Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint

CYRIL of JERUSALEM, saint — Father and Doctor of the Church, celebrated by the Church on 18 March.

SUMMARY:

I. Life

II. Works

III. Doctrine.

I. LIFE

Born in Jerusalem or its environs around 313–15, C. soon became part of the clergy of the Holy City. He must have received priestly ordination in 343 from Bishop St. Massimo, whom he succeeded in 348. His election took place under obscure circumstances. According to St. Jerome, Chronicon, ad annum 349, Acacius of Caesarea, metropolitan of Palestine, and other Arianizing bishops allegedly offered him the episcopate on condition that he repudiate the ordination received from Massimo. C. is said to have accepted and arranged for the deposition of Heraclius, the successor designated by Massimo himself before his death. This excessively hostile version is contradicted by a statement of the Council of Constantinople of 382 to Pope Damasus, according to which C.’s election to the episcopate had been canonically carried out by all the bishops of the province. In any event, it is certain that C., at the beginning of his episcopate and for a long time thereafter, adhered to the anti-Nicene party and was probably ordained by his metropolitan, Acacius of Caesarea, one of the leaders of the Eusebians. In his Catecheses he deliberately avoids the word consubstantial, which, in his view—as in that of many other Easterners—must have smacked of Sabellianism; but, as is apparent from many passages of the aforementioned Catecheses, he was fundamentally orthodox.

His union with Acacius did not last long. The cause of the disagreement was a question of jurisdiction, undoubtedly relating to the practical interpretation of the primacy of honour that the Council of Nicaea, in canon VII, had recognized for the see of Jerusalem (Theodoret, Hist. eccl., II, 26).

But there was also a doctrinal opposition between the two prelates: Acacius was at heart an Arian, while C. held orthodox views. The metropolitan succeeded in having his suffragan deposed at a synod in 357–58. C. appealed in vain to the Emperor; he had to flee to Antioch, and then to Tarsus, where Bishop Silvanus received him most warmly. He took part in the Council of Seleucia in 359, siding with Basil of Ancyra, George of Laodicea, and Eu-

stathius of Sebaste, leaders of the new group of Antiochenes who have been called Homoiousians, Semi-Arians, or also Macedonians or Pneumatomachi (v. ARIANESIMO). After Seleucia, this party briefly succeeded in winning the favour of the Emperor Constantius, and C. was able to return to his see; but the following year, at the assembly of Constantinople, where Homoeanism triumphed, Acacius had him deposed once again. After the death of Constantius, he returned to Jerusalem under Julian and Jovian; but as early as 367–68 Valens exiled him to an unknown destination. This exile lasted until the death of the Arian Emperor (378); during this period C. must have adhered definitively and without reservations to Nicene orthodoxy, accepting the very term ὁμοσύσεις, and abandoning the Homoiousians forever, most of whom had compromised themselves by rejecting the divinity of the Holy Spirit. At the general Council of the East, held at Constantinople in 381 and later recognized as the Second Ecumenical Council, C. was one of the principal representatives of Catholic orthodoxy, but we do not know what role he played there. The following year, another Synod of Constantinople, which he may have attended, once again attested to Pope Damasus his faith and the regularity of his election.

On returning to Jerusalem, he worked to repair the disorders and ruins accumulated by those intruders who had occupied his see during his long absence, and was able to govern his Church peacefully for another eight years.

He died in 386 or 387, leaving among the ancients a highly disputed reputation because of his changes in ecclesiastical communion, having successively been Eusebian, Homoiousian, and Nicene. Nevertheless, at least as far as appears from his Catecheses, it may be said that he never changed his faith and was always orthodox, despite his tacit and prolonged opposition to the word “consubstantial.” On account of this fundamental orthodoxy, Leo XIII was able, in 1882, to number him among the Doctors of the Church.

II. WORKS

C. deserves the title of doctor for the 24 Catecheses that have come down to us under his name. Apart from these, very little remains of him, namely: a Homily on the Paralytic of the Probatic Pool, which he delivered while still young, when he was no more than a priest: PG 33, 1131–56; a Letter to the Emperor Constantius, in which he relates the apparition of a luminous cross in the sky over Jerusalem, between Golgotha and the Mount of Olives, which lasted for several hours and which everyone had the opportunity to contemplate (ibid., 1165–76): the phenomenon occurred on 7 May 351. The authenticity of this letter is not entirely free from suspicion. The adjective ὁμοσύσεις, applied to the Trinity in the final doxology, is certainly apocryphal. Four brief fragments of homilies concerning the nature of Christ, probably apocryphal. Three of them are published ibid., 1181–82. The fourth is found in the Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione Verbi (ed. Fr. Diekamp, Münster in W. 1907, p. 20; cf. J. Lebon, La position de st Cyrille de Jérusalem dans les luttes provoquées par l'arianisme, in Rev. d'hist. eccl., 20 [1924], p. 185, note 2).

Other apocryphal passages are published in PG 33, 1187–1210. A quotation from an unknown homily of C. in F. Diekamp, Analecta patristica (Orient. chr. anal. 117 [Rome 1938], p. 10).

The collection of the Catecheses comprises: 1 preliminary discourse known by the name of “procatechesis”; 18 Catecheses addressed to catechumens preparing for Baptism; 5 Catecheses called Mystagogical, addressed to neophytes: PG 33, 331–1128. They vary in length. Whereas the Catecheses for the catechumens, with the exception of the first, are quite long, the Mystagogical catecheses are instead extremely brief. According to certain internal indications, the former were delivered during Lent in 348, precisely at the beginning of his episcopate, in the great basilica of the Anastasis erected by Constantine. The Mystagogical catecheses were delivered during Easter week in the particular chapel of the Holy Sepulchre. It should be noted that, according to a note in the cod. Monacensis graecus 394, of the tenth century, the Catecheses for the catechumens were delivered in 352.

Since the sixteenth century, many Protestants, for polemical reasons, contested the authenticity of the Catecheses. Today, however, critics are unanimous in recognizing that the Procatechesis and the 18 Catecheses for the catechumens are genuinely the work of C., while serious doubts persist concerning the authenticity of the five Mystagogical catecheses, which ought to be attributed to John of Jerusalem, C.’s successor (386–417).

Indeed, in the most ancient Syro-Palestinian version and in the Armenian version of the fifth century, there is no trace of Mystagogical Catecheses: this indicates that they were absent from the text used as the model for translation; moreover, it is noteworthy that in the Armenian lectionary the two series of catecheses are separate. On the other hand, many ancient Greek manuscripts, including the already mentioned cod. Monac. 394, attribute the complete collection of the Catecheses to C. and John: τοῦ αὐτοῦ Κυρίλλου καὶ Ἰωάννου. They must have placed what belonged to John after C.’s work, and little by little John’s name fell into oblivion.

Cf. the question in the very recent study by W. J. Swans: A propos des catéchèses mystagogiques attribuées à s. Cyrille de Jérusalem (in Muséon, 55 [1942], pp. 1–43), where all the indications concerning the controversy are given. The theological importance of the Mystagogical Catecheses is not diminished by the fact that they have been attributed to John rather than to C.: they are, in fact, the works of two contemporaries who succeeded one another in the same episcopal see.

The collection of the Catecheses constitutes a genuinely almost complete oratorical course of religious instruction, based on the sources of Revelation, that is, Sacred Scripture and Tradition; above all on Sacred Scripture, which is the principal source employed. There is little speculative material, and examples are deliberately chosen to make the truths of the faith accessible to the humblest minds; there are refutations of the heresies of the time; the style is clear and somewhat redundant; moral exhortation follows doctrinal exposition; the tone is familiar and direct, and he always maintains contact with his audience: in C. are found all the qualities of a good catechist who is also an orator. After a prologue formed by the Procatechesis and the very brief first Catechesis, which summarizes the Procatechesis, the orator treats of Penance in the II, of Baptism in the III, and, with the IV, begins a systematic exposition of the baptismal creed of the Church of Jerusalem; at the outset he gives a concise and substantial summary of it, before explaining it article by article in the V, entitled On Faith and the Creed. The following 4 concern God, considered in his unity (VI), God the Father (VII), Providence (VIII), and creation (IX). Six others (X–XV) are devoted to the Son of God, considered in his divinity and in the mysteries consequent upon his Incarnation; two to the Holy Spirit (XVI–XVII); and one to the resurrection of the body, the Church, and eternal life (XVIII).

The 5 Mystagogical Catecheses concern the three Sacraments of Christian initiation, namely: Baptism (XIX and XX), Confirmation (XXI), and the Eucharist as sacrament and sacrifice (XXII and XXIII), considered both in their dogmatic and liturgical aspects.

The Catecheses interest us not only for their doctrine but also for their details concerning the sacramental rites, the text of the baptismal creed and that of the Jerusalem liturgy of the fourth century, and the topography of Jerusalem.

The numerous translations into vernacular languages produced in recent times testify that interest in them is far from having ceased.

III. DOCTRINE

The importance of Cyril’s Catecheses from the doctrinal standpoint lies in the fact that they are a faithful echo of the Church’s common teaching in a particularly turbulent period. The Arian controversy is at its height. The fundamental dogma of the Trinity is tacitly attacked by the adversaries of the Council of Nicaea. Judging by his relations, C. seems to have been one of them, but on rereading his Catecheses every suspicion vanishes. No one has affirmed more clearly than he the eternal generation of the Word, Son of God, true God born of true God, and likewise the true divinity of the Holy Spirit, which the Pneumatomachi attacked shortly thereafter. If he refrains

from using the term ὁμοούσιος, consubstantial, this perhaps means that he was scrupulous about orthodoxy, because in the East this word, Paul of Samosata (v.), seemed to incline toward Sabellian heresy. Clearly affirming the distinction of the three divine persons, he avoids falling into tritheism and teaches the numerical unity of the divine nature. Cf. especially Catechesis XVI, 4, 24: PG 33, 921-53; Catechesis VI, 5: ibid., 545; Catechesis XI, 1: ibid., 709.

His Christological doctrine is no less remarkable and entirely in conformity with traditional orthodoxy. He already anticipates the condemnation of the Nestorian heresy by insisting on the personal unity of Christ, giving the Virgin Mary the title theotocos, παρθένος ἡ θεοτόκος, Catechesis X, 19: ibid., 685, and correctly applying the communication of idioms, Catechesis X, 3: ibid., 622; XII, 1, 3: ibid., 622, 729.

But what above all aroused the interest of historians of dogma, causing persistent controversies between Catholics and Protestants, was his sacramental doctrine expressed in the Mystagogical Catecheses.

C. is in fact the pre-eminent doctor of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, of Transubstantiation, and of the sacrifice of the Mass. The Catholic dogma could not have been defended more clearly than in these statements of his: “What is given to you, receive with complete certainty as the body and blood of Christ; for it is his body that is given to you under the appearance of bread, ἐν τόπῳ ἄρτου, and it is his blood that is given to you under the appearance of wine, ἐν τόπῳ οἴνου, so that, having received the body and blood of Christ, you may be his corporeal kindred and his blood relatives: οὐσάμιοι καὶ οὐναίμοι αὐτοῦ. Thus, as his body and his blood are diffused through our members, we become bearers of Christ, χριστοφόροι... What appears to be bread, ὁ φαινόμενος ἄρτος, is not bread, contrary to taste, but the body of Christ; and what appears to be wine, ὁ φαινόμενος οἴνος, is not wine, contrary to taste, but the blood of Christ... At another time, at Cana of Galilee, he changed water into wine, a substance having some analogy with blood; and would you not believe in the change whereby he makes wine into his blood?” Catechesis XXII, 2, 3, 9: ibid., 1097, 1100, 1104.

On one point, however, he seems to fall short in his Eucharistic doctrine. Indeed, he appears to regard the invocation, called the epiclesis of the Holy Spirit, as the true form of the Sacrament and omits, in his explanation of the prayers of the Mass, the account of the institution (Catechesis XXXIII, 7: ibid., 1116). But this is undoubtedly only an appearance; in fact, he merely states that after the epiclesis the sacrifice is perfectly accomplished and consummated. Perhaps, like many other Fathers, by the name epiclesis he understood the entire canon or anaphora. In Catechesis XIX, 3: ibid., 1072, he attributes transubstantiation to the invocation or epiclesis of the Trinity. Thus, according to him, the epiclesis of the Holy Spirit is identical with that of the Trinity, whereas in reality the latter is nothing other than the entire anaphora. Let us add that a century after C., Hesychius of Jerusalem explicitly attributed the Consecration to the words of the Lord: “This is my body. This is my blood” (v. M. Jugie, De forma Eucharistiae. De epiclesibus eucharisticis, Rome 1944, pp. 111-104, 101-102).

No less remarkable is the teaching of our doctor on the sacrament of Confirmation, which he clearly distinguishes from Baptism properly so called and of which he affirmed the indelibility of the character (Procatechesis, 17: ibid., 365).

Life and works: dom A. A. Toutte, Dissertationes Cyrilianae de vita, de scriptis, de dottrina, reproduced in PG 33, 31-294; Tillemont, VIII, Paris 1702, pp. 428 ff., 779 ff.; dom P. Maran, Dissertatione sur les ariens, dans laquelle on défend la nouvelle édition de St Cyrille de Jérusalem contre les auteurs des Mémoires de Trévoux, there 1722; J. Th. Plitt, De Cyrilli Hierosol, orationibus quae exstant catecheticis, Heidelberg 1855; G. Delacroix, St Cyrille de Jérusalem, sa vie et ses oeuvres, Paris 1865; J. Marquardt, Sancti Cyrilli Hierosolymitani de contentionibus et placitis arianorum sententis, Braunsberg 1881; id., S. Cyrillus Hierosol. Baptismi, Chrismatis, Eucharistiae mysteriorum interpreti, Leipzig 1882; F. Risi, Di una nuova edizione delle opere di S. C. Gerasolimitano, ossia di un errore gravissimo falsamente attribuito a S. C. e ad altri Padri e Dottori nella edizione mauriana, Rome 1884; J. Mader, Der heilige Cyrillus, Bischof von Jerusalem, in seinen Leben und seinen Schriften nach den Quellen dargestellt, Einsiedeln 1891; T. P. Themelis, Κύκολος ὁ Ἱεροσύνατος ὁ Καναχυρὸς, Jerusalem 1920; P. Hauser, Des heiligen Cyrillus, Bischof von Jerusalem, Katechesen, Munich and Kempten 1922; S. Salaville, Une question de critique littéraire. Les catéchises mystagogiques de St Cyrille de Jérusalem, in Echos d'Orient, 17 (1922), pp. 531-37; W. J. Swann, A propos des catéchées mystagogiques attribuées à St Cyrille de Jérusalem, in Muséon, 40 (1942), pp. 1-43.

Doctrine: X. Le Bachelet, Cyrille de Jérusalem, in DThC, III, 11, cols. 2537–77, systematic exposition of C.’s theological doctrine; J. W. Feuerlein, Dissertatione qua in sententiam Cyrilli Hierosolymitani de praesentia corporis et sanguinis Christi in sacris coena inquiritur, Gottinga 1785; J. J. van Vollenhoven, Specimen theologicum de Cyrilli Hierosolymitani catechesibus, Amsterdam 1837; Th. Schermann, Die Gottheit des heiligen Geistes in C., in Strassburger theologische Studien, 4–5 (1901), pp. 17–47; V. Schmitt, Die Verheissung der Eucharistie (Io. 6) bei den Aufsechener Cyrillus von Jerusalem und Johannes Chrysostomus, Würzburg 1903; B. Niederberger, Die Logoslehre des heil. Cyrillus von Jerusalem, Paderborn 1923; J. Lebon, La position de St Cyrille de Jérusalem dans les luttes provoquées par l'arianisme, in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, 20 (1924), pp. 181–210, 357–86, fundamental study of the Trinitarian orthodoxy of St. C. according to the first 18 catecheses; Jos. Frugher, Het woord mysterium... in de catechesen van Cyrillus V. Jeruzalem, dissertation, Nimega 1947. Martino Jugie