ABSTRACT
It is always difficult to speak about who Christ is because of the uncertainty of language. For a scholar must always face the possibility that the words used to express ecumenical decrees may differ in meaning from how most understand them in a twenty-first-century context. This is especially true as regards what is specifically meant by the terms nature and person. For today many, if not most, would express the reality of a “person” in the broader way that conciliar fathers looked upon “nature.” It is crucial, therefore, to know, as clearly as one can, what one’s terms signify and whether they are understood in the same way by others. This is especially pertinent for Christians, who understand Christ to be a divine person subsisting in a human and a divine nature. Since this is a fundamental mystery of their faith, human language will never completely encompass this reality. Scholars are particularly sensitive to this in the present post-modern age when the severe limitation of words to convey meaning is now recognized. Thus, in order for the reader to relate accurately to what Theodore struggled so fiercely to express about how he viewed the Christ of faith, it will be helpful to reflect upon the different significances that the term person possesses in the present culture. Afterwards we will then discuss how Theodore understood his christological formulations.
