Huh? So are you (and Prof. Bittle) saying that "Dionaea muscipula" or the "Venus Fly Trap" has personhood despite being a plant since it traps and digests insects?
Let’s have a quick look at what Prof. Bittle had to say concerning the act of digestion:
“We thus sayÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦I digestÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦even though it’sÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦the stomach that digests”
The venus fly trap, just like my stomach, is “the ultimate principle by means of which (principium quo) the hypostasis or person performs that very action" In this case, the venus fly trap is a hypostasis not a person. The nature does not perform ozgeorge, it simply defines the operative capacity by which the hypostasis/person performs/operates. PERIOD.
Doesn't a rock have being and essense?
Yes, but its being or essence is not “the principle which (principium quod) performs the actual action.”
Enjoy the illusion.
The irony couldn’t be any more obvious right now my friend.
If I said that I was Napolean Bonaparte (someone who actually existed)- you'd have me commited. Yet if I say that I am an "I" which even you say doesn't exist, I'm considered sane.
What on earth are you talking about? The existence of Napolean Bonaparte’s metaphysical person is as lacking as the existence of anyone’s metaphysical person throughout the history of mankind. All the metaphysical terms we have thus far employed: essence, nature, substance, hypostasis, person, are ALL principles of being; REAL aspects of a being, and NOT being’s in and of themselves.
According to Professor McGlyn and Professor Farley in their book A Metaphysics of Being and God
“When one considers an individual, existing being, and its perfection and limitation, one is obviously not going to find 2 “things” composing that very being (which would make it 2 beings, that are in some way held together). Rather, whatever composition exists must be a composition of “principles of being.” A “principle of being” is something which makes up that very being, however, which can’t itself exist as a being.
Some easily comprehended examples of this are metaphysical “accidents” such as warmth, whiteness and so forth."
The learned men then list all the other metaphysical co-principles of being alongside accident: existence, essence, nature, substance, hypostasis, person, potency, act etc. and they state:
“These metaphysical co-principles of being, constitute finite beings; not as physical parts, but rather as ultimate intrinsic principles. They are’nt “things” in themselves, but rather, principles of things that are incapable of existing apart, yet truly distinct from one another
ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦” (ibid. 65)
We’d have you committed for claiming to be Napolean because you are claiming to possses the same self as the self which constituted an ultimate metaphysical principle of an independent existence from that of yours, and which experienced and performed things according to that independent existence.
It is your claim that "act" is only a function of "person", not nature, therefore (you claim) act is a function of the Hypostasis of Christ, not His Natures.
Since Christ’s hypostasis is rational/intellectual, His hypostasis is hence personal. When I attribute an act to His hypostasis therefore, I am attributing this act to His person and vice versa.
Do severely brain damaged individuals who's brains can only sustain their breathing and heartbeat cease to be persons since they lack rationale/intellectuality?
If a particular being discontinues to recognize its self as a result of physical damage; that particular being thus lacks personhood. However, since as Christians we believe in the eternal continuance of the soul regardless of the nature of one’s existence here on earth (whether they be alive, sick, or dead), the metaphysical person of that being continues i.e. His self doesn’t cease; it is simply no longer manifest, experiencing or performing through that being that you see lying on the hospital bed. Where it is, and what it’s doing, only God knows.
Prof. Bittle is dribbling rubbish.
He makes sense to me, and im sure he makes sense to St Cyril as well. You’re not doing a very good job of undermining his credibility or authority either.
Person cannot be defined by intellect
Well, they are.
and even if it could, we cannot use this to define the three Hypostasese of the Trinity because they share One Essense (and therefore, one intellect/rationale as this stupid Prof. Brittle puts it).
This one intellect/rationale is manifest through three differing centers of consciousness. God’s intellect/rationale is One according to the fact that the intellect/rationale possessed and employed by the three persons of the Godhead, are of the same infinite quality and capacity, as a result of the fact that all three persons are consubstantial with each other. God is One mind in three minds so to speak. Intellect is a corollary of personhood, as is self-awareness, will, and act. These are attributes possessed by each person of the Godhead. They are distinct in reality, not independent in existence.
So Christ now has three distinct wills: a divine will, a human will, and a personal will? Or does he only have one personal will which is a "co-mingling" of His Divine and Human Wills to produce a third?
Christ’s personal will is of a different category to his divine and human will which we classify as “natural”. To argue 1 + 2 = 3 is to commit a categorical fallacy as is the argument that 1 + 1 = 1. We have natural will ‘a’ and personal will ‘b’. Christ possesses 2a + b.
Let me give you an analogy:
Bob possess one natural will according to his one nature, and a personal will according to his one person. When Bob is fasting from food for example, he may hunger and yearn for food according to his natural will. He may make a statement such as “I am so hungry, I want to eat”, and by doing so he vocally manifests his natural human will. However, despite the inclinations of his natural will, he may choose to abstain from food nonetheless — this sir, is Bob’s personal will, and hence he ultimately he states “I am so hungry, I want to eat (x), however I will continue to fast nonetheless (y)”. In such a statement he has revealed his natural human will (x) as well as his personal will to continue abstaining from food regardless of his human inclinations (y).
Likewise, Christ according to His human nature possessed a natural human will, and according to His divine nature possessed a natural divine will, yet according to His one person/hypostasis, possessed one personal will which is simply and plainly: to do the will of the Father, which is in conformity with the natural divine will common to them both. Christ thus voluntarily aligns and submits His personal will which is challenged by His humanity (in the same manner that Bob’s personal will not to eat is challenged by his natural will for food to satisfy his hunger) to follow the divine will of the Father. Christ in contrast to man, manages to voluntarily submit his personal will to the divine; perfectly and consistently, in contrast to Bob for example, who although ultimately willing to abstain from food on one occasion, may fall and submit his personal will to his human will and choose to eat and satisfy his hunger during the next fast.
Oh these circles!
Once again, let me repeat: the fifth Ecumenical Counci Declared that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh". And what does S. Cyril say?
Now this is just a red herring. When did I say I have a problem with the fifth council? The fifth council is fine by me, no problems with it; it filled in all the gaps of Chalcedon and corrected all its errors. We are speaking about the tome, not the fifth council — what I have said remains intact.
So we agree then- St. Cyril and St. Leo used the word "Word" differently in one instance- therefore St. Leo is not a heretic and does not fall under St. Cyril's anathema
I never claimed that Leo of Rome was a heretic, it has been shown elsewhere that he affirmed that the divine was the subject of the Incarnation. I am claiming that his tome is confused, inconsistent and contradictory. That Leo uses the term “Word” differently to St Cyril is irrelevant to my point. That Leo understands the natures as centers of action, is a contradiction to other aspects of his tome which seem to suggest that the divine is the subject of His incarnate experiences, and in contradiction to St Cyril who without a doubt understands the divine personal subject as the centre of action; functioning according to His natures.