Topic: Question about Christ's suffering

[Cavaradossi]

Sort of. It is probably best to insist that the Word suffered as a whole, on the level of a person. If we go too far in either direction, we'll either fall into a Nestorian statement along the lines of, "human Christ suffered, while the Word did not" or a monophysite (notice: not the miaphysitism professed by the Oriental Orthodox, but true monophysitism) statement like, "the Incarnation changed the nature of the Word's divinity, enabling the Word to feel pain." The Word felt pain, by virtue of being fully human, but the divinity's impassibility was not changed by the Incarnation.

Agreed

This is why I like to use the term "the Word participated with the Suffering and Death on the Cross" which does not pretend to explain how the Word actually felt or experienced this process but rather simply affirms that the Word was present in the Incarnation at that moment, without separation or distinction. In this way we  do not embrace even a momentary separation and also do not teach a "confusion or mingling" of the Divine and Humanity. We do not suppose we know exactly what the Divinity experienced at the Cross as the experiences of the Divine and beyond our comprehension, but due to the Union and the principle of communicatio Idiomatum we do know that the Divine was actually there and present within the Person of Jesus Christ.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

It seems that we are running on the same brain-waves in this thread. I agree with you completely.

[zekarja]

Sort of. It is probably best to insist that the Word suffered as a whole, on the level of a person. If we go too far in either direction, we'll either fall into a Nestorian statement along the lines of, "human Christ suffered, while the Word did not" or a monophysite (notice: not the miaphysitism professed by the Oriental Orthodox, but true monophysitism) statement like, "the Incarnation changed the nature of the Word's divinity, enabling the Word to feel pain." The Word felt pain, by virtue of being fully human, but the divinity's impassibility was not changed by the Incarnation.

Agreed

This is why I like to use the term "the Word participated with the Suffering and Death on the Cross" which does not pretend to explain how the Word actually felt or experienced this process but rather simply affirms that the Word was present in the Incarnation at that moment, without separation or distinction.  In this way we  do not embrace even a momentary separation and also do not teach a "confusion or mingling" of the Divine and Humanity.  We do not suppose we know exactly what the Divinity experienced at the Cross as the experiences of the Divine and beyond our comprehension, but due to the Union and the principle of communicatio Idiomatum we do know that the Divine was actually there and present within the Person of Jesus Christ.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I agree. The divinity never left Christ's Soul or Body. Here's another good quote of St Cyril of Alexandria on Christ's suffering:

And though Jesus be said also to suffer, the suffering will belong to the economy; but is said to be His, and with all reason, because His too is that which suffered, and He was in the suffering Body, He unknowing to suffer (for He is Impassible as God); yet as far as pertained to the daring of those who raged against Him, He would have suffered, if He could have suffered.

[lost]

According to Orthodoxy :

God suffered and God died on the cross... from the series of hypostatic union..

the hypostatic union says that the two natures of Christ were united in his Divine hypostasis... meaning that his human nature was(is) part of his Divinity.. so humanity being a part of the divinity, which the divinity assumed, we can say that yes God suffered and yes God died on the cross... The suffering and death of Christ were real... he assumed humanity in all ways.. yet if we want to be more edgy...

from the series of Holy God , Holy Immortal , the Divine essence of Christ did not suffer or die in any way, but his human essence did... he suffered and died in his humanity , His divinity remaining incorrupt and imuable, as part of the One True God...

[lost]

Sort of. It is probably best to insist that the Word suffered as a whole, on the level of a person. If we go too far in either direction, we'll either fall into a Nestorian statement along the lines of, "human Christ suffered, while the Word did not" or a monophysite (notice: not the miaphysitism professed by the Oriental Orthodox, but true monophysitism) statement like, "the Incarnation changed the nature of the Word's divinity, enabling the Word to feel pain." The Word felt pain, by virtue of being fully human, but the divinity's impassibility was not changed by the Incarnation.

Agreed

This is why I like to use the term "the Word participated with the Suffering and Death on the Cross" which does not pretend to explain how the Word actually felt or experienced this process but rather simply affirms that the Word was present in the Incarnation at that moment, without separation or distinction.  In this way we  do not embrace even a momentary separation and also do not teach a "confusion or mingling" of the Divine and Humanity.  We do not suppose we know exactly what the Divinity experienced at the Cross as the experiences of the Divine and beyond our comprehension, but due to the Union and the principle of communicatio Idiomatum we do know that the Divine was actually there and present within the Person of Jesus Christ.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I agree. The divinity never left Christ's Soul or Body. Here's another good quote of St Cyril of Alexandria on Christ's suffering:

And though Jesus be said also to suffer, the suffering will belong to the economy; but is said to be His, and with all reason, because His too is that which suffered, and He was in the suffering Body, He unknowing to suffer (for He is Impassible as God); yet as far as pertained to the daring of those who raged against Him, He would have suffered, if He could have suffered.

afaik Orthodoxy says that his humanity was contained in his divinity not the other way around...

[zekarja]

Sort of. It is probably best to insist that the Word suffered as a whole, on the level of a person. If we go too far in either direction, we'll either fall into a Nestorian statement along the lines of, "human Christ suffered, while the Word did not" or a monophysite (notice: not the miaphysitism professed by the Oriental Orthodox, but true monophysitism) statement like, "the Incarnation changed the nature of the Word's divinity, enabling the Word to feel pain." The Word felt pain, by virtue of being fully human, but the divinity's impassibility was not changed by the Incarnation.

Agreed

This is why I like to use the term "the Word participated with the Suffering and Death on the Cross" which does not pretend to explain how the Word actually felt or experienced this process but rather simply affirms that the Word was present in the Incarnation at that moment, without separation or distinction.  In this way we  do not embrace even a momentary separation and also do not teach a "confusion or mingling" of the Divine and Humanity.  We do not suppose we know exactly what the Divinity experienced at the Cross as the experiences of the Divine and beyond our comprehension, but due to the Union and the principle of communicatio Idiomatum we do know that the Divine was actually there and present within the Person of Jesus Christ.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I agree. The divinity never left Christ's Soul or Body. Here's another good quote of St Cyril of Alexandria on Christ's suffering:

And though Jesus be said also to suffer, the suffering will belong to the economy; but is said to be His, and with all reason, because His too is that which suffered, and He was in the suffering Body, He unknowing to suffer (for He is Impassible as God); yet as far as pertained to the daring of those who raged against Him, He would have suffered, if He could have suffered.

afaik Orthodoxy says that his humanity was contained in his divinity not the other way around...

I assume that you are referring to: "and He was in the suffering Body." In the context of that quote, I do not see how this contradicts anything that Orthodoxy teaches. [EDIT] I affirm that Christ's humanity never existed apart from His divinity. As St Cyril of Alexandria also said, "If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh of his own, he is one only Christ both God and man at the same time: let him be anathema."