I VITA

I. LIFE

N. in Jerusalem or its vicinity around 313–315, C. soon became part of the clergy of the Holy City. He must have received priestly ordination in 343 from the bishop St. Maximus, 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 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 secure the removal of Heraclius, the designated successor of Maximus himself. To this overly malevolent version is opposed a declaration of the Council of Constantinople of 382 to Pope Damasus, that the election of C. 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 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 consubstantial word, which, in his view as in that of many other Easterners, smacked of Sabellianism; yet, as appears from many passages in the aforementioned *Catecheses*, he was substantially orthodox.

His union with Acacius lasted but a short time. The cause of the discord was a question of jurisdiction, doubtless relating to the practical interpretation of the primacy of honor which the Council of Nicaea in canon VII had recognized for the see of Jerusalem (Theodoret, *Hist. eccl.*, II, 26).

Yet between the two prelates there was also a doctrinal opposition; Acacius was in the end an Arian, while C. held orthodox views. The metropolitan succeeded in having his suffragan deposed in a synod in 357–58. In vain did C. appeal to the Emperor; he had to flee to Antioch, then to Tarsus, where Bishop Silvanus gave him a warm 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 even Macedonians or Pneumatomachi (v. ARIANISM). This party, after Seleucia, for a moment succeeded in winning the favor of the Emperor Constantius, and C. was able to return to his see; but the following year, at the synod 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 367–68 Valens exiled him, it is not known whither. This exile lasted until the death of the Arian Emperor (378); during this time C. must have definitively and unreservedly adhered to Nicene orthodoxy, accepting the very term “homoousios,” and abandoning forever the Homoiousians, most of whom had compromised themselves by rejecting the divinity of the Holy Spirit. In 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, though we do not know what part he played. The following year another synod of Constantinople, in which he may have taken part, again bore witness to Pope Damasus of his faith and the regularity of his election.

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

He died in 386 or 387, leaving among later generations a much-debated memory because of his changes in ecclesiastical communion, having been successively Eusebian, Homoiousian, and Nicene. Yet, at least as far as appears from his *Catecheses*, it may be said that he never changed in faith and was always orthodox, despite his tacit and long opposition to the word “consubstantial.” For this fundamental orthodoxy Leo XIII, in 1882, was able to enroll 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 else remains of him, namely: a Homily on the Paralytic of the Probatic Pool, which he delivered while still young and not yet a bishop: PG 33, 1131–56; a Letter to the Emperor Constantius, in which he narrates 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 all witnessed on 7 May 351. The authenticity of this letter is not beyond suspicion. The adjective “homoousios,” applied to the Trinity in the final doxology, is certainly spurious. Four brief fragments of homilies on the nature of Christ, probably spurious. Three of these are published in the same place, 1181–82. The fourth is found in the *Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione Verbi* (ed. F. Diekamp, Münster in W. 1907, p. 20; cf. J. Lebon, *La position de Cyrille de Jérusalem dans les luttes provoquées par l'arianisme*, in *Rev. d'hist. eccl.*, 20 [1924], p. 185, note 2).

Other spurious passages are published in PG 33, 1187–1210. A citation 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: the preliminary discourse known as the “Procatechesis”; 18 Catecheses addressed to catechumens preparing for Baptism; 5 Catecheses called Mystagogical, addressed to the neophytes: PG 33, 311–1128. They vary in length. While the Catecheses to catechumens, except the first, are quite long, the Mystagogical ones are very short. According to some internal evidence, 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 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 Codex Monacensis graecus 394, of the 10th century, the Catecheses to catechumens would have been delivered in 352.

BIBL.:
St. Jerome, *Chronicon*, ad annum 349; Theodoret, *Hist. eccl.*, II, 26; J. Lebon, *La position de Cyrille de Jérusalem dans les luttes provoquées par l'arianisme*, in *Rev. d'hist. eccl.*, 20 (1924), 185 ss.; F. Diekamp, *Analecta patristica* (Orient. chr. anal. 117 [Rome 1938]); F. Diekamp, *Doctrina Patrum de incarnatione Verbi* (Münster in W. 1907).

Since the 16th century many Protestants, for polemical reasons, have contested the authenticity of the Catecheses. Today, however, critics are unanimous in recognizing that the *Procathechesis* and the 18 *Catecheses* to the catechumens are indeed the work of C., while serious doubts persist regarding the authenticity of the five *Mystagogical* Catecheses, which would more likely be attributed to John of Jerusalem, successor of C. (386-417).

Indeed, in the very ancient Syro-Palestinian version and in the Armenian version of the 5th century, there is no trace of the *Mystagogical Catecheses*: this is a sign that they were missing in the original text that was translated; moreover, it is noted that in the Armenian lectionary the two series of catecheses are separated. On the other hand, many ancient Greek monophysites, among whom the *cod. Monac. 394* already mentioned, attribute the complete collection of the *Catecheses* to C. and John: *τοῦ αὐτοῦ Κυρίλλου χαλ' Ἰωάννου*. They may have placed what belongs to John after the work of C., and gradually the name of John fell into oblivion.

Cf. the issue 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 provided. 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 indeed the work of two contemporaries who succeeded each other in the same episcopal see.

The collection of the *Catecheses* forms a nearly complete oratorical course of religious instruction, according to the sources of Revelation, i.e., Holy Scripture and Tradition; above all, Holy Scripture, which is the principal source used. There is little speculative development; examples are chosen deliberately to make the truths of the faith accessible to the humblest minds; refutations of the heresies of the time; a clear and somewhat redundant style; moral exhortation follows doctrinal exposition; the tone is familiar and direct, and contact with the audience is always maintained: in C. one finds all the qualities of a good catechist who is also an orator. After a prologue formed by the *Procathechesis* and the first *Catechesis*, very brief, which summarizes the *Procathechesis*, the orator deals with Penance in the II, with Baptism in the III, and with the IV, he begins a methodical exposition of the baptismal symbol of the Church of Jerusalem; at the beginning he provides a concise and substantial summary, before explaining it article by article in the V, entitled *On Faith and the Symbol*. The following four (VI-IX) are devoted to God, considered in His unity (VI), God the Father (VII), Providence (VIII), and Creation (IX). Six others (X-XV) are dedicated to the Son of God, considered in His divinity and in the mysteries consequent to His Incarnation; two to the Holy Spirit (XVI-XVII), one to the resurrection of the body, the Church, and eternal life (XVIII).

The five *Mystagogical Catecheses* deal with 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 in its doctrinal and liturgical aspects.

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

The numerous translations into modern languages, carried out in recent times, bear witness to the fact that their interest is far from having ceased.

III. DOCTRINE

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 of *Theotokos*, *παράθενος* 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 has above all aroused interest among historians of dogma, provoking stubborn controversies between Catholics and Protestants, is his sacramental doctrine as expressed in the *Mystagogical Catecheses*.

C. is indeed the preeminent doctor of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, of Transubstantiation, and of the sacrifice of the Mass. No clearer support of the Catholic dogma could be found than in these expressions: “What you are given, receive with full assurance as the body and blood of Christ; for it is His body that is given to you under the appearance of bread, it is *τοῦ σώματος*, and it is His blood that is given to you under the appearance of wine, it is *τοῦ αἵματος*, so that by receiving the body and blood of Christ you may become sharers in His body and blood: *σύσσωμοι καὶ σύναιμοι αὐτοῦ*. Thus, as His body and blood spread through our members, we become *Christ-bearers*, *Χριστοφόροι*... What seems to be bread, *τὸ δοκοῦν ἄρτος*, is not bread, contrary to appearance, but the body of Christ, and what seems to be wine, *τὸ δοκοῦν οἶνος*, is not wine, contrary to appearance, 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 would you not believe in the change by which He makes the wine His blood?” *Catechesis* XXII, 2, 3, 9: *ibid.*, 1097, 1100, 1104.

However, on one point of Eucharistic doctrine he seems to fall into an error. Indeed, he appears to consider 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* XXIII, 7: *ibid.*, 1116). But this is undoubtedly only an appearance; in fact, he simply affirms that after the epiclesis the sacrifice is perfectly accomplished, completed. Perhaps, like many other Fathers, under the name of 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 to 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 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 clearly distinguishes from Baptism proper and

It halted the indelibility of the character (Procatechesis, 17: ibid., 365).

Life and works: dom. A. A. Toutee, *Dissertationes Cyrilli-lianae de vita, de scriptis, de doctrina*, reproduced in PG 33, 31-204; Tillemont, VIII, Paris 1702, pp. 483-499, 779-789; dom. P. Maran, *Dissertation sur les ariens, dans laquelle on défend la nouvelle édition de St Cyrille de Jérusalem contre les auteurs des Mémoires de Trévoux*, 1712; J. Th. Plitt, *De Cyrilli Hierosol. orationibus quae exstant catechetici*, 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 sententia*, Braunsberg 1881; id., *S. Cyrilli Hierosol. Baptismi, Christianis, Eucharistiae mysteriorum interpretes*, Leipzig 1882; F. Risi, *Di una nuova edizione delle opere di s. C. Gerosolimitano, 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 seinem Leben und seinen Schriften nach den Quellen dargestellt*, Einsiedeln 1891; T. P. Themelis, *Κόσμολλος ὁ Ἱεροσολύμης & Καπνιχτῆς*, Jerusalem 1920; P. Hauser, *Des heiligen Cyrillus, Bischof von Jerusalem, Kateschen*, Munich and Kempten 1922; S. Salaville, *Une question de critique littéraire. Les catéchés mystagogiques de St Cyrille de Jérusalem*, in *Echos d'Orient*, 17 (1925), pp. 531-537; W. J. Swans, *A propos des catéchés mystagogiques attribués à St Cyrille de Jérusalem*, in *Muséon*, 40 (1942), pp. 1-43.

Doctrine: X. Le Bachellet, *Cyrille de Jérusalem*, in DTHC, III, 11, cols. 2337-37, systematic exposition of the theological doctrine of C.; J. W. Feuerlein, *Dissertatio qua in sententiam Cyrilli Hierosolymitani de praesentia corporis et sanguinis Christi in sacra coena inquiritur*, Göttingen 1765; 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 Antiochenern Cyrillus von Jerusalem und Joannes 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 on the Trinitarian orthodoxy of St. C. according to the first 18 catecheses; Jos. Frughier, *Het woord mysterion...*, in de catechesen van Cyrillus V. Jerusalem, dissert., Nijmegen 1947, Martino Jugie 1961.