SAINT CYRIL OF JERUSALEM(Doctor of Catechesis c. 315–386): ALMOST anyone can tell you whose feast is March 17: St. Patrick. Most Catholics will know too that March 19 is the feast of St. Joseph. But how many can name the Saint whom the Church honors on the day in between? Although not too well known in the popular sense, the Saint whose feast day is March 18 belongs to the small and select group honored as Doctors of the Church. He is the only Doctor who was a bishop in the land of Christ’s earthly life. For about 38 years (348–386), he was the Bishop of Jerusalem; for that reason he is known to us as St. Cyril of Jerusalem. St. Cyril may have actually been born there, in the Holy City, but nobody can say for sure either the place of his birth or the exact year. Some say he was born in the north, in Caesarea. They connect him with this city of northern Palestine because there is some evidence that Cyril was a protege of Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea, who is called “The Father of Church History.” Later, too, Cyril consecrated Gelasius, his sister’s son, to be Bishop of Caesarea. There is more direct evidence, however, that St. Cyril spent his youth in Jerusalem. (He speaks as an eyewitness about the sacred spots of Christ’s death and burial as they looked before they were altered in conjunction with the buildings put up by Constantine.)
As a keen-eyed, reflective youth, he had very likely watched the workmen prepare the low ridge called Golgotha for the erection of a church. He would have watched this structure-later called “the Martyry” rise from the ground. It covered part of Golgotha, but not the spot later pointed out as the “little mount of the Cross,” which was a little to the west, where relics of the True Cross were venerated. The Martyry was dedicated in 335 A.D. As a boy, he had watched this first church on Calvary rise, tier on tier, built out of cut stone and polished to elegance; later, in 350 A.D., he stood within it as the Bishop of Jerusalem. When he was preparing catechumens for Baptism, delivering his famous Catechetical Lectures, he recalled the scene as it had looked in his youth: “For though it has now been most highly adorned with royal gifts, yet formerly, it was a garden, and the signs and the remnants of this remain.” (14, 5). He recalled the outer cave that used to be in front of the Holy Sepulchre: “Now it is not to be seen, since the outer cave was cut away at that time for the sake of the present adornment. In before the decoration of the sepulchre by the royal munificence, there was a cave in front of the rock.” (14, 9). St. Cyril was born about 315 A.D., and he died on March 18, 386. Since he never mentions being converted, it is presumed that his parents were Christian.
He also speaks with gratitude of parents who place no obstacle to godliness in our way, seeming to include himself among those whose godly parents had taught them to follow Christ. Three Exiles: St. Cyril’s long term as bishop was interrupted by three depositions: He was sent into exile in 358 and again in 360, for a short period each time; the third exile lasted 11 years, from 367– 378. Basically, the cause of all these troubles arose from opposition by Arians, especially Acacius, Bishop of Caesarea. The beginning of these troubles for Cyril, however, arose not over doctrine, but over the rights of the Apostolic See of Jerusalem. As is usual in such cases, even the good a person does is turned against him. Acacius accused St. Cyril of selling a precious robe for profane use.
Acacius told the Emperor Constantius that Cyril had sold a sacred garment given by his (Constantius’) father, Constantine, which was supposed to be used by the Bishop when baptizing. After a time the robe came into the possession of a dancer in the theater, who fell while dancing in the robe, injured himself and died. The way the story was told to make St. Cyril seems guilty of both ingratitude and irreverence. But even if it were true that St. Cyril had sold the garment, this proves only that in a time of need he would not hesitate to sell the Chthurch property to help the poor. There had been a famine in Jerusalem a few years before, and at the time, St. Cyril had done all he could to help feed those who were starving.
Two Notable Events: Two events that find mention in most histories of St. Cyril happened at Jerusalem during his time as its bishop. Regarding the first of these events, he wrote a letter to the Emperor Constantius on May 7, 351: … About the third hour, a gigantic cross made of light appeared in the sky above holy Golgotha, stretching out as far as the holy Mount of Olives. It was not seen by just one or two, but was most clearly displayed before the whole population of the city. Nor did it, as one might have supposed, pass away quickly like something imagined, but was visible to sight above the earth for some hours, while it sparkled with a light above the sun’s rays. Of a surety, it would have been overcome and hidden by them had it not exhibited to those who saw it a brilliance more powerful than the sun, so that the whole population of the city made a sudden concerted rush into the martyry, seized by a fear that mingled with joy at the heavenly vision.
The explanation now commonly given for this miraculous shining cross is that it was a “parhelion,” a natural phenomenon caused by atmospheric conditions. At the time it was held to be a favorable sign sent by God. The second event was the attempted restoration of the Temple in 363 A.D. by order of the Emperor, Julian, known in Church history as Julian the Apostate. The Christians in Jerusalem looked upon this as an impious defiance of the prophecy of Christ that the Temple would be destroyed and that Jerusalem would be under the sway of the Gentiles until the End of Time. (Luke 21:6, 24). The work began, but it was soon stopped because of difficulties encountered. A modern Jewish history says that gases trapped in the subterranean passages under the ruins of the old Temple ignited on contact with the air as the site was being cleared, burning the workers. Ancient Christian writers speak of balls of fire coming from the earth, and earthquakes. Just what St. Cyril had to do with the event is not known, though he has often been credited with prophesying that nothing would come of the attempted re-building.
St. Cyril Thoroughly Catholic: The chief writings of St. Cyril is his Catechetical Lectures, which number 24 in all, and his Collected Letters. Nineteen of the Catechetical Lectures was given during Lent, and the remaining five during the week after Easter. They show St. Cyril as a man strongly upholding the divinity of Christ and zealously defending the Church. He warns against going to the churches of those who teach false doctrines: Should you ever be staying in some strange town, do not just ask, “Where is the church?” seeing that all those sects of the ungodly would have their dens called “churches.” And do not be content to ask where the church is, but ask where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ. (18, 26). St. Cyril also explains why the Church is called “Catholic”: The Church, then, is called “Catholic” because it is spread through the whole world, from one end of the earth to the other, and because it never stops teaching in all its fullness every doctrine that men ought to be brought to know: and that regarding things visible and invisible, in Heaven and on earth. It is called “Catholic” also because it brings into religious obedience every sort of men, rulers and ruled, learned and simple, and because it is a universal treatment and cure for every kind of sin, whether perpetrated by soul or body, and possesses within itself every form of virtue that is named, whether it expresses itself in deeds or words or in spiritual graces of every description. (18, 23). St. Cyril was a man of directness and simplicity when teaching divine truths. He did not bother the neophytes, he was instructing with problems which theologians were disputing and which even many learned and good men could not quite solve.
Therefore, he never used the word—so much in dispute at the time—“con-substantial” (homoousios in Greek) when speaking of Christ’s divinity. The wording of the Creed, as he taught it at Jerusalem, did not include this adjective. Therefore, St. Cyril avoided needless controversy in teaching the rudiments of the Faith by leaving it out of his explanations. Neither did he mention Arius, the infamous Heresiarch, or Arianism, his pernicious doctrine. But St. Cyril so abundantly, clearly and undeniably proves to his prospective converts that Christ is God that it is foolish to try to label him anything but undeniably and completely Catholic. “And as I have said,” he told his listeners, He [God the Father] did not bring forth the Son from non-existence into being, nor take the non-existent into sonship; but the Father, being Eternal, eternally and ineffably begat one Only Son, who has no brother. Nor are there two first principles; but the Father is the head of the Son; the beginning is One. For the Father begat the Son, very God, called “Emmanuel”; and “Emmanuel,” being interpreted, is “God with us.” (11, 14). In explaining the text, “I am in the Father, and the Father in me” (John 14:11), St. Cyril says: One they are because of the dignity pertaining to the Godhead, since God begat God… One because the creative works of Christ are no other than the Father’s; for the creation of all things is one, the Father having made them through the Son… The Son then is very God, having the Father in Himself, not changed into the Father… Victim of Misunderstanding: In his own lifetime and through many centuries, even to our own day, St. Cyril has been criticized as leaning toward Arianism. One reason is the omission of the word “consubstantial” from his teaching.
The other is the harsh view given of him by St. Jerome, who charged him with self-interest and connivance in obtaining the bishopric of Jerusalem. The circumstances of how St. Cyril succeeded St. Maximus as Bishop of Jerusalem are still clouded a bit for lack of historical information, but there is no proof that at any time in his life St. Cyril was a shady character. The Church historian, Theodoret, writing in the following century, says of Cyril’s succession simply: “When he [Maximus] was called to enter upon a higher state of existence, his bishopric was conferred upon Cyril, a zealous defender of the apostolic doctrines.” (11, 26). At the First Council of Constantinople in 381, St. Cyril proved the correctness of his faith by officially approving, with the other bishops, the use of the term “consubstantial” (homoousios) in the Creed. This was not an act of repentance, as some ancient historians suggest, but a reaffirmation of what he had held and taught since the beginning of his long episcopate. At the Synod of Constantinople held the next year, the letter sent by the assembled bishops to Pope Damasus and the bishops assembled in Rome praised St. Cyril: “We must apprise you that the revered and pious Cyril is bishop of the church of Jerusalem, which is the mother of all the churches, that he was ordained according to law by the bishops of the province, and that he has in various places withstood the Arians.” (Theo., ch. 9). This is the last particular incident recorded in St. Cyril’s life. St. Jerome’s criticism of St. Cyril is a lesson in both the frailty and the fallibility of even holy and learned men. St. Cyril’s writings and the definite clearing of his name by the Synod of Constantinople offer strong proof of his correctness in doctrine and holiness of life.
Compared to St. Athanasius: A modern writer says, “The life of St. Cyril of Jerusalem may be described as a kind of abridged edition of that of St. Athanasius.” The Church has indicated some resemblance between the two by choosing the same homily for the feast days of both Doctors. It is one written by St. Athanasius. Athanasius and Cyril were both expelled from their bishoprics—not once but several times. In the case of St. Cyril it was three times, and with St. Athanasius it was five times. Both were expelled because of the machinations of Arian bishops. In the case of Cyril, his arch enemy was Acacius, the Arian Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. Both St. Athanasius and St. Cyril suffered much for their adherence to the True Faith. There is a difference, however, in the way they had to endure censure. St. Athanasius has always been historically acknowledged as a champion of the True Faith. His case was clear-cut, and he was persecuted precisely because he stood for the Faith. But St. Cyril, taking a course of moderation and conciliation, was lambasted by both sides. For the Arians, he appeared too inclined toward orthodoxy; and for some of the strictly orthodox, like St. Jerome, he appeared to lean toward heresy. Cardinal Newman, writing during his Anglican days, sums up very well the essential agreement of the criticized St. Cyril with St. Athanasius, the acknowledged champion of the Faith: There is something very remarkable, and even startling, to the reader of St.
Cyril, to find in a divine of his school such a perfect agreement, for instance, as regards the doctrine of the Trinity, with those Fathers who at his age were more famous as champions of it. Here is a writer, separated by whatsoever cause from what, speaking historically, may be called the Athanasian school, suspicious of its adherents, and suspected by them; yet he, when he comes to explain himself, expresses precisely the same doctrine as that of Athanasius or Gregory, while he merely abstains from the particular theological term in which the latter Fathers, agreeably to the Nicene Council, conveyed it. Can we have a clearer proof that the difference of opinion between them was not one of ecclesiastical and traditional doctrine, but of practical judgment… (Preface to the Library of the Fathers of the Church). Evidence that St. Cyril was a man who could make a practical judgment, approach a question or a subject in a freely chosen definite way and stick to it is provided by his only complete extant sermon. His approach to Scripture in the Sermon on the Paralytic is completely different from that displayed in the Catechetical Lectures. The Lectures use Scripture in a scientific way to prove the doctrine. The Sermon uses Scripture in a mystical and more subjective way to describe the deeper movements of the soul. A modern scholar says that this sermon may provide a surer clue to St. Cyril’s cast of mind and spiritual formation than the more famous Lectures. (Stephenson in Theological Studies, 1954, pp. 573–93) Thus, St. Cyril was not the type of man who could approach a subject only in one way, but he had a balance and versatility of mind that allowed him to adapt to different purposes. At such a man, who could be a master of a studied approach, there can be no accusing fingers pointed when he omits a term like “consubstantial” from his Catechetical Instructions, which were not intended to be theological treatises.
Attuned to His Listeners: St. Cyril was a man who had contact with his pupils, who was aware of his relationship to them and of their feelings. After speaking for some time, giving his Fourth Lecture, St. Cyril must have detected some motion in the class equivalent to the modern “looking at one’s watch.” He said: Yes, I know that I am giving a long lecture and that it is already getting late, but what ought we to think about as much as salvation? … If your teachers think it no small gain for you to learn these things, surely you who are learning them ought gladly to welcome a copious instruction! Having given this teacherly admonition, St. Cyril proceeded logically to keep his word. The lecture runs on for an additional time just as long. He considers the fast learners and explains why they should be patient and continue to listen: And let the more advanced of the present company bear with this arrangement (“having their senses more exercised to discern both good and evil” and yet), having to listen to instruction fitter for children, and to a course of spoonfeeding: just so, that at one and the same time, those that have need of the instruction will benefit, while those who know it all already may have the memory refreshed of things the knowledge of which they have gained previously. (4, 3). We may wonder whether, as he spoke of “those who know it all already,” the saintly Bishop did not give a surreptitious wink to one of the priests standing by, or perhaps pause for a silent prayer of forgiveness for exaggerating. As we read the Catechetical Lectures we can picture the scene of St. Cyril’s instruction. The people are gathered in the church called the Martyry, built just a few years before by Constantine over the hill of Calvary. Some there are already baptized; most of these will be sponsors. But the lectures are directed to those preparing for Baptism at Easter, the protozomenoi, or “catechumens.” They are seated in a semi-circle, the men on one side, the women on the other. The energetic young Bishop, zealous and anxious to pass on the fruits of his own overflowing study and meditation, earnestly addresses them.
Directness of Speech: The lectures we have, are, from notes taken by the hearers, and they show that Bishop Cyril spoke with clarity and amazing directness of speech. There is a constant interweaving of the speaker’s own words, with texts from Scripture. His mind ranged easily over the Scriptures, especially the New Testament, and he chose now an appropriate phrase, now a sentence, and again a whole passage to illustrate his point. For directness of speech, how can we improve on this proof of God’s power to resurrect the body: Tell me, for example, where do you suppose you were a hundred or more years ago? Out of how very small and inconsiderable a primal matter have you grown up in such large stature and such dignity of form? Well then, cannot He that brought a nothing into being raised up what for a while had been and perished again? (4, 30). Concerning chastity, St. Cyril says:… Let us not for a short pleasure defile so great, so noble a body: for short and momentary is the sin, but, the shame, for many years and forever.
Angels walking upon earth are they who practice chastity: the virgins have their portion with Mary the Virgin. Let all vain ornament be banished, and every hurtful glance, and all wanton gait, and every flowing robe, and perfume enticing to pleasure. But in all, for perfume let there be the prayer of sweet odor, and the practice of good works and the sanctification of our bodies: that the Virgin-born Lord may say even of us, both men who live in chastity and women who wear the crown, “I will dwell in them and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” (12, 34). St. Cyril neatly pricks the bubble of self-deception: Will any then among those present boast that he entertains friendship unfeigned towards his neighbor? Do not the lips often kiss, and the countenance smile, and the eyes brighten indeed, while the heart is planning guile, and the man is plotting mischief with words of peace? Although not having the advantage of coming to us in the original Greek, St. Cyril’s words still hit us with much more force and directness than those of many good writers of the present day.
St. Cyril on the Eucharist: The doctrine of the Real Presence is clearly affirmed by St. Cyril: “Since He Himself has declared and said of the bread: ‘This is My Body,’ who shall dare to doubt any more? And when He asserts and says: ‘This is My Blood,’ who shall ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?” He also writes, Do not think it mere bread and wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the Lord’s declaration. [Moreover,] Having learned this and being assured of it, that what appears to be bread is not bread, though [so] perceived by the taste, but the Body of Christ, and what appears to be wine is not wine, though the taste says so, but the Blood of Christ… strengthen thy heart, partaking of it as spiritual [food], and rejoice the face of thy soul. There are 12 selections from St. Cyril’s writing in the Readings of the revised 1971 Liturgy of the Hours.
The Reading for Saturday within the Octave of Easter is in the Eucharist. When reading it a person may wonder whether St. Thomas Aquinas, who wrote the Office and Mass Proper for the Feast of Corpus Christi, did not take his inspiration from St. Cyril. In the Tantum Ergo, the most familiar part of St. Thomas’ famous hymn, the Pange Lingua, we sing of the defect of the senses for which faith must supply. St. Cyril had told the newly baptized, 900 years earlier, Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to thee, yet let faith establish thee. Judge not the matter of the taste, but from faith is fully assured without misgiving that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to thee. (22, 6).
The Catechetical Lectures: According to the account of Etheria, the noble lady from the West who visited Jerusalem toward the end of the fourth century (Pilgrimage of Etheria), the lectures during Lent started at six in the morning and continued for three hours. They were given for forty days. Lent was observed at that time in Jerusalem for eight weeks. Saturday and Sunday were not included, so there were forty days made up by eight weeks of five days each. After Easter, when the candidates were baptized, the five lectures on the Sacraments were given. These are known as the Mystagogical Lectures, since they concerned the heart of the Mysteries of Christianity. They were given only to those already baptized, initiating them further into the meaning of this Sacrament, Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist, and the manner of receiving Holy Communion.
At the time of Etheria’s visit, about 10 years after St. Cyril’s death, the Mystagogical Catecheses were given again, this time in the Chapel of the Holy Sepulcher. When St. Cyril first gave them, most likely as a bishop in 350, this little domed chapel, known as the Anastasis (place of the Resurrection), had very likely not yet been built, and the Sepulcher was still uncovered and in the open. The Sepulcher was situated to the west of the place of the Crucifixion. There is no evidence before the fourth century of an observance of Lent, although there was an observance of a forty hours’ fast to commemorate the time Christ was in the tomb. But the practice of the season of Lent developed quickly in the fourth century as the number of applicants for Baptism grew and instructions had to be given less to individuals and more to the groups. Lent was the time for such instruction. As the number of the faithful grew, there was likewise a need for a period of discipline among those already baptized, to help them maintain the purity of the Faith. The historical beginning of Lent, then, appears to have stemmed primarily from the need for organizing instruction or catechizing of people in large groups.
Mary’s Place in Catechetics: St. Cyril points an early finger to Mary’s place in relation to the Church and basic doctrine. His catechetical instructions have a Mariological value, says noted Marian scholar Luigi Gambero, because “they allow us to see clearly how doctrine about the Virgin Mary fits into the structure of the teaching imparted to fourth-century catechumens as they prepared for baptism.” St. Cyril says, for instance: “Believe that this only begotten Son of God came down from heaven to earth for our sins, taking our own same humanity, subject to trials like our own. He was born of the holy Virgin and the Holy Spirit.” (Quoted in Luigi Gambero, S.M., Mary and the Fathers of the Church, Ignatius Press, 1999, p. 132). Cyril explains further: He was made man, not in appearance only or as a phantasm, but in a real way. He did not pass through the Virgin, as if through a channel; rather He truly took flesh from her and with her was truly nursed, really eating and really drinking just as we do.
For if the Incarnation were a mere appearance, such would be our redemption as well. In Christ there were two aspects: man, who was visible in Him, and God, who remained invisible… (Gambero, p. 133) The reality of Jesus as a man, as fully human, had to be explained to catechumens with precision because the true teaching was questioned in various ways by heretical opinions very prevalent at the time. St. Cyril makes a unique, indeed a startling statement, about Mary and how she has raised the place for all women. Gambero says the statement could be a starting point for a theology of woman. It deserves study by contemporary theologians. “At first, the feminine sex was obligated to give thanks to men, because Eve, born of Adam but not conceived by a mother, was in a certain sense born of man. Mary, instead, paid off the debt of gratitude: she did not give birth by means of a man, but by herself, virginally, through the working of the Holy Spirit and the power of God.” (Gambero, p. 139).
St. Cyril’s Importance: St. Cyril’s writings are comparatively short. But he is very important for several reasons. He supplies the first complete and simple exposition of the ancient creed as used in Jerusalem. This creed is very similar to the Nicene Creed recited at Mass. All that St. Athanasius and St. Hilary and other great Fathers of the Church said in more detail and in more technically theological language, St. Cyril has given us in summary and limpidly clear form. Secondly, St. Cyril, particularly in the last five (Mystagogical) Lectures, has given us the earliest detailed account of the rites of Baptism, Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist, and has afforded us a clear insight into the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Thirdly, in the twilight years of his life St. Cyril very likely had a strong and guiding influence on the development of our liturgy, especially that, of Holy Week. St. Gregory of Nyssa, visiting Jerusalem in 378, near the end of St. Cyril’s long 11-year exile, was extremely discouraged at the strife and immorality there. He wrote, “… There is no form of uncleanness that is not perpetrated, among them: rascality, adultery, theft, idolatry, poisoning, quarreling, murder are rife.” Thus when St. Cyril returned from his long exile in 379, there was a need for reorganization and direction to remedy the sad situation described by St. Gregory of Nyssa. St. Cyril, beloved by the people of Jerusalem, respected for his long labors for the Faith, and wise from long combat and study, was the man who could restore the Church in the Holy City and bring it to new glory.
Within a few short years, there were marvelous changes. When the lady Etheria visited Jerusalem about fifteen years after St. Cyril’s return, there ware peace and cooperation among the churches of the city. The practice of Holy Week was observed; Good Friday was commemorated as a day of special observance; there were processions to the sacred spots of Christ’s suffering and death. In their turn, these changes in Jerusalem had a lasting effect on the Liturgy in the development of a “Proper of the Seasons,” and in particular of the observance of Holy Week. Logic points to St. Cyril as the chief agent. St. Cyril was a man maligned and misunderstood in high places. But he was engaging in a manner and beloved by the people. While he was in exile in Tarsus, the people there did not want to allow him to return to Jerusalem—so well did he win their affections in the short time of his stay. He did not write much; at least, not much has been preserved. But his Catechetical Lectures are one of the great treasures of early Christianity. It is very reassuring to read their clear, forthright explanations. Those who teach catechism and who give convert instructions might pray to St. Cyril to help them achieve his fine combination of depth and simplicity in knowledge and explanation of the Faith. It was because he was a teacher of catechism par excellence that, on July 28, 1882, the Church proclaimed St. Cyril of Jerusalem a Doctor of the Church. His feast day, as stated above, is March 18.
