"But the confession of faith in God as a person necessarily includes the acknowledgement of God as relatedness, as communicability, as fruitfulness. The unrelated, unrelatable, absolutely one could not be a person. There is no such thing as a person in the categorical singular." He then delves into the etymological origin of the word "person," "prosopon," literally meaning towards the face.
That's the most relevant passage I found on a quick lookthrough of highlighted passages. As mentioned in this article, Personhood is a quality necessary for any communion at all, not to mention the Communion between the persons of the Holy Trinity. The logic of political individualism ends up having us treat every other man as an enemy, indeed an alien never to be reconciled with us, who can only be our alliy in a temporary marriages of convenience.
Wouldn't taking literally a description of Jesus as an "individual" recapitulate the old Christological heresies? Arianism comes to mind, immediately, or some other form of subordinationism.
"The logic of political individualism ends up having us treat every other man as an enemy, indeed an alien never to be reconciled with us, who can only be our alliy in a temporary marriages of convenience."
Well, at least in theory and in the Western, post Reformation Enlightenment culture we live in. In the East, this mindset simply isn't there. This is not to say that in Greece, for example, people don't have any understanding of their existance as unique persons or of their God given personal freedom. But this said, in both cultural and spiritual matters, readily evident in village society and the Church, there is definitely a community mentality and a consciousness of interdependence which of course mirrors the Fathers' writings on the nature of the Trinity. Our Western society on the other hand with its "rugged individualism" fosters quite the opposite mindset with obvious effects on the way the West views the Church and lives out the Faith.
"Wouldn't taking literally a description of Jesus as an "individual" recapitulate the old Christological heresies? Arianism comes to mind, immediately, or some other form of subordinationism."
I suppose I never thought of Christ in that way, but now that I do, I think such a line of thinking may necessarily lead to any of a number of Christologic heresies