Mystagogic Catechesis 5
NOTES
1 CYRIL'S LIFE
Jerome, Chron. (PL 27.683–4).
W.Telfer, Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa, LCC 4, London, SCM Press, 1955, p. 19.
pro…holon hebdomekonta eton (Cat. 6.20). Telfer, Cyril, pp. 37–8 has other arguments. The copyist gives 352 as the date for the Catecheses; this is not impossible. See sect. 3 below, note 5.
ten akolouthian tes times. For the Nicene canon see N.P.Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, London and Washington, DC, Sheed and Ward and Georgetown University Press, p. 9; J.Stevenson and W.H.C.Frend, A New Eusebius, 2nd edn, London, SPCK, p. 340.
See P.W.L.Walker, Holy City. Holy Places? Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1990.
Socrates, HE 2.40; Touttée, PG 33.69–72.
Sozomen, HE 4.25; Theodoret, HE 2.22.
Theodoret, HE 2.23.
Socrates, HE 3.1; Sozomen, HE 5.4–5.
Theodoret (HE 3.10) gives a colourful account of this adventure.
Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. 73.37 (PG 42.472B, C).
Gregory of Nyssa (ed. G.Pasquali), Letter On Pilgrimages 2.10, 12 (Gregorii Nysseni Opera viii/2, Leiden, Brill, 1959).
Sozomen, HE 7.7; cf. Socrates, HE 5.8.
On Cyril's ‘homoean’ theology, see Sozomen, HE 4.25, and also p. 61. For Macedonius, see Sozomen, HE 4.26–7.
P.Nautin, ‘La date du “de viris illustribus” de Jérôme, de la mort de Cyrille de Jérusalem et de celle de Grégoire de Nazzianze’, RHE 56 (1961), 33–5.
2 JERUSALEM
3 WORKS
See Clavis patrum Graecorum, ed. M.Geerard, Turnhout, Brepols, 1974–, 2.3585–3618.
Cyril, Homily on Paralytic 20; cf. L.P.McCauley and A.A.Stephenson, St Cyril of Jerusalem, Washington DC, 1970 (FaCh 64), pp. 221–2.
Philostorgius, HE 3.26; Sozomen, HE 4.5.1–5. Cf. E.Bihain, ‘L’Épître de Cyrille de Jérusalem à Constance sur la vision de la croix’, Byzantium 43 (1973), 266–7.
For an account of the MSS, their contents, and the titles they give to the works, see W.K.Reischl and J.Rupp (eds.) (RR), S.Patris Nostri Cyrilli Hierosolymorum Archiepiscopi Opera quae supersunt Omnia, Munich, Libraria Lenteriana, 1848–60, vol. 1, CXLVII–CXLIX; A.Piédagnel (ed.), Cyrille de Jérusalem, Catéchèses Mystagogiques, SC 126 bis, Paris 1988, pp. 21–3, 52–7. For a discussion of the authenticity of the Mystagogics, see E.J.Yarnold, ‘The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem’, Heythrop Journal 19 (1978), 143–61.
As the modern system of numbering dates from the birth of Christ was not introduced until early in the sixth century, the date 352 was presumably the result of a later scribe's calculation.
The debate has been well summarized by Piédagnel, Cyrille, pp. 18–40.
McCauley and Stephenson, St Cyril, vol. 2, pp. 147–51.
See Piédagnel, Cyrille, pp. 22–3.
Piédagnel, Cyrille, pp. 24–5.
Cf. J.A.Jungmann (ET), The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum Sollemnia), New York, Benziger, 1955, reprint Blackrock, Four Courts Press, 1986, pp. 276–7, note 7.
For all these liturgical points, see Piédagnel, Cyrille, pp. 25–8.
With the exception of 18.33, which, as we have indicated above, Cyril may have added to the original text.
Cat. 3.3–4; 16.26; 17.35–7; MC 3.1–5. Cf. McCauley and Stephenson, St Cyril, vol. 2, p. 178; Yarnold, ‘Authorship’, pp. 157–9.
McCauley and Stephenson, St Cyril, vol. 2, pp. 146–7.
A.Doval, Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogue: The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses, Patristic Monograph Series 17, Washington DC, Catholic University Press, 2001. Cf. Yarnold, ‘Authorship’.
A.Renoux, ‘Une version arménienne des catéchèses mystagogiques de Cyrille de Jérusalem?’, Le Muséon 85 (1972), 147–53.
MC 3.2.
47.2, quoted on p. 40.
MC 2.5.
Jerome, Contra loannem Hierosolymitanum 7 (PL 23.360).
McCauley and Stephenson, St Cyril, vol. 2, p. 147.
Ed. M.van Esbroeck, Le Muséon 86 (1973), 283–304; cf. Yarnold, ‘Authorship’, p. 146.
MC 3.1: toi homoioi epanapaumomenou tou homoiou.
Procat. 1; Cat. 6.12; MC 1.1.
kata kremnon: Cat. 4.20; kata kremnon: MC 1.6.
Cf. Rom 5.14, where Adam is the ‘type’ of Christ.
Procat. 1; Cat. 1.2; MC 1.1; 3.2–3; 4.2; 4.7–9.
litos (MC 1.7; 3.3); psilos (MC 3.3; 4.6); koinos (MC 3.3).
Procat. 15; Cat. 3.11; MC 3.1.
C.Beukers, ‘For our Emperors, Soldiers and Allies’, VC 15 (1961), 177–84.
Cf. E.J.Yarnold, ‘Did St Ambrose Know the Mystagogic Catecheses of St Cyril of Jerusalem?’, StPatr 12 (1975), 184–9.
4 LITURGY
See J.F.Baldovin, Liturgy in Ancient Jerusalem, Alcuin-GROW Liturgical Study 9, Bramcote, Nottingham, Grove Books, 1989.
Palladius, Historia Lausiaca 55.1.
M.Férotin, ‘Le véritable auteur de la “Peregrinatio Sylviae”. La vierge espagnole Etheria’, Revue des questions historiques 74 (1903), 367–97.
P.Devos, ‘La date du voyage d’Égérie’, Analecta Bollandiana 85 (1967), 165–94. However, in a paper forthcoming in StPatr, ‘The Date of the Itinerarium Egeriae’, E.D.Hunt has queried several of Devos's arguments, and suggested a date a decade later, which would imply that the bishop of Jerusalem to whom Egeria refers was Cyril's successor John.
The text of both Egeria and Valerius is contained in Égérie: Journal de Voyage (Itinéraire) et Lettre sur la Bse Égérie, SC 296, 1982. For English-speaking readers, there is a useful translation, with valuable illustrative material, by J.Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, London, SPCK, 1971; 3rd edn, Warminster, Aris & Phillips, 1999.
J.Jeremias (ET), Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, London, SCM, 1960; K.Aland (ET), Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, London, SCM, 1963.
Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition (Botte), 17; Clement (Stromata ii.11.2); Origen (Commentary on John, 6.28.144).
M.Dujarier (ET), A History of the Catechumenate: The First Six Centuries, New York, Sadlier, 1979, p. 95.
W.Harmless, Augustine and the Catechumenate, Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 1995, p. 56.
See note 7 on the Procatechesis.
Cf. E.J.Yarnold, The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation: The Origins of the R.C.I.A., Edinburgh and Collegeville, T. and T.Clark and Liturgical Press, 1994, pp. 2–6. For Augustine's rites for admission into the catechumenate, cf. E.C.Whitaker, Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy, 2nd edn, London, SPCK, 1970, pp. 99–101.
The forty days of Lent were calculated variously in different parts of the world.
Egeria uses the technical term competens, which is mentioned in the modern Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults.
Egeria uses the everyday words for ‘fathers’ and ‘mothers’.
Photizomenoi (Procat. 1; 12). In the Latin Church they were known as ‘seekers’ (competentes) or ‘chosen ones’ (electi).
Procat. 9. In the Latin Church the positive and negative aspects of this rite were called respectively ‘insufflation’ (blowing in’, as when the risen Jesus breathed on the apostles to signify the gift of the Holy Spirit: Jn 20.22) and ‘exsufflation’ (‘blowing away’ the devil).
I.e. the baptized.
Egeria explains that, though the bishop understands Syriac, the translation is made by a presbyter who is always at hand to give a Syriac translation as the bishop speaks. Those who only understand Latin are given a private translation (47.3–4).
Maxwell Johnson has attempted to solve this problem; ‘Reconciling Cyril and Egeria in the Catechetical Process in Fourth-Century Jerusalem’, in P.Bradshaw (ed.), Essays in Early Eastern Initiation, Alcuin-GROW Liturgical Study 8, Bramcote, Nottingham, Grove Books, 1988, pp. 18–30.
Pereg., 46.5–6. The ‘church’ is the Martyrium.
Cyril, Cat. 18.33. This paragraph was probably intended to replace 18.32, which implies that the final instructions are given immediately before baptism. Cf. above, p. 23, and Yarnold, ‘Authorship’.
Augustine, Sermon 213.
For an attempt to reconcile Cyril and Egeria on this point, see Yarnold, ‘Authorship’, pp. 153–7.
MC 5.2–3; Mt 5.23–4: ‘first be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift’.
Among these commentators are: L.Ligier (ET), ‘The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer: From the Last Supper to the Eucharist’, Studia Liturgica 9 (1973), 161–85, esp. 179; E.Cutrone, ‘Cyril's Mystagogical Catecheses and the Evolution of the Jerusalem Anaphora’, OCP 44 (1978), 52–64; G.J.Cuming, ‘The Shape of the Anaphora’, StPatr 20 (1989), 333–45; J.R.K.Fenwick, Fourth Century Anaphoral Techniques, Bramcote, Nottingham, Grove Books, 1986, and The Anaphoras of St Basil and St James: An Investigation into Their Common Origins, OCA 240, Rome, 1992.
I have expounded this view in two articles: ‘Anaphoras without Institution Narratives?’, StPatr 30 (1997), 395–410; and ‘The Function of Institution Narratives in Early Liturgies’ (forthcoming).
See above, p. 21.
Either because not everyone could fit into the Anastasis, or in order to face the cross on Golgotha.
A.Kavanagh suggested that this dismissal at which the bishop lays his hand on the people is the origin of confirmation: Confirmation: Origins and Reform, New York, Pueblo, 1988.
‘ipsa laetitia celebratur’: Pereg. 26.11–12.
Actually Egeria says ‘behind the Cross’ (35.2). If this is correct there must have been a separate chapel behind the Cross which is distinct from the Martyrium. However the Armenian Lectionary (39; see below) places the celebration before the Cross, i.e. in the courtyard at the foot of the jewelled cross, which would be the appropriate place for the annual passiontide Eucharist (see GT 78). Apparently the church at Sion had not yet been connected with the site of the Last Supper; cf. Wilkinson, Egeria pp. 38–9.
Pereg. 37.3. GT think the words ‘behind the Cross’ refer not to a separate chapel, but to the altar of the Martyrium where the first of the two Thursday Eucharists had been celebrated; see note 31.
maximus labor. Pereg. 43.1.
This is not to be confused with the Maccabean feast of Dedication (enkainia) mentioned in Jn 10.22, which is the feast of Hannukah or lights celebrated in November or December.
A.Renoux, ‘Le Codex arménien Jérusalem 121’, PO 35–6 (1969–71). J.Wilkinson's treatment of the subject in his edition of Egeria's Travels fails to take account of the Yerevan MS.
For a fuller treatment of this subject see Yarnold, Awe-Inspiring Rites, pp. 55–6.
The Eleona, Constantine's basilica on the Mount of Olives, not only commemorated the place of the ascension, but also incorporated the sacred cave where the Saviour ‘initiated his disciples into the secret mysteries’ (Eusebius, Vit. Const. 3.43). According to later tradition, this secret teaching included the Lord's Prayer.
Aristides of Athens, Eleusinios 256. The Greek word is phrikodes.
Lactantius, Divinarum Institutionum Epitome 18 (23). Lactantius, himself a convert from paganism, was the tutor of Constantine's son Crispus.
Protrepticus 2.21; cf. Hippolytus, Refutatio V.8.39ff.
Aristotle, frag. 15 (Ross).
H.Rahner, Greek Myths and Christian Mystery, London, Burns Oates, 1963, pp. 3–45. Rahner was of course far from suggesting, as some have done, that the influence of the pagan mysteries made itself felt as early as St Paul.
Cf. Yarnold, ‘Who Planned the Churches?’.
Cf. T.D.Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge, Mass, and London, Harvard University Press, 1981, p. 36.
For Constantine's colourful devotion to the Passion, see above, p. 14.
Eusebius, however, takes the clue to the building to be Constantine's desire to build a new Jerusalem to replace the Jewish Temple: ‘at the very saving Martyrium the new Jerusalem was constructed, facing the celebrated old one’ (HE 3.33). J.Wilkinson argued that certain architectural features bear out Eusebius’ interpretation (‘Jewish Influences’). However Constantine's own letter to Macarius does not bear out this interpretation of the project.
Eusebius, Laud. Const. 9 (PG 20.1369C). However, Constantine's letter to Macarius, quoted above, indicates that his original scheme was more modest.
A.Grabar, Martyrium, Paris, 1946.
5 CYRIL'S USE OF SCRIPTURE, AND HIS THEOLOGY
See R.Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1975.
Origen, de Principiis iv.2.5, referring to Jn 2.6.
Cf. Diodore of Tarsus, Prologue on the Psalms, CCSG 6, p. 7.
Homily de poenitentia 6.4 (PG 49.320).
‘Hierusolymis vero Cyrillus post Maximum sacerdotio confusa iam ordinatione suscepto, aliquando in fide, saepius in communione variabat’: Rufinus, HE 1.23: PL 21.495=Eusebius, HE 10.24: GCS 9/2, p. 989.
J.Lebon, ‘La position de saint Cyrille de Jérusalem dans les luttes provoquées par l'arianisme’, RHE 20 (1924), 181–210, 357–86; quotation on p. 383.
En pote hote ouk en (Cat. 11.17).
A.A.Stephenson, ‘St Cyril of Jerusalem's Trinitarian Theology’, StPatr 11 (1972), 234–41; McCauley and Stephenson, St Cyril, vol. 1, p. 45.
Letter of Council to Pope Damasus (N.P.Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, London and Washington DC, Sheed and Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, i. 28).
McCauley and Stephenson, St Cyril, vol. 2, p. 235.
Glory: Cat. 6.1; worship: Cat. 16.4; wills: Cat. 15.25.
Cat. 7.5 (quoting Jn 8.49); Cat. 15.30.
Therefore his godhead was visible! Cat, 4.9. Cf. Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 27.
MC 3.3.
LETTER TO CONSTANTIUS
The artificial style of this letter is comparable to that of Constantine's letter to Macarius (see Introduction, sect. 2).
Socrates, HE 2.26–7; McCauley and Stephenson, St Cyril, vol. 2, p. 228.
Constantius reigned from 337 to 361.
See Introduction, sect. 2. Cyril says nothing of Constantine's vision of the cross which heralded his victory over Maxentius in 312.
It has been suggested that what Cyril describes is the well-known phenomenon of a parhelion.
When speaking of the cross as a ‘boast’, Cyril has such texts as Gal 6.14 and 1 Cor 1.31 in mind. Cyril evidently wants Constantius to use the cross as an emblem in battle, as his father had used the labarum or chi-rho emblem as a military standard.
Telfer (Cyril, p. 198) indicates that at this time Constantius was a childless widower in need of an heir.
One MS adds: ‘as you ever give glory to the holy and consubstantial Trinity, our true God, to whom all glory belongs for ever and ever. Amen’. However, as Cyril nowhere else uses the Nicene term ‘consubstantial’ (homoousios), preferring the term ‘like’ (homoios), and generally prefers scriptural language to philosophical, the sentence is likely to be an interpolation. See Introduction, sect. 4.
HOMILY ON THE PARALYTIC BY THE POOL
kata ti.
Literally: ‘Do not examine the one who appears, but the one who works through the one who appears.’ The context shows that Cyril does not mean that the man and the God are two distinct individuals.
Accepting Rupp's proposed reading of se bastasanta for the MSS's sebasmata.
‘Human life’ translates the Greek oikonomia, which is a common technical term for the Incarnation.
Lithostrotos and Gabbatha are respectively the Greek and Aramaic terms translated here as ‘paved with stones’ (cf. Jn 19.13).
If this is the correct reading—the Greek text of this last sentence is in a very confused state—the ‘father’ is presumably Cyril's predecessor Maximus, and Cyril is preaching before becoming bishop.
PROCATECHESIS
It was preached at the beginning of Lent to the candidates who had given in their names (‘enrolment’, n. 1) for baptism (‘enlightenment’; cf. Heb 6.4; Justin, 1 Apol 61.12) at Easter.
On Cyril's use of typology, see Introduction, sect. 5.
The ‘Faithful’ are the baptized; cf. Procat. 12.
The first of many appeals to the sanctity of the place where Constantine had built the basilica where Cyril was preaching.
Cf. Procat. 2.
Rom 6.11, 13. Cyril, as is his custom, comments on the passage which had been read during the service. On Cyril's Lectionary, see Introduction, section 4.
Cyril plays on the word ‘catechumen’. The word is derived from the Greek eche, which means a sound or echo. The equivalent Latin term was auditor (hearer).
The disciplina arcani attempted to restrict knowledge of the most sacred rites and doctrines to those who had given in their names for baptism, or even to those who were baptized (see pp. 49–50). It is possible that Cyril is borrowing the language of the pagan mystery-religions (see pp. 52–5).
On the figurative interpretation of Scripture, see pp. 56–8.
I.e. you will be called ‘Faithful’ like God.
Cyril goes no further into the question of the validity of the baptism of schismatics which divided Pope Stephen and St Cyprian of Carthage in the third century.
Exorcism involved both ‘exsufflation’ (to blow away the devil) and ‘insufflation’ to introduce the breath of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 20.22).
On Cyril's systematic efforts to inspire awe in the candidates, see Introduction, pp. 50–2.
The Faithful are the baptized; the candidates who have been allowed to enrol for baptism are neither catechumens nor Faithful, and are so to speak in no-man's-land.
Cyril is alluding to a Syriac tradition that the males and females of every species were separated, presumably to prevent the population increasing during the year when they were confined to the ark. Adam's body was laid along the centre of the ark to keep the sexes apart.
Cyril is paraphrasing 1 Cor 14.34 and 1 Tim 2.12.
‘Heard of God’ is one of several interpretations of the name Samuel which Hannah gave to the son which God granted her in answer to her silent prayer (1 Sam 1.9–20).
A reference to the scented muron.
Christ=anointed. The reference is to the post-baptismal anointing. Cf. MC 3.1.
Cyril is more explicit about the equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son in MC 3.1, written perhaps thirty years later.
The newly baptized will go in procession from the baptistery into the Martyrium dressed in white baptismal robes and carrying torches. This is one of the earliest indications we possess for this practice.
Cyril hints at various elements in the rites, though the Discipline of Secrecy prevents him from speaking more explicitly.
CATECHESIS 3
Cf. Procat. 3–4.
On the seal and the invocation (epiclesis), cf. Introduction, sect. 3.
I.e. both water and Spirit.
Cyril seems to mean that the Spirit is given in the water; though by the time he delivered the Mystagogic Catecheses it had become the practice to confer the Spirit by means of a post-baptismal anointing (MC 3).
RR enclose the whole of this sentence in square brackets.
On the Discipline of Secrecy, see Introduction, sect. 4 under ‘Mysteries’.
RR place the phrase ‘for he was sinless’ in square brackets.
The ‘dignity’ may be the name of ‘Christ’ which Cyril discusses in MC 3.
RR enclose the clause from ‘for’ to ‘form’ in square brackets.
CATECHESIS 4
The Creed was ‘presented’ to the candidates during the fifth Catechesis (see Introduction, sect. 4). The remaining thirteen Lenten Catecheses took the form of commentaries on the articles of the Creed.
Marcion (d. c. 160) distinguished between the loving God of Jesus Christ and the God of the Old Testament, who was the Creator and the stern legislator. It was a common Gnostic teaching that the creation of spirit was the work of the supreme divine being, while material things were created by a fallen inferior being.
Constantine removed just such a statue which the Romans had erected over Calvary. See Introduction, sect. 2.
Although Cyril rejects several of Arius’ teachings in this paragraph, he still prefers to describe the Son as ‘like’ (homoios) the Father rather than ‘consubstantial’ (homoousios) with him. See Introduction, sect. 5.
By contrast Arius taught ‘there was once when the Son was not’.
This was one form of the Adoptionist heresy.
Arius denied that the Son knew the Father.
In this context a distinction was often made between an idea in the mind, which was an immanent (endiathetos) word, and an idea or word which was uttered (prophorikos).
Origen taught that God, being eternally the Creator, created rational beings (logikoi) from all eternity.
The Docetists taught that Jesus’ humanity was an illusory appearance (dokesis); the Valentinians added that he had no material birth, but his mother was a mere conduit through which he passed.
Therefore his godhead was visible! This distinction between the events proper to Christ's humanity and those proper to his divinity is common in Latin, Antiochene and Syriac writers, though there are different ways of drawing it. Cf. E.J.Yarnold, ‘“Videmus duplicem statum”. The Visibility of the Two Natures of Christ in Tertullian's Adversus Praxean, StPatr 19 (1989), 286–90.
I.e. Lazarus’ body; cf. Jn 11.17.
Cf. Cyril, ad Const. 3; Cat. 10.19; Introduction, sect. 2.
Cyril seems not to envisage a doctrine of original sin.
The Gnostics taught that salvation consisted in freeing the soul from the constraints of matter.
I.e. in Cat. 3. If Cyril's ‘day before yesterday’ (proen) is to be taken literally, we have confirmation that the catechetical meetings did not take place every day (see Introduction, sect. 4).
See note 2 above on Marcion.
This version was known as the Septuagint (Seventy) after the seventy-two translators. Cyril's account of its composition is probably derived from the Letter of Aristeas.
It was not until the fourth century that the Church began to formulate a canon of the Old and New Testaments. In that century various lists appeared, differing somewhat one from another, such as Cyril's and (probably) the ‘Muratorian Canon’. The Council of Rome held by Pope Damasus in 382 promulgated the first official list. Although Cyril does not classify every work not in the Jewish canon as ‘apocryphal’, as Protestant bibles were to do, he omits most of the Deutero-canonical OT works, but (unlike some lists) includes Hebrews in the NT.
In the Septuagint 1 and 2 Kings=1 and 2 Sam; 3 and 4 Kings=1 and 2 Kings in the Hebrew.
The Letter of Jeremiah=Baruch 6.
This Manichaean ‘Gospel’ is not to be confused with the Gnostic ‘Gospel of Thomas’ included among the Nag Hammadi documents, or with the ‘Infancy Gospel of Thomas’.
CATECHESIS 5
The ‘Faithful’ are the baptized (cf. Procat. 2).
In addition to the two senses of ‘faith’ (pistis) distinguished in para. 2, the same word also denotes the object of faith, namely the Creed. This was kept secret from the candidates, and taught to them during Lent at the Presentation or Handing over of the Creed (see Procat. 12; Introduction, sect. 4). This Presentation took place at the end of Cat. 5.
By the end of his episcopate Cyril required the candidates to repeat the Creed formally to the bishop (Pereg. 46.5–6; Introduction, sect. 4).
CATECHESIS 10
Lists of symbolic titles of Christ are common in Greek and Syriac literature, sometimes, as here, with each title followed by a clause excluding the title's literal sense. Cf. Murray, Symbols, and pp. 354–63.
On this interpretation of the name ‘Jesus’, see below, para. 13.
The Arians (among others) held that Jesus was an ordinary man who was granted advancement or promotion (prokope) to divine honours; cf. R.C.Gregg and D.E.Groh, Early Arianism: A View of Salvation, Philadelphia and London, Fortress Press and SCM, 1981.
Some MSS continue: ‘who is also true God’.
The Fathers frequently identify the Lord who appears and acts in the OT with the pre-existent Christ.
Actually the verse 11.26 comes earlier.
This legend is to be found in Athanasius, de Incarnatione 36; it appears to be derived from Is 19.1.
Cyril was to develop his use of typology in the Mystagogic Catecheses,
Mk 13.2. Cyril characteristically invites his hearers to observe for themselves the sacred sites of which he is speaking.
Cyril bases his argument on the resemblance between ‘Jesus’ and iasis, which is a Greek word for ‘healing’.
Christ=Messiah=Anointed.
On the wood of the cross, see Introduction, sect. 4.
Cyril seems to imply that the identity of the palm-tree was common knowledge.
CATECHESIS 11
tupikoi.
See Cat. 10.5 and note.
Cyril avoids using the term homoousios, preferring to speak of ‘similarity’ rather than identity. Some MSS add ‘eternal from the eternal Father’, which was perhaps added in order to reject the Arian belief that ‘there was when the Son was not’. Cf. Cat. 11.17.
Another reference to the theory that Jesus was ‘promoted’ or ‘advanced’ to divine honours; cf. Cat. 11.1.
Cyril is perhaps intending to refute two Arian arguments for the inferiority of the Son to the Father: (1) to be generated implies being later in time; (2) the generation of the Son took place by God's free choice.
The relationship between God and his Son was often regarded as analogous to that between a human being and his mind, his ideas and his spoken words (all denoted by the single Greek term Logos). Though already implied by Jn 1.1 (‘In the beginning was the Word’), this vision owes its systematization to the Greek Apologists of the second century, especially Justin Martyr.
enhupostatos.
prophorikon; cf. Cat. 4.8.
The Greek word arche means both ‘beginning’ and ‘principle’. Cyril in this paragraph argues against the Arian slogan that ‘There once was when the Son was not’. Cf. Cat. 11.17.
Cyril understands the prophet's statement about the giving of knowledge as an allusion to the Law given by God to Moses.
Ps 44.7 (45.6), quoted in Heb 1.8, which was included in the reading of the day.
Ps 44.8 (45.7). On the Arian theory that the Son ‘advanced’ to divinity, see Cat. 10.5; 11.7.
The term ‘Son-Father’ is attributed to Sabellius, who maintained that the names Father, Son and Spirit did not imply any distinction in the godhead, but referred only to God's different operations in the world.
The notorious Arian slogan denying the eternity of the Son.
I.e. either to Arianism or Sabellianism.
On Cyril's preference for the formula ‘like the Father’ to the Nicene ‘consubstantial with the Father’, see Introduction, sect. 5.
Again Cyril is rejecting the two extremes of Arianism and Sabellianism.
Cyril can hardly mean that we should think of the Son only in his eternal godhead and not in his human reality, for the next three Catecheses are all about Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection; he presumably means that to understand Christ's origins we need to go back beyond his human birth to his eternal existence.
A reference to Marcion and the various forms of Gnosticism; cf. Cat. 4.4.
Job 9.8 (LXX): ‘figuratively’ translates the Greek word muslikos.
CATECHESIS 12
Cf. Exod 12.9. While using the Passover lamb as a symbol of Christ's divinity and humanity, Cyril is also speaking in veiled terms of the Eucharist.
This last error is that of Adoptionism; cf. Cat. 4.7.
The devil's defeat will come through the same means as his triumph, namely a virgin.
There exist carved figures of soldiers and slaves marked on the forehead with a cross. Liturgically the term ‘seal’ was applied to (1) the cross traced with oil on the candidate's forehead, and (2) the whole rite of baptism. Cf. G.W.H.Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit, 2nd edn, London, SPCK, 1967.
Perhaps a reference to the tradition that when ascending Jesus left the marks of his feet on the Mount of Olives; see Cat. 14.23.
The representation of Mary as the second Eve was put forward by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus in the second century.
‘theou…koinonos’.
The theory that Jesus put an end to the devil's hold over sinful humanity by decoying him into attacking one who was God as well as man is expounded by several Fathers, such as Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio Catechetica 24.
Sections 17–32 are omitted here; they contain the Old Testament evidence concerning the time and place of the Saviour's birth and his birth from a virgin.
CATECHESIS 13
The Fathers frequently apply the word ‘wood’ to the ‘tree’ of Paradise and the ‘cross’ of Christ.
Cf. Num 25.7–8; 1 Tim 2.6. The application of the concept of ‘ransom’ to Jesus’ saving work should not be used to justify the theory of vicarious punishment, i.e. the view that the Father vented his anger at our sins on his sinless Son.
RR bracket the second part of this sentence, but the sense is obscure without it.
The denial of the reality of Jesus’ sufferings is an aspect of Docetism. See para. 37 below.
Perhaps a reference to the Magi, or to the Parthians whose conversion is implied in Acts 2.9.
The second part of para. 8 (omitted here) lists various details of the Passion without giving their scriptural ‘testimonies’.
theoretiken. On Cyril's exegetical method, see Introduction, sect. 5.
The sections omitted here give the testimonies for the thirty pieces of silver, the potter's field, the trials, the mockery and the crown of thorns.
Jer 11.19 (LXX). Cyril allows himself several digressions in the section. The main argument in paras 19 and 20 is that the cross is prophesied in many places in the Old Testament.
In MC 4 and 5.
tupos. On Cyril's use of typology, see Introduction, sect. 5.
The reason for saying that the baptism of martyrdom is attested in the gospels is given in Cat. 3.10. The term ‘baptism in one's own blood’ is found as early as Apostolic Tradition 19 (Botte).
By this time, in fact, most of the persecution of Christians was inflicted by other Christians. Cyril himself was exiled three times; see Introduction, sect. 1.
On the topography of Golgotha and the origin of the name, see Introduction, sect. 2.
Scholars do not accept Cyril's explanation of the origin of the name.
Ps 73 (74).12 (LXX). Both the Hebrew and the LXX read ‘he’, not ‘you’.
I.e. the wood of the Tree of Knowledge and the wood of the cross.
tupikon.
On the Holy Sepulchre see Introduction, sect. 2.
Cf. para. 4 above.
The Mount of Olives gets its mention in connection with the ascension in Cat. 14.23.
The Bordeaux Pilgrim gave a similar description of Caiaphas’ house less than twenty years before Cyril (Itin. 592 (CCSL 175, 16).
huperanestos. The word is sometimes taken to mean ‘towering above’, a translation which Gibson and Taylor reject because ‘the top of the rock…was only about two metres higher than the minimum floor level of the Constantinian Martyrium’ (GT, 80). They accordingly propose the translation ‘pre-eminent’ adopted above.
CATECHESIS 14
We only have space to give Cyril's ‘proofs’ which have a connection with the Constantinian buildings.
Evidently the separate church of the Anastasis had not yet been built.
Although in Cyril's time in front of the tomb there was a porch, from which Cyril delivered his Mystagogic Catecheses, this was apparently set in front of the rock, not hollowed from it.
Cyril refers to Cat. 14.17.
RR detect a reference to the impression of Jesus’ feet left in the rock. The conjunction of Bethlehem with the Mount of Olives may have something to do with Egeria's statement (Pereg. 42) that the vigil of the fortieth day after Easter was celebrated at Bethlehem. The ‘heavenly gate’ RR take to be the open roof of the church on the Mount of Olives; however, Egeria's accounts of the ceremonial there suggest that in her time the rites were still celebrated in an open place, and that the church of the Imbomon had not yet been built. See Introduction, sect. 4; Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels, pp. 14–16.
CATECHESIS 18
This ‘handing over of the Creed’ took place at the end of Cat. 5.
‘Enlightenment’ was a regular term for baptism; cf. Heb 6.4.
There is a problem here. While para. 32 suggests that the candidates will receive last-minute instructions in advance about the reception of the sacraments (‘the order with which the called should enter…’), para. 33 states that instruction will be given after baptism, which in fact is what Cyril does in the Mystagogic Catecheses, where he explains why this arrangement is necessary (MC 1.1). Perhaps Cyril's practice changed over the long period of thirty years or more between the delivery of the Catecheses and that of the Mystagogic Catecheses. In that case, para. 33 may have been intended to replace para. 32. The fact that some phrases in para. 32 are duplicated in para. 33 reinforces this hypothesis. See Yarnold, ‘Authorship’ esp. pp. 159–61.
In fact there are only five Mystagogic Catecheses. Cf. Yarnold, ‘Authorship’, pp. 153–7.
This summary corresponds closely with the contents of the Mystagogic Catecheses, except that, while the reading for MC 5 (1 Pet 2.1ff) would be appropriate for an instruction about ‘how in future you ought to behave’, the main subject of the last address is the Eucharist, with the teaching about behaviour squeezed into a brief allusion in the last paragraph. See Yarnold, ‘Authorship’, pp. 155–6.
MYSTAGOGIC CATECHESIS 1
Cyril gives two reasons why certain truths were kept secret from the new Christians until they were baptized and became known as the Faithful. See the discussion of the Discipline of Secrecy in the Introduction, sect. 4.
On typology, see Introduction, sect. 5.
Cyril's attitude to the Jews who were his contemporaries was far less complimentary.
Cf. Ex 12.7; 14.21–9. A less well attested reading in the MSS makes ‘the enemy’ rather than ‘Pharaoh’ the subject.
Cyril's description suggests that in the darkness the candidates cannot see the person who is directing them.
On Cyril's systematic efforts to inspire in the candidates a sense of awe, see Introduction, sect. 4.
The translation does its best with a corrupt text.
The water, the chrism, and the bread and wine each have an epiclesis recited over them, by which the Father is asked to send down his Spirit to transform the material elements into a vehicle of Christ's grace. See Introduction, sect. 4.
The Renunciation of Satan is followed by an act of ‘Adhesion’ to Christ, which here takes the form of a short profession of faith (para. 9); some other rites (e.g. Chrysostom, Catéchèses Baptismales, ed. A. Wenger, SC 50, 2.21; trans P.W.Harkins, Ancient Christian Writers 31, p. 53) include the explicit formula: ‘I join your ranks (suntassomai), O Christ.’ Thus the candidate abandoned service in Satan's ranks and entered the ranks of Christ.
Cf. Gen 19–26. Cyril's explanation contains two typical puns: pillar (stele)/pilloried (esteliteumene); and salt (hals)/bitter (halmuros).
Lot and his family were told to seek refuge in the hills (Gen 19.17).
St Augustine describes a rite of trampling on cloth made of goat's hair (Sermon 216.10–11; PL 38.1082).
Cyril explains the trinitarian Creed in Cat. 6–18, and forgiveness through baptism in Cat. 1 and 2.
Phrases from several passages are paraphrased here: Is 25.8 (LXX); Tit 3.5; Apoc 7.17.
MYSTAGOGIC CATECHESIS 2
Col 2.15. For Cyril the stripping represents: (1) imitation of the stripping of Christ; (2) putting off the old nature (cf. Eph 4.22); (3) the innocence of Paradise. In fact the baptistery was dark and the sexes were separated.
Cf. Rom 11.24. In fact the cultivated plant is grafted on to the wild one.
Cyril attributes both negative and positive effects to the anointing with olive-oil: it drives away demons and imparts grace. Similarly the rite of breathing on the candidate has the negative effect of blowing away the devil (exsufflation) and the positive effect of breathing in grace (insufflation); cf. Procat. 9.
According to Egeria, the bishop gave these, the Mystagogic Catecheses, at the entrance to the tomb; see Introduction, sect. 4.
In baptizing in the name of the Trinity, the bishop did not say: ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father…’, but asked the candidates if they accepted a trinitarian Creed. After the mention of each Person, the candidate was pushed once under the water. Cyril takes the triple immersion also as a symbol of Christ's three days in the tomb.
The Greek text of this first clause is unsatisfactory.
Literally: ‘is the antitype of Christ's sufferings’. According to Cyril's theology of sacramental symbolism, to say that sacraments are symbols of a grace does not imply that the grace is not present truly: in baptism the share in Christ's death and resurrection, and in the Eucharist the share in his body and blood, take place no less truly than his own passion, but the reality is now at the level of liturgical representation rather than literal history. Symbolism is so important for Cyril that he seems to regard the symbolic share in Jesus’ sufferings to be more important than forgiveness or adoption or the gift of the Spirit.
This clause occurs in the Nicene Creed, but not in the Creed which Cyril explains in the Catecheses.
I.e. in the very place where Cyril was speaking.
Jesus himself seems to have linked his baptism with his death: ‘Can you…be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?’ (Mk 10.38).
MYSTAGOGIC CATECHESIS 3
Here and below ‘sacramental sign’ translates antitupon. On Cyril's use of typology, see Introduction, sect. 5.
‘Image’=eikon; ‘has a symbolic meaning’=eikonikos.
Literally ‘the skin of his divinity’. The reference is perhaps to Moses’ skin which radiated the brightness of the divine presence (Exod 34.29). Para. 4 below refers to the same passage.
Cyril characteristically expresses the equality of the Son and the Spirit in terms of likeness rather than ‘one substance’ (homoousios).
Muron is the chrism or scented oil used for conferring the gift of the Holy Spirit.
I.e. at his baptism by John.
Accepting the minority reading parousiai instead of Piédugnel's parousias. On the epiclesis, cf. Procat. 9.
sumbolon.
tupikos.
Is 25.6–7 (LXX paraphrased). Cyril takes this quotation as a prophecy that God will extend the gift of the sacramental wine and chrism to the gentiles.
MYSTAGOGIC CATECHESIS 4
St Paul's account of the Last Supper does not include the words ‘Take, eat’, ‘Take, drink’. In fact the word ‘take’ before ‘drink’ does not appear in the gospel accounts either, but it is found in some Egyptian liturgies, such as that of the Deir Balyzeh papyrus. Moreover, Cyril quotes the words ‘This is my body/blood’ in an order which is not to be found anywhere in the New Testament, though it is followed in the Palestinian Liturgy of St James. It seems likely therefore that Cyril is quoting from the liturgy here, which incidentally provides evidence that his liturgy included an Institution Narrative. Cf. Yarnold, ‘Anaphoras’ esp. pp. 405–6; 409–10. See Introduction, sect. 4.
This paragraph contains three quotations from the Septuagint version of Ps 22 (23).5.
A reference to the gold plate which Aaron wore (Exod 28.36). In MC 4 the ‘seal’ is connected with the post-baptismal anointing with muron, in the Catecheses with baptism itself; see Introduction, sect. 3.
Mt 26.28, omitting the words ‘of the covenant’.
Cyril is alluding to the baptismal robe. The quotations in the paragraph are taken from Eccles 9.7–8 (LXX).
MYSTAGOGIC CATECHESIS 5
Cyril calls him the ‘priest’ (hierei). The description of the Eucharist begins with the Lavabo.
Rom 16.16; 1 Pet 5.14.
This dialogue introducing the Eucharistic Prayer is found as early as the Apostolic Tradition in the early third century, and occurs almost universally from that day to this.
On Cyril's expectation that the liturgy will inspire awe, see Introduction, sect. 4.
Cf. Ezek 10.21. Cyril paraphrases the Preface and Sanctus.
Cf. Is 6.2–3. There was a tradition in Egypt that the seraphim used their wings to cover the divine face, not their own (cf. Origen, de Principiis iv.3.14). This is one of several indications of Egyptian influence on Cyril's liturgy; see G.J.Cuming, ‘Egyptian Elements in the Jerusalem Liturgy’, JTS 25 (1974), 117–24.
Reading dia touto.
Since Cyril appears to pass directly from the epiclesis (para. 7) to the Intercessions (para. 8), the conclusion is often drawn that Cyril's liturgy had no Institution Narrative. I argue against this theory in Introduction, sect. 4, where there is also a brief discussion of his understanding of eucharistic sacrifice and of the real presence.
The Syrian, Byzantine and Latin liturgies similarly affirm the presumption involved in addressing God as Father: ‘audemus dicere’ (‘Let us pray with confidence to the Father’, ‘we have the courage to say’).
Rom 6.12.
Cyril's argument requires one to take the Greek word epiousios, which is translated ‘daily’ in the familiar form of the Lord's Prayer, to mean instead ‘substantial’. Ambrose also knows this explanation (de Sacramentis 5.24).
This is not a direct quotation from Scripture; perhaps the nearest equivalent is in Rom 5.3–4.
A reference to Judas’ suicide (Mt 27.5).
The Fathers frequently interpreted the last petition of the Lord's Prayer as a request for deliverance from the evil spirit (masculine) rather than from evil itself (neuter).
Most liturgies contained a double epiclesis, invoking the Holy Spirit first on the bread and wine, and then on the communicants.
antitupou.
Theodore of Mopsuestia similarly instructs the communicants to apply the body of Christ to the eyes and also to kiss it (Bapt. Hom. 5 (6, 16).28; Yarnold, Awe-Inspiring Rites, p. 242). Cf. Murray, Symbols, p. 60.
‘Communion’ (koinonia) denotes sharing in the common life of the Church as well as in the sacrament.