Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas on Person, Hypostasis, and Hypostatic Union

The Thomist 72 (2008): 107-46 ALBERT THE GREAT AND THOMAS AQUINAS ON PERSON, HYPOSTASIS, AND HYPOSTATIC UNION COREY L. BARNES Oberlin College Oberlin, Ohio ANY DISCUSSION OF Albert the Great on the hypostatic union must account for his occasional references to two hypostases or to a purely human hypostasis in Christ, together with Albert's insistence on the truth of the Lombard's second Christological opinion, the subsistent or composite-person theory. Such accounts were offered by V.-M. Pollet and M. Lamy de la Chapelle.1 Since then, much relevant research into late twelfth- and early thirteenth-century views on the hypostatic union2 and into Albert's extensive reflections on personhood3 has 1 See V.-M. Pollet, "Le Christ d'apres S. Albert le Grand," La vie spirituelle 34 (1933): 78108 ; "L'union hypostatique d'apres S. Albert le Grand," Revue thomiste 38 (1933): 502-32, 689-724; M. Lamy de la Chapelle, "L'unite ontologique du Christ selon saint Albert le Grand," Revue thomiste 70 (1970): 181-226, 534-89. Pollet, "L'union hypostatique d'apres S. Albert le Grand," offers the most direct and extensive treatment of Albert's references to two hypostases. 2 Most obvious in this regard are W. H. Principe, The Theology of the Hypostatic Union in the Early Thirteenth Century, 4 vols. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1963-75); L. 0. Nielsen, Theology and Philosophy in the Twelfth Century: A Study ofGilbert ofPorreta's Thinking and Theological Expositions of the Doctrine of the Incarnation during the Period 1130-1180, Acta theologica danica 15 (Leiden: E. ]. Brill, 1982); and M. Colish, Peter Lombard, 2 vols. (Leiden: E. ]. Brill, 1994). 3 S. Hipp, "Person" in Christian Tradition and the Conception ofSaint Albert the Great: A Systematic Study of its Concept as Illuminated by the Mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, Beitriige zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie im Mittelalter (Munster: Aschendorff, 2001). Hipp's remarkably detailed study provides much of the background for Albert's characterization of personhood and will be relied upon heavily here. See also A. 107 108 COREY L. BARNES appeared. Informed by this research, it is possible to set Albert's references to two hypostases within the context of early thirteenth-century Christological debates and Albert's own presentation of 'person' and 'hypostasis'. The import and potential dangers of Albert's formulations come into sharp focus in comparison to Thomas Aquinas's presentation of 'person', 'hypostasis', and 'hypostatic union'. This comparison also sheds light on Thomas's Christology as it reveals a shift in perspective from that of early thirteenth-century Christologies. More specifically, examination of this issue helps to explain why Thomas does not share his teacher Albert's understanding of 'person', yet develops the basic lines of Albert's presentation of unity and duality in Christ, particularly in terms of Christ's esse. Reading Thomas in light of Albert's Christology provides a valuable and underutilized perspective for examining various issues in Thomas's Christology. This essay will offer interpretations of Albert and Thomas that highlight the continuities and discontinuities between these learned Dominicans. This investigation will begin with the background of late twelfth- and early thirteenth-century presentations of 'person'. Particular attention will be given to any distinctions made between 'person' and 'hypostasis'. This background well frames Albert's definition of 'person' in terms of per se unity, per se singularity, and per se incommunicability. The focus here will be on the three types of incommunicability distinctive of persons. Thomas Aquinas rejects any distinction of 'person' and 'hypostasis' based upon any type of incommunicability. This disagreement largely relates to the Lombard's three opinions on the mode of union in the Incarnation: the homo assumptus theory, the subsistent or composite-person theory, and the habitus theory (III Sent., d. 6). This essay will argue that Albert's affirmation of two hypostases or of a purely human hypostasis in Christ is intended to combat the habitus theory and the (in Albert's mind) related view that Christ according as man was not something (Christus secundum Hufnagel, "Das Person-Problem bei Albertus Magnus," in Studia Albertina: Festschrift fur Bernhard Geyer zum 70. Geburtstage (Munster: Aschendorff: 1952), 202...