quote:

---

Originally posted by John Earp

From what I know, there's more to the phrase than you are allowing, PoW. As I'm sure you know, the idea of the "impassibility" of Christ was very much a theme of medieval theology. They thought of "impassible" as "without passions," didn't they? Not unlike the Westminster Confession's absurd phrase, "...without body, parts, or passions." How anyone can truly think God has no emotions is just beyond me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Earp

Okay, so it's a translation issue. What was the original word and what did it mean back then? Have we been misled by the dictionary?

---

quote:

---

Theopatheia: Nestorius’s main charge against Cyrilof AlexandriaPaul GavrilyukTheology Department, University of St Thomas, 2115 Summit Ave/JRC 153, St Paul, MN 55105,

USAplgavrilyuk@stthomas.edu

Abstract
Was Cyril of Alexandria a theopaschite? In order to resolve this controversial issue, this paper will look at Cyril’s Christology with Nestorius’s eyes. The chargeof theopatheia appears from the very beginning in Nestorius’s correspondence with Cyril and retains its central place in Nestorius’s work Liber Heraclidis. Thepaper discusses Nestorian arguments against Cyril’s position and Cyril’s counter-charges. The conclusion is reached that Nestorius asserted unqualified divine impassibility. Cyril, in contrast, held a qualified view of the divine impassibility and maintained that neither divinity suffered alone, apart from humanity (in which case the assumption of humanity would be superfluous), nor humanity suffered alone, apart from and in sharp contrast to the impassible divinity (in which casethe reality of divine involvement in the incarnation would be put at risk).

. . .(abstract continues)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Earp

Okay, I did some searching on the web, and I have been unable to find anywhere where the definition of impassible differs from that of dictionary.com. The Catholic New Advent site says it means the divine nature cannot suffer.

---

quote:

---

In this sequel to The Way to Nicaea, Fr John Behr turns his attention to the fourth century, the era in which Christian theology was formulated as the Nicene faith, the common heritage of most Christians to this day. Engaging the best of modern scholarship, Behr provides a series of orignal, comprehensive, and insightful sketches of theology of the key protaganists of the Nicene faith, presenting a powerful vision of Christian theology, centered upon Christ and his Passion.

Part One, "True God of True God," opens with a reflection on the nature of Christian theology, challenging common presuppositions, and an analysis and survey of the fourth century controversies, followed by studies of Alexander, Arius, the Council of Nicaea, and, Athanasius.

Part Two, "One of the Holy Trinity," provides analyses of the work of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa, together with their opponents, in particular Eunomius and Apollinarius.

Each part is contained in a separate paperback book.

6 x 9
480 pp
Price: US $30.00 (for both together)

---

quote:

---

Who Suffered ?

In 519 controversy arose in Constantinople when Gothic monks led by John Maxentius proclaimed their opposition to Nestorianism by use of the formula, ‘One of the Trinity suffered.’ This phrase became known as the Theopaschite formula. Despite the hostility of the akoimetoi monks (1), the Emperor Justinian was convinced that this formula was orthodox. Eventually, through the good offices of Bishop Hypatios of Ephesus, who visited Rome in 533, Justinian won the support of Pope John II, who, in his letter Olim Quidem to the Constantinopolitan Senate, declared the formula orthodox.

The Theopaschite formula is of great theological importance: it focusses our minds on the question Who suffered? The bitter arguments over Christology had focussed on the question of Christ's nature or natures. But on Calvary it was not a nature who suffered, but a person. And the Theopaschite formula draws us back to reflect on Who that person is - the Logos, God the Son and Word of God, known to us in His humanity as Jesus of Nazareth. It is the Word of God Who suffers, impassible in His deity, he has put on our humanity, and lives, suffers and dies with us as one of us to raise us with Him.

[Confusingly, there exists also a Theopaschite Heresy, namely the belief that on Calvary one of the Trinity suffered as God. This was a view upheld by a handful of extreme Monophysite theologians, who, unlike most of those labelled with that name, denied the humanity of Christ. Most of the leading theologians of the Monophysite tradition share with Chalcedonian Orthodox the crucial doctrine that Christ is consubstantial with us in His humanity and consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit in His deity.]

Theological discussion of ancient formulae such as the Theopaschite formula can seem dry and arid. We seem to enter a realm of intellectual conundrums. What is really at issue is our constant struggle to assimilate the truth revealed in Scripture and preserved and handed on in Tradition. The intellectual effort to assimilate the truth of Christ's suffering and death is one aspect of the transformation He brings: He is Saviour of the total person, body, mind, soul and spirit. The Eastern Christian tradition has always laid great emphasis on correct expression and correct ways of thinking the truth. That should never take us away from the central insight that the Truth revealed to us is a person, the living Word of God, who comes to encounter us and make Himself one with us by assuming our human nature, so that He stands before us as the man, Jesus the Anointed. Part of opening ourselves to His salvific presence is opening our minds to a correct apprehension of Who He is.

---

quote:

---

Nestorius asserted unqualified divine impassibility. Cyril, in contrast, held a qualified view of the divine impassibility and maintained that neither divinity suffered alone, apart from humanity (in which case the assumption of humanity would be superfluous), nor humanity suffered alone, apart from and in sharp contrast to the impassible divinity (in which casethe reality of divine involvement in the incarnation would be put at risk).

---

quote:

---

The Theopaschite formula is of great theological importance: it focusses our minds on the question Who suffered?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Earp

leaves me with my head scratching. Are we reading the same Bible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sahid

Someone has either misinformed you or been misunderstood.[/font=Book Antiqua]

---

quote:

---

The Making of the Chalcedonian Definition

. . .

2. Cyril of Alexandria: "One Nature, and that Incarnate, of the Divine Word"

"If anyone presumes to say that 'the man who was assumed is to be worshipped together with the Divine Word'..., let him be anathema," 8th anathema.

"God the Logos did not come into a man, but he "truly" became man, while remaining God."

"The single, unique Christ, out of two different natures." "One out of two."

"Hypostatic union."
"There is one nature, and that incarnate, of the divine Word."

"He who says that the Lord suffered only in the flesh [i.e. not in the soul] makes the suffering irrational and not endured by the will."

"The mystery was accomplished noiselessly. Therefore in accordance with the economy [order of salvation], He permitted the measures of the manhood to prevail over Himself."

"God suffered impassibly."

"It is not that the Logos of God suffered in his own nature, being overcome by stripes or nail-piercing or any of the other injuries; for the divine, since it is incorporeal, is impassible. Since, however, the body that had become his own underwent suffering, he is... said to have suffered these things for our sakes, for the impassible One was within the suffering body."


www.etss.edu/hts/hts1/notes15.htm

---

quote:

---

"It is not that the Logos of God suffered in his own nature, being overcome by stripes or nail-piercing or any of the other injuries; for the divine, since it is incorporeal, is impassible.

---

Incarnation of the Reason and Wisdom of God,
One of the all-holy Trinity, Who created all that has been made,
and was born of the flesh of the all-holy Mother of God
and thus renewed the entire cosmos

quote:

---

... God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him ...
(The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans)

---

quote:

---

. . . And after his resurrection He did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father
(The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans)

---

quote:

---

—God is impassible. This means, not that God is impassive and unfeeling (a fre-quent misunderstanding), but that no created beings can inflict pain, suffering and distress on him at their own will. In so far as God enters into suffering and grief… it is by his own deliberate decision; he is never his creatures‘ helpless victim.“–Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright, New Dictionary of Theology (Leices-ter, England; Illinois, USA: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988, repr. 1998), p. 277.

---

• not that God is impassive and unfeeling



• by his own deliberate decision