Saint Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, his life and work

From the time of the death of Constantine the Great and the accession of Constantius to the throne, a turning point began in the history of the church, a new era in its existence. If for the first three centuries the apostolic church waged a struggle against the persecutors of Christianity - its external enemies, a struggle that ended with the complete triumph of the church and recognition of not only the legitimacy of its existence, but also its primacy, then in the 4th century it was preparing for an even more difficult test that emerged from its depths - this is the fight against heresies. Among the various heresies that appeared in it, Arianism turned out to be the most dangerous, both in its spread among the masses and in the sympathy and powerful support that many emperors who occupied the throne after Constantine provided it. The holy martyrs accepted the challenge of paganism, and their death was a victory, their blood was the seed of new Christians, the seed from which the mighty tree of the church was to grow. When heresies arose in the church itself, seeking to destroy it, the Lord gave it the strength to overcome these heresies and emerge from them even more powerful and strengthened. By God's will, in places especially affected by heresy, great lamps of the Church appear, armed with the power of faith and knowledge, both in life and in creation, true teachers and shepherds of the Church. Therefore, the 4th century is truly the century of the church fathers. Each of them, by the power of truth, his talent given to him by God, and the example of his life, protected his flock from the attacks of the Arians and was alone able to preserve the church given to him. Orthodox Gaul owed its existence to St. Hilary, Egypt - to St. Athanasius, Asia Minor gave three great Cappadocians - Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa, and finally, the mother of all churches - the Church of Jerusalem had as its teacher and leader St. Cyril, the great lamp of the Church, a man of high talents and moral qualities, in whose recognition all the churches of East and West agree. Biographical information about St. Cyril of Jerusalem is very scarce and chronological dates about some outstanding events in his life can only be established approximately, within certain limits. He was born between 313–315. in Jerusalem or its surroundings. The name of his parents is unknown, but in the works of St. Cyril there are a number of indirect indications that the upbringing and education of the future leader of the Church of Jerusalem took place in favorable conditions for the development in him of a high Christian disposition and devotion to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, devotion, which was subsequently expressed in his soulful interpretation of the teachings of the Orthodox Church, and in his selfless defense of it from the attacks of the Arians and other heretics. While still a youth, he visited all the holy places of Palestine and described the state in which they were before their restoration by the care of Emperor Constantine. And his education was so serious and comprehensive that he understood the intricacies of the dispute between representatives of two directions of church thought - Orthodox and Arian, and definitely and consciously became a supporter of the first direction. From his works and from other sources (Greek synaxarion) it is known that in his youth he was in the monastic rank, but, apparently, this name defines not so much a monastic state, as it is usually understood, but an ascetic life in the world, aimed at self-improvement and achievement. According to the testimony of St. Jerome, St. Cyril, at the age of about 20, was already identified as a St. Macarius of Jerusalem as a deacon, although there are no clear and definite indications of this event in other sources. But his ordination to the priesthood by Archbishop Maximus of Jerusalem is an accurate historical fact, although without a chronological date. If we assume that St. Cyril at this time reached the normal age when other fathers of the Orthodox Church accepted the priesthood, namely 30 years old, then the event of his initiation into this rank could have taken place around 343–345. A few years later, namely in 348, St. Kirill pronounces his famous words of clarification, which gave him fame as a preacher and immortalized his name. He delivered these sermons already on the eve of his bishopric, and perhaps even at the beginning of it. As a bishop, St. Cyril writes his famous letter to Emperor Constantius about the appearance of a luminous cross in Jerusalem on May 7 of this year on the day of Pentecost. At the third hour, the honorable cross shone like the sun over Golgotha, stretching far in length, right up to the Mount of Olives, making a strong impression on the inhabitants of Jerusalem and representing a sign of God’s special mercy to the Orthodox Church. The inhabitants of Jerusalem, amazed by the vision, hurried to the temple to give glory to Christ, and many of the Jews and pagans believed in Christ and were baptized. This appearance of the Cross served for St. Cyril as the reason for sending a letter to Emperor Constantius. The conditions under which St. Cyril sent his message to the emperor, they were both exceptional and serious. He wrote this letter not to the friend and patron of the Orthodox Church, but to its enemy. Arianism under Emperor Constantius built a strong nest for itself at court and in the person of Constantius had an ardent supporter who tried to place it in the position of the ruling Church. Under him, the Orthodox Church was in a position, if not openly persecuted, then only tolerant. The situation was further complicated by the fact that the Byzantine emperors viewed themselves as the supreme leaders of the church, capable of understanding the intricacies of theological issues and resolving issues of concern to the church at their own discretion. To send a message in which the holiness of the Orthodox doctrine was established with unshakable conviction and which indirectly convicted the emperor of his error, required great fortitude and determination to sacrifice everything for the benefit of the Church. In this regard, St. Cyril is like all the great fathers and teachers of the church. This is what both Basil the Great and Athanasius the Great did, not being afraid to defend the Church before the rulers and, like Athanasius the Great, enduring all sorts of hardships and hardships for this defense. But St. Cyril, like all his great companions, saw the task of his bishopric not only in governing the local church, but also in caring for the position of the Orthodox universal church. The date of this message has been established beyond doubt, namely 351, and, based on it, historians are trying to establish the year of the accession of St. Kirill to the episcopal see. In 351, therefore, St. Cyril was already the Bishop of Jerusalem. But when did he take up this department? Some historians believe that at the beginning of 351 or not earlier than 350, since in 349 St. returned through Jerusalem. Athanasius from the Council of Sardica, which took place in 347 and was greeted by Archbishop Maximus. However, some objections, apparently serious ones, may be raised against this date. The discovery of the Easter letters of Athanasius the Great changed these calculations. According to them, the Council of Sardica took place not in 347, but in 343, and St. Athanasius entered Alexandria, having passed through Palestine, on October 21, 346. Then, based on the text of the chronicle of St. Jerome (Eusebii chronicorum libri duo according to the publication of Schöne 1875, vol. 2, p. 194) year of death of the arch. Maximus falls in 347. Based on these data, later historians enter St. Cyril’s appointment to the See of Jerusalem dates back to 348, and therefore the year of his birth, usually attributed to 315, should be reduced by 2. Although the letter to Emperor Constantius was written in 351, there is no reason to assert that it was written at the beginning of the bishopric of St. Kirill. True, St. Cyril calls this letter his first fruit, but this expression rather characterizes not the beginning of his creative activity in the rank of bishop, but the fact that for the first time he finds the right moment to address the emperor about the affairs of the church. No less important than the year of accession of St. Cyril to the episcopal see, to establish the circumstances under which his consecration took place, especially since the hostility of St. To Cyril, Arianism tried to splatter mud at the bright personality of the high saint of the church and the glorious service of the great saint of the Orthodox Church and to misrepresent his exaltation. According to this version, which, no doubt, came from Arian circles and found faith among some church historians, the Arians, led by Akakios, Metropolitan of Caesarea in Palestine, one of the most convinced supporters of the Arians, offered the Jerusalem See to St. Cyril, provided that he invalidates his dedication from the hands of St. Maxima to the priesthood and will accept this initiation from the Arians. According to this version, St. Cyril allegedly was an Arian deacon and presbyter for some time, and then reached the episcopal see, which, after the death of Maximus, was occupied by Heraclius, his appointed successor. But all subsequent activities of St. Cyril at the See of Jerusalem, starting with a heroic letter to Emperor Constantius, in which he speaks to this convinced Arian about God’s favor to the Orthodox Church, and ending with all the hardships and hardships that he endured thanks to the machinations of the Arians, and in particular and especially Metropolitan Akakie; to talk only about what a dangerous and serious opponent Arianism had in the person of this saint of the Orthodox Church and how important it was for the Arian bishops to deprive the Orthodox Church of this figure. And the fathers of the Council of Constantinople much later, namely in 382, ​​having approved the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox Church about St. Trinity, in their letter to Pope Damasus, informed him, among other things, that St. Cyril was canonically installed as a bishop by the bishops of Palestine and therefore does not need a secondary confirmation: the efforts of the Arians to neutralize Cyril of Jerusalem for themselves created his name among some bishops as a supporter of the Arians and it required an authoritative examination of the slander against him and its refutation by the ecumenical council. Regarding the question of whether Arch. took the department after his death. Maxima Heraclius or St. Cyril, it is very possible that it was originally occupied by Heraclius, whom Arch. Maxim, dying, identified himself as a successor. But this choice of his may not have been approved by other bishops, who preferred Heraclius to St. Cyril, who even then had great fame as an eloquent preacher and defender of the Orthodox Church from the Arians. So, apparently, it was. The first years of the episcopal activity of St. Kirill were very successful. The appearance of a radiant cross in the sky testified to the special mercy of God towards the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem and significantly increased the flock of St. Kirill. Peace also reigned in the Church itself, and St. Cyril, with energy and love, devoted himself entirely to the episcopal service, which was expressed in the management of its affairs, in the education of the people and in the arrangement of its splendor, that is, the opening of new churches and the founding of monasteries. Apparently, the works of St. Cyril were very successful because he was demanding in church matters and very impressionable to all sentiments in the religious field, St. Basil the Great, having visited the Jerusalem Church around 357, found everything in it in an excellent position and subsequently recalled with pleasure and a sense of spiritual satisfaction in a letter to one of the participants in this journey - a monk - about the host of Jerusalem hierarchs who met them with love and harmony. But this calm was fragile; a struggle had already begun between St. Cyril and Akakios, Metropolitan of Caesarea in Palestine. Externally, this struggle manifested itself in Akaki’s desire to belittle the dignity of the Archbishop of Jerusalem, to subjugate him to himself, and in opposition to St. Kirill attacks Akakie. St. was canonically right. Cyril, defending his independence, since the 7th rule of the Council of Nicea established for the Archbishop of Jerusalem not only the right to independence, but also to seniority, which was not expressed in the subordination of other bishops to him, but only in the advantages of external respect and in the special honorable distinction of the Jerusalem See from others. This was the external reason, or rather, the reason for the clash between the two archbishops, a clash that ended so sadly for the great figure of the Orthodox Church of the 4th century, and all ancient historians of the Church agree on its definition. The matter was, says Sozomen, about the rights of the archbishop - περὶ μητροπολιτικῶν δικαίων (1, IV, ch. 25), - about the primacy of περὶ προτείων was confirmed by Theodorite (I, II, ch. 26). But the reason for the struggle was deeper. In the person of St. Cyril and Akaki, the Orthodox Church and Arianism had two of the most convinced and staunch defenders of their teachings. St. Cyril, raised from a young age in devotion to the Orthodox Church, received a broad theological and philosophical education, a brilliant preacher and soulful interpreter of the sacraments of St. church, was a dangerous enemy of Arianism. He could not be seduced by the advantages of the position of the dominant false teaching and protected by the Arian emperors, since he was incorruptible, nor could he be intimidated, since he was firm and steadfast. He could not be confused by the subtlety of theological concepts, as happened with some bishops who, out of inexperience, believed that there was no big difference in the words “omousios” (consubstantial) and “omiouzios” (similar in essence), whereas these definitions contained the fundamental difference in the teachings of the Orthodox and Arians about the second Person of the Holy Trinity - Jesus Christ. By 357 - the beginning of their mutual divergence - Akaki was not an open persecutor of Orthodoxy, but St. Already at this time, Cyril foresaw in his beliefs what he later found in him - an inclination towards Arianism. For his part, Akaki saw in Cyril a convinced defender of the doctrine of the perfect similarity in nature between the Father and the Son: the Son is not like the Father, as His creation, but is consubstantial with Him - this is what the saint professed. Cyril and what Arianism fiercely rebelled against. To all these circumstances we must add the authority that this eloquent preacher enjoyed among his flock, and the charm of his bright, highly moral personality in order to understand that not only the calculations of petty ambition and lust for power could guide Akaki in his struggle with St. Cyril, but also the awareness of danger and harm that the latter’s presence in the ancient Jerusalem see brought to Arianism. For Akaki, it seemed important and necessary not to subordinate St. to him. Cyril, but his complete removal from the pulpit of Jerusalem. The opportunity for this was not slow to present itself. There was a terrible famine in Jerusalem. The population, gripped by panic, turned to St. for help. Kirill. Moved by a feeling of Christian compassion, he not only distributed his property and church funds to the hungry, but was forced to sell church vessels, jewelry and some vestments in order to feed the hungry with the proceeds. In a time of general disaster, he rose above the letter and showed that the church is a caring mother of her children, not only in their mental misfortunes, but also in their physical ones. In this great, truly Christian act of sacrifice for the benefit of others, Akaki saw the theft of church property. First, he invited Kirill to his place for an explanation. However, St. For two years, Cyril did not find it necessary to appear before Akaki, since he did not recognize his right to be his judge. Then Akaki assembles a council of the bishops of Palestine who agree with him. St. Cyril, not recognizing the authority of this council, and perhaps even suspecting for what definite and predetermined purpose it was assembled, chose, despite Akakie’s invitations, not to appear at it. At this cathedral of St. Cyril was deprived of his chair for failing to appear in court, says Socrates (I, II, ch. 40), for theft of church property and desecration of sacred objects, says Sozomen (I, IV, ch. 25). St. Cyril, not recognizing the authority of this council, which had a clearly Arian direction, wanted his case to be considered by a more impartial council, the reason for convening which the emperor himself found sound. But in view of the fact that rumors about the sale of St. Cyril, church property reached him in an even more perverted form, and also due to the opposition of the enemies of St. Cyril, secondary review of the case of St. Cyril did not succeed, and he was forced to obey the resolution of the council convened by Akaki and not only leave the department, but also his hometown. In 358 a new period began in the life of St. Kirill. This year was for him the beginning of sorrows and exile, and like St. Athanasius, he endured with courage and firmness all the trials that haunt him continuously one after another and which are sent by Providence as if to show with obvious clarity to everyone that to protect the holiness of Christ's teaching, suffering and feat are necessary. St. Cyril initially goes to Antioch, but does not stay here long and moves to Tarsus. The bishop of this city, Silouan, met the exile with respect and, despite Akakiye’s representations to him that St. Cyril was deprived of his dignity and therefore should not have communication with bishops; he gave him the opportunity to perform episcopal service and speak sermons. Here, in direct communication with the flock and influence on it, St. Kirill found moral satisfaction in misfortune itself, and his sermons were a great success. In general, Silouan took a great part in the further fate of St. Cyril, and through him, St. Cyril entered into communication with bishops who sympathized with him and took measures to reconsider his case. These bishops, among whom he sought help, were semi-Arians in their theological views - Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea, and this communication with heretics was subsequently recognized at the Council of Constantinople in 360 as the basis for the deposition of St. Cyril, and he was accused of being semi-Arian. However, such a suspicion of St. Cyril’s position in non-Orthodoxy did not have a solid basis, since these bishops at that time did not declare anything about their apostasy from Orthodoxy and were not excommunicated from the church. Communication with other-minded people, which St. did not shy away from. Athanasius the Great did not mean that St. Kirill, who clearly and firmly defined his Orthodox direction in the clarification words he had already uttered, shared their convictions. Finally, to which of the Orthodox bishops could St. Kirill, when were most of them expelled or found in oblivion? At the end of September 359, a local council of 150 bishops finally met in Seleucia, of which the Arians, led by Acacius, had only 30–40 bishops. The Council first dealt with the heresy of the Anomians, and then considered the question of the guilt of St. Kirill. The Arians, who were in the minority, argued that Cyril’s case had been decided and that a second review was not required. Based on this consideration, they refused to take part in further meetings of the council. Despite this, the council decided to continue the meetings; those who refused to appear, despite his invitation, to the meetings - some, led by Akaki, were condemned, others were deprived of church communion and reported their decision to the churches of the condemned. What St. Cyril was acquitted and again had the right to take his episcopal see, this was already clear from the condemnation of Akaki and all his supporters, who were his main and only accusers. And indeed, St. Cyril returned to Jerusalem, where his stay this time was very short. At the end of the Council of Seleucia, ten bishops went to Constantinople to report to the emperor the resolutions of this council. The deposed supporters of Akaki, led by the latter, hastened to warn them and also came to Constantinople. Supported by the court party, they won over the emperor and presented to him everything that happened at the council in the darkest light. Akaki called the cathedral a gathering of bad people capable of destroying the church, and especially tried to arm the emperor against St. Cyril, misrepresenting the sale of church items and keeping silent about the motives that guided St. Kirill. Acting on the emperor’s pride, he said that St. Cyril sold to one merchant the sacred robe given to Bishop Macarius of Jerusalem by Constantine the Great. This robe was later seen on an actress who danced in it and mocked the Orthodox faith. On his side was the Patriarch of Constantinople Eudoxius, who shared the beliefs of the Arians. On the other hand, the bishops who arrived from the Seleucia Council did not demonstrate sufficient steadfastness and firmness in defending the resolutions of this council. It was during their stay that the Arian bishops arrived in Constantinople from the council in Rimini and, despite the warning of the deputies of the Seleucia Council, entered into an agreement with the Acacius party. Thus, the deputies-bishops who arrived from the Seleucia Council found themselves alone, and at the end of 359, under the influence of intimidation and threats from the emperor, they even agreed to sign the Arian confession of faith drawn up at the Council in Rimini. Having won a victory over their enemies, the Akakie party convened a new council of 50 bishops in January 360. The main task of this council was to take revenge on those semi-Arian bishops who were present at the Council of Seleucia, to whom they owed their deposition. They, in turn, deprived these bishops of their sees and among the victims was St. Kirill. He was accused of two circumstances. Firstly, that he, deprived of his bishopric at the council convened by Acacius, entered into relations with Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea to reconsider his case, and secondly, that he, together with Eustathius of Sebaste and Elpidius, opposed the Melitene Council, at which he himself was present. About this second expulsion of St. Kirill has almost no information. One piece of information has been preserved that allows us to think about the close relationship between him and Meletius of Antioch and to assume that he spent at least some time in Antioch. Precisely, in the middle of 362. Meletius turned to him with a request to give shelter to the son of the great priest Apollo, whom his angry father subjected to cruel torture for converting him to Christianity. Assumption of friendship between St. Cyril and Meletius of Antioch during this period of time finds confirmation in the fact that then Meletius had already completely renounced his errors and openly expressed his Orthodoxy, professing the Nicene Creed. On November 3, 361, Constantius died, and his successor Julian the Apostate allowed all the bishops expelled under his predecessor to return to his diocese. This permission also applied to St. Kirill. The incident described above with the appeal of Meletius of Antioch to him apparently took place during his return through Antioch to Jerusalem. What awaited St. Kirill at the episcopal see of his hometown? Could he, after the trials he had endured, hope to see in the new emperor a sincere friend and defender of Orthodoxy? It is known that the church fathers had a negative attitude towards Julian even at a time when he was far from the throne. In Athens, where he studied science and where he met and became acquainted with the luminary of the Orthodox Church, Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian, there was prejudice against him among the Orthodox circle, despite his apparent Orthodoxy. Gregory the Theologian considered him a deceiver and then predicted that the church would find its worst enemy in him. Words of St. Gregory the Theologian were justified exactly. Having returned St. Cyril to the episcopal see, Julian at the same time orders the restoration of the ancient Temple of Jerusalem to humiliate Christianity. A general rejoicing arose among the Jews, which, by the grace of God, did not last long. The Lord once again showed His mercy to the Church of Jerusalem and its saint. While this construction was underway and new ones were erected on the stones of the ancient Solomon's temple, St. Cyril, based on the prediction of the prophet Daniel (9:26) and on the words of the Savior (Matthew 24:2), says that now the moment has come when the words of the Savior that from the church “not one stone will remain upon another, everything will be destroyed” must be fulfilled literally. A strong earthquake that occurred overnight destroyed the fruits of the labors of the zealots of Judaism and the enemies of Christianity. All the stones were thrown out from the foundation of the church - both new ones, which were laid, and ancient ones, laid by Solomon. This miracle affected both Christians and Jews no less than the appearance of the venerable Cross in heaven. Thus the Orthodox Church triumphed in Jerusalem, despite Julian’s attempts to destroy it! Episcopal activity of St. Cyril continued throughout the short reign of Julian and the first years of Valens, when St. Cyril in 367 was again forced to leave his see and Jerusalem. During this period of time, Cyril's activities focused on managing the affairs of his church, strengthening its position and fighting various heresies that flooded Jerusalem and tore apart the body of the Church of Christ. Did he take part in the affairs of the universal church during this time and what position did he occupy in the joint endeavors of Orthodox bishops of other churches? This question must be answered, apparently, in the negative. True, in the message of Pope Liberius, which he wrote to the eastern bishops in response to their deputation sent to him in 365 or 366 with a proposal for the unity of the eastern and western Churches and his adoption of the Nicene Creed, the name Κύριλλος appears second, but in what was the participation of St. Kirill in this attempt at unity and whether he even took any part in it is difficult to judge. But his name is not mentioned either in the petition presented to Julian by Basil of Ancyra and Silouan of Tarsus, or among the bishops who met in the fall of 363 at the Council of Antioch, chaired by Meletius. At the end of 365 or at the beginning of 366, the irreconcilable enemy of St. dies. Cyril Akakios, and with his death the question of the priority position of the See of Caesarea, and St. By right and merit, Cyril is the oldest of the bishops. St. Cyril appoints Philumel in his place. With the death of this, and perhaps as a result of his overthrow by the lassos, St. Cyril, preoccupied with establishing the See of Caesarea for an Orthodox bishop, appointed his nephew Gelasius, who was known for his piety, knowledge and purity of faith, to it. But the Arians drove him out and replaced him with their protege Eusebius. Thus, the attempt of St. Kirill's attempt to approve neighboring episcopal sees for the Orthodox ended in failure. And he himself, as a result of the persecution of the Arian Emperor Valens, had to leave the Jerusalem See for the third time, since he was subject to the order of this Emperor to maintain in force the decree depriving Orthodox bishops of the Sees that they had abandoned under Constantius. This last exile, about which history says nothing, lasted 11 years - from 367 to 378. The death of Valens on August 9, 378 and the accession of Gratian put an end to the exile of the exiled Orthodox bishops. St. Cyril returned to Jerusalem at the end of 378, and at the beginning of 379 we see him energetically organizing his see. The holy city was a cluster, a center of representatives of the sects of Macedonians, Arians, Appolinarians, not counting the more ancient ones. As a consequence of the spread of these sects, there was excitement of minds, free criticism of the institutions of the Church, complete discord in it, and in connection with these phenomena, loosening of morals and savagery of the flock. At that time, Jerusalem was an international destination, attracting people of all professions and all countries. The absence of a legitimate bishop and the rapid succession of Arian bishops in the Jerusalem See, who did not enjoy respect and love among the population, deprived all such newcomers, most of whom were morally very low, of a restraining principle, and they freely indulged in all sorts of vices, acting in a corrupting manner on the indigenous population of the city. Adultery, theft, witchcraft and murder were common in Jerusalem, and people, according to the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa, were ready, like wild animals, to rush at each other. Finally, what created a great difficulty for St. Cyril in the management of the Jerusalem Church, a split occurred among the Orthodox, and some of them were equally hostile to St. Cyril the party that existed in Antioch against Meletius. According to the wishes of St. Cyril, the Council of Antioch in 379 instructed Gregory of Nyssa to visit Jerusalem on his way to Arabia in order to bring peace and tranquility to the Church as a mediator. Gregory's activities as a mediator ended in failure, and he returned home, upset. Over time, St. Cyril gradually restored peace and harmony and established his episcopal authority. The last outstanding event in the life and work of St. Cyril was his participation at the Council of Constantinople convened by Emperor Theodosius in 381. After the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, he is mentioned among the first and main figures of this council. However, detailed information about his activities there, as well as about his participation in the additional Council of Constantinople, held the following year, has not survived. At the last council, an important decree of the Church Fathers regarding St. Kirill. In their letter to Pope Damasus, they confirmed the legitimacy of St. Cyril at the see and thereby destroyed the suspicious attitude towards him that existed due to the slander of the Arians and his enemies in the Western Church and among some Eastern bishops. In this letter, the fathers of the cathedral spoke about St. Kirill like this: “We also let you know that the bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, this mother of all churches, is the Venerable and very beloved by God Kirill, who at one time was canonically appointed by the bishops of the diocese and in various places suffered a lot in the struggle against the Arians.” This is the latest reliable information about the life of St. Cyril towards the end of his eight-year stay at the Jerusalem See. He was satisfied with the fruits of his activity, and the calm and peace of the Church rewarded him for all the hardships and hardships that he suffered during his long last exile. St. Cyril died, having reached the age of 72, on March 18, 386, on which day his memory is honored by the Church. Creations of St. Cyril are not significant in size, but large in content and valuable for the history of the church. His undisputed creations include: 1) 18 catechetical words to those who are enlightened, together with a pre-conciliatory word, and 5 secret words to the newly enlightened. 2) Conversation about the paralytic at the font. 3) Letter to Emperor Constantius and Catechetical words among the works of St. Cyril occupy first place, since they are such an outstanding monument of the ancient Christian church, the equal of which in its significance is difficult to find among other works of this kind. Their historical authenticity is indisputable. Already St. Jerome knew about them, and according to him, these words were spoken by St. Kirill in his youth, i.e. about 30 years old. The Seventh Ecumenical Council, without indicating the author, refers to one or another catechetical word. Finally, from many places in this work it is clear that the words were spoken in Jerusalem, in the middle of the 4th century, and therefore, in time and place, could only belong to St. Kirill. The catechetical words are based on the ancient symbol of faith of the Church of Jerusalem, and in order to familiarize those who are enlightened, first of all, with what they will have to accept and experience upon entering Christianity, the first to be revealed in these words are the members of repentance and baptism. Therefore, the first three teachings contain an interpretation of the words of the symbol: and into one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (18, 22). Further, in the fourth word of St. Cyril reports on what a Christian needs to know; in the fifth he talks about faith towards the gradual revelation of the creed from the very beginning in the order in which it was orally confessed in the Jerusalem church. Cyril reveals the symbol by comparing members of the faith with various places of St. Scripture, and in parallel concerns the analysis of “sacred” pagan fables “Eve could be born from the rib of a husband without a mother, but from a virgin’s womb, without a husband, can a baby really not be born?” (12, 29). “The Greeks stopped their mouths with their own fables. Why do you, who say that throwing stones turn into people, say that it is impossible for a virgin to give birth? You, who say that a daughter was born from the brain, why do you think it is impossible for a son to be born from a girl’s womb? You, who stand by your lie that Dionysus was born from the rib of your Dius, why do you reject our true teaching?” (12, 27). Thus, from the juxtaposition of the creed with biblical expressions, Cyril created dogma. In 5 mystical words, Cyril explains the subjects of tradition mentioned in the previous words (5, 23). Here he explains the rites of baptism, confirmation and Eucharist, which together constitute the images of the performance of these sacraments. The image of baptism: the entrance of those who are enlightened into the vestibule, where this sacrament is performed, their turning to face the west, their hands stretched out, and they renounce Satan: “I deny you, Satan, and all your works and all your work and all your ministry”; then turning to face east, which means from darkness to light; pronunciation of the words: “I believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and in one forgiveness of repentance”; anointing with spell oil from hair to feet; leading up to St. the font of divine baptism and the questioning of each baptized person about whether he believes in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and the pronunciation of the symbol of faith and three times immersion in water with “emerging” from the water after each immersion. Confirmation, which immediately took place after baptism, consisted of anointing the sanctified through the invocation of the Holy. Spirit, the peace of the forehead, ears, nostrils and chest of the baptized. The image of the celebration of the Eucharist: the priest performing the service, and other priests surrounding the altar of God, washing their hands with water given by the deacon; the deacon’s exclamation: “Receive each other and let us kiss each other,” the priest’s exclamation: “grief of the heart,” the people’s response: “Imams to the Lord,” again the priest’s exclamation: “we thank the Lord”; the people's answer: “worthy and righteous”; remembrance of the sky, earth, sea, sun, moon, stars, of all rational, visible and invisible creatures, of angels, archangels, powers, dominions; principles, powers, elderly cherubim, seraphim, and the seraphim’s song is repeated: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts,” the prayerful invocation of St. the Spirit upon the gifts that are presented, that He may make bread with the Body of Christ, and wine with the Blood of Christ (this is a spiritual, bloodless propitiatory sacrifice); prayer over this propitiatory sacrifice to God, for the general peace of the churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers, for champions, for those who are infirm, for those who labor and, in a word, for everyone who requires help; remembrance, then, of the formerly departed: patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs - with the hope that God, through their prayers, will accept our petition, as well as the commemoration of the fathers and bishops, and in general of all previously deceased Christians with the faith that prayer for souls, when a holy and terrible sacrifice is offered, will bring them great benefit; then reading the prayer: “Our Father who art in Heaven”; exclamation of the priest: “Holy of Holies”; the people's answer: “there is one Holy One, one Lord Jesus Christ”; an invitation to partake of the Holy Mysteries in the words of the Psalmist: “taste and see that the Lord is good” (Ps. 33:9) and the very communion first of the Body, and then of the cup or Blood of the Lord. The Eucharist ended with a prayer of gratitude to God, who made it worthy to partake of “so many mysteries.” The conversation about the paralytic at the font undoubtedly belongs to St. Kirill, since her style and many expressions are the same as in the catechetical words. In it, the author, narrating the healing of a weakened husband, conveys this event without deviating from the text of the Gospel of John and ends with appropriate remarks and admonitions. Letter to Emperor Constantius. Against the affiliation of this letter to St. Kirill was presented with two arguments. This letter, firstly, contains praise and high names in relation to the Arian emperor, which allegedly the Orthodox bishop could not allow himself. And secondly, at the end of this letter there is a praise of the consubstantial Trinity (ὀμοούσιος Τριάς), while in the catechetical words the word ὀμοούσιος is not found anywhere. But in the high epithets with which the author of the letter bestows on Constantius, one cannot see insufficient flattery, since the author himself, at the beginning of the letter, warns against such an understanding. This is only the official style of that time, necessary when addressing the emperor, the so-called high tone, which was used not only by Cyril, but also by St. Athanasius, St. Ilarius. Both of them, due to the frequent persecution to which they were subjected, probably had no reason to flatter the emperor. As for the praise to the emperor contained in this letter, it should be noted that at that time Constantius, indeed, showed great benefits to the church in many respects and did not at all then undertake against the Orthodox persecutions with which he later tarnished his name. Therefore, Theophan, who does not always treat St. favorably. Kirill, in this case, does not find anything reprehensible in his letter to the Orthodox bishop (Chronograph, vol. 108, p. 141). Likewise, there is no reason to recognize this letter as forged on the basis that it contains the words ὀμοούσιος Τριάς. The circumstance that this expression is not in the public words can only lead to the conclusion that it is inserted: in this regard, there are two opposing judgments among critics, both of which have good reasons behind them. Some critics (Touttée) believe that the expression ὀμοούσιος Τριάς belonged to St. Cyril, others, on the contrary, recognize it as an insertion (I. Mader. Der Heilige Cyrillus s. 60). In any case, the letter itself certainly belongs to St. Kirill. In addition to the mentioned works, there are three more small fragments, of which the first two are taken from the sermon about the miracle in Cana of Galilee and they are mentioned as belonging to St. Cyril, from an unknown author (apparently, Presbyter Athanasius), as well as from St. Maxim, and the third is part of the word on the text of Ev. John 16, 28 – “I go to my Father” and is mentioned as belonging to St. Kirill Leonty. These three passages clearly and definitely speak of the existence in Christ of two different natures and their mutual mode of operation. That the first two passages belong to St. Cyril, this is clear from comparing them with catechetical words (IV, 9). Both here and there speak of the truth of human nature in the Savior, in contrast to the opinion that attributes only a visible body to Christ. The identity of “Διάγνωσις τῶν φύσεων” is more controversial: it most likely dates back to the time of the Monophysite disputes, although, it should be noted, St. Cyril often speaks of the difference of natures in Christ and in the catechetical words (XI, 5, 20; XI, 1). Among the inauthentic creations of St. Cyril one should certainly include λόγος εἰς τὴν ὑπαπάντην τοῦ Κυρίου, the florid syllable of which does not correspond to the simplicity and clarity of the saint’s expressions. Cyril, and then response letters to his Pope Julius and St. Augustine, which are full of contradictions and represent an extremely crude counterfeit of the style of St. Kirill. It is very likely that in addition to those listed, there were other works of St. Cyril, since Nikephoros Callistus reports that his writings were known under the name κυρίλλεια, which indicates the existence of others besides those that have come down to us. One note in the manuscripts indicates that St. Kirill spoke annually with public speeches. But they cannot be considered lost, since there is no reason to assume that they were written down by St. Kirill. Finally, Touttée makes a not unreasonable assumption, based on the extant sermon on the paralytic and the first two fragments, that St. Cyril interpreted the entire Gospel of John. Creations of St. Cyril, in addition to their edifying and highly religious significance, are valuable as historical material for the study of St. Scriptures and Holy Traditions, dogmatists, liturgics and homiletics. For St. The valuable information from the Scriptures is about the canon of inspired books of the Old and New Testaments (October 4, 33–36), and in the list of books of the New Testament, St. Cyril omitted the apocalypse, probably because he was guided by the practice of the Jerusalem Church - to indicate for home reading only what is read in church. The Apocalypse was not read in church. For St. Traditions in the works of St. Cyril contains evidence of both apostolic tradition in the spirit of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, whose works were known to Cyril (16, 6), so about the tradition of the fathers, that is, about those provisions of the fathers, which, although by the time of their appearance they do not belong to the apostolic age, but represent the truth of the church if their content is confirmed in the Holy Scriptures. Scripture. For this reason, St. Cyril, speaking about assessing the truth of the judgments of the church fathers, and in particular his own, says: “don’t just believe me if you don’t get evidence for what I proclaim from the divine scriptures” (4, 17). On the other hand, in his 18 catechumens, St. Cyril holds a certain idea that dogmatics is nothing more than the relationship between St. Tradition, living teaching of the church, from the Holy. Scripture, and therefore the works of St. Cyril can be classified, in its direction, as works of dogmatic theology. Regardless of this, they contain valuable data for dogmatic teaching: about grace and freedom, about the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist, and the conditions of their reality. For liturgics, Cyril’s works contain information about the manner in which these sacraments were performed in the ancient church. In addition to its historical value, the works of St. Kirill is given the opportunity to judge his methods of preaching, his view of its tasks in order to most successfully influence listeners. His way of expression is devoid of oratorical techniques and comes closest to ordinary colloquial speech. His speech is simple, clear and devoid of embellishment, since he speaks his sermons to a simple, poorly educated people who needed to be enlightened, without darkening their consciousness, about the most important higher truths. His speech is free from rhetorical pomp, so characteristic of many preachers of the East. He always speaks in accordance with the high value of the issue being discussed and in accordance with the preparedness of his listeners. But at the same time, his speech becomes deeply inspired and reaches its highest tension when he expresses a feeling of lively joy about the imminent happiness that awaits the newly enlightened upon their entry into the bosom of the church, or when he denounces heretics. Here we have evidence of his loving, high soul. In full accordance with this method of preaching, the character of St. Kirill is solid, firm and unshakable, capable of paying attention to the inner value of things, and not judging them by their appearance, a trait that is visible in all his actions and deeds. He fearlessly opposes the Arian Akakie and for two years refuses to appear before him for trial, and then demands a higher trial for himself - a case that is very rare in the practice of the church and eloquently testifies to the steadfastness of his character! Even then, after the death of Akakie, he defended his rights against the claims of his opponents and twice appointed his chosen ones to the episcopal see of Caesarea. Finally, isn’t it the strength of his character that his three-time exiles, which could not break his mighty spirit, speak of? His way of life was so morally pure that even his worst enemies reluctantly and unwillingly praised him. How is it not praise when Akakiye reproaches him that he sold church jewelry during the famine? He knew that the poor and unfortunate were welcome children of the church and that their mother would sell her valuables to feed her children. When assessing the results that St. Kirill, being a bishop, always needs to remember the conditions under which he had to act. His life and work took place in a special, exceptional environment. Suffice it to say that he spent 16 years in exile, deprived of the opportunity to live in his hometown, the episcopal see of which was occupied by Arian bishops during his exile. But the 23 years that he spent at intervals in Jerusalem, running the church, rarely gave him satisfaction and peace. A staunch defender of Orthodoxy, persecuted by the Arians for his beliefs and suffering a lot from them, St. Kirill was not always appreciated by Orthodox bishops, and was suspected by them of non-Orthodoxy. Touttée’s work “Vetera testimonia de I. Cyrillo” contains reviews from St.’s contemporaries. Cyril and ancient historians about him. St. Epiphanius classifies him as a member of the party of the semi-Arian Basil of Ancyra, St. Jerome, telling of his elevation to the see of Jerusalem, places him among the Arians who seized the episcopal see of that city after the death of Maximus. Sozomen and Socrates classify him as a supporter of the Macedonian heresy, although St. Cyril, as a bishop, always vigorously fought against this heresy. The same historians involved St. Cyril at the 2nd Ecumenical Council is explained by his repentance and conversion to Orthodoxy. Some even, based on the fact that in the catechetical words of St. Cyril omitted the word ὀμοούσιος, they attributed him to the Arians (Abbr. V, 8). On the other hand, the fathers of the additional Council of Constantinople in 382 strongly spoke out for the Orthodoxy of St. Cyril and the canonicity of his bishopric. In this variety of judgments, contradictory and mutually exclusive, where was the truth? When St. Kirill was a deacon and presbyter of the Orthodox Church, his Orthodoxy stood above suspicion, and the Orthodox world looked to him with hope as its future leader and protector. But when he took the episcopal see and showed his leadership, the unanimity in relation to him ceased. Some Orthodox bishops began to have a negative attitude towards him, suspecting him to be a hidden enemy of Orthodoxy, and this negative attitude towards him was even transmitted to the West, where they began to doubt the canonicity of his appointment as a bishop. Has St. changed? Kirill, becoming an Orthodox bishop? All his activities, on the contrary, spoke of his firmness and constancy of his religious beliefs. For his Orthodoxy, he was persecuted by the Arians, ruling the church, he fought against heresies and established peace and order in it, in his creations he was always the true father and teacher of the church. But the era in which St. lived. Kirill, was an era of struggle, general confusion and mistrust. Its true defenders were often declared enemies of Orthodoxy, and real enemies were often mistakenly mistaken for friends. St. Basil the Great compares the state of the church in the 4th century to a night battle, where it is not easy to distinguish friend from enemy (Letter to Athanasius V.). In another place in his works, characterizing the mutual distrust of Orthodox bishops and their enmity, he says: “Whoever is not subverted by the enemy is wounded by the defender. If the enemy is deposed and falls, then your comrade-in-arms attacks you. As soon as the enemy has passed by, they already see each other as enemies.” What was St. accused of? Kirill's opponents? They reproached him for missing the word ὀμοούσιος in the catechetical words, and from this they concluded that he was committed to the Arians. But about Orthodoxy, St. Kirill should have been judged not by what he did not say, but by what he did say. But not a single strict critic could find anything unorthodox in his creations. He was accused of having relations with the semi-Arians, Basil of Ancyra and others, and of friendship with Meletius of Antioch. True, Basil of Ancyra was considered the head of the Semi-Arians, and at the Orthodox Council of Sardicia it was even decided “not to count him among Christians.” Meletius of Antioch was infected with Arianism and signed the Arian confession at the Council of Seleucia. But the same Meletius gradually freed himself from his errors, and by the time friendship was established between him and St. Kirill has already fully demonstrated his commitment to Orthodoxy. As for the relations of St. Cyril with Basil of Ancyra and other semi-Arians, when he was deprived of the throne and expelled, they are not explained by the deviation of St. Cyril from Orthodoxy, but by the practical necessity of finding support and sympathy among those representatives of theological views who, after all, were not, like the Arians, irreconcilably hostile to Orthodoxy and with whom it was possible to fight against the Arians, Anomeans and other heretics who had decisively and definitely deviated from Orthodoxy. All the great fathers of the church stood above personal considerations, above petty quibbles and suspicions, putting concern for peace in the church in first place. St. Athanasius V. was also on friendly terms with Vasily of Ancyra and considered him “a brother who has the same thought with the Orthodox.” Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian were on friendly terms with Meletius of Antioch. According to Basil the Great, “the whole East” recognized Meletius as the true Bishop of Antioch, and everyone revered him as a man who was impeccable in the faith and who had no comparison in life with others (Letter to Athanasius). About the same Meletius St. Gregory B. says: “he was entirely in God, his bright gaze inspired respect.” The church fathers did not see anything reprehensible in such relations with representatives of theological views, which slightly, but not fundamentally, did not coincide with their views. They saw them as seekers of truth and felt that after all their searches they would return to the Orthodox Church and did not deprive them of communication with its representatives. Orthodoxy St. Cyril was above suspicion when he was a presbyter and later, when some peace was established in the church, namely, when the final division occurred among the supporters of Arius, with some joining the Macedonian heresy, while others, led by Meletius of Antioch, more and more revealed a desire to merge with the Orthodox Church. Not in the actions and not in the views of St. Cyril lay the reason for the contradictory opinions of his contemporaries about him, and in the mood of mutual distrust and suspicion that captured many leaders of the Orthodox Church of the 4th century. in their fight against heresies. Only such great luminaries as Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, could rise above the general level and evaluate events and actions according to their actual internal value, regardless of external circumstances. Life and work of St. Cyril are in many ways similar in their direction to the life and work of St. Afanasia. Both of them suffered a lot from Arianism in their struggle against it. Like Athanasius V., St. Cyril spent many years of his life in exile, but hardships and adversities did not change or shake his convictions, and after the third eleven-year exile, he fought with the same diligence against Arianism and other heresies and ruled his church with the same love and care. But it is not only the external similarity of life that brings St. together. Kirill with Afanasy V., and their inner convictions that guided their activities. Like Athanasius V., St. Cyril is most concerned about peace in the church, and he is upset by the divisions taking place in it and the fratricidal struggle between bishops, in which he saw a temptation for the weak (Public Words XV, 7). Among the two hostile parties of Arians and adherents of Savelius, he maintains a position free from the extremes of these false teachings, and strives, having clarified their errors, to reconcile them on a teaching that, being equally far from the statements of both Arianism and Savelianism, is at the same time the only correct one. In the era of struggle, St. Kirill was least of all a fighter and a feuder; he always tried to find a path to reconciliation. But in defending the rights of the church and the sanctity of its teachings, he was steadfast and decisive. In this defense, he always stood above settling personal scores with his opponents, and for him it was most important to find out to the opposite side its errors and point out the truth. But if contemporaries of St. Cyril, who stood too close to him to calmly evaluate the tasks of his activities aimed at the good and pacification of all, expressed different and far from the truth opinions about him, then, after his death, the Eastern and Western Churches unanimously agreed in recognizing his great merits and canonized him.