Existence and Subsistence in St. Thomas

Description

Biography of the author (source):

Mr. Kalb has 12 years of high school teaching experience in the subjects of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and Latin at all levels. He was most recently Science Director at a tutoring center that employed about 30 tutors, where, over 11 years, he accumulated 25,000 student-hours of tutoring experience, and mentored other math and science tutors. Mr. Kalb received a B.S. and M.S. in Materials Science, and a M.S. in Electrical Engineering, from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, under a Graduate Fellowship from the National Science Foundation.

See also: Jeffrey C. Kalb, Jr. Thomism, Mathematics and Science.

p. 8 (PDF p. 10) quotes Modernist Gilson:

The Thomistic distinction of essence and existence is thus implied in the Thomistic conception and definition of the notion of substance. Strictly speaking, only God is an ens per se , that is, as we shall see, a being whose essence is its act-of-being. Also, God is not a substance. The term “substance” always designates an essence, or quiddity, which exists in virtue of act-of-being (esse) really distinct from his essence.

If "God is not a substance," what does consubstantial mean, then‽

Also interesting: § "VI. Substance in Divine Revelation" pp. 11-13 (PDF pp. 13-15), where Kalb argues the Septuagint translation of Ex. 3:14 ("Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν.") is superior to the Vulgate's ("Ego sum qui sum."). He thinks "Ego sum ipse ens." would've been better (if ens was a word in St. Jerome's time).

Modernist Gilson’s “ ens per se ” in reference to God is somewhat sloppy.

God is (exclusively and more precisely) qui per se ipsum. The latter is more precise than ens per se , because any other enti per se tends to simply convey the idea of the res in(per)se (which we can say in reference to any worldly singular ens), and not so much the key theological notion of ipsum subsistens. In ens per se , the per se lacks the precision of per ipsum , which expressly refers to the relationally substantial ipseity of the Triune God.

In St. Thomas, ens is that which is (quod est); and esse is that by which/or the end for which something is (quo est).

About the application of “substance” to God and Gilson’s alternative translation of Ex. 3:14. To be fair, “ Ego sum ipse ens ” is certainly far from incorrect. It simply slightly shifts the focus on ens (which Gibson adds); while St. Jerome’s “ Ego sum qui sum ,” closer to the original Hebrew, focuses on the relational nature of ens in God. For, recall that verse 14 tells us who this God is in terms of His relational substance, which is ‘to be’ itself (sit ipsum) precisely as relation -> אֲשֶׁר = the Latin relative pronoun qui :

Ego sum qui /אֲשֶׁר sum.

Gilson, in his retranslation, drops this critical grammatical relative, which subtly reveals that God substantially relates to Himself, i.e. that there is true relation of opposition in the absolute self-subsisting singular (undivided) divine substance.

From what Scripture itself tells us, God is therefore per ipsum the ens whose substance is self-existence (ipsum esse) as self-subsisting (ipsum subsistens) relationality:

אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה

Relatio subsistens est unus Deus.