Originally posted by Pentecost
View Post
I refer to typical understanding of person because I thought the question was about the meaning of the word. Words are defined by how they are commonly used. If the question was about "person" as used in the Trinity and Incarnation, that's a different question.
I believe Aquinas meant "complete in itself" or perhaps "self-contained." Obviously he would not say that Christ's human nature was incomplete, since that would violate Chalcedon.
I don't think any classical creeds spoke of consciousness. However the canons against monothelites say that Christ had a distinct human will and took distinct human actions. Previously he was decided to have a human soul. Obviously he had a human body. This seems to constitute him a human person within the common-language meaning of person. You may, of course, disagree.
However this came up in the context of statements like this: "A "person" is a unique center of consciousness that is made in the image of God, who is 3 distinct centers of consciousness. It does not necessarily imply humanity or even corporeality, although possessing them does not invalidate personhood, nor does lacking them invalidate it." I agree with his definition of person. However it's not so clear that the Trinity has three centers of consciousness. For what it's worth, the Catholic Encyclopedia sees him as having a single three-fold consciousness. In context I don't think this is the same thing as three separate centers of consciousness. At least the Trinity has a single will and acts with a single action. Though classical theology didn't deal with "consciousness," three separate centers of consciousness would seem weird.
Comment