|
Cyril of Jerusalem was a distinguished theologian of the early Church (315 - 386). He is venerated as a saint by both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. In 1883 the Holy See declared him a Doctor of the Church.
Life and Character.
Little is known
of his life before he became bishop; the assignment
of the year 315 for his birth rests on mere
conjecture. He seems to have been ordained deacon by
Bishop Macarius of Jerusalem about 335, and priest
some ten years later by Maximus. Naturally
inclined to peace and conciliation, he
took at first a rather moderate
position, distinctly averse from Arianism,
but (like not a few of his undoubtedly
orthodox contemporaries) by no means eager
to accept the uncompromising term homooussios.
Separating from his metropolitan, Acacius of
Caesarea (q.v.), a partizan of Arius, Cyril took the
side of the Eusebians, the "right wing" of the
post-Nicene conciliation party, and thus got into
difficulties with his superior, which were increased
by Acacius's jealousy of the importance assigned
to Cyril's see by the Council of Nicaea. A council
held under Acacius's influence in 358 deposed Cyril
and forced him to retire to Tarsus. At that time he was officially charged with selling church property to help the poor, although the actual motivation appears to be that Cyril was teaching Nicene and not Arian doctrine in his catechism. On the other
hand, the conciliatory Council of Seleucia in the
following year, at which Cyril was present, deposed
Acacias. In 360 the process was reversed through
the metropolitan's court influence, and Cyril
suffered another year's exile from Jerusalem, until
Julian the Apostate's accession allowed him to return. The
Arian emperor Valens banished him once more in
367, after which he remained undisturbed until his
death, his jurisdiction being expressly confirmed
by the First Council of Constantinople (381), at which he
was present. At that council, he voted for acceptance of the term homooussios, having been finally convinced that there was no better alternative.
Theological Position.
Though his theology was at first somewhat
indefinite in phraseology, he undoubtedly gave a
thorough adhesion to the Nicene orthodoxy. Even
if he does avoid the debatable term homoousios,
he expresses its sense in many passages, which
exclude equally Patripassianism, Sabellianism, and
the Arian formula "There was a time when the Son
was not." In other points he takes the ordinary
ground of the Eastern Fathers, as in the emphasis
he lays on the freedom of the will, the autexousion,
and his imperfect realization of the
factor so much more strongly brought
out in the West--sin. To him sin is
the consequence of freedom, not a
natural condition. The body is not the cause, but
the instrument of sin. The remedy for it is
repentance, on which he insists. Like many of the
Eastern Fathers, he has an essentially moralistic
conception of Christianity. His doctrine of the
Resurrection is not quite so realistic as that of other
Fathers; but his conception of the Church is
decidedly empirical-- the existing catholic Church
form is the true one, intended by Christ, the
completion of the Church of the Old Testament. His
doctrine on the Eucharist is noteworthy. If he
sometimes seems to approach the symbolical view,
at other times he comes very close to a strong
realistic doctrine. The bread and wine are not
mere elements, but the body and blood of Christ.
Catechetical Lectures
His famous twenty-three catechetical lectures
(Gk. Katecheseis), which he delivered while still a
presbyter in 347 or 348, contain instructions on
the principal topics of Christian faith and practise,
in rather a popular than a scientific manner, full
of a warm pastoral love and care for the
catechumens to whom they were delivered. Each lecture
is based upon a text of Scripture, and there is an
abundance of Scriptural quotation throughout.
After a general introduction, eighteen
lectures follow for the competentes, and
the remaining five are addressed to
the newly baptized, in preparation
for the reception of the communion.
Parallel with the exposition of the creed as it was
then received in the church of Jerusalem are
vigorous polemics against pagan, Jewish, and heretical
errors. They are of great importance for the light
which they throw on the method of instruction
usual in that age, as well as upon the liturgical
practises of the period, of which they give the
fullest account extant.
Initial text from Schaff-Herzog Encyc of Religion
|
