CINXE.COM

<!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <head> <title>CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Person</title><script src="https://dtyry4ejybx0.cloudfront.net/js/cmp/cleanmediacmp.js?ver=0104" async="true"></script><script defer data-domain="newadvent.org" src="https://plausible.io/js/script.js"></script><link rel="canonical" href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm"> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> <meta name="description" content="Discusses (1) the definition of 'person', especially with reference to the doctrine of the Incarnation; and (2) the use of the word 'persona' and its Greek equivalents in connection with the Trinitarian disputes."> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="RSS" href="http://feeds.newadvent.org/bestoftheweb?format=xml"><link rel="icon" href="../images/icon1.ico" type="image/x-icon"><link rel="shortcut icon" href="../images/icon1.ico" type="image/x-icon"><meta name="robots" content="noodp"><link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="../utility/screen6.css" media="screen"></head> <body class="cathen" id="11726a.htm">  <br/> <div id="capitalcity"><table summary="Logo" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%"><tr valign="bottom"><td align="left"><a href="../"><img height=36 width=153 border="0" alt="New Advent" src="../images/logo.gif"></a></td><td align="right"> <form id="searchbox_000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0" action="../utility/search.htm">  <input type="hidden" name="safe" value="active"> <input type="hidden" name="cx" value="000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0"/> <input type="hidden" name="cof" value="FORID:9"/>  <label for="searchQuery" id="searchQueryLabel">Search:</label> <input id="searchQuery" name="q" type="text" size="25" aria-labelledby="searchQueryLabel"/>  <label for="submitButton" id="submitButtonLabel" class="visually-hidden">Submit Search</label> <input id="submitButton" type="submit" name="sa" value="Search" aria-labelledby="submitButtonLabel"/> </form> <table summary="Spacer" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td height="2"></td></tr></table> <table summary="Tabs" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../"> Home </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_white_on_color" href="../cathen/index.html"> Encyclopedia </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../summa/index.html"> Summa </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../fathers/index.html"> Fathers </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../bible/gen001.htm"> Bible </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../library/index.html"> Library </a></td> </tr></table> </td> </tr></table><table summary="Alphabetical index" width="100%" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td class="bar_white_on_color"> <a href="../cathen/a.htm"> A </a><a href="../cathen/b.htm"> B </a><a href="../cathen/c.htm"> C </a><a href="../cathen/d.htm"> D </a><a href="../cathen/e.htm"> E </a><a href="../cathen/f.htm"> F </a><a href="../cathen/g.htm"> G </a><a href="../cathen/h.htm"> H </a><a href="../cathen/i.htm"> I </a><a href="../cathen/j.htm"> J </a><a href="../cathen/k.htm"> K </a><a href="../cathen/l.htm"> L </a><a href="../cathen/m.htm"> M </a><a href="../cathen/n.htm"> N </a><a href="../cathen/o.htm"> O </a><a href="../cathen/p.htm"> P </a><a href="../cathen/q.htm"> Q </a><a href="../cathen/r.htm"> R </a><a href="../cathen/s.htm"> S </a><a href="../cathen/t.htm"> T </a><a href="../cathen/u.htm"> U </a><a href="../cathen/v.htm"> V </a><a href="../cathen/w.htm"> W </a><a href="../cathen/x.htm"> X </a><a href="../cathen/y.htm"> Y </a><a href="../cathen/z.htm"> Z </a> </td></tr></table></div> <div id="mobilecity" style="text-align: center; "><a href="../"><img height=24 width=102 border="0" alt="New Advent" src="../images/logo.gif"></a></div>  <div id="mi5"><span class="breadcrumbs"><a href="../">Home</a> > <a href="../cathen">Catholic Encyclopedia</a> > <a href="../cathen/p.htm">P</a> > Person</span></div> <div id="springfield2"> <div class='catholicadnet-728x90' id='cathen-728x90-top' style='display: flex; height: 100px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; '></div> <h1>Person</h1> <p><em><a href="https://gumroad.com/l/na2"><strong>Please help support the mission of New Advent</strong> and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more  all for only $19.99...</a></em></p> <p>The Latin word <em>persona</em> was originally used to denote the mask worn by an actor. From this it was applied to the role he assumed, and, finally, to any character on the stage of life, to any individual. This article discusses (1) the definition of "person", especially with reference to the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the Incarnation; and (2) the use of the word <em>persona</em> and its Greek equivalents in connection with the Trinitarian disputes. For the <a href="../cathen/12545b.htm">psychological</a> treatment see <a href="../cathen/11727b.htm">PERSONALITY</a>.</p> <h2 id="section1">Definition</h2> <p>The classic definition is that given by <a href="../cathen/02610b.htm">Boethius</a> in "De persona et duabus naturis", c. ii: <em>Naturæ rationalis individua substantia</em> (an <a href="../cathen/07762a.htm">individual</a> <a href="../cathen/14322c.htm">substance</a> of a rational <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a>).</p> <p><em>Substantia --</em> "Substance" is used to exclude accidents: "We see that accidents cannot constitute person" (Boethius, op. cit.). <em>Substantia</em> is used in two senses: of the concrete substance as existing in the individual, called <em>substantia prima</em>, corresponding to <a href="../cathen/01713a.htm">Aristotle's</a> <em>ousia prote</em>; and of abstractions, substance as existing in genus and species, called <em>substantia secunda</em>, <a href="../cathen/01713a.htm">Aristotle's</a> <em>ousia deutera</em>. It is disputed which of the two the word taken by itself here signifies. It seems probable that of itself it prescinds from <em>substantia prima</em> and <em>substantia secunda</em>, and is restricted to the former signification only by the word <em>individua</em>.</p> <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> <p><em>Individua </em> <em>Individua</em>, i.e., <em>indivisum in se</em>, is that which, unlike the higher branches in the tree of Porphyry, genus and species, cannot be further subdivided. <a href="../cathen/02610b.htm">Boethius</a> in giving his definition does not seem to attach any further signification to the word. It is merely synonymous with singularis.</p> <p><em>Rationalis naturae --</em> Person is predicated only of <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellectual</a> beings. The generic word which includes all individual existing substances is <em>suppositum</em>. Thus person is a subdivision of <em>suppositum</em> which is applied equally to rational and irrational, living and non-living <a href="../cathen/07762a.htm">individuals</a>. A person is therefore sometimes defined as <em>suppositum naturae rationalis</em>.</p> <p>The definition of <a href="../cathen/02610b.htm">Boethius</a> as it stands can hardly be considered a satisfactory one. The words taken literally can be applied to the rational <a href="../cathen/14153a.htm">soul</a> of man, and also the <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>. That <a href="../cathen/14663b.htm">St. Thomas</a> accepts it is presumably due to the fact that he found it in possession, and recognized as the traditional definition. He explains it in terms that practically constitute a new definition. <em>Individua substantia</em> signifies, he says, <em>substantia, completa, per se subsistens, separata ab aliia</em>, i.e., a substance, complete, subsisting <em>per se</em>, existing apart from others (III, Q. xvi, a. 12, ad 2um).</p> <p>If to this be added rationalis naturae, we have a definition comprising the five notes that go to make up a person: (a) <em>substantia--</em> this excludes accident; (b) <em>completa--</em> it must form a complete nature; that which is a part, either actually or "aptitudinally" does not satisfy the definition; (c) <em>per se subsistens--</em>the person exists in himself and for himself; he is sui juris, the ultimate possessor of his nature and all its acts, the ultimate subject of predication of all his attributes; that which exists in another is not a person; (d) <em>separata ab aliis--</em>this excludes the universal, <em>substantia secunda</em>, which has no existence apart from the individual; (e) <em>rationalis naturae--</em>excludes all non-intellectual supposita.</p> <p>To a person therefore belongs a threefold incommunicability, expressed in notes (b), (c), and (d). The human <a href="../cathen/14153a.htm">soul</a> belongs to the nature as a part of it, and is therefore not a person, even when existing separately. The <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> of Christ does not exist <em>per se seorsum</em>, but <em>in alio</em>, in the Divine Personality of the Word. It is therefore communicated by assumption and so is not a person. Lastly the Divine Essence, though subsisting per se, is so communicated to the Three Persons that it does not exist apart from them; it is therefore not a person.</p> <p><a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">Theologians</a> agree that in the <a href="../cathen/07610b.htm">Hypostatic Union</a> the immediate reason why the Sacred Humanity, though complete and individual, is not a person is that it is not a subsistence, not <em>per se seorsum subsistens</em>. They have, however, disputed for centuries as to what may be the ultimate determination of the nature which if present would make it a subsistence and so a person, what in other words is the ultimate foundation of <a href="../cathen/11727b.htm">personality</a>. According to <a href="../cathen/05194a.htm">Scotus</a>, as he is usually understood, the ultimate foundation is a mere negation. That individual <a href="../cathen/08066a.htm">intellectual</a> nature is a person which is neither of its <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> destined to be communicated--as is the human <a href="../cathen/14153a.htm">soul</a>--nor is actually communicated--as is the Sacred Humanity. If the <a href="../cathen/07610b.htm">Hypostatic Union</a> ceased, the latter would <em>ipso facto</em>, without any further determination, become a person. To this it is objected that the person possesses the nature and all its attributes. It is difficult to believe that this possessor, as distinct from the objects possessed, is constituted only by a negative. Consequently, the traditional <a href="../cathen/14698b.htm">Thomists</a>, following Cajetan, hold that there is a positive determination which they call the "mode" of subsistence. It is the function of this mode to make the nature incommunicable, terminated in itself, and capable of receiving its own <em>esse</em>, or existence. Without this mode the <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> of Christ exists only by the uncreated <em>esse</em> of the Word.</p> <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> <p>Suarez also makes the ultimate foundation of <a href="../cathen/11727b.htm">personality</a> a mode. In his view, however, as he holds no real distinction between nature and <em>esse</em>, it does not prepare the nature to receive its own existence, but is something added to a nature conceived as already existing. Many <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a> hold that the very concept of a mode, viz., a determination of a substance really distinct from it but adding no reality, involves a contradiction. Of more recent theories that of Tiphanus ("De hypostasi et persona", 1634) has found many adherents. He holds that a substance is a <em>suppositum</em>, an intelligent substance a person, from the mere fact of its being a whole, <em>totum in se</em>. This totality, it is contended, is a positive note, but adds no reality, as the whole adds nothing to the parts that compose it. In the <a href="../cathen/07610b.htm">Hypostatic Union</a> the <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> is perfected by being assumed, and so ceases to be a whole, being merged in a greater totality. The Word, on the other hand, is not perfected, and so remains a person. Opposing <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a>, however, hold that this notion of totality reduces on analysis to the <a href="../cathen/13610b.htm">Scotistic</a> negative. Lastly the neo-Thomists, <a href="../cathen/14520a.htm">Terrien</a>, Billot, etc., consider <a href="../cathen/11727b.htm">personality</a> to be ultimately constituted by the <em>esse</em>, the actual existence, of an intelligent substance. That which subsists with its own esse is by that very fact incommunicable. The <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a> of Christ is possessed by the Word and exists by His <a href="../cathen/08004a.htm">infinite</a> esse. It has no separate esse of its own and for this reason is not a person. The <em>suppositum</em> is a <em>suppositum</em> as being <em>ens</em> in the strictest sense of the term. Of all Latin theories this appears to approach most nearly to that of the Greek fathers. Thus in the "Dialogues of the Trinity" given by <a href="../cathen/10290a.htm">Migne</a> among the works of <a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">St. Athanasius</a>, the author, speaking of person and nature in <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>, says: <em>He gar hypostasis to einai semainei he de theotes to ti einai</em> (Person denotes <em>esse</em>, the Divine nature denotes the quiddity; M. 28, 1114). An elaborate treatment is given by <a href="../cathen/08459b.htm">St. John Damascene</a>, Dial. xlii.</p> <h2 id="section2">The use of the word <em>persona</em> and its Greek equivalents in connection with the Trinitarian disputes</h2> <p>For the constitution of a person it is required that a reality be subsistent and absolutely distinct, i.e. incommunicable. The three Divine realities are relations, each identified with the Divine Essence. A finite relation has reality only in so far as it is an accident; it has the reality of inherence. The Divine relations, however, are in the nature not by inherence but by identity. The reality they have, therefore, is not that of an accident, but that of a subsistence. They are one with <em>ipsum esse subsistens</em>. Again every relation, by its very nature, implies opposition and so distinction. In the finite relation this distinction is between subject and term. In the <a href="../cathen/08004a.htm">infinite</a> relations there is no subject as distinct from the relation itself; the Paternity is the Father--and no term as distinct from the opposing relation; the Filiation is the Son. The Divine realities are therefore distinct and mutually incommunicable through this relative opposition; they are subsistent as being identified with the subsistence of the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>, i.e. they are persons. The use of the word <em>persona</em> to denote them, however, led to controversy between East and West. The precise Greek equivalent was <em>prosopon</em>, likewise used originally of the actor's mask and then of the character he represented, but the meaning of the word had not passed on, as had that of <em>persona</em>, to the general signification of individual. Consequently <em>tres personae, tria prosopa</em>, savoured of <a href="../cathen/10448a.htm">Sabellianism</a> to the Greeks. On the other hand their word <em>hypostasis</em>, from <em>hypo-histemi</em>, was taken to correspond to the Latin <em>substantia</em>, from <em>sub-stare. Tres hypostases</em> therefore appeared to conflict with the Nicaean <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of unity of substance in the Trinity. This difference was a main cause of the Antiochene <a href="../cathen/13529a.htm">schism</a> of the fourth century (see <a href="../cathen/10161b.htm">MELETIUS OF ANTIOCH</a>). Eventually in the West, it was recognized that the <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> equivalent of <em>hypostasis</em> was not <em>substantia</em> but <em>subsistentia</em>, and in the East that to understand <em>prosopon</em> in the sense of the Latin persona precluded the possibility of a Sabellian interpretation. By the <a href="../cathen/04308a.htm">First Council of Constantinople</a>, therefore, it was recognized that the words <em>hypostasis</em>, <em>prosopon</em>, and <em>persona</em> were equally applicable to the three Divine realities. (<em>See</em> <a href="../cathen/07706b.htm">INCARNATION</a>; <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">NATURE</a>; <a href="../cathen/14322c.htm">SUBSTANCE</a>; <a href="../cathen/15047a.htm">TRINITY</a>.)</p> <div class='catholicadnet-728x90' id='cathen-728x90-bottom' style='display: flex; height: 100px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; '></div> <div class="cenotes"><h2>Sources</h2><p class="cenotes">BOETHIUS, De Persona et Duabus Naturis, ii, iii, in P.L., LXIV, 1342 sqq.; RICKABY, General Metaphysics, 92-102, 279-97 (London, 1890); DE REGNON, Etudes sur la Triniti, I. studies i, iv; ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, III, Q. xvi, a. 12; De Potentia, ix, 1-4; TERRIEN, S. Thomae Doctrina de Unione Hypostatica, bk. I, c. vii; bk. III, cc. vi-vii (Paris, 1894); FRANZELIN, De Verbo Incarnato, sect. III, cc. iii-iv (Rome, 1874); HARPER, Metaphysics of the School, vol. I, bk. III, c. ii, art. 2 (London, 1879).</p></div> <div class="pub"><h2>About this page</h2><p id="apa"><strong>APA citation.</strong> <span id="apaauthor">Geddes, L.</span> <span id="apayear">(1911).</span> <span id="apaarticle">Person.</span> In <span id="apawork">The Catholic Encyclopedia.</span> <span id="apapublisher">New York: Robert Appleton Company.</span> <span id="apaurl">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm</span></p><p id="mla"><strong>MLA citation.</strong> <span id="mlaauthor">Geddes, Leonard.</span> <span id="mlaarticle">"Person."</span> <span id="mlawork">The Catholic Encyclopedia.</span> <span id="mlavolume">Vol. 11.</span> <span id="mlapublisher">New York: Robert Appleton Company,</span> <span id="mlayear">1911.</span> <span id="mlaurl"><http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm>.</span></p><p id="transcription"><strong>Transcription.</strong> <span id="transcriber">This article was transcribed for New Advent by Rosalie Nesbit.</span> <span id="dedication"></span></p><p id="approbation"><strong>Ecclesiastical approbation.</strong> <span id="nihil"><em>Nihil Obstat.</em> February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.</span> <span id="imprimatur"><em>Imprimatur.</em> +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.</span></p><p id="contactus"><strong>Contact information.</strong> The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster <em>at</em> newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.</p></div> </div> <div id="ogdenville"><table summary="Bottom bar" width="100%" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td class="bar_white_on_color"><center><strong>Copyright © 2023 by <a href="../utility/contactus.htm">New Advent LLC</a>. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.</strong></center></td></tr></table><p align="center"><a href="../utility/contactus.htm">CONTACT US</a> | <a href="https://cleanmedia.net/p/?psid=491-308-20180429T2217479770">ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT</a></p></div> <ins class="CANBMDDisplayAD" data-bmd-ad-unit="30849120210203T1734389107AB67D35C03D4A318731A4F337F60B3E" style="display:block"></ins> <script src="https://secureaddisplay.com/au/bmd/"></script>  <ins class="CMAdExcludeArticles"></ins> </body> </html>