Person vs Nature (contd.)

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus

You are a tough man regarding my homework assignment. However, we are tracking together now the kind of orientation that will allow progress. Please see blue below.

continued:

Linus
Human nature refers to that class of animals which are a composit of body and rational soul.

Nature refers to body-soul composit. Person refers to an actually existing person…

Huh?!? What is the difference between a body-soul composite and an actually existing person - when the are both comprised of the same thing - a human soul and a human body…

A person is an actually existing composit of body and soul. Man, considered as a definition defining what man is, is not a person. Whereas when that definition is applied to an actually existing man, we are talking about a person, an actually existing composit of body and soul in a really existing man. Aristotle is person because he is an actually existing composit of body and soul.

Now I hope you complete your homework assignment!!!

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[levinas12]

Thus there is only one Being or One Substance or One Person in Jesus Christ. Read Thomas Aquinas’ S.T., Part 3, ques 2-6 …

One Substance? I’m not sure this is correct.

An Aristotelian primary substance is the union of form and matter. Jesus, in addition to His Divine Substance, also has a human form and human matter. So He is both Divine Substance and Human Substance.

But Jesus is also just One Person (the Second Person of the Trinity).

It is this theological “fact” that accounts for why “person” cannot be equated with “substance”.

But can a “being” be 2 substances? Yes if one of the substances is Divine Substance. Because Divine Substance is an unusual substance - it is not a worldly substance alongside of other worldly substances. As Thomas points out, God does not have a real relation to the world (although the world has a real relation to God) - “real relation” here means the type of relation that a created substance has to another created substance.

Without this qualification, the Incarnation becomes inexplicable. Somehow God can be joined to human nature without altering Himself or human nature (and without being in a “real” relation to the world). Only a radically transcendent “Being” (i.e., Someone who is totally outside the “whole”, the “universe”) can do this. The ancient Greeks were unaware of such a transcendent “Being”. Aristotle’s God was just a part of the whole (and was in a “real” relation to the “whole” - Aristotle’s God plus the world was “greater” than Aristotle’s God without the world).

The Christian God is not a part, a piece of the “whole” or “world”… as Anselm’s argument put it, God is just as perfect, just as “great”, without the world as with the world (the Christian God does not “need” the context of the world to be God).

I know that this sounds a bit too subtle … some people might think that we Christians are wiggling off the hook of what seems to be a contradiction.

The issue is further complicated when we apply the notion of Aristotelian primary substance to God.

God is beyond the usual meaning of substance (or nature, or form, or “worldly esse”).

Thomas tried to get around all of this by invoking “analogy”. Again, I’m not sure this really works.

 

[levinas12]

In reply to Aner’s “huh” about the identity of the human body-soul composite and the really existing human being (I apologize about the round-about way of replying … I couldn’t get Aner’s actual quote to come up) …

The “person” is the peculiar “individuation” of the body-soul composite. “Peculiar” because for all other material created substances, including living substances (with “soul”), the individuation can be attributed to the “matter”.

But human beings are different. Their “individuation” is not just due to the “matter” - in a profound way, it is “person” which individuates the human being - and “person” is an ontological excellence “greater” than “matter” (and, for that “matter”, no pun intended, “person” is “greater” than “form”, than “substance”, than “accidents” … greater than any Aristotelian category).

 

[Aner]

In reply to Aner’s “huh” about the identity of the human body-soul composite and the really existing human being (I apologize about the round-about way of replying … I couldn’t get Aner’s actual quote to come up) …

The “person” is the peculiar “individuation” of the body-soul composite. “Peculiar” because for all other material created substances, including living substances (with “soul”), the individuation can be attributed to the “matter”.

But human beings are different. Their “individuation” is not just due to the “matter” - in a profound way, it is “person” which individuates the human being - and “person” is an ontological excellence “greater” than “matter” (and, for that “matter”, no pun intended, “person” is “greater” than “form”, than “substance”, than “accidents” … greater than any Aristotelian category).

Lev

Thanks - no problem on the individuation part of it. I get that. As I understand, we are focused on more fundamental aspect here - that is simply the reality of Personness in general - as opposed to a specific person.

Here is the issue -

I have been specifically informed that Person = Body + Soul.

The Hypostatic Union denies the existence of human personness (and naturally a individuated human person). Linus confirms this is the case - AFT has said so much through he has introduced “Being” (not sure of the difference between “Being” and “Person” at this point.

We know that Jesus has a human body - and, therefore, to NOT be a human person, He must NOT have a human Soul. HOWEVER, I believe everyone on here including your catechism teaches that Jesus DOES have a human Soul.

Do you get the fundamental contradiction?? I realize it is blatantly obvious. There is a lot of preceding material so perhaps it is found therein.

Do you have any clarification here?

Thanks,
Aner

 

[Aner]

Lev

Thanks - no problem on the individuation part of it. I get that. As I understand, we are focused on the more fundamental ontological aspect, that is, simply the reality of Personness in general - as opposed to a specific person.

Here is the issue -

I have been specifically informed that Person = Body + Soul (plus nothing else I understand)).

The Hypostatic Union denies the existence of human person (and naturally a individuated human person). Linus confirms this is the case - AFT has said so much through he has introduced “Being” (not sure of the difference between “Being” and “Person” at this point.

We know that Jesus has a human body - and, therefore, to NOT be a human person, He must NOT have a human Soul. HOWEVER, I believe everyone on here including your catechism teaches that Jesus DOES have a human Soul.

Do you get the fundamental contradiction?? I realize it is blatantly obvious. There is a lot of preceding material so perhaps it is found therein.

Do you or any of the others have any clarification for what appears to be a severe defect?

Thanks,
Aner

 

[Aner]

John, Jesus was not a human person. That is a proposition held by the Nestorians and condemned by the Church. Christ had a human nature united assumed by the Second Person of the Trinity. In Christ there is one Person, one hypostasis, one substance - that of God - one being only, God. See paragraphs 470-477 of the Catechism. Thomas Aquinas says the same thing in S.T., Part 3, ques 2-6. We tend to forget because we don’t think of it so often and we don’t hear it repeated often enough.

Yes, Jesus was a man, but he was a Divine Person, he was God in the flesh, as the Catechism says and as Defined by the Councils of the Church…

Pax
Linus2nd

Linus

You are moving in the direction that I originally expected (I am quite familiar with Nestorius issue… and that is a fundamental part of my complaint).

Key Points

Jesus was/is a non-conscious/non-independently functional human nature assumed by a divine Person (divine body + divine soul ?).

Your “one substance” throws me - isn’t Jesus two substances - the divine nature and the human nature. Surely these don’t mix into one substance…

Here is a key point. You state Jesus is “one being only - God.” Yet you call Him “a man”. This obviously makes no sense - you are literally contradicting yourself in one breath. Please help!

Aner

 

[Linusthe2nd]

One Substance? I’m not sure this is correct.

An Aristotelian primary substance is the union of form and matter. Jesus, in addition to His Divine Substance, also has a human form and human matter. So He is both Divine Substance and Human Substance.

Please read the reference to the S.T., Part 3, ques 2-6. There is only one substance in Jesus Christ and that is the substance of the Second Person. Remember that the human nature of Christ was assumed by the Second Person. So the substance that would accure to a mere man does not exist. What you propose is the Nestorian heresy.

But Jesus is also just One Person (the Second Person of the Trinity).

It is this theological “fact” that accounts for why “person” cannot be equated with “substance”.

Please read the reference above.

But can a “being” be 2 substances? Yes if one of the substances is Divine Substance. Because Divine Substance is an unusual substance - it is not a worldly substance alongside of other worldly substances. As Thomas points out, God does not have a real relation to the world (although the world has a real relation to God) - “real relation” here means the type of relation that a created substance has to another created substance.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Please read the reference abobe. A being is a single existing substance or thing. Two bings would be two things, the best you could ever have is a mixture which cannot apply to Jesus Christ.

Without this qualification, the Incarnation becomes inexplicable. Somehow God can be joined to human nature without altering Himself or human nature (and without being in a “real” relation to the world). Only a radically transcendent “Being” (i.e., Someone who is totally outside the “whole”, the “universe”) can do this. The ancient Greeks were unaware of such a transcendent “Being”. Aristotle’s God was just a part of the whole (and was in a “real” relation to the “whole” - Aristotle’s God plus the world was “greater” than Aristotle’s God without the world).

We are not talking about relationships. We are talking about the total assumption of a human nature by a Divine Substance. The entire human nature is attached to the Divine nature such that there is only one Person, one Substance.

The Christian God is not a part, a piece of the “whole” or “world”… as Anselm’s argument put it, God is just as perfect, just as “great”, without the world as with the world (the Christian God does not “need” the context of the world to be God).

We are not talking about the pre-Incarnation mode of the existence of the Second Person, we are talking about the Incarnational mode of existence of the Second Person, who while having " God in the flesh, " retains his unity with the Father ( I and the Father are one ) and the Holy Spirit.

I know that this sounds a bit too subtle … some people might think that we Christians are wiggling off the hook of what seems to be a contradiction.

I hope you are not teaching RCIA

The issue is further complicated when we apply the notion of Aristotelian primary substance to God.

Well, let’s not go there unless you think it is necessary.

God is beyond the usual meaning of substance (or nature, or form, or “worldly esse”).

That may be but you cannot reject Catholic Dogma on that account.

Thomas tried to get around all of this by invoking “analogy”. Again, I’m not sure this really works.

Nonesense. He proves that Jesus Christ is one Divine Being, one Divine Substance, one Divine Person - by reason of having assumed a human nature.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

Person = Soul + Body

What does “Being” equal?

What is the relationship between “Being” and “Person”?

Thanks,

Aner

PS I am diligently trying to track with you fellows!!

 

[Aner]

Linus

I think you may be using the word “Substance” differently than we are using it here. I realize that you may be working with a formal definition form ST - however, we are using it in the standard current sense - substance is simply something as opposed to nothing or ideational.

Thus a human nature is one substance (yes?) - a divine nature is one substance (yes?) - therefore, there, must be at least two substances when they are joined together based on our common, current use of the term.

Again, I think you are using substance with a different meaning than we are. Does this make sense?

Aner

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Person = Soul + Body

No, a person is a composit of body and soul that actually exists. It is an actually existing substance or thing.

What does “Being” equal?

Anything which actually exists in the real world which is a single homogeneous thing. A pile of junk would not be a real thing. It would be a collection of many separately existing things. A man, an Angel, a dog, a tree, God are all actually existing things, actually existing substances, actually existing beings.

What is the relationship between “Being” and “Person”?

A person is an actually existing being composed of body and soul. Except in the instance of Christ who has assumed a human nature to his one being, substance, or Person. But only man, angels, and God are Persons. Being has a wider connotation, since it applies to any thing which exists.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus

I think you may be using the word “Substance” differently than we are using it here. I realize that you may be working with a formal definition form ST - however, we are using it in the standard current sense - substance is simply something as opposed to nothing or ideational.

Yes, Thomas does attach a philosophical meaning. Nevertheless, even in comman parlance a substance is an actually existing thing. At least that is the way I have always used it.

Thus a human nature is one substance (yes?) - a divine nature is one substance (yes?) - therefore, there, must be at least two substances when they are joined together based on our common, current use of the term.

With the proviso that we are talking about something actually existing. But when we are talking about Jesus Christ we have to go beyond common usages. We are talking about Divine mysteries which transcend common realities. Therefore we have to use the expanded definitions of philosophy and theology and Revelation. Very special definitions which surpass common usages.

Again, I think you are using substance with a different meaning than we are. Does this make sense?

Aner

No, you are simply wrong for the reasons I have stated.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

Yes, Thomas does attach a philosophical meaning. Nevertheless, even in comman parlance a substance is an actually existing thing. At least that is the way I have always used it.

With the proviso that we are talking about something actually existing. But when we are talking about Jesus Christ we have to go beyond common usages. We are talking about Divine mysteries which transcend common realities. Therefore we have to use the expanded definitions of philosophy and theology and Revelation. Very special definitions which surpass common usages.

No, you are simply wrong for the reasons I have stated.

Pax
Linus2nd

OK -

Substance = Something that actually exists (in any form inc. energy). I am good with that.

However, we still have a human Nature that is substantial and unique AND a divine Nature that is substantial and unique. That seems like two substances??

(I am not even dealing with the Person issue here.

 

[Aner]

No, a person is a composit of body and soul that actually exists. It is an actually existing substance or thing.

Linus - When you say "composit - I assume you mean “composite”? Simply the “joining together” in this case.

I acknowledge that a Person is substantial since we are defining Person as the sum of Body and Soul. Right? My point to confirm is simply that there is NOTHING else that is substantial being added to create Person - simply take 1 Body add 1 Soul and, voila, a substantial Person. Right?

Anything which actually exists in the real world which is a single homogeneous thing. A pile of junk would not be a real thing. It would be a collection of many separately existing things. A man, an Angel, a dog, a tree, God are all actually existing things, actually existing substances, actually existing beings.

A person is an actually existing being composed of body and soul.

Therefore, Person = Being = Body + Soul?

Right?

Except in the instance of Christ who has assumed a human nature to his one being, substance, or Person.

OK - I think I am good here

Divine Person (Substance)l = Divine Being (Substance) = Divine Soul + Divine “Body”

Divine Soul + Divine Body + Human Nature… ooppsss…

Rats!!! I see we are missing a key element in the equation - maybe I missed it earlier - **where is Nature fit into our algorithm?

Is Nature = Soul? Or?

**

But only man, angels, and God are Persons. Being has a wider connotation, since it applies to any thing which exists.

I appreciate the differentiation - for our purposes Being = Person since we are dealing only with God and Man. Admittedly, I am troubled denying Personhood to critters having had a few critter friends BUT that issue is for another thread.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[levinas12]

Please read the reference to the S.T., Part 3, ques 2-6. There is only one substance in Jesus Christ and that is the substance of the Second Person.

I read ST, Part 3, ques 2-6 but did not find an affirmation that Jesus is only one substance (i.e., Divine Substance).

A quote would help.

Jesus has a human form and human matter. A human substance is the union of a human form and human matter. So why wouldn’t Jesus be a human substance (otherwise, he is not human).

Of course, Jesus is also Divine Substance.

And Jesus’ Person is only Divine (not human).

p.s. would you agree that Jesus has two intellects and two wills?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

OK -

Substance = Something that actually exists (in any form inc. energy). I am good with that.

However, we still have a human Nature that is substantial and unique AND a divine Nature that is substantial and unique. That seems like two substances??

(I am not even dealing with the Person issue here.

The Catholic Church has formerly condemned Nestorianism, two persons in Christ. The Divine Person assumed the human nature of Jesus at the moment of conception. Without this assumption there would have been no Jesus Christ. There is one Christ, right. One Christ died, right? One Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, right?

O.K. I don’t care what the case " seems " like, I’m telling you the way it is. I have explained to you what the Church teaches and what Thomas Aquinas teaches. I have given you references to read and think about. I don’t know what else I can do. If nothing else just ask youself if it makes any sense for Christ to be two substances. Just compare Jesus to the Trinity. There you have one substance and one nature, God. But you have three Persons. Are you going to reject that too?

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

I read ST, Part 3, ques 2-6 but did not find an affirmation that Jesus is only one substance (i.e., Divine Substance).

A quote would help.

Jesus has a human form and human matter. A human substance is the union of a human form and human matter. So why wouldn’t Jesus be a human substance (otherwise, he is not human).

Of course, Jesus is also Divine Substance.

And Jesus’ Person is only Divine (not human).

p.s. would you agree that Jesus has two intellects and two wills?

Lev

These are great questions as they are focused on clearly understanding the words we are using.

Is there any way to tie these to the specific terms of the OP - Person and Nature? I appreciate that you did detail two characteristics of Nature - Intellect and Will. Did I understand that correctly?

** BTW - I assume that Intellect and Will are are essential functions that are available to use by a User. Who is the User?**

Aner

 

[Aner]

The Catholic Church has formerly condemned Nestorianism, two persons in Christ. The Divine Person assumed the human nature of Jesus at the moment of conception. Without this assumption there would have been no Jesus Christ. There is one Christ, right. One Christ died, right? One Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, right?

O.K. I don’t care what the case " seems " like, I’m telling you the way it is. I have explained to you what the Church teaches and what Thomas Aquinas teaches. I have given you references to read and think about. I don’t know what else I can do. If nothing else just ask youself if it makes any sense for Christ to be two substances. Just compare Jesus to the Trinity. There you have one substance and one nature, God. But you have three Persons. Are you going to reject that too?

Pax
Linus2nd

Linus,

Thanks for your patience. Maybe we are still stuck on the meaning of substance.

You agreed that Nature is Substance. You agreed that Jesus has BOTH (two) a divine Nature and a human Nature. Right? Each Nature is a DIFFERENT Substance. Right?

I know that Lev is struggling with your single Substance conception. This sounds awfully close to Monophysitism (sp) - which was condemned by the vatican as I recall…

Aner

 

[Aner]

Linus -

I am still missing the critical details below. Could you please fill in the missing blanks when you have an opportunity. I think we are narrowing our scope - which is great!!

Perhaps the most critical is the Soul vs Nature relationship. Can you please clarify?

Thanks,

Aner

Posted by Linus
No, a person is a composit of body and soul that actually exists. It is an actually existing substance or thing.

Linus - When you say "composit - I assume you mean “composite”? Simply the “joining together” in this case.

I acknowledge that a Person is substantial since we are defining Person as the sum of Body and Soul. Right?

My point to confirm is simply that there is NOTHING else that is substantial being added to Body and Soul to create Person - simply take 1 Body add 1 Soul and, voila, a substantial Person. Right?

Anything which actually exists in the real world which is a single homogeneous thing. A pile of junk would not be a real thing. It would be a collection of many separately existing things. A man, an Angel, a dog, a tree, God are all actually existing things, actually existing substances, actually existing beings.

A person is an actually existing being composed of body and soul.

Therefore, Person = Being = Body + Soul?

Right?

Except in the instance of Christ who has assumed a human nature to his one being, substance, or Person.

OK - I think I am good here

Divine Person (Substance)l = Divine Being (Substance) = Divine Soul + Divine “Body”

Divine Soul + Divine Body + Human Nature… ooppsss…

Rats!!! I see we are missing a key element in the equation - maybe I missed it earlier - where is Nature fit into our algorithm?

Is Nature = Soul? Or?

But only man, angels, and God are Persons. Being has a wider connotation, since it applies to any thing which exists.

I appreciate the differentiation - for our purposes Being = Person since we are dealing only with God and Man. Admittedly, I am troubled denying Personhood to critters having had a few critter friends BUT that issue is for another thread.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Posted by Linus
No, a person is a composit of body and soul that actually exists. It is an actually existing substance or thing.

Aner Asks
Linus - When you say "composit - I assume you mean “composite”? Simply the “joining together” in this case.

Linus responds:
The composite of body and soul is so thorough one could only describe it by saying the soul permeates the body through every atom and molecule. Thomas Aquinas says the whole soul is in every part of the body. So this is not a mere joining. And this composite is a single substance/being we call a person when it actually exists, when it is identified with an actuall living individual.

Aner asks:
I acknowledge that a Person is substantial since we are defining Person as the sum of Body and Soul. Right?

Linus responds:
Yes.

Aner asks: My point to confirm is simply that there is NOTHING else that is substantial being added to Body and Soul to create Person - simply take 1 Body add 1 Soul and, voila, a substantial Person. Right?

Linus responds:
Well, it has to exist. If the composite isn’t living the substance is just a body - or worse.

Linus says: Anything which actually exists in the real world which is a single homogeneous thing ( is a substance or being}. A pile of junk would not be a real thing. It would be a collection of many separately existing things. A man, an Angel, a dog, a tree, God are all actually existing things, actually existing substances, actually existing beings.

A person is an actually existing substance/being composed of body and soul.

Aner asks:
Therefore, Person = Being = Body + Soul?

Right?

Linus responds:
Not exactly. A being is any thing that actually exists. So is a substance. But a Person is a particular kind of being. And yes, a person is a composite of body and soul.

Except in the instance of Christ who has assumed a human nature to his one being, substance, or Person.

Aner says:
OK - I think I am good here

Aner adds:
Divine Person (Substance)l = Divine Being (Substance) = Divine Soul + Divine “Body”

Linus Responds:
No. A Divine Person is the Divine Nature as it relates to the either the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Divine Nature is considered the " Godhead " and is considered as sourced in the Father. Let’s not get into the Trinity until you understand my explanation of the Personhood of Jesus Christ. There is no Divine Body not even in Jesus.

Aner tries to be cute:
Divine Soul + Divine Body + Human Nature… ooppsss…

Linus says:
It is hard to take you seriously when you do that.

Jesus Christ has a human body and a human soul. The composite we call a human nature. There is no Divine Soul. The Divine nature is a Spirit, we do not call it a soul. In Jesus Christ we have a human nature assumed by the Second Person of the Trinity, who is eternally begotten by the Father and possesses ( completely) with him and the Holy Spirit the Nature/Spirit/Substance/Being we call God.

Aner says:Rats!!! I see we are missing a key element in the equation - maybe I missed it Is Nature = Soul? Or?

Linus responds:
I just supplied it. Aristotle defines nature as the source of motion and rest in those things to which it belongs essentially, as opposed to accidentally. My nature is the body and soul of which I am composed and this nature belongs to me essentially, it is mine. And it is the source of all my activities, conscious and unconscious.

Linus says:But only man, angels, and God are Persons. Being has a wider connotation, since it applies to any thing which exists.

Aner says:
I appreciate the differentiation - for our purposes Being = Person since we are dealing only with God and Man. Admittedly, I am troubled denying Personhood to critters having had a few critter friends BUT that issue is for another thread.

Linus says:
It is true that a Person is a being. But they are not equal because the genus being applies to everything that exists. It is more extensive in application than person.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

Linus,

This is great - I think we are getting a good focus and clarification our terms. Please note that I had a blood vessel pop in my finger, so I am not going to walk through your great post above - hopefully tomorrow but I may have to delay a bit.

Best,

Aner