Father and Doctor of the Church of the 5th century; born c. 370, died 27 June 444; celebrated by the Byzantine Church on 9 June and by the Latin Church on 9 February; proclaimed Doctor of the Universal Church by Leo XIII on 28 July 1882.
Summary:
I. Life
II. Works
III. Doctrine and Influence.I. Life
Almost nothing is known of Cyril’s life before his episcopate; it is only recorded that he was the nephew of Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and that he accompanied him in 403 to the “Council of the Oak” near Chalcedon, where St John Chrysostom was deposed. When he succeeded his uncle in the see of Alexandria on 18 October 412, the schism between East and West, occasioned by that deposition, was still unresolved. Cyril at first refused to bring it to an end, despite the entreaties of Atticus of Constantinople, and failed to comply with the condition imposed by Rome that the name of John should be restored to its rights. Yet by 418 the union had been restored, and all evidence suggests that Cyril acquiesced, albeit reluctantly. In one of his discourses, Nestorius clearly alludes to this reconciliation when he says that Cyril “now venerates, albeit against his will, the ashes of John” (cf. F. Loofs, Nestoriana, Halle 1905, p. 300).If we are to believe Socrates, the early years of Cyril’s episcopate were marked by continual disturbances and violence, in which the bishop himself was indirectly compromised, since his partisans, monks and parabalani, acted like fanatics. The principal cause of these disorders was the quarrel with the prefect Orestes. In 415, during a fracas, the celebrated Hypatia, a woman of great learning in Neoplatonic philosophy, was killed by a parabalanus on account of her supposed influence over the prefect. Cyril cannot be held responsible for this murder, despite the insinuations of Socrates, who is not impartial (Hist. eccl., VII, 13 and 14. Cf. F. Schafer, Cyril of Alexandria and the Murder of Hypatia, in The Cath. Univers. Bulletin, 8 [1902], pp. 441-53).
Yet it cannot be denied that the nephew of Theophilus resembled his uncle somewhat; that he was of an authoritarian and almost harsh disposition; and that his orthodoxy knew little of tolerance, as was shown by his harsh measures against the Novatians and the Jews, to whom he confiscated goods and places of worship.
With equal vigour he attacked the Nestorian error as soon as it appeared. In 428, Nestorius, newly installed in Constantinople, began to impugn the legitimacy of the title Theotokos, Mother of God, which the Church had long accorded to the Virgin Mary. Cyril, informed by his representatives in the capital, lost no time in exposing the new heresy, first by concealing its author, then by addressing him directly. The first letter he wrote to him in the late summer of 429 served only to irritate its recipient. A still worse outcome attended the second letter, sent in February 430, in which the divine maternity was set forth with great skill. Thereupon Cyril replied to Pope Celestine I (422-32), who had already in 429 sought information from him about the new controversy in Constantinople. He sent to Rome a large dossier of his own writings interspersed with those of Nestorius, together with translations of the latter into Latin. With considerable adroitness he addressed the Pope as “most beloved father in God” and recalled the immemorial custom of the Churches in consulting him on all important matters.
At the same time he proclaimed him arbiter and regulator of ecclesiastical communion, a role which he seemed to have forgotten at the beginning of his episcopate. “Do us the kindness,” he wrote, “to tell us whether we should remain in communion with Nestorius or break off all relations with him” (Epist., 11: PG 77, 80 and 84). Celestine had already been informed about the doctrine of Nestorius both by the African Marius Mercator, resident in Constantinople, and by Nestorius himself, who had sent him the text of his most controversial homilies. He was now in a position to settle the controversy with full knowledge of the facts. At the Roman Council of 1 August 430, the doctrine of Nestorius was declared heterodox and he was
Deposition, within ten days following the notification that would be given to him of the Roman decision. This notification was to be made by C. himself in the name of the Pope: "The authority of our See," he said, "is communicated to you, and you will exercise it in our place to execute our decree" (PG 77, 93).
C. did not hasten to fulfill this delicate mission. Since the Pope had declared that Nestorius was to abandon his errors and profess the same doctrine as C., the latter deemed it opportune to condense it into 12 anathemas that the innovator would have to subscribe to. The anathemas were approved by a synod of Egyptian bishops, in a lengthy dogmatic letter, the third to Nestorius, written in terms not very pleasant (3 Nov. 430: PG 77, 10521). As soon as they were known, the anathemas provoked a veritable storm among the theologians of the Antiochene school, violently clashing with their terminology. To emphasize the personal unity of Christ and refute Nestorius’ dualistic hypostasis, C. used expressions hitherto unheard of, even speaking of a physical union, a union according to the hypostasis of the Word with the flesh, σ α ρ α i π α ϑ′ v̇ π v̇ σ τ α- σ ι ν ἠ ν ω̃ σ ϑ α ι, π α ϑ′ ε ν ω σ ι ν η σ ι α τ η̂ ν.
At first glance, such formulas smacked of Apollinarianism and even Arianism. The Antiochenes did not miss the opportunity to declare the bishop of Alexandria heterodox. C. had to defend himself against the attacks of Andrew of Samosata and Theodoret, explaining his anathemas at length. The accuser of Nestorius himself thus found himself in the dock. Moreover, the affair of Nestorius had grown more complicated. The innovator, foreseeing the blow that threatened him despite all the explanations addressed to Pope Celestine, had obtained from Emperor Theodosius II the convocation of a Council.
Cyril of Alexandria, Saint. Fresco in S. Maria Antiqua (anc. viii).
They seized the opportunity to declare the bishop of Alexandria heterodox. C. had to defend himself against the attacks of Andrew of Samosata and Theodoret, explaining his anathemas at length. The accuser of Nestorius himself thus found himself in the dock. Moreover, the affair of Nestorius had grown more complicated. The innovator, foreseeing the blow that threatened him despite all the explanations addressed to Pope Celestine, had obtained from Emperor Theodosius II the convocation of an Ecumenical Council to examine his case. When C.’s legates arrived in Constantinople on 7 Dec. 430 to deliver to Nestorius the Pope’s ultimatum and the letter of anathemas, the Council had already been convoked at Ephesus for Pentecost 431 by imperial decree dated 19 Nov. Thus a most confused situation arose. Pope Celestine was able to resolve it by accepting the Council under certain conditions. The activity of C. at the Council of Ephesus (v. EPHESUS, COUNCIL OF) was preponderant but did not meet with a happy outcome. By precipitating the opening of the assembly on 22 June 431, before the arrival of the bishops of the Eastern dioceses and especially before the arrival of the Pope’s legates, C. provoked a schism among the bishops. In a short time there were two Councils that mutually anathematized each other. These anathemas were not approved either by the Emperor or by the Pope. To reach an understanding, the two parties were invited to send delegates to Chalcedon. When this attempt failed, the Emperor declared the Council dissolved. C., who had remained at Ephesus, set out on the road back to Alexandria. The rescript of Theodosius II ordering him to remain at Ephesus arrived after his departure.
Negotiations for union continued after the Council between C. and John of Antioch, with the mediation of Acacius of Beroea, dean of the episcopate. C. loyally seconded these efforts. Without sacrificing orthodoxy in any way, he did make concessions regarding terminology. Finally, in 433, they agreed on a text subscribed to by both parties: the so-called “symbol of union,” drawn, save for one phrase, from a profession of faith sent by the Orientals to Emperor Theodosius as early as August 431. This compromise did not please everyone. Among the Orientals there were some intransigents who refused to enter into communion with C. Even among the Cyrillians there were malcontents. To these C. had to explain at length the orthodoxy of the symbol of union. He did everything possible to maintain the union and moderated the zeal of Proclus of Constantinople, who wished to obtain the subscription of all Eastern bishops to his Letter or Tome to the Armenians. He also refused to consider Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia—true fathers of Nestorianism—heretics, since they had died in the peace of the Church. He did not, however, conceal the harm caused by the translation of their works into Syriac and Armenian; he refuted them in two writings of which only a few fragments remain.
In conclusion, in the course of the Nestorian controversy, C. had made several mistakes and had been at fault in various ways; yet he sincerely strove to make amends for everything. We cannot be sufficiently grateful to him for having sacrificed, for the sake of Church unity, some of his formulas and for not having insisted on certain words as the Monophysites would soon do in appealing to him. For this reason, the Church has always regarded him as one of her greatest doctors, and Pope Pius XII paid homage to his memory with an encyclical (Orientalis Ecclesiae, 22 May 1944) on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death.
II. Works
After St. John Chrysostom, St. C. is the Greek Father of the Church who has left the largest literary heritage. His writings, which occupy no less than ten volumes of the Patrologia Graeca (68–77), may be divided into exegetical, dogmatic, and apologetic works, homilies, and letters. This division is, moreover, superficial, since many letters form genuine small dogmatic treatises. Many of these works have come down to us incomplete, at least as regards the original text; others have been lost.### Exegetical Writings
These exceed in extent all his other works. Most of them were written before the Nestorian controversy, and many are fragmentary. C. is among the Greek Fathers the principal representative of the allegorical method of exegesis. This tendency, moreover, was in the spirit of the Alexandrian school. He belongs fully to this school and is its last great figure. But just as Theodore avoided the excesses of Antiochene literalism, so he knew how to steer clear of the exaggerations of Alexandrine allegorism. Far from despising the literal and historical sense, he repeatedly proclaims its excellence and regards it as the necessary foundation of a higher meaning. Moreover, he was not one to dwell on grammatical minutiae. His commentaries embrace both the Old and the New Testament and take various forms.
First, there is a kind of biblical introduction comprising two lengthy works: *De adoratione in spiritu et veritate* (PG 68, 133–1125) and a dialogue between C. and his friend Palladius, in which the author seeks to explain “what Our Lord meant by the words: I have not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them, and what is meant by the worship in spirit and in truth which He so strongly enjoined upon the Samaritan woman.” The two texts illuminate each other, for the observances criticized were the shadow and figure of the new worship established by Jesus. The work is divided into 17 books, the contents of which are outlined at the beginning by C. himself. Its main purpose is to demonstrate the superiority of the new law over the old.
A complement to this work is the two *Glafyrai* (Γλαφυρά), i.e., selected passages from the books of Moses in which the mystery of Christ is prefigured (PG 69, 9–679). He then studies the principal types of Christ and His work found in the Pentateuch, most of which is devoted to Genesis. All the patriarchs, from Adam to Jacob and his sons, are regarded as figures of Our Lord.
The proper commentaries on the Old Testament, all written before the Nestorian controversy, expound the entire text of the prophet Isaiah (PG 70, 10–1449), the twelve minor prophets (PG 71, 72, 9–364; better ed. Ph. E. Pusey, 2 vols., Oxford 1868), and the Psalms; but of these only fragments remain (PG 69, 717–1274), of doubtful authenticity (cf. R. De Vreesse, *Chaines exégétiques*, in *DBs*, I, col. 134). There is no evidence that C. commented on other Old Testament books such as the four books of Kings, Proverbs, the Song of Songs, Jeremiah and Baruch, Ezekiel, or Daniel, though the *Catenae* provide some fragments gathered in PG 69, 679–698, 1277–94, 1451–62 (cf. R. De Vreesse, *loc. cit.*, passim). It is well known that the compilers of the *Catenae* often drew their citations from writings having no real connection with exegesis proper, and that these citations must be subjected to critical scrutiny.
Of the New Testament, C. commented on:
a) The Gospel of St. John, in 12 books, of which only the seventh survives in fragments (PG 73 and 74, 9–756; better ed. Ph. E. Pusey, 3 vols., Oxford 1872). J. Mahé has demonstrated by thoroughgoing criticism that this commentary was written before the Nestorian controversy (*La date du comment. de s. Cyrille d’Alex. sur l’évang. de st Jean*, in *Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique*, 1907, pp. 41–45). C. dwells at length on theological developments concerning the divinity of the Word, the relations of the divine Persons among themselves, and the Eucharist. He refutes Arianism above all, sometimes takes aim at Antiochene Christology, but never names Nestorius;
b) The Gospel of St. Matthew, of which only insignificant fragments remain (PG 72, 365–74, 471–74);
c) The Gospel of St. Luke, in the form of homilies, of which we possess, in the original text, long passages and three complete homilies (PG 72, 475–950; 77, 1009–16 and 1039–50). A Syriac translation from the 6th–7th century, fairly faithful, is almost complete (ed. R. Payne Smith, with English translation, 2 vols., Oxford 1858–59; new ed. begun in *Corpus script. christ. or.* by J.-B. Chabot: *Scriptores Syri*, 4th ser., I [first 80 homilies], Paris 1912). It is an oratorical commentary aimed chiefly at the edification of the people and does not explain the entire text. Whole passages, especially the whole of the first chapter, are omitted. Nestorius and his partisans are rebuked more than once.
The *Catenae* also provide fragments of commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans and the two to the Corinthians and that to the Hebrews (PG 74, 733–1066), though these must be carefully verified (R. De Vreesse, *loc. cit.*, passim).
### Dogmatic, Apologetic, and Polemical Writings
This is the most important and most celebrated part of our Doctor’s works, for he is above all a theologian. Before the Nestorian controversy (428), he refuted the Arians in two works: the *Thesaurus* and *De consubstantiali Trinitate* (PG 75, 9–1124). The first, divided into 35 chapters or λόγοι, summarizes in didactic form all traditional teaching on the Trinity, drawing especially on the three Cappadocian Fathers and St. Athanasius. The second, in the form of a dialogue, often cited under the title *De Trinitate ad Hermiam* (Hermias being C.’s interlocutor), treats the same subject of the consubstantiality of the divine Persons in seven dialogues.
Of a work *Adversus Synousiastas* (extremist Apollinarians) only fragments remain in Greek and Syriac. Migne reproduces almost all of them in the Latin version by Mai (PG 76, 1427–35).
C. treats of apologetics in the proper sense in the *Contra Iulianum imperatorem*, a voluminous work in 30 books, of which only the first ten survive; it was composed in 413 and dedicated to Theodosius II (PG 76, 503–1064). But his activity as theologian and polemicist was chiefly directed against the Nestorian heresy. In a series of short treatises, sometimes in the form of letters, he developed the dogma of the personal unity of Christ and that of the divine maternity of Mary, a corollary of the former. The following is a chronological list of these treatises:
1. *Scholia de incarnatione Unigeniti*;
2. *De recta fide ad Theodosium imperatorem*;
3. *De recta fide ad principas* (the two sisters of Theodosius, Arcadia and Marina);
4. *De recta fide ad Augustas* (Pulcheria, sister of Theodosius, and Eudoxia, his wife);
5. *Adversus Nestorii blasphemias*;
6–9. *XII capitum explanatio*; *XII capitum defensio utraque*; *Apologeticus pro XII capitibus contra Orientales* (against Andrew of Samosata); *Apologeticus contra Theodoretum*; *Explicatio XII capitum*;
10. *Apologeticus ad Theodosium*, written at the end of 431 or the beginning of 432, a personal apology against the charges directed against him;
11. *Adversus nolentes confiteri sanctam Virginem esse Deiparam*;
12. *Quod unus sit Christus*, in the form of a dialogue;
13. *Libri adversus Diodorum Tarsensem et Theodorum Mopsuestenum* (c. 438), of which only fragments remain.
To these treatises must be added many dogmatic letters, such as that *Ad monachos Aegypti* (429) on the legitimacy of the term Θεοτόκος, the second to Nestorius (Feb. 430), approved by the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon and a true dogmatic document, the synodal letter of 3 Nov. 430 (third to Nestorius), which ends with the twelve anathematisms, the letter to John of Antioch, containing the symbol of union and the famous formula: “One is the incarnate nature of the Word of God” (μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη), and finally the two to Successus, bishop of Diocesarea, on the same theme. All these are found gathered in vols. 75–77 of the *PG*.
Under C.’s name also goes the treatise *Adversus anthropomorphitas*, of contested authenticity (PG 76, 1065–1132). According to Pusey’s edition (Oxford 1872), it appears that the work, as we have it today, is a conflation made by an unknown hand of two opuscules by C.: *De dogmatum solutione* and *Responsiones ad Tiberium*. On the other hand, the two opuscules *De incarnatione Domini* and *De Trinitate*, printed among C.’s works (PG 75, 1419–78, and 1148–80), must be restored to Theodore.
### Homilies
Besides those on St. Luke, already mentioned, C. has left two other series. There are twenty-nine Paschal Homilies, festal letters for the years 414–42. Most are ascetical and hortatory in character. Some, however, are dogmatic, such as those of 420 and 429, which already refute the dualistic hypostasis of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius. The other homilies (Migne has 17, plus five fragments [77, 981–1116]) are not all authentic. Thus the *Homily on the Mystic Supper* must
stituting itself as patriarch Theophilus (cf. M. Richard, *Une homélie de Théophile d'Alexandrie sur l'institution de l'Eucharistie*, in *Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique*, 33 [1937], pp. 46-56), the *In* (in *Communio in sanctam Mariam Deiparam*) is a work of the 7th-9th century according to the *Imitazione della quarta* (cf. A. Ehrhard, *Eine unechte Marienhomilie des hl. Cyrill von Alexandrien*, in *Römische Quartalschrift*, 3 [1889], pp. 97-113); the 12th consists of passages taken from the commentary on St. Luke. The homilies 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 were preached at Ephesus.
4. *Letters.* – The printed collection (PG 77) includes 88 letters, 69 by him and 19 by correspondents. Of these, the 8th is by St. Basil and the 8th (by Hypatia) is spurious. We have already noted the principal letters of dogmatic import. All of them relate to the Nestorian controversy. Some of these have come down to us only in Latin translation.
Cyril writes without great literary concern. Clear, precise, incisive when polemical, he concentrates his ideas in brief formulas; otherwise he is somewhat prolix and redundant. His overloaded and cumbersome phrasing is sometimes difficult to read. Often, because of the Nestorian controversy, he is forced to repeat the same things, especially on the unity of Christ and the divine maternity of Mary.
III. *Doctrine and Influence.* – Cyril is incontestably one of the greatest figures of the Eastern Church in the patristic era. Above all, he is a theologian; a well-balanced theologian, both positive and speculative. A. Arnauld called him “the most scholastic of all the Fathers” (*Perpétuité de la foi*, V, Paris 1672, p. 14). This judgment may be accepted provided it is added that he is also most attentive to ground his speculations in the sources of Revelation. In refuting heretics he appeals not only to Sacred Scripture, as many earlier Fathers did, but also to the writings of his predecessors, and his argumentation is adorned with patristic florilegia (H. du Manoir, *L'argumentation patristique dans la controverse nestorienne*, in *Recherches de science religieuse*, 25 [1935], pp. 441-61, 531-59). His theological activity was devoted *ex professo* to the principal Christian mysteries, the Trinity and the Incarnation. Of the other revealed truths he concerned himself only insofar as they related to these fundamental dogmas. On the Trinity he masterfully condensed the teaching of his predecessors and brought the Arian controversy to a doctrinal conclusion. Anastasius of Sinai calls him “the seal of the Fathers” (*Hodegós*, VII: PG 89, 113), and the appellation is well deserved with regard to Trinitarian doctrine. The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son (ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ: ἐξ ἀμφῶν) is, without making it the object of a special study, one of the points he treats with the greatest clarity (cf. *De adoratione in spiritu et veritate*, I: PG 68, 148). Indeed, among the Greek Fathers, he is the great authority for refuting the Photian dogma of the procession *a Patre solo*.
As for the mystery of the Incarnation and the manner of the union of the divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ, Cyril does not resolve the controversy but may be said to accentuate it by emphasizing the hypostatic dualism of certain Antiochene doctors who, in refuting Apollinarianism, had gone beyond the limits, compromising the personal unity of the incarnate Word. He is the great doctor of the unity of Christ and the corollary of this unity: the divine maternity of Mary. To the Antiochene dualism represented by Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, he opposes the traditional faith in one Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word, born of the Father *ab aeterno* and born of the Virgin in time. The title *Θεοτόκος*, long conferred upon the Virgin, is for him the token of orthodoxy against Nestorius, who failed to grasp its meaning, and this term in the Christological controversy played the same role as the *μουσίας* in the Trinitarian controversy.
Yet Cyril’s orthodoxy on the mystery of the union of the two natures in Jesus Christ has been contested. His celebrated anathemas against Nestorius have been violently impugned, as has his preferred formula for expressing the mystery: “There is one incarnate nature of the Word of God” (*μὴ φῶς τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένην*), a formula he believed to be that of St. Athanasius but which was in fact from Apollinarius. The anathemas and the formulas “union according to hypostasis, physical union, one incarnate φῶς” were explained by our doctor in a perfectly orthodox manner. He said and repeated that these expressions were directed against Nestorius. Nestorius, indeed, together with Apollinarius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and others, took the word φῶς in the sense of a concrete subject, of a distinct subject of attribution, of a real nature-person. Theodore had said that there is no φῶς, no real *impersonal* nature. By giving this sense to the word φῦς, it is in fact made a synonym of person ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον. With this terminology, if one wishes to be orthodox, one must necessarily say that in the incarnate Word there is only one φῶς, that is, one nature that is at the same time a person, namely the person, the hypostasis of God the Word. The adjective *σεσαρκωμένην*, incarnate, is added to indicate the individual and complete human nature assumed by the Word in the unity of His divine person. Likewise, the expressions φῶς φυσική, ἔνωσις καθ’ ὑπόστασιν mean “real union, substantial union, true union,” καθ’ ἀλήθειαν as Cyril says, in opposition to “moral union,” to “relative and extrinsic union,” the *συνάφεια* of Nestorius, which left two subjects of attribution, two individuals, two persons: the man Jesus born of the Virgin and the Word born of the Father before all ages. The union in Jesus of the two natures results in a true “numerical union” of the subject, of the individual, in a “natural unity,” ἐνότης φυσική, analogous, though not entirely similar, to the union of soul and body in the human individual. How this can occur Cyril did not attempt to explain, as Theodore wished to do.
The weak point in Cyril’s terminology is that he did not seek to fix precisely the meaning of the words φῶς, ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον in the theology of the Incarnation. According to the context he gave different meanings to the terms φῶς and ὑπόστασις, thus often using the language of the Monophysites. True, to avoid any heterodox interpretation of his thought, he took all necessary precautions. If, for example, he wished to give the word ὑπόστασις the sense of person, he usually joined it to the word πρόσωπον; if he gave it the sense of a real thing, he followed it with the term πρᾶγμα; and if the word φῶς was taken in the sense of οὐσία, the context sufficiently indicates the synonymy. Nevertheless, this lack of uniformity in later Christological controversies had serious drawbacks and effectively contributed to the birth and prolongation of the long logomachy that was Severian or verbal Monophysitism, a logomachy that is not yet extinct.
Indeed, the Monophysites made use of his name to insist on dangerous formulas that the Church has been obliged to proscribe. The Council of Chalcedon preferred the language of the two natures, while his adversaries persisted in maintaining and developing the
Monophysite terminology, with the risk of falling into Eutychianism. Had they been sincere disciples of St. Cyril, they would have shown greater indulgence toward words and would have sacrificed their formulas for the sake of Church unity.
After the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the revealed truths that St. Cyril emphasizes most and to which he returns most frequently are the elevation of man to the supernatural state, the doctrine of grace and sanctification, and the sanctifying effects of Baptism and the Eucharist. He adopts and develops in an original way the doctrine of the deification of human nature through the physical contact of the incarnate Word, a theme often discussed by his Greek predecessors. Yet he places great emphasis on the action of the Holy Spirit in sanctification through His indwelling in the holy soul, His direct and, in a certain sense, personal contact with it, for the sanctifying action, in a way, deifies the soul, transforms it, and infuses a certain quality that renders it conformed to Christ (διά τῇς ἐν ἀγιασμῷ ποιότητος, Homil. pasch., 10: PG 77, 617) and brings it into another state (εἰς ἐπέραν τινὰ μεθόστην 817, εν, In Joannem, 16, 6-7: PG 74, 433).
From these expressions emerges what our theologians call sanctifying grace, the created gift, the effect of the uncreated gift, which is the very person of the Holy Spirit. This created effect, this quality, this meaning, as St. Cyril himself says, is inseparable from the personal presence of the Holy Spirit. If this ceases, that deifying quality also disappears. Thus St. Cyril tends to conceive divine grace in this static aspect, and he may justly be called the theologian of habitual grace, just as St. Augustine is the theologian of actual grace (cf. F. Cayré, Précis de patrologie, II, Paris 1930, p. 39).
Moreover, he does not exaggerate the theory of deification through the physical contact of the Word with human nature; he teaches that every person must cooperate through personal action in his own deification by faith, by receiving the Sacraments (especially Baptism and the Eucharist), and by good works. He insists greatly on the sanctifying effects of the Eucharist, the so-called “mystical blessing.” The flesh of Christ, united to the Word as the source of life, vivifies our bodies and souls through a true and, in a certain sense, physical contact. Through Communion, we are united to Jesus Christ as two pieces of wax fused together (PG 73, 584).
After his death, St. Cyril became a great object of controversy, and the cause lies in the lack of uniformity in his Christological terminology. Around his name, Catholics and Monophysites fiercely disputed. The Monophysites sought to claim him as their great doctor, while Catholics, opposing them with numerous testimonies drawn from his writings, were able to demonstrate that he often employed formulas canonized by the Council of Chalcedon and that he had always maintained impeccable orthodoxy. The Council of Chalcedon and the Second Council of Constantinople bore witness to this orthodoxy and condemned those who had impugned II. Yet his preferred formulas, those expressing dogma in Monophysite language, have long since been abandoned. After the Three Chapters controversy and the Monothelite controversy, only the Chalcedonian formulas remained in the common language of the Catholic Church.
In the Byzantine Church, after the Christological controversies, the influence of our doctor does not appear to have been preponderant. He was surpassed by St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and St. John Chrysostom—“the Three Hierarchs,” celebrated in a common feast since the 11th century. The controversy over the *Filioque* undoubtedly contributed to this eclipse; indeed, as we have said, among the Greek Fathers, St. Cyril was the great opponent of the procession of the Holy Spirit *a Patre solo*. His formulas, in advance, refuted the quibbles and subterfuges of the adherents of the Photian dogma. A doctor who provided the Latins with such effective weapons could hardly have won the sympathy of Photius’ disciples.