The Passion of Christ: the film and the question

[Owen Jones]

Mel Gibson's movie on the Passion of Christ is getting a lot of public play. Michael Novak had a piece in National Review Online this week about it and, as one might expect, he had very positive things to say about it. But from an Orthodox standpoint I have some nagging questions that perhaps someone better read in the Fathers could answer for me.

Novak seems to identify Christ's agony in the Garden of Gethsemene with his fear of the brutal agony of his scourging and crucifixion that he saw coming. And nothing more. I fear this is symptomatic of a theological problem that reduces the passion to the shedding of Christ's blood, and therefore reduces salvation to God's sacrifice for sins.

But it would seem to me from an Orthodox standpoint, the agony Christ endured had little to do with the physical punishment, or his looking forward to the certitude of his physical suffering, but the fact that as true anthropos, he truly did not want to leave behind the people he loved. Not to minimize his physical suffering, but surely there are many Christian martyrs who have suffered prolonged physical torment and psychological humiliation and deprevation far greater than that of Christ. One only has to read a few stories about Christians in the Gulag. an even greater punishment of Christ, it seems to me, would be banishment from the people he loved, which was not an unknown practice in the ancient world. It was a punishment really worse than death, because it turned you into a person without a home, a people, an identity.

So it would seem to me to constitute gross theological error to reduce Christ's agony before and during the crucifixion to his physical torments. I am sure I have stated this feebly.

Now, this raises another question, which is that if Christ did not know yet, in full, the purpose of his sacrifice, (which is implied by the fact that he agonized in the Garden over his impending sacrifice) then that implies that he was something less than fully God. Otherwise, why the agony in anticipation of the cross? this, I assume, from logic and from the little reading I have done of early Christian heresies, led many early Christian theologians toward a subordinationism of the 2d Person of the Trinity. some even argued that Christ was not fully God until he suffered and died on the cross. But I suppose that is another issue.

Comments?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Although this is not directly related to your post, I would like to say that Mel Gibson is a nice guy, a decent actor, and probably a great husband and father, but he is probably not a first string theologian or iconographer. Orthodoxy, in general, probably has a problem with the movie as media to communicate. I don't think Mel would be doing this if he were Orthodox. As counterintuitive as it might seem, the "realism" of cinematography makes Mel and his expression of the Gospel message prisoners of this world while the 2D "limitations" of iconography effortlessly transcend the bounds of this worldly "reality."

In attempting to portray a "real" Christ, Mel limits himself to the created and cannot breakout into that which is Uncreated. The camera simply cannot capture what the iconographer portrays.

[Moses Anthony]

It has long been my understanding as a Christian that the suffering of Christ in the garden, was more vertical than it was horizontal. In other words; Jesus was at all times in perfect union with God, having the sins of man placed upon him caused a seperation between him and his Father/God that was unbearable, and so "...if it be Thy will, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless, not as I will but as Thou will."

I do not know at this point if the Orthodox teaching here is different.

the unworthy servant
Moses

[John Wehling]

Friends,

I don't have time for a long response, and I don't make any claim to know the Patrsitic consensus on this. However, I believe that the basic patristic approach to the passion in the Garden relates to our Lord's sharing our blameless passions: hunger, thirst, etc., and in this case, the drawing back from death, which is not a natural state for mankind. There was (neither in the garden nor at any other time) no separation of the son from the Father, for this would mean the tearing apart of the unity of the Godhead, which is impossible. There was, rather, our Lord's awareness, in His human nature, that He would suffer death -- an unnatural event -- and He quite "naturally" drew back from this.

St Maximus the Confessor and others (Ss Cyril and Athanasius also come to mind) uphold this interpretation, I believe.

Peace,
Fr John

[dianne marie debs]

In the Lord's Name

I fully agree with FR. John. As an Orthodox I believe there is NO separation (at any time) of Jesus from the Father.

Our God is The God, Holy in the Essence of Three. How can we ever think that there was a time that the Second Person of this Trinity was not present. There are consant references in the scriptures as to who Jesus was ( Alpha and Beta...ect) This world was created through Him; therefore He was there before there was even time as we know it.

His purpose for becoming human as Fr John says was for a reason. His bearing of this life was to prove that we also can bear it and have salvation. Tears rolled down His Cheeks, I beleive, not for the agony that many so quickly want to believe that He was suffering physiaclly; but it was truely emotional agony. He cried for us because we suffer as the result of our diligence in sin, our vast distance from God. His tears were of sadness for mankind not for His Human Boby. For He knew that His death was neccessary and had to happen.

I apologize for any lack of terminology or ideas my addition to this conversation may have.
PLEASE let us go back and STUDY the Scripture. There we find the answers. As we pray this evening let us thank Our Lord for His mission (so to say) for if it wasn't for Him coming to us we would all perish. Now we have the chance for salvation.

May God Bless
A humble servant,
Dianne

[John Wilson]

My biggest problem with the movie is that all the dialog will be in Latin and Aramaic (Syrian?). I want to know what happened to Koine (common) Greek.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine for a movie that claims to be as accurate as is possible.

unworthy John.

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Dianne,

My number of years as a Christian: 30+
number of times Bible read: more than I've counted
Number of topics studied: more than I've counted

Any, and I again say, any answer we give as to the exact reason why Jesus cried is at best learned speculation on our part. I say speculation, because the Scriptures do not give a reason. To say therefore that certain of "the Fathers" agree on a conclusion to substantiate veracity/truthfulness, would retroactively render the anathamas of some as invalid. For certainly, there have been Fathers who agreed upon things which neither the Scriptures nor the Church teaches. I have no problem, repeat, no problem spiritually or intellectually with the Trinity always being one. However; I cannot deny what the Scriptures plainly say: (1) Disobedience/sin causes a separation between man and God,(2) The sin of mankind was provoked by the Devil,(3) God cannot look upon sin,(4)Jesus came to destroy the work of the devil, i.e., the separation of God, from God's own creation,(5) to restore the proper order to and of creation, Jesus took my/our sins upon himself,(6) on the cross Jesus cried out "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" (7) Jesus was raised from the dead by the 'glory' of the Father

I see the problem at this juncture as being "frog hair" (a fine point) being in the word look, as God not being able to "look" upon the sin which Jesus so obviously became for me, in his body on the cross. It was upon that body of sin our heavenly Father could not gaze. Dead people walking about and total darkness to me is a good indicator of the abnormality of the situation, although there was no separation between the Trinity!

I, like you, believe the tears of Jesus were the result of emotional agony; but, for the reasons I've hopefully cited above. As Owen said on another thread (quoting loosely), "this is a personal belief I cannot prove", which is what scientists call theory, or as I wrote at the beginning of this, at best, learned speculation. Through His grace,

the unworthy servant
sub-deacon Moses

[John Wehling]

“And that the words `Why hast Thou forsaken Me?' are His, according to the foregoing explanations (though He suffered nothing, for the Word was impossible), is notwithstanding declared by the Evangelists; since the Lord became man, and these things are done and said as from a man, that He might Himself lighten these very sufferings of the flesh, and free it from them. Whence neither can the Lord be forsaken by the Father, who is ever in the Father, both before He spoke, and when He uttered this cry. Nor is it lawful to say that the Lord was in terror, at whom the keepers of hell's gates shuddered and set open hell, and the graves did gape, and many bodies of the saints arose and appeared to their own people. Therefore be every heretic dumb, nor dare to ascribe terror to the Lord whom death, as a serpent, flees, at whom demons tremble, and the sea is in alarm; for whom the heavens are rent and all the powers are shaken. For behold when He says, `Why hast Thou forsaken Me?' the Father shewed that He was ever and even then in Him; for the earth knowing its Lord who spoke, straightway trembled, and the vail was rent, and the sun was hidden, and the rocks were torn asunder, and the graves, as I have said, did gape, and the dead in them arose; and, what is wonderful, they who were then present and had before denied Him, then seeing these signs, confessed that `truly He was the Son of God.'” (St Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, III.56)

“Others [ways of speaking of Christ in the scriptures:JW] again are said in the manner of association and relation, as, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? and He hath made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin, and being made a curse for us; also, Then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him. For neither as God nor as man was He ever forsaken by the Father, nor did He become sin or a curse, nor did He require to be made subject to the Father. For as God He is equal to the Father and not opposed to Him nor subjected to Him; and as God, He was never at any time disobedient to His Begetter to make it necessary for Him to make Him subject. Appropriating, then, our person and ranking Himself with us, He used these words. For we are bound in the fetters of sin and the curse as faithless and disobedient, and therefore forsaken.” (St John of Damascus, The Orthodox Faith, 4.18)

"Further, these words, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? He said as making our personality His own. For neither would God be regarded with us as His Father, unless one were to discriminate with subtle imaginings of the mind between that which is seen and that which is thought, nor was He ever forsaken by His divinity: nay, it was we who were forsaken and disregarded. So that it was as appropriating our personality that He offered these prayers." (St John of Damascus, The Orthodox Faith, 3.24)

The only patristic source that I could locate (in my admittedly limited search) who said anything diverging from this concerning Matt. 27:46/Mk 15:34 was St Ambrose of Milan, who said that in His humanity our Lord doubted at this moment. This view is, I believe, wholly out of keeping with the appraoch of the Eastern Fathers to this subject. According to them, Christ experiences what is natural and blameless, and doubt is neither.

But I am always open to being corrected. :>)

Fr John

[John Wehling]

Friends,

After that last post I remembered that we visited the topic of doubt last year at some point. The two topics -- whether our Lord doubted and the correct understanding of Matt 27:46/Mk 15:34 -- are related in the writings of the Fathers due to the Christological controverseys of Arianism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, and Monothelitism.

As I glanced through the archived discussion of doubt, I noticed that I had already posted several of these references to the Fathers, so forgive me for redundancy.

Fr John

[Thomas Davidson]

May I refer to St Maximus as mentioned in an earlier post?

In his defence of Chalcedon, St Maximus laid the foundations of the theology of the 'two natures' of Christ, at once human and divine.

Our Lord's divinity never overshadowed his humanity, in the Incarnation he is never less than a man - and his humanity was never a puppet of his divinity - as man he possessed a free will as we do, but unlike us, his human will is totally conformed to the will of his Father, in whom rests his divinity.

The words in the garden "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt" display not so much his ignorance of the Will of his Father as his total acceptance of it, even to the loss of his own life which quite naturally 'goes against' a natural human instinct for survival. His Passion then was the natural passion of a man, not of God in the guise of a man.

Likewise, I believe, when he doubted he took that human failing into himself, and triumphed, through faith, that we too might triumph, through the darkness of our unknowing.

In so doing Christ took human nature into himself, with all its faults (except sin, which is in itself not a constituent of our nature) and perfected it.

And in so doing Christ took us into himself, with all our faults, and by His grace, perfects us.

Thomas

[dianne marie debs]

Dear David,

Your contribution was beautifully stated. After further study I found out exactly what you have said.

It is important here to remember. Jesus was fully human; therefore He is the best example set for each and everyone of us. We can not stop at the fact that He asked for the cup to be taken away; but that He diligently did as His Father asked. We as Christains struggle tremendously on this earth...constantly fighting off sin;sometimes successfully and sometimes not. It is this constant struggle that strengthens us to strive crosser to God. It was He who showed us that this is TRUELY possible.

The Scriptures words in Matthew bring tears to my eyes ; for so many times I stupidly sin. I thank the Lord because He suffered as we do and then rose to triumph. I pray the Lord protects my faith for I know only through Him there is salvation.

God Bless.
A humble servant,
Dianne

[dianne marie debs]

Dear Thomas,

I sincerely apologize for the mistake I made by calling you David.
Please forgive me.
God Bless
Dianne

[Qashisha Chas Kluetz]

Beloved ones,

Do any of you know the Aramiac language?

The word for "abandoned" or "forsaken" is improperly understood by the Western minds. It
means "to be kept" or "preserved to be kept for a specific purpose/time" the
Aramaic word is "shwaq" (that is spelled shen-wow-qop)

It means kept for the purpose for which it was intended. NOT ABANDONED! Or, to put it another way, "preserved for a specific purpose/reason/time"

The language of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was Aramaic:- I am certain as Son of God, Son of Man; the anthropomophic Revelation of our worshipful GOD -- the Second Person in the Trinity; HE spoke whatever language HE may have needed at the time of any of HIS encounters; how a man understands it, or whatever, is a subject of a different hue, don't you think?


Owen Jones (I suppose?) has written the following: "Not to minimize his physical suffering, but surely there are many Christian martyrs who have suffered prolonged physical torment and psychological humiliation and deprevation far greater than that of Christ." What do you mean by this? nails in your wrists, thorns upon your head, stark far naked in total humility on the Cross, put there by those whom HE created, for the fulfillment of the time and restoration of humankind?
{St Paul sez: Colossians 1:16}
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
(Whole Chapter: Colossians 1, or read the whole passage In context: Colossians 1:15-17)

I forgot about the uncomfortable spike in the foot (rather the feet, with a bleeding beaten body with the cat-o-nine-tails) My GOD, man, what are you talking about? Some of my own people have been dumped in the mechanical shredder in Iraq because they were witnesses for CHRIST! I am certain our LORD never encountered an invention of this level for human destruction, but I can assure that the pain and torture encountered was nothing to what HE HIMSELF accepted; willfully!

The death of deaths to which we are rightfully entitled because of our "many sins" was far more a serious destination and discomfort that the pains of physical torments, don't you think? But thanks be to GOD, we have a hope which rests entirely upon the manifestation of HIM who hath conquered death by death, freeing humankind from the curse and imprisonment to which we were rightfully entitled . . HE frees us! This our confident trust! This is our faith in HIM:

1 Peter 3:19
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
(Whole Chapter: 1 Peter 3 In context: 1 Peter 3:18-20)

Qasha

[Owen Jones]

What I mean is that Christ was not physically brutalized any more than many thousands, if not millions of Christian martyrs over the centuries, that therefore the uniqueness of his suffering, like the uniqueness of his nature, must be of a different order, at least in degree, if not in kind. Such as, for example, the suffering involved in taken our sins upon himself. The suffering of seeing his beloved humans falling away from God. The suffering of seeing his mother, the God-bearer, suffer, etc. I would hate to build a theology of salvation strictly on the notion that Christ's physical suffering was somehow greater than anyone else's.

I don't know if "forsaken" is a mistranslation from either the Aramaic or the Greek. PErhaps someone can tell us what the Greek word is in the NT that is translated as "foresaken." But There is also the fact of his suffering in the Garden of Gethsemene. What is the nature of that suffering?

Again, I would hate to reduce it simply to a fear of being physically tortured. There has to be a lot more going on there than that.

And I fear that, while the film, THE PASSION, may well evoke many good pious feelings on the part of viewers, by focusing strictly on Christ's physical passion, it will tend to obscure the deeper suffering that he underwent on our behalf, and perpetuate a theology that reduces salvation to simply the shedding of his blood as a sacrificial victim and nothing more.

[Qashisha Chas Kluetz]

"Again, I would hate to reduce it simply to a fear of being physically tortured."

"I would hate to build a theology of salvation strictly on the notion that Christ's physical suffering was somehow greater than anyone else's."

I fear that, GOD in HIS mercy forgive me for suggesting this, you are in a state of unfortunate ignorance, while porporting an Orthodox position, of knowledge, don't you?


To whomsoever you are, the following is adequate for your considerastion in this matter of HIS suffering, and forget about your "hate" and "hate to" stuff


Romans 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
(Whole Chapter: Romans 3 In context: Romans 3:24-26)


1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
(Whole Chapter: 1 John 2 In context: 1 John 2:1-3)


1 John 4:10
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

If you'd like to know about the Language of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I'd be happy to suggest some books presently available for you, if you are of the position to consider taking the time to familiarize yourself accordingly. OK?

[Qashisha Chas Kluetz]

In conclusion to the preceeding remarks on the matter of Holy Orthodoxy: (1 Corinthians 13:12)
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

TO understand implictly in this realm of our human sojourn, we'll never come to know the profound and most cruel suffering of our Lord and Savior, the reason why, or the purpose is known through our intellect, I suppose, but, the entirety is never known, our response is simply a matter of a trusting faith in HIM, to experience or encounter HIM in the Holy Eucharist, regularly!

"Gethesamanae" is a reality, to many folk, even in our blessed land of our forefathers, presently under the terrible heel of Islamic terror or tyranny! You, my poor soul, look to HIM, and "relax" in HIM if I may use that word . . you have no other confidence or trust, except in HIM. Seek out a good father-confessor and discuss some of this untimely macinations presently possessing your mind . . you may loose the joy of your hope if you continue in trying to seek to correct/advise folk through these intellectual exercises and denounciations. Our LORD have mercy upon us! And again, Our Lord have mercy upon us: Amen

THe protestants had a "hymn" which I had remembered since my youth, which may apply here: "take time to be holy; speak oft with thy LORD; abide in HIM only . . " etc. May I suggest that you listen for a season, listen to what St Paul has to say in his letter to The Church of Thessaloniki (1 Thessalonians 4:11)
"And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;"

Qasha

[Richard Leigh]

Excuse me, everybody,

No conjecture here BTW: what Jesus of His own will did not want to endure was DEATH. Notice that it was the death of His friend Lazarus that made him weep (even though He was about to be Lazarus' resurrection.

Richard

[John Wilson]

I fear that, GOD in HIS mercy forgive me for suggesting this, you are in a state of unfortunate ignorance, while porporting an Orthodox position, of knowledge, don't you?

Dear Qashisha Chas Kluetz,

considering that you are a new member on this forum, I feel that your second post was a little strong especially as it was directed towards a long standing member of this forum.

Please take some time to get to know us and give us the opportunity to get to know you before becoming overly critical of other members posts. If we speak to each other in humility and love then we all stand to gain much from each other. Your knowledge of Aramaic will certainly be of benefit to us and I'm sure you will appreciate other's knowledge of Greek (which was also the language of our Lord Jesus Christ, it being the "lingua franca" of the time)

unworthy John.

[Thomas Davidson]

Perhaps his fear - his purely human fear - was not the fear of what was physically about to happen, but the fear that, at the last, he might fail his Heavenly Father?

Christ's certitude was, may I suggest, a mark of his faith rather than his divinity. His miracles a sign of his divinity, rather than his faith.

It was his human will that was tested in the garden, as it was his human body that was wracked upon the cross. His Divine Will, and his Glorious Body, sits intact upon the right hand of God, the only mark of his humanity being the wounds from which his blood poured forth to save the world.

The glorious mystery, surely, is not that in the man Jesus Christ we see the totality of all that God is (a glimpse of which was accorded the disciples with him on Mount Tabor), but that in the Son we see the Father begotten and burdened with every privation of a fallen humanity.

Was this not the dark night of the journey of his soul to God?

[M.C. Steenberg]

I fear that, GOD in HIS mercy forgive me for suggesting this, you are in a state of unfortunate ignorance, while porporting an Orthodox position, of knowledge, don't you?

Actually, Owen was exactly correct.

INXC, Matthew

[John Wehling]

Thomas,

Greetings. You wrote:


in the Son we see the Father begotten and burdened with every privation of a fallen human

Please clarify, if you would, what you mean by these statements.

Peace,
Fr John

[Thomas Davidson]

I take my viewpoint from the Chalcedonian theology of the 'two wills' - that Christ is true God and true man.

If so, then in his Divinity he harbours no doubt, for he says: "All things have been delivered to me by my Father" (Luke 10:22) and later, at the Last Supper, with reference to the betrayal by Judas "Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God" (John 13:3). From this we can say that Christ was fully aware of his calling and his mission, and knew precisely when his hour would come.

So if then Our Lord suffers, then it is in his humanity, and if he is truly man, then he must be subject to those trials of the soul that tests man; fear, doubt, rejection, absence, loss. If Our Lord suffers in the flesh, it is not the test of the body that he fears, but the testing of his soul.

Can I say this:
He opens himself to those very human frailties and failings, to our fears, our doubts, our sense of loss, of abandonment, not because he suffers them himself - for his faith in his Father is beyond question - but for our sake He suffers them, as for our sake He became incarnate, taking upon Himself all that which keeps us apart from God (except the occcasion of sin), so that He might overcome them in himself, for us, so that through Him we might experience our Father's love as He does.

When Christ cries out from the Cross "why hast thou forsaken me?" he echoes the words of Psalm 22, themselves a hideous and prophetic fortelling of what was to come, so that in a certain sense the psalm is an echo of his cry from the Cross.

But in the psalm we see the cry of a lost humanity, beset on every side, but in the final verses delivered in triumph through every tribulation by their unbending faith in the Father.

I'm afraid I cannot articulate the above in precise theological terms, but I hope this goes some way towards clarifying what I mean.

If I am in error then I beseech guidance and forgiveness.

Thomas

[Fr John Wehling]

Greetings in Christ,

I thought, given the subject of this discussion, that some of you might be interested to know that Archimandrite Sophrony (of Essex) has a chapter in His Life is Mine titled "The Prayer of Gethsemane". Here is a sentence or two from this chapter.

"Christ included the whole human race in this prayer, from the first Adam to the last man to be born of woman. We lack existential knowledge of such love and so its permanent significance is hidden from us. Victorious in eternity, Christ's love on the earthly plane spells extreme suffering. No one has ever known such suffering as Christ endured. He descended into hell, into the most painful hell of all, the hell of love." (p. 91)

In Christ,
Fr John

[Daniel Jeandet]

Thankyou Father, That is just what we needed. What more needs to be said about this? We end up in such confusion when we dont have recourse to the teachings of Holy people.

[dianne marie debs]

Dear Father John,

The Quote that you have brought to this discussion is very beautiful.The Lord did truely suffer for all of us ; it is just our human curiousity to try and measure this; for I believe that no human could ever suffer the way He did.

" He descended into hell, the most painful hell of all, the hell of love."

Let us thank Our Lord for this love. He entered hell and conquered it. Our Lord, Lord of LOVE.
He was willing to die for us and He was willing to do whatever His Father asked. May the Lord grant this obedience to all.

Jesus lived His life as an example. Just look at the name of the book you are quoting from "His Life is Mine"; This is how we should strive, to entangle Our Lord's life with our own and live as God has instructed us to live so many times through out the Scriptures.

Thomas,
St Athanasius wrote a wonderful letter to Marcellinus on the interpretation of the Psalms.
I highly recommend reading it. It has changed how I look at the Psalms.
The letter can be found in a book called "On the Incarnation" by the same Saint...an edition by St. Valdimir's Seminary Press.

May God Bless you All,
a humble servant,
Dianne

[lurker]

I heard that the reason of Christ's agony in the garden was because he saw all the sins that humans ever committed and would ever commit. He saw all our sins which He redeemed us from, but such evil was even difficult for the God-man to bear.

[Lawrence]

John of Damascus -- An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith

Book III Chapter XXIV.

Concerning our Lord’s Praying.

Prayer is an uprising of the mind to God or a petitioning of God for what is fitting. How then did it happen that our Lord offered up prayer in the case of Lazarus, and at the hour of His passion? For His holy mind was in no need either of any uprising towards God, since it had been once and for all united in subsistence with the God Word, or of any petitioning of God. For Christ is one. But it was because He appropriated to Himself our personality and took our impress on Himself, and became an ensample for us, and taught us to ask of God and strain towards Him, and guided us through His own holy mind in the way that leads up to God. For just as He endured the passion, achieving for our sakes a triumph over it, so also He offered up prayer, guiding us, as I said, in the way that leads up to God, and “fulfilling all righteousness “ on our behalf, as He said to John, and reconciling His Father to us, and honouring Him as the beginning and cause, and proving that He is no enemy of God. For when He said in connection with Lazarus, Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard Me. And I know that Thou hearest Me always, but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me , is it not most manifest to all that He said this in honour of His Father as the cause even of Himself, and to shew that He was no enemy of God?

Again, when he said, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: yet, not as I will but as Thou wilt, is it not clear to all that He said this as a lesson to us to ask help in our trials only from God, and to prefer God’s will to oar own, and as a proof that He did actually appropriate to Himself the attributes of our nature, and that He did in truth possess two wills, natural, indeed, and corresponding with His natures but yet in no wise opposed to one another? “Father” implies that He is of the same essence, but “if it be possible” does not mean that He was in ignorance (for what is impossible to God?), but serves to teach us to prefer God’s will to our own. For that alone is impossible which is against God’s will and permission. “But not as I will but as Thou wilt,” for inasmuch as He is God, He is identical with the Father, while inasmuch as He is man, He manifests the natural will of mankind. For it is this that naturally seeks escape from death.

Further, these words, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? He said as making our personality His own. For neither would God be regarded with us as His Father, unless one were to discriminate with subtle imaginings of the mind between that which is seen and that which is thought, nor was He ever forsaken by His divinity: nay, it was we who were forsaken and disregarded. So that it was as appropriating our personality that He offered

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-09-30.htm#P3511_1843209

[Charalambos Andrew Geo]

Further, these words, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? He said as making our personality His own. For neither would God be regarded with us as His Father, unless one were to discriminate with subtle imaginings of the mind between that which is seen and that which is thought, nor was He ever forsaken by His divinity: nay, it was we who were forsaken and disregarded. So that it was as appropriating our personality that He offered , coukd you elaborate on this a bit or does the saint do so, it was a little unclear to me du to my lack of understanding or what ever i lack

In Christ
Harry

[Lawrence]

Harry, St John of Damascus continues...

Chapter XXV.

Concerning the Appropriation.

It is to be observed that there are two appropriations: one that is natural and essential, and one that is personal and relative. The natural and essential one is that by which our Lord in His love for man took on Himself our nature and all our natural attributes, becoming in nature and truth man, and making trial of that which is natural: but the personal and relative appropriation is when any one assumes the person of another relatively, for instance, out of pity or love, and in his place utters words concerning him that have no connection with himself. And it was in this way that our Lord appropriated both our curse and our desertion, and such other things as are not natural: not that He Himself was or became such, but that He took upon Himself our personality and ranked Himself as one of us. Such is the meaning in which this phrase is to be taken: Being made a curse for our sakes.

Chapter XXVI.

Concerning the Passion of our Lord’s body, and the Impassibility of His divinity.

The Word of God then itself endured all in the flesh, while His divine nature which alone was passionless remained void of passion. For since the one Christ, Who is a compound of divinity and humanity, and exists in divinity and humanity, truly suffered, that part which is capable of passion suffered as it was natural it should, but that part which was void of passion did not share in the suffering. For the soul, indeed, since it is capable of passion shares in the pain and suffering of a bodily cut, though it is not cut itself but only the body: but the divine part which is void of passion does not share in the suffering of the body.

Observe, further, that we say that God suffered in the flesh, bat never that His divinity suffered in the flesh, or that God suffered through the flesh. For if, when the sun is shining upon a tree, the axe should cleave the tree, and, nevertheless, the sun remains uncleft and void of passion, much more will the passionless divinity of the Word, united in subsistence to the flesh, remain void of passion when the body undergoes passion. And should any one pour water over flaming steel, it is that which naturally suffers by the water, I mean, the fire, that is quenched, but the steel remains untouched (for it is not the nature of steel to be destroyed by water): much more, then, when the flesh suffered did His only passionless divinity escape all passion although abiding inseparable from it. For one must not take the examples too absolutely and strictly: indeed, in the examples, one must consider both what is like and what is unlike, otherwise it would not be an example. For, if they were like in all respects they would be identities, and not examples, and all the more so in dealing with divine matters. For one cannot find an example that is like in all respects whether we are dealing with theology or the dispensation.

Chapter XXVII.

Concerning the fact that the divinity of the Word remained inseparable from the soul and the body, even at our Lord’s death, and that His subsistence continued one.

Since our Lord Jesus Christ was without sin (for He committed no sin, He Who took away the sin of the world, nor was there any deceit found in His mouth) He was not subject to death, since death came into the world through sin. He dies, therefore, because He took on Himself death on our behalf, and He makes Himself an offering to the Father for our sakes. For we had sinned against Him, and it was meet that He should receive the ransom for us, and that we should thus he delivered from the condemnation. God forbid that the blood of the Lord should have been offered to the tyrant. Wherefore death approaches, and swallowing up the body as a bait is transfixed on the hook of divinity, and after tasting of a sinless and life-giving body, perishes, and brings up again all whom of old he swallowed up. For just as darkness disappears on the introduction of light, so is death repulsed before the assault of life, and brings life to all, but death to the destroyer.

Wherefore, although He died as man and His Holy Spirit was severed from His immaculate body, yet His divinity remained inseparable from both, I mean, from His soul and His body, and so even thus His one hypostasis was not divided into two hypostases. For body and soul received simultaneously in the beginning their being in the subsistence of the Word, and although they were severed from one another by death, yet they continued, each of them, having the one subsistence of the Word. So that the one subsistence of the Word is alike the subsistence of the Word, and of soul and body. For at no time had either soul or body a separate subsistence of their own, different from that of the Word, and the subsistence of the Word is for ever one, and at no time two. So that the subsistence of Christ is always one. For, although the soul was separated from the body topically, yet hypostatically they were united through the Word.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-09/Npnf2-09-30.htm#P3511_1843209

************

Also in my previous post I cut the final sentence short. The sentence should read -- So that it was as appropriating our personality that He offered these prayers.

In Christ,
Lawrence

[Ender Wiggin]

This may be a bit off the discussion but it still about Mel Gibson's now renamed 'The Passion of The Christ' movie.

I just saw the new trailer for the movie on yahoo.com, and I must say that it is very powerful and moving. I'm now really excited about it, and I am looking forward to seeing the whole movie in the theater.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Monachos Community,

Today a parishioner asked the most interesting question which I was not able to answer. Why do we use the word passion both for Christ's suffering & Crucifixion and for the 'sinful' human passions? What is the actual source and etymology of this word in the Church?

The only thing I could offer when the question was asked was that perhaps originally there was a common Greek etymology. The Glossary in the Philokalia (Vol 1) seems to support this. "pathos: in Greek, the word signifies literally that which happens to a person or thing, an experience undergone passively."

A search through a New Testament Concordance also reveals that the ancient meaning in the Epistles (using Greek) is sinful passions: Rom.1:26,Gal.5:24, Col.3:5, 1Thess.4:5.
At what point was this word used for Christ's suffering and why? Is the fact that the word also does the same double service in Slavonic,English & French a purposeful transference from the Greek?

If so this provides a fascinating example of how Christian culture spread across the Roman Empire from East to West.

Thanks to anyone for their help.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr. George Morelli]

> Fr Raphael ..I feel quite unworthy to participate on this discussion > board due to the level of spirituality considered ... As in last time > I posted ... if I can be a conduit of information then this may be > useful ... Passion is derived from the Latin word 'passus' the past > participle of 'pati' to suffer. Another archaic usage is 'passivity' > inticating the state of the one suffering. Middle English and Old > French adoped the word as 'passio' : the sufferings of Jesus or a > maryter. I hope this helps ... in Christ Fr. George Morelli.

[John P. Nasou]

The Liddell & Scott 1875 Greek-English Lexicon says of the Greek word = "pathos" paqoV - "anything that befalls one, a suffering, misfortune or = calamity; a passive condition, a passion or affection; an incident. The = root word or morpheme of this word is "pascho" pasxw, meaning to suffer, = to be in evil plight; but also to be affected by anything whether good = or bad. According to my 1927 Century Dictionary, from this Greek word it = descended to Latin "pati" & "passio" meaning to suffer. Thence to the = French "passion" and to English with pretty much the same meanings found = for the Greek - but for mention of a final definition of "intense = affection by lovers". My most recent dictionary of the English language = puts "intense sexual desire" as the primary meaning, with subsequent = reference to the Passion of Christ as a suffering. It is interesting how = languages twist and turn meanings according to the bent of their users. = It appears we now live in a largely sinfully oriented age. Perhaps the = Gibson movie may serve a useful function by reorienting the American = public to a more religiously meaningful definition.=20

May we all experience the true meaning of our Great Lent as a path, = through our repentance, to forgiveness by our Lord's Resurrection. -John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

A great thank you to all who did research on the word 'passion'. It is a great help. One further question- does anyone know what the earliest Patristic use of the word 'passion' for our Lord's suffering & crucifixion is? And what Father & writing? I tried a word search in the Nicene - Post-Nicene Series but can't seem to get too far. Thanks.
In Christ- Fr R

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

I would suggest, but don't have access to, trying in GWH Lampe's Patristric Greek Lexicon. Does a good job for historical development in the Fathers.

Did a quick lookup in Kittel, first citation in Patristics for pasXw for Death of Christ is Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans, section 5, and also section 1 refers to his "pathous", again referring to His crucifixion. Per Kittel, many instances in the NT for pathein in ref. to Christ's sufferings, so did not begin with Apostolic Fathers but New Testament. See Lu 22:15 for example. Many examples referenced in Kittel, worth a read, Volume V, pp. 904 - 939.

Pathos/pasXw in Greek means at its root "to suffer" or "to bear a burden". Develops then along two lines, to suffer under the burden of the lusts of the flesh, or to suffer pain, punishment, torture, torment.

I personally don't think our day is any more evil or driven by the passions of lust than Jesus' day. The day we killed our Lord was certainly the darkest day ever.

Lord, forgive us OUR sins, including those we committed as one body in opposition to you, when we crucified you. We are united in our death with the old Adam, and raised together to life in the New Adam.

[John P. Nasou]

Dear Father - I too have been fascinated with the depiction of = Christ's suffering in the movie (The Passion) as well in Latin = Catholicism's artistic depictions of the events. Having done the same as = you in searching the web and finding very little having to do with our = own worship, I then resorted to looking in my personal library. Our own, = i.e. Orthodox services of Holy Week, as you would know more than we = laity, certainly mention Christ's "Pathos" frequently, but with very = little description of the "bloody depictions" we of the western world = might expect. The Philocalia too have infrequent mention of the Passion, = and in those instances they mention our bearing the Cross and imitating = the suffering of Christ in our personal search for salvation. I also = searched through a 1922 Catholic Missal and found nothing which would = show anything different than what we say in our services, including = nothing to support the greatest charge of the "Supersessionists" that = these services are "antisemitic". Perhaps the source of the bloody = descriptions come from 1) The humanistic art of the Latin church and 2) = the "Way of the Cross" (i.e. the Stations of the Cross" which are on the = walls of most Latin Catholic churches and which include some scenes = which have no Scriptural source. I know of no Orthodox services with = processions in Jerusalem which would honor the stations of the Cross. Am = I correct in this? It seems to me that through the entire history of the = early church the primary worship had to do with the Resurrection of = Christ and the fullfilment of His message and not merely on His = suffering.=20

With all my love and thanks for the discussions I read on Monachos. - = John P. Nasou

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Gilbert & John,

Thank you for your research on this issue of the word 'passion' which turned up some excellent insights.

I am not very knowledgable about the processions in Jerusalem which some liturgists say lead to the formation of some our present-day services; especially concerning 'the stations of the cross' I would question the exact connection.

It is interesting if in the Roman services an Orthodox perception of the Passion was retained longer than in the visual arts; the change in the arts in the West seems to be the result of a fundamental shift in the theological mind that translates culturally.

We have at times also wandered off into the belief that we are saved through Christ's sufferings. This happened in recent times with the 'dogma of redemption' of Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky which was condemned. The Metropolitan had written that we are saved through Christ's suffering for us in the Garden of Gethsemane. (He did not however mean to deny any fundamental Orthodox teachings) The Metropolitan's thought was condemned for not being faithfully Patristic; some felt he was being too rationalistic, others too sentimental. In any case we are saved through the Death & Resurrection of Christ. To wander off into other areas as in the West is to invite a subjective and moral perception of the work of Christ rather than a participation in His very death & resurrection.

In Christ- Fr R

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

Fr. Raphael, I'm not at all familiar with Metropolitan Anthony K's work/writings. Grew up in USA, in protestant church, in college fell in love with the Fathers, esp. those in the Ante Nicene & Nicene set, but have expanded beyond into St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory Palamas, etc. Now in Evangelical Orthodox communion.

Any suggestions on material that expands on the Western vs. Eastern views of redemption and Christ's sufferings? I have seen indications of the contrast you refer to, but not found a good, detailed analysis. Would be helpful.

My own observation in the contrast is the impact that Pelagius had was felt principally in the West, and St. Augustine's response, has significantly colored all Western theologian since then, both Roman Catholic & protestant.

Thank you for your many postings, I've been repeatedly blessed by your insights!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Gilbert,

How wonderful that you are reading the writings of the Holy Fathers. If we read them constantly we will gradually aquire their mindset.

About Christ's sufferings East & West- to begin with the article by Frederica Mathewes-Green might be a good start:http://www.frederica.com. Click 'essays'; then 'The Meaning of His Suffering'. Otherwise Fr Michael Pomazansky: Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. The section: The General Salvation of the World in Christ (p.200) and the section following: A Note on the Roman Catholic Teaching (this is fronm the 1983 edition). "A good, detailed analysis" and it should obviously be comparative between East & West; I can't think of anything offhand but maybe someone else here in the Monachos community (Matthew?). Often we Orthodox are not too orderly; until recently it was difficult to find one book coverning one subject. So most of us got used to gleaning what we learnt from everything we read over the years! A line here, a paragraph there. It got stored away in a mental file in one's head. But if you were to ask where does that come from? Woops- I forget!

At St Tikhon's Seminary we had the most brilliant Patrisitcs & dogmatics professor who taught us about St. Augustine. He taught us that in a real sense St Augustine was used to the point of distortion by the later western medieval scholastics. In other words St Augustine himself lived within a fully Orthodox context; he may have made some theological mistakes but his intent was to be at one with the Church he found himself in. Later scholastics however took certian aspects of St Augustine's teaching and used these to bolster a theological framework they were already creating themselves and which was not in harmony with the Orthodox theological perspective.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Hermit]

Origen also made reference to Christ's passion, but Ignatius seems to have the earliest mention in the early second century, as Gilbert mentioned.

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Father Raphael,

Perhaps sadly, and not so scholastic in dimension, but a sincerely attempted Orthodox understanding of St. Augustine's disposition would today ask if the bishop of Rome would be so kind as to renounce Papal infallibility while speaking ex cathedra.

In Christ,

Matthew P.

[M.C. Steenberg]

[NOTE: This message moved here from the 'Zionism' thread by the Administrator.]

Dear Owen, you wrote:


Regarding the film, The Passion of Christ, would that Orthodoxy had any public voices that anyone listened to, we would have offered at least a mild critique of the film as being theologically unbalanced. I have not seen the film for that reason [...].

Just as a slight aside, I did eventually go to see this film while it was still in the cinema, and after having been told over and again in the intense lead-up to the film's release that it was a 'Latinising, Western' travesty of Christ's true offering of power and authority, I was immensely surprised to see the sense in which a genuine apatheia did emerge in Christ's person as portrayed there. It was still theologically unbalanced, but in other ways than I'd anticipated.

I'm breaking my own rules in commenting on this here! Please: should others wish to comment on this film, do as I say rather than I do, and post such comments in the Mel Gibson's Passion thread. We'll reserve this area for discussions on Zionism.

INXC, Matthew

[Ken McRae]

On Gibson's Film About the Passion of Christ :-

* When the subject of Gibson's film arose in the 'Zionism' thread, I thought of posting these thoughts in it; but then decided it best to start a new thread. I do not start this thread with intent of saying too much in defense of 'the film' other than what I've stated below. However, I promise to read and reflect carefully on any and all comments posted in this thread, I assure you. That said, the primary relevance of Gibson's 'Passion' film, for me, that is, lies not in its "correctness" or the lack thereof, but in the way God used it to speak to my soul, despite all it's "imbalances" and "distortions". There is not the least shadow of doubt that the events I'm about to disclose to you, were unmistakable manifestations of the 'wonder-working' providence of God, in my broken life.

* When the film was first released, a Catholic friend that I formally worked with, until very recently, was one of the first in line to view it, as soon as the doors opened to the public. He was deeply impacted by the film, to say the least, and for nearly a month he would make a point of asking me almost on a daily basis if I had gone to see it yet. Each time I would say no, and give him the same old 'tired' excuse that I was planning to get the DVD. In reality, though, I was struggling with temptations of the severest kind, and driven to profound distraction and spiritual confusion, to the point that I did'nt feel ready, or in the right frame of mind to view the film. Eventually my friend, whose name is Joseph Campbell, gave up on me, and stopped coming around encouraging me to watch it.

* On Dec. 25th, my family gathered together at my parents' home for Christmas, and the oldest of my two younger brothers, the one I'd describe as the least "religious" person in my family, rented the DVD as a surprise, to view as a family after the gift opening. The fact that this brother, (who use to describe himself as an atheist, when he was a young man,) would rent such a DVD, without any external encouragement from me, or anyone else in my family, is remarkable in itself. This act of providence in itself had my fullest attention. We were not more than about twenty minutes into the film, when my father started to make short conversation with me, in between scenes.

* Incidentally, my father who's a "nominal" Catholic at best, had some difficulty watching the film. He kept getting up and walking away when the going got tough. Anyway, he and I use to work together, for the same company, until he retired 9.5 years ago, at the age of 65; so during a particular scene change, he asked me if I'd be working any days during the week between Dec. 25th and Jan. 2 / 05. I replied that I was to work three days, and he replied in turn that he'd be attending a funeral on that approaching Wednesday morning. A little shocked by this news, I asked him if it was anyone I knew. He then said, it was Joe Campbell's funeral, the same Joe Campbell that had pestered me for nearly a month to go and see Gibson's 'Passion'.

* It is difficult to communicate what was happening inside my heart at that moment. Here I was, finally watching 'the Passion' on DVD, (rented by the only person in my family that ever dared, at any time, to refer to himself as an "atheist",) which Joseph had, for weeks, repeatedly compelled me to view, when I received the news of his recent death and upcoming funeral. The events of my life leading up to that time, and which are ongoing even now, bring the significance of this event into even sharper focus, but I cannot disclose them, as they are of too personal a nature, and to do so would be inappropriate, I feel. The impact of this event on me, though, (or series of events,) was deeply profound, I need only say.

* Whether or not the film was "theologically" balanced or correct is of secondary importance to me, in the light of my experience, as related above. I do not say that it is of no importance to me, but only of 'secondary' importance. When one considers the number of obstacles Hollywood threw up to try and stop this movie from being produced or hitting the big screen, it is a small miracle in itself that it ever saw the light of day. There is much to criticise in Mel, and his film, but there is much to respect and admire as well. For now, I choose to turn a blind eye to that which merit's our criticism, and focus on the good and admirable. As a closing note, I've heard that he financed the entire production from his own pocket, without a penny of outside investment, and from the profits, has donated the funds to build a spectacular 'traditional' Catholic Cathedral somewhere, the location of which is unknown to me.

In the fear and love of God,
Theophilus

(Message edited by theophilus on 01 February, 2005)

[Eugene]

Thanks for sharing it with us, Theophilus. This might be offtop, but for me the best films on passions I've ever seen (not even compared to Mel's) weres the two Russian documentaries on the Shroud of Turin. This is absolutely sunning. One of the film is calleth "The shroud - the Gospel of Passions", and in other place in the film the Shroud is called "the Fifth Gospel", and I beleive it truly is.

[Ken McRae]

Thanks for the tips, Evgeny, truly. I have not seen those two films, yet, but now that you've recommended them so highly, I will definitely make it a point to view them, as soon as possible!!

[Anestis Jordanoglou]

you may want to look at the issue of the Cross written by Again magazine by Conciliar (3 issues or so ago) It deals specifically with the film - it's an amazing article

[Daniel Jeandet]

I still cant bring myself to rent the film. I dont know why. The reason I didnt see it at the theatre was something in one of the trailers I saw, when Jesus is being taken away by the soldiers, he looks really scared. I didnt think he would be scared at all. If I was making the movie, Jesus would not be looking scared and worried when taken away by the soldiers.

[Ken McRae]

Hi Anestis,

I'll see if Conciliar has any back issues available. Or is it possible that article is available online somewhere ? Thanks for the suggestion.

Hi Daniel,

Just curious: how would you portray Christ in the Garden, when sweating great drops of blood and asking his Father to spare him from having to drink from the cup that awaited him; or when he cried out on the cross, asking why God had forsaken him?

[Daniel Jeandet]

Hi Theophilus,

I dont know how I would portray those events, I guess I just wouldnt. Your story was good, about how you ended up seeing the film. I know some other people with similar stories, Im sure it was providential for a great many people. I like movies and I would love to make them or write scripts.

I attended my friend's father's funeral two days ago. He was a Catholic, and it was a latin mass. The priest mentioned Mel's film during his sermon. He became very emotional, he even cried. He talked about how Jesus had to suffer so the Father would let people into His house. It was the first time I heard Catholic theology preached in a church, instead of just reading about it in a book. I have never been so grateful for Orthodoxy and the fathers.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all: I have moved the series of posts from the recently-created 'Miscellanious Comments on Mel Gibson's Passion Film' thread in the Casual Conversation area to the already-extant thread on the film, at this location (just above this message). Best to keep things together. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Effie Ganatsios]

Theophilus, I also thank you for sharing your experience. I always like it when people use personal experiences to explain something they want to convey – I become a little lost with too much theoretical discussion. I saw the DVD version of this film and like your father could not bear to watch some of the scenes. It reached into my heart – not as a film but as a visual extension of what is in our bible. I don’t know whether I expressed myself clearly but the film seemed to make the words in my bible even more real. Jesus of Nazareth with Robert Powell is shown here in Greece during Holy Week every year and I enjoy watching it but Mel Gibson’s film was different - much more dramatic and powerful. I remember thinking while watching it that such a powerful film could only have been made by someone who was deeply religious and the things you have related about Mel Gibson seem to support this. I also remember wondering whether Gibson was Roman Catholic because of some things I saw (can’t remember precisely what made me wonder this) - one more reason I really need to see it again.

Why were “obstacles put in the way” of its ever being produced? Do you know?

Effie

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Regarding "The Passion of the Christ"

Dear Theophilus: Your experience with "The Passion" is a moving one, and, had it happened to me I might have also sensed a spiritual significance as you suggested. I hope God guides you in your growth towards understanding these events in your life.

Appraisal of the film: I liked the way the relationship between our Lord´s wounds and our own healing was highlighted, and I felt that the focus on our Lord´s Holy Blood was extremely effective and powerful. It is right, it seems to me, that the events leading up to the Crucifixion should be portrayed as the disturbingly violent events they undoubtedly were, although one needs to balance this with the dignity of our Lord (which I think at some points Gibson risked in his cinematic zeal, though I only saw the film once and I´m not entirely sure about this)and with the glory of the Resurrection, which any film would find too difficult to portray anyway. The Resurrection scene was just an implication, and perhaps that´s as much as can be asked, but I did feel not enough was made of the Resurrection generally. Also, the film generally could have benefited from more reference to the power of Jesus, I liked the scene where He trod on the serpent´s head.

I did not find the film especially antisemitic, the Jewish hierarchy and the crowd could have been any crowd with its any leaders anywhere. If anything, the Roman soldiers didn´t exactly come out looking too good either, something some people forget when associating the Romans with Pontius Pilate washing his hands and his "mere" impartiality / lack of faith. Antisemitic people, like all of us in our prejudices, will find the evidence they want if they look for it, but that´s not a comment on the film.

I didn´t like the way the devil was caricatured, and the scene with the blackbird plucking out the eye of the unrepentant thief. Evil is hideously banal, everyday and ordinary, it is rarely dramatic. The devil would be much more ominous in the film if he looked more like just another "normal" person, or if he was several people at different times (his name is legion).

In retrospect, I´m also not sure about the casting of Monica Belluci as Mary Magdalene. What was the point of that? To give the actress a chance at a "different" kind of role? Nothing against Monica Belluci herself, but she is a strong symbol of something that I don´t feel really does justice to the real Mary Magdalene we know from Tradition. To me it suggested all those sadly fashionable (and heretical) ideas about Mary Magdalene having been our Lord´s wife, or a former prostitute (Tradition says Jesus drove seven devils out of her, but doesn´t name them), or some incarnation of Sophia or the "divine feminine". Perhaps it says more about my lack of faith than about the film, but I feel that as a consequence of this casting, I found myself unable to weep when the women around Jesus wept.

Overall I felt "The Passion" portrays the suffering of the God-man well, and it contributed to my faith. It is a good piece of Christian cinematic iconography in the Roman Catholic tradition; but - if an Orthodox director did choose to take on such a momentous task, a different movie might have emerged.

ICXC
Byron

[Effie Ganatsios]

I know I am re-opening an old thread but I just finished watching an interview with the actor who played Jesus Christ in Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ and I felt this person's faith and the deep love he has for Christ very vividly.

You can watch the interview at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDJ7TRCU7bM&NR=1

I rented the DVD of this film during Lent this year and I was again very moved. Visual aids are sometimes very helpful and watching this film during Holy Week made me even more aware of the sufferings of Christ and his sacrifice.

I had no idea that the actor who played Jesus Christ was such a deeply faithful Roman Catholic and he says something that is very true in his interview : that it is very difficult it is to be a Christian in today's world.

Effie

[Effie Ganatsios]

This is another Youtube interview with the actor Jim Caviezel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwEbu4VC9bU&feature=related

Another moving interview.

Something I noticed is that this extremely articulate man has difficulty in both interviews in expressing himself. You can actually see him trying desperately to find the right words to describe his experience. You can also see the emotion within him that is in danger a couple of times of stopping his speech altogether. He is a courageous man who wasn't afraid to expose his deep religious feeling to ridicule - something that happens quite a lot nowadays.

Effie

I also wonder how an Orthodox director would have handled this subject. I believe, in spite of some purely Roman Catholic aspects, that Mel Gibson did a good job.

[Amy]

Effie,

Thank you for posting the interviews with Jim Caviezel. I have not watched The Passion of the Christ, but was deeply moved just from the interviews...