Cyril of Jerusalem
Slander
St. Cyril’s biographers have stated things which we believe
are incorrect; very possibly slanderous.
The phrase, “by various frauds”, may be found.
[i] We are in no position to retrieve the
evidence; nor, why should we desire to do so; Cyril is a saint of the Church;
he stands before the Judge of all flesh; he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Our observation is much humbler.
The charge of fraud is simply out of
character with the writings found here: the writings give every evidence of one
who desires to find peace for the Church, for Jerusalem, and for his
flock.
Let the Court of Last Resort end
the matter.
On the charge of selling church furniture, we rejoice; may
his tribe increase; St. Cyril had a heart of gold for the poor. May God richly bless him: for we think he got
his priorities right, where so many miss the point. May his tribe increase.
The charge that, “He belonged to the Semi-Arian, or Homoean party,”
is simply ludicrous.
We need to be wary
here of pigeonholing people, without due cause.
St. Cyril was a man of peace, he may have voted with the Homoean party
in favor of a particular wording, because he perceived that wording to be a
possible road to peace.
However, to
associate St. Cyril with Semi-Arianism is clearly unfounded: for in his
Catechetical
Lectures, he clearly and repeatedly declares Christ’s Godhood (the true
meaning of Godhead), and calls Christ God; as he also refers to the
Spirit.
Since these
Catechetical
Lectures are given while he is rather young, possibly still a priest;
no one has any cause to even suspect or think of St. Cyril as being Semi-Arian,
or anything other than thoroughly orthodox: for his
Catechetical Lectures
exude orthodoxy with every breath.
[ii]
The charge that, “The one God for him is always the Father,”
is equally absurd: for St. Cyril is, in most places, quoting, or at least
paraphrasing Scripture. Shall we charge
St. Paul, St. Peter, or any of the other Apostles of being Semi-Arian; because,
they fail to subscribe to the exact technical theological wording of Church
Councils which will only come decades, and decades later. The fact is that St. Cyril has an obvious
desire to neither add to, nor depart from the words of Scripture: which is the
major part of his charm… would to God, we gave greater attention to such points
in our churches today.
Or, was it not the purpose of these Church Councils to
choose that exact technical theological wording, without finding fault with
every brother who participated in the debate, or charge them with ambiguity for
reasoning together as brothers. It is
not as though the meaning of the word, οὐσία, was of such fixed technical
meaning around the years 325 or 381; it was not; nor is it all that clear even today:
for we still struggle between essence and substance, between energies and
attributes. This also ignores the fact
that other words like, ὑπόστασις, were synonyms. We did finally settle on the wording that
there are three ὑπόστασεις in one οὐσία; yet, we seeking to be wise, have
become fools, forgetting that these words put technical theological names to
inexpressible and unfathomable mysteries.
Shall we condemn, with attendant impatience, that with which all men
struggled in 325 or 381; or brand as Semi-Arian, everyone who ever supported
the words ὁμοιούσιος (similar essence)?
St. Cyril, in his Catechetical
Lectures is decidedly not Semi-Arian.
After the technical wording had been sorted out, St. Cyril signed with
all the faithful: he deserves to be free of all (evidently false) accusation. One simply cannot read the Catechetical
Lectures in their entirety and believe that St. Cyril had anything to
do with Semi-Arianism or any other compromise of the truth.
https://www.swrktec.org/catechism
[i]
Possibly, Jerome.
Yet, Jerome, for all
his talents, tended to be a sour-puss who squabbled with a lot of others…
tending to find fault where no fault exists… or, at least where others might
graciously extend the benefit of the doubt.
On the other hand, these were tumultuous times; the Church, as St. Cyril
faithfully shows, was under attack from several sides all at once.
[ii]
Doubtless, this accusation stems from confusion over strife with Acacius of
Caesarea, leader of the Arian faction.
Acacius, was ever the bitter protagonist in this affair; St. Cyril was
ever the peacemaker: nevertheless, we are not surprised that some the filth of
the argument rubbed off on the innocent party.
One cannot wrestle with the forces of Satan, and come away
unscathed.
Even so, history has settled
the question: for Cyril is called saint, while Acacius is not… leaving the Church
in his bitter disgrace.
Here are all the
“facts” we were able to gather in the matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacius_of_Caesarea
We believe that St. Cyril is innocent of all charges. We find him not guilty as charged.
