"In the person of christ" as related to "person"

If it is true that we are correct in asserting a distinction between a person and an intellect/will as with the religious language of the three persons of God with only one intellect/will, and we say Jesus was only one person, not two, even though he is of the human and divine–two natures, then when we take the expression in the person of christ or in persona christi, it seems to mean in the person of the second person of the Trinity since there is only one person of Jesus and his person is the second person of the Trinity.

With this in mind, is it correct to say that Catholic priests believe they perform in the In Person of the Second Person of the Trinity, a.k.a, in the uncreated, eternally generated son? If you were to say this is not the case but that the expression means to signify a relation to the humanness (even if combined with the divineness) of Jesus as High-Priest, then why refer to the person when the person is only sourced from the hypostatic union of the 2nd person of the trinity and not Jesus’ human intellect or will, since his person is not the result of any mixing into human nature but of the eternal?

Thanks for any beneficial responses.

2 Corinthians 2:10 Whom you pardon anything, I also pardon. Indeed, what I have forgiven—if I have forgiven anything—I have done for your sakes, in the person of Christ

That is the authority by which Saint Paul forgave sins. It is the authority by which the Apostles and elders held councils and employed the Christ-given power of binding and loosing.

Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears Me”

Another example that the Apostles are Christ’s ambassadors, with the authority of Christ. To complement…

2 Corinithians 5:20 “On behalf of Christ, therefore, we are acting as ambassadors, God, as it were, appealing through us. We exhort you, for Christ’s sake, be reconciled to God.”

Ambassadors act with the authority of those who sent The word Apostle simply means sent them. I sounds like you might be overthinking this. The Incarnation eternally and inseparably joined human and Divine natures. Thus the God-man with both Divine and human natures gave the authority to the Apostles.

Sounds like you’re asking about the communication of idioms:

newadvent.org/cathen/04169a.htm

Thanks for replying.

The passage you quote of Paul’s expressing a link between the assembly at Corinth’s forgiving and his own forgiving in the person of Christ is interesting because it expands individual church and member forgiveness to be part of a fuller “whole” and, to be literal again, more “catholic”. It also raises another question: who was a priest there at the Corinthian church? If a priest there performed in persona christi, why should Paul also do so physically non-present? …but that’s another topic :cool:

At any rate, I do not intend to be overly-examinative; I just mean to be precise with the way language is utilized. Christ is usually expressed as the fullness of the human/divine nature in Jesus: the fullness of the Godhead dwells with him as with Paul’s expression, yet it is said the person of Christ is not the result of the combination of intellects and wills with flesh but the infusion of the Eternal Word Who is a Person, as if to say the source of person-hood is through non-created measures only as opposed to man as man (unless God’s will be otherwise…).

P.S. PluniaZ: Had as yet not heard of the expression Communicatio Idiomatum.
:coffee: (that’s a sober cheers)

This is the answer.
I think maybe you’re making it seem more difficult to understand than it is.
The priests, Bishops and Popes stand “in persona Christi”.
It’s an awesome responsibility. Unique to the priesthood.

Perhaps.
Let me rephrase the question:

What is the distinction, if any, between referring to “The Person of Christ” and “The Second Person of the Trinity”?

  1. If there is a distinction, then it would seem a Person is indeed not a separate reality from the Intellect and Will but a combination of some sort, and this is the main point desirous of lingual clarity. To illustrate, if Christ is One Person with two intellects and two wills, and as with God as spirit the religious language speaks separately of His Person-hood as compared to His Divine Will and Intellect, we say the Persons of God are distinct from the Will/Intellect of God. As with Christ, it follows then that His Person is distinct from his two intellects and wills. Since it is said the Hypostatic Union is that link which provides the Divinity to Jesus Christ, and this link is of a Person of God and not just the “intellect and will” of God, then it seems Christ as a Person is exactly the same as the 2nd Person of the Trinity. If you say this isn’t the case, then you’re saying that the Person of Christ is not exactly the same as the eternal second Person of the Trinity, which means then that Christ’s Person IS indeed related to the relationship of the intellects and the wills in relation to the second person of the Trinity. If this be true… then there is more to follow, but I’ll stop with the if/then statements as I realize based on the responses that the topic has been veering into priesthood as the main-point rather than what has been described regarding personhood. To stick to my main concern, I probably shouldn’t have brought up priests in the second paragraph in the first post, as it detracts from it a tad. Yet, no regrets: responses of the like so far are welcome.

Peace & Benediction

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.