W
worldwideweary
Guest
If it is true that we are correct in asserting a distinction between a person and an intellect/will as with the religious language of the three persons of God with only one intellect/will, and we say Jesus was only one person, not two, even though he is of the human and divine–two natures, then when we take the expression in the person of christ or in persona christi, it seems to mean in the person of the second person of the Trinity since there is only one person of Jesus and his person is the second person of the Trinity.
With this in mind, is it correct to say that Catholic priests believe they perform in the In Person of the Second Person of the Trinity, a.k.a, in the uncreated, eternally generated son? If you were to say this is not the case but that the expression means to signify a relation to the humanness (even if combined with the divineness) of Jesus as High-Priest, then why refer to the person when the person is only sourced from the hypostatic union of the 2nd person of the trinity and not Jesus’ human intellect or will, since his person is not the result of any mixing into human nature but of the eternal?
Thanks for any beneficial responses.
With this in mind, is it correct to say that Catholic priests believe they perform in the In Person of the Second Person of the Trinity, a.k.a, in the uncreated, eternally generated son? If you were to say this is not the case but that the expression means to signify a relation to the humanness (even if combined with the divineness) of Jesus as High-Priest, then why refer to the person when the person is only sourced from the hypostatic union of the 2nd person of the trinity and not Jesus’ human intellect or will, since his person is not the result of any mixing into human nature but of the eternal?
Thanks for any beneficial responses.