'Cyril of Jerusalem' was a distinguished theologian of the early Church (ca.
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, a partisan 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 ''homooussios'', he expresses its sense in many passages, which exclude equally Patripassianism, Sabellianism, and the formula "there was a time when the Son was not" attributed to Arius. 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.
Teaching on the Eucharist:
Teaching on Baptism:
Teaching on Confirmation: