A summary of Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures [part I]

The Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem represent one of the most significant theological and homiletic work the early church produced, a work meant to instruct, teach, correct and serve as a guide to the fundamentals of Christian doctrine as understood in the fourth century by the christian church in Jerusalem. This work is written around the middle of the fourth century, and comes at a time when the church was facing a lot of challenges. Multitudes of pagans were joining the church, heresies were on the rise- both old and new; heresies were spreading like diseases and the persecution of Nicene Christians by Arian rulers was not uncommon. As we know, Athanasius of Alexandria, also knows as the “Champion of Orthodoxy” was exiled five times from the town where he was ministering: once in Trier (in western Germany), once in Rome and three times in the Egyptian wastelands. He spent seventeen years out of his diocese for the reason that he proclaimed and vigorously defended the Deity of Christ. Cyril of Jerusalem, likewise was exiled more than once. Accacius of Caesarea, an arian bishop who vigorously fought against Cyril of Jerusalem’s influence in the region (who was able to convoke an arian council to depose Cyril for two years), or the Arian Emperor Valens who exiled Cyril for eleven years. Times were not easy for the faithful christians at that time, the Nicenes didn't have enough power, it is mentioned that Gregory of Nazianzus’ church in Byzantium was the only nicene church among dozens of arian churches in the same city.  

By the help of Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril received again full jurisdiction over Jerusalem in 381 at the Council of Constantinople, which came to be regarded as the second ecumenical council. Cyril was present at the Council and voted for the acceptance of the term homoousios for the three persons of the Trinity. 

Cyril's 23 catechetical lectures can be divided into two significant categories: 

The first 18 lectures, sometimes reffered to as the Catechetical Homilies, that touch on the essentials of the faith that all have to know prior to their baptism

The final five, reffered to as the Mystagogic Catecheses, that have the purpose of instructing the baptized into the three mysteries (μυστήρια) of the Christian Faith. 

These lectures contain teaching on the essentials of Christian faith and practice, with a strong pastoral flavour dedicated to carefully present the God that loves us, interested in healing our wounds and reviving us by the life that is in Jesus given to us by partaking of the sacraments in faith. It is meant to present the merciful and gracious God which imparts new life by the blessing of regeneration. What must be noted is Cyril's high view of Scripture in the establishment of doctrine. In terms of his hermeneutics, we see a balance between the two schools of Alexandria and Antioch, in that we will find both allegory and literal readings of several passages in scripture, and a pretty balanced approach. Let us consider some of Cyril's views on Scripture: 

Scripture as the only source of doctrine

“This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by — way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell you these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.”- Lecture 4:17

This pattern is evident in all his lectures, in the way he extensively quotes Scripture and appeals to it as the supreme authority for the Christian. If this quote is true, then by implication, no dogma or doctrine can be true unless it is truly found in Scripture. 

The reason for anything we believe, even the slightest remark on doctrine should be grounded in the Holy Scripture, rather than in the tradition of the Church, an infallible magisterium or a man (prophet, pope, etc) who speaks infallible truths. In traditions such as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, the idea of the infallibility of the church is present. Cyril, strong in his affirmation of the Trinity never appeals to the Council of Nicaea or previous fathers in defense of the Deity of Christ. If he would have believed in the infallibility of Nicaea I, wouldn't have he asserted the binding authority of the council to simply confute the heretics? This pattern of the supremacy, sufficiency and infallibility of Scripture may be found in other Nicene fathers like Athanasius: 

"the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth" (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, part 1, 1, 3)

Nevertheless this isn't to say they had a low ecclesiology. Both Cyril and Athanasius had a high view of the church and the traditions passed down from the apostles; however Scripture was suppose to be the only establisher of doctrine, of which as we will see the church is the declarer of the apostolic truth- the truth once given to the apostles. 

Let us proceed to analyze Cyril's views on the canon and the apocrypha.

“Read the two and twenty books of these Scriptures: and have nothing to do with the apocryphal books. Those only study earnestly, which we read confidently even in Church. Far wiser than thou, and more devout, were the Apostles, and the ancient Bishops, the rulers of the Church, who have handed down these: thou, therefore, who art a child of the Church, trench not on their sanctions. And of the Old Testament, as hath been said, study the two and twenty books; and these, if thou art diligent, strive to remember by name, as I repeat them. Of the Law, are the first five books of Moses; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy: then Joshua the son of Nun: and the book of Judges and of Ruth, which is numbered the seventh. Of the remaining Historical books, the first and second books of Kings are among the Hebrews one book, and so the third and fourth books; and likewise the first and second books of Chronicles make one book ; and the first and second books of Esdras are one; and the twelfth is the book of Esther: these are the Historical books. The books which are written in verses are five; Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. After these come the five Prophetic books: the one book of the Twelve Prophets; the book of Esaias; the book of Jeremias, which with Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle makes one book; then Ezekiel; and the book of Daniel is the twenty-second book of the Old Testament.”- Lecture 4:35

It is important to note that Cyril's numbering of books is different from ours, following a Jewish tradition that the Old Testament would have 22 books, each corresponding to one letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Therefore the Book of the Twelve Prophets in our Bibles we count as 12 books, 1 Kings and 2 Kings being one book, 3rd Kings and 4th Kings one book, etc. A close examination of the books he lists as canon and counting by our modern rendering would lead us to number 41 books (it is possible that it can even be 42, whether or not he actually considers Susana part of Daniel) in the Old Testament. He recognized 26 books in the New Testament, excepting Revelation. Adding the number, his scriptural canon makes up 67 books, being thus way closer to a Protestant canon than to a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox canon. His views on the Apocrypha should be considered: 

“We speak not from Apocryphal books, but from Daniel”- Lecture 15:16 (which book he cites, in other words ‘from scripture’ not the apocrypha)

His emphasis on studying only the Scriptures, which is read in the church, is to regard the apocrypha as unnecessary for the faith, or studying. I personally wouldn't go as far as saying studying apocryphal books is in no way good or helpful, but I would say we ought not to establish doctrine or as Cyril says “even the slightest remark” without Holy Scripture, or those books which are universally agreed upon. Concerning the method, Cyril teaches that the church is the instrument by which the canon is received and handed down to which no Protestant (by this I mean, one who holds to the classical view of Sola Scriptura) would object. Cyril's advice to not consider yourself wiser than the ancient Bishops cannot be charged against Protestants, since no church today holds to Cyril's canon whom he believed was handed down from the apostles and the ancient Bishops. Accusing another denomination of proclaiming to be wiser than the early church and using Cyril to do so would be a double standard unless one holds to Cyril's 67 book canon. At times, Cyril may appeal to the ancient interpretation of the church concerning one passage, to which we would have no problem. Church tradition is authoritative, just not sufficient for establishing doctrine, or in other words, not infallibly authoritative. 

Lastly, I think we have things to learn from Cyril's understanding of the relationship between Scripture, the church and the way we ought to establish doctrine. To be continued...