11-18-2007, 11:21 PM
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1030.htm
Example:
"Objection 1. It would seem that there are not several persons in God. For person is "the individual substance of a rational nature." If then there are several persons in God, there must be several substances; which appears to be heretical."
"Reply to Objection 1. The definition of "person" includes "substance," not as meaning the essence, but the "suppositum" which is made clear by the addition of the term "individual." To signify the substance thus understood, the Greeks use the name "hypostasis." So, as we say, "Three persons," they say "Three hypostases." We are not, however, accustomed to say Three substances, lest we be understood to mean three essences or natures, by reason of the equivocal signification of the term."
("The generic word which includes all individual existing substances is suppositum. Thus person is a subdivision of suppositum which is applied equally to rational and irrational, living and non-living individuals. A person is therefore sometimes defined as suppositum naturae rationalis.")
("Essence, however, is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is......The essence is thus the radical or ground from which the various properties of a thing emanate and to which they are necessarily referred. Thus the notion of the essence is seen to be the abstract counterpart of the concrete entity; the latter signifying that which is or may be (ens actu, ens potentiâ), while the former points to the reason or ground why it is precisely what it is.)
_______________________________________________________
As usual, this remains for me a totally incomprehensible proposition.
IF..."the definition of "person" includes (equals?) "substance," not as meaning the essence (the radical or ground from which the various properties of a thing emanate) , but the "suppositum" (all individual existing substances)..and "person is a subdivision of suppositum which is applied equally to rational and irrational, living and non-living individuals." Catholics (and Protestants) say, "Three persons," while Greeks say "Three hypostases (("to speak of the objective reality (as opposed to outer form or illusion) of a thing, its inner reality)" "We are not, however, accustomed to say Three substances, lest we be understood to mean three essences or natures.."
So....headache setting in.....Catholics and most Protestants understand person to include suppositum of which it is a subdivision? What? It cannot be the whole and yet be a part of itself. Poor "essence" is left out...after all...personhood cannot be the ground from which the properties of a thing emanate...why not? Yet, the Greeks don't even use the term person....they use the term substance...its inner reality...doesn'
t that correspond to essence? This is all insane....to my poor, simple brain, yet the trinity is the essential doctrine of Christianity. A doctrine that very few congregants can attempt to explain without falling into "heresy" because they cannot understand it as the "learned" early chuch fathers understood it...just repeating the definition does not equate to understanding.
Example:
"Objection 1. It would seem that there are not several persons in God. For person is "the individual substance of a rational nature." If then there are several persons in God, there must be several substances; which appears to be heretical."
"Reply to Objection 1. The definition of "person" includes "substance," not as meaning the essence, but the "suppositum" which is made clear by the addition of the term "individual." To signify the substance thus understood, the Greeks use the name "hypostasis." So, as we say, "Three persons," they say "Three hypostases." We are not, however, accustomed to say Three substances, lest we be understood to mean three essences or natures, by reason of the equivocal signification of the term."
("The generic word which includes all individual existing substances is suppositum. Thus person is a subdivision of suppositum which is applied equally to rational and irrational, living and non-living individuals. A person is therefore sometimes defined as suppositum naturae rationalis.")
("Essence, however, is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is......The essence is thus the radical or ground from which the various properties of a thing emanate and to which they are necessarily referred. Thus the notion of the essence is seen to be the abstract counterpart of the concrete entity; the latter signifying that which is or may be (ens actu, ens potentiâ), while the former points to the reason or ground why it is precisely what it is.)
_______________________________________________________
As usual, this remains for me a totally incomprehensible proposition.
IF..."the definition of "person" includes (equals?) "substance," not as meaning the essence (the radical or ground from which the various properties of a thing emanate) , but the "suppositum" (all individual existing substances)..and "person is a subdivision of suppositum which is applied equally to rational and irrational, living and non-living individuals." Catholics (and Protestants) say, "Three persons," while Greeks say "Three hypostases (("to speak of the objective reality (as opposed to outer form or illusion) of a thing, its inner reality)" "We are not, however, accustomed to say Three substances, lest we be understood to mean three essences or natures.."
So....headache setting in.....Catholics and most Protestants understand person to include suppositum of which it is a subdivision? What? It cannot be the whole and yet be a part of itself. Poor "essence" is left out...after all...personhood cannot be the ground from which the properties of a thing emanate...why not? Yet, the Greeks don't even use the term person....they use the term substance...its inner reality...doesn'
t that correspond to essence? This is all insane....to my poor, simple brain, yet the trinity is the essential doctrine of Christianity. A doctrine that very few congregants can attempt to explain without falling into "heresy" because they cannot understand it as the "learned" early chuch fathers understood it...just repeating the definition does not equate to understanding.