest sense; He is Existence. We, and everything else in the universe exist only because of God. That is a result of God's energies, not His nature. In His nature, God "exists" without being acted upon. There is no cause that acts on God. God is not a result of an action.
God is present at all times and everywhere ineffably, yet we also believe that God appears to us at Eucharist in Body and Blood, through His grace. Thus, it is through His grace that He interacts with us in the created world, perfecting His Creation the way a scultor perfects his with his hands.