Cyril of Jerusalem, Slander

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.