the life and work of this Father present some points of great interest,
although he was neither a great writer nor a great leader of his time.
we know no theological work of any importance that emanated form him,
except hie 'catechetical lectures',
a series of short addresses delivered in 347, before he became bishop,
to candidates for baptism.
there are 24 in all; of which 19 are on the faith and the last 5, known as the mystalogical,
are explanations of the Mysteries,
(note: are these ever called 'mysteries' in the new testament? are they not simple 'teaching
pictures' of the inexplicable nature of God's love in saving a man from his sin?
just as there would be no grace come to a pig dunked in water or fed bread and wine,
so none comes mysteriously, or in any other manner to wretched sinners who have experienced
pardon for sin and
the reality of the life of God which they wonderingly realize is now in them.
they simply get baptized and take the bread and wine (as often as they do) in obedience to God
to remember Him and rejoice in Him alone.)
or Sacrament, of baptism and the eucharist,
and were delivered to the same candidates After their baptism.
these lectures, however, are extremely interesting,
because they give us in a concise form the whole catholic faith of that time,
and have been pronounced by the best authorities to be exactly orthodox.
...cyril's early environment was distinctly semi arian.
he was but a child at the date of the nicene council
and soon after that date palestine and syria and asia minor, in fact the east generally,
drifted into at least semi arian tendencies.
cyril himself received consecration from acacius...
and the validity of his consecration was accordingly at one time questioned.
also he always in his teaching avoided the word Homo-ousion,
though towards the close of his life he formally accepted it.
..his parentage and the exact date of his birth are uncertain,
but it is most probable that he was born at or near jerusalem of christian parents about 313.
at any rate his early life must have been spent in that neighbourhood,
for he recalls memories of what jerusalem had been like
before the building of the great church by constantine
and the alleged finding of the Cross by st. helena.
besides this it was customary at jerusalem to elect a bishop whose life was well known to the people
in the year 347 he was chosen for a task usually only undertaken by the bishop,
the preparation of candidates for baptism:
tow or three years afterwards he was elected bishop on the death of maximus.
...one of the earliest events of his episcopal life
was the appearance of some strange phenomenon in the atmosphere,
which, whether really supernatural or not, took the form of a cross in the sky.
C embraced the opportunity to write to constantius, describing the
and at the same time announcing his consecration.
...about 357 a dispute arose between cyril and acacius, who was bishop of caesarea,
over a matter of precedence.
when the metropolis of palestine
had been assigned to caesarea instead of jerusalem by the roman government,
in course of time caesarea became the ecclesiastical metropolis as well'
however, a canon of nicaea had given a precedence of honour to jerusalem,
but without prejudice to the rights of the bishop of caesarea.
when, therefore, C had repeatedly refused to appear before acacius at caesares,
the latter accused him to constantius of being 'orthodox' (?) and contumacious
and also of having sold a rich vestment which had been presented to his church by constantine.
this he had sold for the good of the poor.
he was consequently deposed and exiled and retired to tarsus,
where he was employed by the semi arian bishop silvanus.
with semi arians he always, like hilary, lived on the most friendly terms.
in 361 the council of seleucia reinstated him,
but in the following year again a council at constantinople confirmed his deposition.
when all the bishops returned to their sees under julian the apostate, cyril was among the number.
then followed the strange story of the attempt to rebuild the Temple,
in order to disprove once for all the christian interpretation of jewish prophecy.
cyril calmly assured his flock that it would never be permitted.
the story goes that, when they were at work on the foundations,
great balls of fire came up out of the ground, injuring and scaring the workmen.
this occurrence is not only vouched for by several christian writers,
but is confirmed by ammianus marcellinus, a heathen, who was known as the philosophic soldier.
but whatever happened, one thing is certain:
the enterprise had to be abandoned as C had foretold.
C was again deposed in 367 by valens;
but remained in peaceful possession of his see till his own death in 386.
...of the catechetical lectures 13 are on the clauses of the creed
and it is thus that we are able to put together the ancient creed of the mother church.
'we believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth
and all things visible and invisible.
and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, the begotten of the Father,
very God before all the ages, by whom all things were made;
who was incarnate, made man, crucified and buried, rose again from the grave on the third day,
ascended into heaven and is seated on the right hand of the Father
and will come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead,
whose kingdom shall have no end.
and in the Holy Ghost, the paraclete, who spake by the prophets;
and in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
and in one holy catholic church
and in the resurrection of the flesh and in life eternal.
this creed should be compared carefully with the caesarean creed
suggested by eusebius for adoption by the nicene council
and also with the original creed of nicaea.
it differs from the latter primarily in containing no clause in regard to Essence or ousia;
but it is also worth noticing that, instead of ending with a simple belief in the Holy Ghost,
it adds attributes to the Holy Ghost
and further clauses about the church, baptism, and the future life.
the third paragraph of the creed was now, in fact, expanding.
it is probable that by this time the eastern churches generally had imported into the creed
the article of belief not only in the church, but in one church and that the catholic,
in contrast to what cyril called 'other miserable gatherings'.
C himself emphasizes the authority of the one church.
'learn, he says, from the church what are the books of the old and new testaments.
'being a child of the church, trench not on (to encroach or infringe upon) her statutes.'
again he fully explains what the church is and enjoins them
'not to ask where the church is, but where the catholic church is',
so entirely has the word catholic come to mean the orthodox body.
but there is no allusion whatever to rome as the source of authority.
'in this holy catholic church receiving instruction and living virtuously we shall inherit
the kingdom of heaven and eternal life'...
...on the doctrine of free will he writes,
'we come into such holy worship not of necessity but choice...
the adoption is in our power, for 'to as many as received Him gave He power.'
'sin is an evil of man's own choosing, and offspring of the will.'
'know also that thou hast a soul self governed, the noblest work of God,
made after the image of its creator, immortal because of God that gives it immortality;
a living being, rational and imperishable, because of Him that bestowed these gifts;
having free power to do what it willeth'.
'learn also that the soul, before it came into this world had committed no sin,
but having come in sinless, we sin of our own free will'.
in the last of these quotations it may seem the C is denying original sin,
but it is more probable that, while emphasizing the doctrine of free will,
he is at the same time refuting origen's idea that the fall took place in a prior existence
and that this life was a discipline of the soul for sins committed in a previous existence.
..on scripture and the canon..
no one has previously insisted on the paramount importance of scripture so strongly as cyril does.
we from him hear nothing of the oral tradition.
'concedrning the holy and divine mysteries of the faith,
not even a casual statement must be delivered without the holy scriptures, (note: wow, amen!!)
nor must we be drawn aside by plausibility and subtleties of speech.
even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence,
unless you find the proof of the things which i announce in the divine scriptures.
(note: AAA+ !!!)
for this salvation, which we believe, depends not on ingenious reasoning but on the demonstration of the holy scriptures'.
the canon of both testaments is the same as that given by athanasius,
except for a slight difference in the order of the books of the old,
the number of which he gives as 22.
this is, however, because certain books are grouped together,
such as the two books of kings, which count as one.
the minor prophets all together also count as one.
also ezra and nehemiah are omitted;
while two books of esdras are included and to jeremiah and the lamentations (as one book)
is added the book of baruch.
the new testament is the same as our own, except that it lacks the revelation.
..regarding relics..
it seems probable that in the church of the third century,
considerable importance was attached to relics and efficacy imputed to them;
but however that may have been, this idea was certainly strongly developed in the fourth.
the worship of relics and faith in their healing powers was taught by
cyril, basil, chrysostom, ambrose and augustine.
here is an argument of C for the truth of the story of II kings 13
of the dead man who was restored to life by touching the bones of elisha.
'though the soul is not present, a virtue resides in the bodies of the saints,
because of the righteous soul which has for so many years dwelt in it or used it as its minister.
(note: bible?)
and let us not foolishly disbelieve this, as though it had not happened;
for if handkerchiefs and aprons, which are from without,
touching the bodies of he diseased, raise up the sick,
how much more should the very body of the prophet (elisha) raise the dead?'
here, then, is the whole case for the possibility, as it is put by a modern scientist,
of virtue, emanating from mind or spirit, attaching itself to matter!
a special instance of relic worship also in this century was connected with the finding,
or supposed finding, of the true cross, fragments of which were distributed,
as cyril says, throughout the whole world
'by means of those who in faith take portions of it'.
faith in what?
surely in some power residing in the wood.
eusebius, while recording the finding of the sepulchre, ignores the cross altogether;
by chrysostom gives a full account of the discovery;
while ambrose records that st. helena made a horse's bit from one nail
and a diadem from the other.
apparently, therefore, something like a cross was found,
but eusebius probable though the evidence of its being the cross of Christ insufficient.
akin to the question of relics was that of the intercession of saints.
cyril does not contribute much to this question,
but a strong protest was made against the prevalence of the belief
by a gallican priest, vigilantius, toward the end of the century.
he disputed their powers of intercession, since they were not yet in heaven with Christ.
to this, however, jerome replied that they were wherever Christ was.
the practical result was the careful distinction drawn by the eastern church
between latria, the worship of God
and the becoming reverence (timA sketiEkA or dUlia) due to the saints.
(footnote: '(we ask)that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petitions'.)
(note: bible?)
but by far the greatest interest connected with the study of cyril lies in the last 5 or mystalogical lectures;
for here we have something quite fresh,
the unfolding of all the deep hidden meaning that underlay (note: bible?)
the symbolism and ritual of the sacraments.
harnack claims that from the fourth century interest was more and more transferred
from the regulation of the whole life by religion
to its external consecration through the mysteries.
gregory of nyssa indeed said that christianity had its strength in the mystic symbols.
the sacramental idea was later expressed by augustine...
one thing is seen, another understood.
with the early christians the sacramental idea was not limited to two or even seven definite mysteries.
whenever the passing event portrayed to them some deep meaning behind it,
the idea of something sacramental was conveyed to them.
in one place Christ's life and death are called a mystery of sacrament.
still the mysteries of the two great rites which our lord Himself had instituted
would naturally be those which most needed careful and detailed explanation.
(note: the main point of the Lord's supper is simple: what is the current status of fellowship
between the believers gathered together? I corinthians 11.28-32)
all this focus on the supposed esoteric meaning
is nothing but smoke and mirrors
to get the focus off of what is the real focus.
what group do you know
where the people (or any one person) PRACTICE luke 17.3 and matthew 18.15
ON A DAILY BASIS?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment