Valeur de la notion de personne dans l'expression du mystère du Christ
The affirmation of one person and two natures in Christ, which is at present the object of discussion, raises the problem of the meaning of the word « person. » In his reflections on the dogma of the Trinity, Karl Barth has called attention to the peril of tritheism in the use of the term « person »...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | French |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Ed. Pontificia Univ. Gregoriana
1974
|
| In: |
Gregorianum
Year: 1974, Volume: 55, Issue: 1, Pages: 69-97 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | The affirmation of one person and two natures in Christ, which is at present the object of discussion, raises the problem of the meaning of the word « person. » In his reflections on the dogma of the Trinity, Karl Barth has called attention to the peril of tritheism in the use of the term « person » to designate the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. He thinks that there has been a change of meaning in the concept of person and that today it really means self-consciousness. It therefore should be applied rather to the one Godhead, who is a person, while the divine threeness should be expressed as « three ways of existing. » Karl Rahner has made his own these suggestions, and thus, rather than speaking of three persons in God, he speaks of three « distinct modes of subsistence. » In Christology he rejects monosubjectivism. He feels that the divine hypostasis of the Logos does not correspond to the modern concept of person and that the content of this concept is verified in the center of activity which places the man Jesus in the presence of God. One could make the observation that the expressions « way of existing » and « distinct mode of subsistence » do not seem to contribute to the updating of theological language and that they carry the risk of modalism. Besides is it certain that the concept of person has changed meaning, that it has become inapt to designate the divine threeness and the principle of unity in Christ? The Council of Chalcedon has not defined what it meant by « one sole hypostasis, » but it thereby affirmed monosubjectivism which it distinguished from monophysitism. The modern concept of person — the subject of consciousness and of liberty — is only a development of what was already found in the concept of person utilized by Chalcedon. According to this latter concept, person is the principle or the subject of the spiritual activity of knowing and of willing but is distinct from the soul; for in Christ there is only one person, the divine person, and a human soul. All the rich developments of modern psychology can be integrated into an understanding of the human psychology of Christ without having to cease to affirm that the sole subject of this psychological activity is the divine person of the Son of God. |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Gregorianum
|