Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint

CYRIL of JERUSALEM, Saint. - Father and doctor of the Church, celebrated by the Church on March 18.

I. LIFE

Born in Jerusalem or its surroundings around 313-15, C. soon became part of the clergy of the Holy City. He must have received the priesthood in 343 from the bishop St. Maximus, whom he succeeded in 348. His election took place in obscure circumstances. According to St. Jerome, Chronicon, ad annum 349, Acacius of Caesarea, metropolitan of Palestine, and other Arianizing bishops would have offered him the episcopate on condition that he repudiate the ordination he had received from Maximus. C. would have accepted and sought to obtain the deposition of Heraclius, the successor designated by Maximus himself before his death. Against this overly malicious version stands a declaration of the Council of Constantinople of 382 to Pope Damasus, that C.'s election to the episcopate was made canonically by all the bishops of the province. It is certain in any case that C., at the beginning of his episcopate and then still for a long time, 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 according to him, as for many other Easterners, must have smacked of Sabellianism; but, as appears from many passages of the aforementioned Catecheses, he was substantially orthodox.

His union with Acacius lasted a short time. The reason for the discord was a question of jurisdiction, undoubtedly relating to the practical interpretation of the primacy of honor that the Council of Nicaea in can. VII had recognized for the see of Jerusalem (Theodoret, Hist. eccl., II, 26).

But between the two prelates there was also a doctrinal opposition; Acacius was at bottom an Arian and C. held orthodox ideas. The metropolitan succeeded in having his suffragan deposed in a synod in 357-58. In vain C. appealed to the Emperor; he had to flee to Antioch, then to Tarsus, where the bishop Silvanus gave him an excellent welcome. He took part in the Council of Seleucia in 359, siding with Basil of Ancyra, George of Laodicea and Eustathius of Sebaste, leaders of the new group of Antiochenes who have been called Homoiousians, Semi-Arians, or also Macedonians or Pneumatomachi (v. ARIANESIMO). This party, after Seleucia, succeeded for a moment in gaining the favor of the emperor Constantius, and C. was able to return to his see; but the following year, at the conciliabulum of Constantinople, where Homoeanism triumphed, Acacius had him deposed once again. After the death of Constantius, under Julian and Jovian he returned to Jerusalem; but as early as the year 367-68 Valens exiled him to an unknown place. This exile lasted until the death of the Arian Emperor (378); during this time C. must have adhered definitively and without restrictions to Nicene orthodoxy, accepting the very term ὁμοσύσεις, and abandoning forever the Homoiousians, the majority 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, C. was one of the principal representatives of Catholic orthodoxy, but we do not know the part he played there. The following year another Synod of Constantinople, in which he perhaps took part, again testified to Pope Damasus his faith and the regularity of his election.

On his return to Jerusalem he strove to repair the disorders and ruins accumulated by those intruders who had occupied his seat 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 memory, on account of his changes in ecclesiastical communion, having been successively Eusebian, Homoiousian and Nicene. However, at least as far as appears from his Catecheses, it can be said that he never changed his faith and was always orthodox, despite the tacit and long opposition to the word "consubstantial." For this fundamental orthodoxy Leo XIII, in 1882, was able 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 of his work remains, namely: a Homily on the paralytic of the pool of Bethesda, which he delivered while still young, when he was only a priest: PG 33, 1131-56; a Letter to the Emperor Constantius, in which he recounts the appearance of a luminous cross in the sky of 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 beyond suspicion. The adjective ὁμοσύσεις, applied to the Trinity in the final doxology, is certainly apocryphal. Four brief fragments of homilies on 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. 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 that goes under the name of "procatechesis"; 18 Catecheses addressed to the catechumens preparing for Baptism; 5 Catecheses called Mystagogical, addressed to the neophytes: PG 33, 331-1128. They are of varying length. While the Catecheses to the catechumens, except the first, are quite long, the Mystagogical ones are instead very short. According to certain internal indications, the former were delivered during Lent of 348, right at the beginning of his episcopate, in the great basilica of the Anastasis erected by Constantine. The Mystagogical ones were delivered during Easter week in the private chapel of the Holy Sepulchre. It should be noted that according to a note in cod. Monacensis graecus 394, of the 10th century, the Catecheses to the catechumens would have been delivered in 352.

Since the 16th 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 to the catechumens are truly the work of C., while serious doubts persist about the authenticity of the five Mystagogical ones, which should be attributed to John of Jerusalem, the successor of C. (386-417).

In fact, in the very ancient Syro-Palestinian version and in the Armenian version of the 5th century there is no trace of Mystagogical Catecheses: this is a sign that they were missing from the model that was translated; moreover, it is noted that in the Armenian lectionary the two series of catecheses are separate. On the other hand, many ancient Greek manuscripts, among them the already mentioned cod. Monac. 394, attribute the complete collection of the Catecheses to C. and to John: τοῦ αὐτοῦ Κυρίλλου καὶ Ἰωάννου. They will have placed what belongs to John after the work of C., and little by little the name of John 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], p. 1-43), where all the indications on the controversy are found. The theological importance of the Mystagogical Catecheses is not diminished by the fact that they have been attributed to John rather than to C.: these are in fact two contemporaries who succeeded each other on the same episcopal see.

The collection of the Catecheses forms a truly almost complete oratorical course of religious instruction, according to the sources of Revelation, that is, of Holy Scripture and of Tradition; above all Holy Scripture, which is the principal source used. Little material for speculation, examples chosen on purpose to make the truths of the faith accessible to the humblest intellects; refutations of the heresies of the time; clear and somewhat redundant style; moral exhortation follows doctrinal exposition; the tone is familiar and direct and always keeps in contact with the 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 first Catechesis, very brief, which summarizes the Procatechesis, the orator treats of Penance in the II, of Baptism in the III, and, with the IV, begins a methodical exposition of the baptismal creed of the Church of Jerusalem; at the beginning 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 4 following ones have as their subject God, considered in his unity (VI), God the Father (VII), Providence (VIII), creation (IX). Six others (X-XV) are consecrated to the Son of God, considered in his divinity and in the mysteries following his Incarnation; two to the Holy Spirit (XVI-XVII), one to the resurrection of bodies, to the Church and to eternal life (XVIII).

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

The Catecheses interest us not only for their doctrine but also for details on the sacramental rites, on the text of the baptismal creed and on that of the Jerusalem Mass of the 4th century, and on the topography of Jerusalem.

The numerous translations into the vernacular, made in recent times, testify that their interest is far from having ceased.

III. DOCTRINE

The importance of the Cyrillian Catecheses from the doctrinal standpoint lies in the fact that they are the faithful echo of the common teaching of the Church in a particularly troubled era. The Arian controversy is at its height. The fundamental dogma of the Trinity is tacitly attacked by the opponents of the Council of Nicaea. To judge from his relations, it seems that C. was one of them, but on rereading his Catecheses every suspicion falls away. 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, whom the Pneumatomachi attacked a short time later. If he abstains from the use of the term ὁμοούσιος, consubstantial, this means that perhaps in him there is a scruple of orthodoxy, because in the East this word, condemned in Paul of Samosata (v.), seemed to incline toward the Sabellian heresy. Clearly affirming the distinction of the three divine persons, he is careful not to fall into tritheism and teaches the numerical unity of the divine nature. Cf. particularly 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 condemnation of the Nestorian heresy by insisting on the personal unity of Christ, giving to the Virgin Mary the title of theotocos, παρθένος ἡ θεοτόκος, Catechesis X, 19: ibid., 685, and correctly practicing the communication of idioms, Catechesis X, 3: ibid., 622; XII, 1, 3: ibid., 622, 729.

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

C. is in fact the doctor par excellence of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, of Transubstantiation and of the sacrifice of the Mass. The Catholic dogma could not be more clearly upheld than in these expressions of his: «What is given to you, receive with all assurance as the body and blood of Christ; for it is his body that is given to you under the figure of bread, ἐν τόπῳ ἄρτου, and it is his blood that is given to you under the figure of wine, ἐν τόπῳ οἴνου, so that having received the body and blood of Christ you may be his co-corporeal and co-blooded: οὐσάμιοι καὶ οὐναίμοι αὐτοῦ. So that his body and his blood diffusing through our members, we become bearers of Christ, χριστοφόροι... What seems bread, ὁ φαινόμενος ἄρτος, is not bread, contrary to the taste, but the body of Christ, and what seems wine, ὁ φαινόμενος οἴνος, is not wine, contrary to the taste, but the blood of Christ... At other times, at Cana of Galilee, he changed water into wine, a substance that has some analogy with blood; and you would not believe the change that he makes of wine into his blood?» Catechesis XXII, 2, 3, 9: ibid., 1097, 1100, 1104.

However, on one point of Eucharistic doctrine he seems to fall into a defect. In fact he seems to consider the invocation, called epiclesis of the Holy Spirit, as the true form of the Sacrament and omits, in the explanation of the prayers of the Mass, the account of the institution (Catechesis XXXIII, 7: ibid., 1116). But without doubt this is nothing but an appearance; in fact he simply affirms that after the epiclesis, the sacrifice is perfectly accomplished, consummated. Perhaps, like many other Fathers, under the name of epiclesis he will have understood the whole canon or anaphora. In Catechesis XIX, 3: ibid., 1072, he attributes transubstantiation to the invocation or epiclesis of the Trinity. Therefore, according to him, the epiclesis of the Holy Spirit is identical to that of the Trinity, whereas, in reality, the latter is nothing but the entire anaphora. Let us add that a century after C., Hesychius of Jerusalem expressly 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 distinguishes well 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, ibid. 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, coll. 2537-77, a 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, Göttingen 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, a fundamental study on the Trinitarian orthodoxy of St. C. according to the first 18 catecheses; Jos. Frugher, Het woord mysterium... in de catechesen van Cyrillus v. Jeruzalem, dissert., Nijmegen 1947. Martin Jugie