Cyril of Jerusalem

Let’s start with FishEaters’ first quotation. As we’ve done on a number of occasions throughout this series, let’s just complete the sentence:

FishEaters gave this citation to make it appear as if Cyril is arguing for transubstantiation. In reality, he was comparing the holy and profane invocations. The elements of bread and wine offered to Christ were no more Christ’s literal flesh and blood than the meats offered to Satan were Satan’s literal flesh and blood. As we will see below, Cyril viewed the bread and wine as symbols of Christ’s body and blood, just as we’ve seen in the other ancient writings.

In contrasting the holy with the profane, Cyril is not saying that the “simple” bread and wine become the “literal” flesh and blood, he was saying that the “simple” bread and wine—which he calls the thanksgiving—is holy (i.e. not profane) after the consecration.

Let’s go slowly and say that again: the bread and wine (2-3) of the thanksgiving (eucharist) is found before the (4) consecration by the invocation of the words of institution, after which is is holy—consecrated. It is an unconsecrated eucharist before the invocation, it is a consecrated eucharist after the invocation. The consecrated eucharist is no longer common.

But I have made an important error in my analysis, which is revealed by Cyril two lectures later. The invocation is not the epiclesis, it is the oblation.

Cyril references the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the bread in the same breath as the invocation on the ointment. The thanksgiving offering—eucharist—includes more than the bread and wine: it includes ointment. And the invocation he speaks? It isn’t the words of institution, for he makes no mention of them. It is the (3) oblation of the eucharist. The Holy Spirit is invoked over the entire tithe offering.

Sit and ponder this for a while. Consider the implications of what he is saying. Cyril considered the elements to be consecrated by the Holy Spirit as the body and blood of Christ during the thanskgiving—eucharist—before the words of institution were spoken, for all the elements of the tithe were consecrated together (including the ointment). When Cyril says “invocation”, he is referring to the oblation: the offertory prayer of thanksgiving to God for the tithe.

What Cyril has done is moved the consecration of the bread and wine forward into the oblation without altering the order of the ancient liturgy itself. The invocation over the tithe—the oblation—is now considered to be a consecration. To the best of my knowledge, Cyril, writing in 350, is the first writer to move the consecration from the (4) epiclesis into the (2-3) eucharist and oblation.

Does this sound familiar? In Part 2: The Didache, we noted that Roman Catholics cannot find a consecration in the thanksgiving—eucharist—in the liturgy of The Didache, so they assume that the entire thanksgiving prayer must qualify as a consecration? This idea originates from Cyril, who appears to be the first ancient writer to do this.

We will discuss more about why Cyril made these changes when we discuss Lecture 23 below.

Now, let’s look at the middle two quotes that FishEaters has provided. They are from the same short lecture, so we will quote them together:

Wow, the words from Cyril are strongly worded! Who are you to say that the blood of Christ is not his actual literal blood? These are the words of Jesus himself! Cyril had no doubts and neither must you, right?!

Cyril’s words remind me one of the quotes by the Roman Catholic who inspired this series:

Do you find it strange that FishEaters only cited paragraphs 1 and 6? Do you wonder, “What is contained in the context that she left out?” Let’s find out:

Here we again see the ancient liturgy, of the elements figuratively representing the body and blood of Christ as the Word of God. In isolation, FishEaters’ selected quote makes it seem as if Cyril is speaking literally, even as he explicitly states the figurative relationship between the body and the bread. This is not the only time Cyril does this:

When Cyril talks of consuming the bread and wine, he does so in a physical sense. When Cyril talks of the body and blood, he does so in a spiritual sense (soul; divine nature; the Word), clearly noting that the former is the symbol for the later.  When one partakes in the physical, they also partake in the spiritual. Cyril keeps his categories distinctly separate: the bread is for the body, the Word is for the soul.

Now, let’s do this again, but this time something different will take place. In FishEaters’ final quotation, she cites this paragraph:

Let’s look at what she left out:

In paragraphs 8 and 10, we find the answer to the riddle that we found in Lectures 19 and 21: why did Cyril make the oblation of the thanskgiving tithe—the eucharist—a consecration? Because in doing so, he became the first writer to offer the body and blood of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice.

Instead of offering their thanksgiving to God and giving their tithes to the poor, the Church was now going to offer propitiation for sin.

Sure, Cyril still viewed the body and blood of Christ as figurative (thus, bloodless) symbols (not transubstantiation). Here he explicitly calls them “anti-typical” (or symbolic). He didn’t alter the order of the ancient liturgy and the thanksgiving still included tithes other than bread and wine. But, Cyril now considered the oblation—rather than the epiclesis—to consecrate the bread and wine being offered as a sacrifice. In changing the meaning of the liturgy without changing its structure, Cyril turned the bread and wine into body and blood of Christ for a sacrificial propitiation for sin during the thanksgiving prayer.

This was a monumental pole shift in the history of the liturgy. The impact of this cannot be overstated. It truly set the foundation for the rise of Roman Catholicism and its Mass sacrifice.

It is especially notable that Cyril’s novelty of offering the body and blood as propitiation for sin is associated with another heresy. In paragraph 9 and 10, he advocates prayers for the dead. Notice how he anticipates objections to his novelty. But these are not the only novelties that Cyril attempted to add to the practices of the church.

In paragraphs 21 and 22, Cyril is telling those who will receive communion for the first time how to show a properly reverent mode of conduct. He instructs them in how to receive the bread—by cupping their hands so they don’t drop it—and how to drink from the cup—by leaning down and forward to the cup rather than trying to draw the cup up to their lips (this “bending” is sometimes misinterpreted as an instruction to bow before the wine….and only the wine). But then Cyril tells them what to do with the bread:

That’s right, take that bread—which is the body of Christ—moisten it with a little wine from your lips and then touch it all over your face: eyes, brows, ears, mouth, lips, nose, and skin.

Such actions would utterly horrify the Roman Catholic. And it does! So absurd are Cyril’s novelties in Lecture 23, that some Roman Catholics conclude that it must not have been written by Cyril (thanks to Tim Kauffman for these references):

I too wish that Cyril’s words were not actually Cyril’s own words, as they represent a significant deviation from the ancient liturgy. I wish I could cry out “Fake! Fake! Fake!” But as we showed in Lectures 19 and 21, Cyril’s views of the sacrifice of propitiation are explained by Lecture 23. The ancient liturgists would not have liked Cyril’s corruption of the ancient liturgy either. Nor did his own congregants appreciate the changes he was trying to persuade them to accept. But, personally disliking his viewpoints is not a valid reason to declare his writings unauthentic, especially when those writings are consistent with each other.

Roman Catholics like that Cyril advocated prayers for the dead. They like that Cyril moved the consecration of the bread and wine into the Eucharist. But they have problems with a lot of other things Cyril wrote, like how congregants should handle the communion bread. But, intellectual honesty means you don’t just cherry-pick what you agree with and ignore the rest. Cyril was no Roman Catholic who subscribed to the Roman liturgy. He didn’t believe in transubstantiation, for example.

But, while Cyril—writing just a bit more than 300 years after the ascension of Christ—affirmed much of what we’ve seen throughout this series as part of the ancient liturgy, you can also see how his views began a developmental shift to what would one day be established as the Roman liturgy in the 6th or 7th century.

Many times throughout this series—The Didache, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Aphrahat, Athanasius, Eusebius, Lactantius—we have noted that the ancient church viewed the thanksgiving—eucharist—as the sacrificial fulfillment of Malachi 1:11. All of these described the ancient liturgy. But what about Cyril?

What does Cyril identify as the incense and sacrifice that the Church offers to God? It is blessings, praise, and glorifying God.

This is remarkable. Even though Cyril has begun to sacrifice Christ’s body and blood, albeit symbolically, he still views the prophesy of Malachi as being fulfilled in the blessings, praises, and glory that the church brings to God. Given the clear chance to confirm the Roman liturgy by saying…

…he chooses not to! Thus, even in the midst of his doctrinal innovation, he still maintains the ancient meaning of Malachi’s prophesy.

The prophecy of Malachi is that God would replace the Jews and their corporeal sacrifices with a Church made up of Gentiles and their incorporeal sacrifices. God was bragging to—and threatening—the Jews about his replacement upgraded followers and their replacement upgraded sacrifices. God’s new followers would be superior to the old because they would love him with their hearts.

This is why the greatest commandment is “Love the Lord your God.” The fulfillment of Malachi meant that no longer were sacrifices required for sin, for Christ was the final sacrifice. Now the only sacrifice was the circumcision of the heart: to love God freely and fully, to offer him one’s joyful praise and thanksgiving.

This reads remarkably like Malachi’s prophecy. The Jews are defiling and defaming God with their evil deeds (again!). God wants to be great among the nations. To do this, he needs followers with pure hearts and the sacrifices of praise.

It makes no sense for Cyril to insert Christ’s sacrifice into Malachi, and so he doesn’t. It probably never even occurred to him.