Posted on 03/10/2015 1:44:36 PM PDT by NYer
Life: St. Cyril of Jerusalem was born just about the time the Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire (313 AD) and became bishop of the Holy City of David about 349AD. St. Cyril was banished from his Jerusalem See a total of three times for his bold proclamation of faith in Christ's full divinity during a time when many bishops and emperors favored various forms of the Arian heresy.
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem is one of the most important sources we have for how the church celebrated the liturgy and sacraments during the first few decades after the legalization of Christianity. In his famous 24 lectures commonly known as the Jerusalem Catecheses (reproduced in their entirety here, but broken into two web pages), Saint Cyril instructs new Christians in the days immediately before and after their initiation into the life of the Church at the Easter Vigil. In these catechetical instructions, which are the only documents that survive by St. Cyril, we find very strong insistence on the value and efficacy of the sacrament of baptism as well as heavy emphasis on the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament of the Eucharist. St. Cyril of Jerusalem is considered to be one of the Early Church Fathers and is also reckoned among the number of the Doctors of the Catholic Church. The readings below in addition to complete set of lectures themselves are all short excerpts from some of the most notable of St. Cyril's catechetical instructions, arranged topically.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem died about 386AD, shortly after the First Council of Constantinople which completed the Creed often known as the Nicene Creed. For an introduction to the Early Church Fathers, click here.
We live in a time of confusion and controversy over what it means to be a Catholic Christian. Many diverse and dissonant voices tell us that our faith is old-fashioned and out of touch. Especially on matters involving human sexuality and the dignity of human life, Church teaching often is portrayed as repressive or intolerant. At best, our culture tends to regard religious teaching and practice as optional. At worst, those who take their faith seriously are regarded as a threat to ideologies that define the status quo.
It was not so different 1,600 years ago. Controversies raged over the divinity of Christ, about the meaning of the sacraments and over the lifestyles of former pagans who had embraced Christianity and been baptized.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-387) was a bishop who wrote extensively on what it means to be a faithful follower of Jesus Christ in uncertain times. He was not always understood or accepted. He was accused of heresy, and he was exiled three times over the course of 20 years.
We are blessed to have nearly two dozen "catecheses" of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. These contain his reflections on the prerequisites for baptism, conversion from pagan morals, the Sacrament of Baptism, the dogmatic truths contained in the creed, the Body and Blood of Christ and the eucharistic liturgy. All are intended to serve as a form of systematic catechesis in the Christian faith. Taken as a whole, these instructions seek to overcome the controversies of Cyril's time and clear up any confusion about what it means to live an authentic Christian life in the fourth century (and the 21st century as well).
It's fascinating to read what St. Cyril had to say in the early years of Christian history about the principal doctrines of our faith. His writing is clear and uncomplicated and has become a model for all catechisms, including the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The truths that are the foundations of Church teachings do not change. We may come to understand things better (in a new light), or we can mature in our ability to express what we believe, but as the catecheses of St. Cyril make clear, the teaching we received from the apostles remains constant and unchanging even as new questions and controversies arise to challenge our most cherished beliefs and traditions.
Catholic teaching on the holy Eucharist is an excellent example. What Cyril taught the catechumens, elect and newly baptized in the fourth century is exactly what we teach today. Before the invocation of the Blessed Trinity in the Eucharistic Prayer, the bread and wine are simply bread and wine. But after the celebrant invokes the Trinity, the elements are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ: "Take this, all of you, and eat it: This is my body which will be given up for you...Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood..." The technical term "transubstantiation" was not known in the fourth century. That was a later development -- a fuller understanding -- of the doctrine. But the foundational teaching is clearly articulated by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechetical instruction.
How clearly do we present this teaching today? Is it understood -- in spite of all confusion and controversy -- that the Lord is truly present in the Eucharist? (See Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; John 6:53-56; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25.) The Real Presence of Christ in the form of bread and wine is one of the most powerful truths of our faith. We should teach this with unqualified clarity and we should meditate on this great mystery in our daily prayers and especially in our adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.
From the very beginning of Christian history, holy men and women have reflected on Christ's presence in the Eucharist and have taught that the sacred transformation that occurs in the eucharistic liturgy is a sign and a cause of the transformation that should occur in the lives of all those who receive this great sacrament of Christ's love.
Let's cut through all the confusion and controversy to the heart of the matter. In the Eucharist, Christ gives Himself to us really and truly. He enters into our world once again and becomes one with us -- body and soul, mind and heart -- in a perfect communion of divine love.
One thing is clear. There can be no greater gift.
Early Church history, ping!
On the night he was betrayed our Lord Jesus Christ took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: “Take, eat: this is my body”. He took the cup, gave thanks and said: “Take, drink: this is my blood”. Since Christ himself has declared the bread to be his body, who can have any further doubt? Since he himself has said quite categorically, This is my blood, who would dare to question it and say that it is not his blood?Therefore, it is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us under the symbol of wine, in order to make us by receiving them one body and blood with him. Having his body and blood in our members, we become bearers of Christ and sharers, as Saint Peter says, in the divine nature.
Once, when speaking to the Jews, Christ said: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall have no life in you. This horrified them and they left him. Not understanding his words in a spiritual way, they thought the Savior wished them to practice cannibalism.
Under the old covenant there was showbread, but it came to an end with the old dispensation to which it belonged. Under the new covenant there is bread from heaven and the cup of salvation. These sanctify both soul and body, the bread being adapted to the sanctification of the body, the Word, to the sanctification of the soul.
Do not, then, regard the eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith.
You have been taught and you are firmly convinced that what looks and tastes like bread and wine is not bread and wine but the body and the blood of Christ. You know also how David referred to this long ago when he sang: Bread gives strength to man’s heart and makes his face shine with the oil of gladness. Strengthen your heart, then, by receiving this bread as spiritual bread, and bring joy to the face of your soul.
May purity of conscience remove the veil from the face of your soul so that be contemplating the glory of the Lord, as in a mirror, you may be transformed from glory to glory in Christ Jesus our Lord. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Please tell me why you insist on assigning the sin of eating blood to Jesus. If Jesus sinned by eating blood He could not have saved anyone.
Take a close look at the dates.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem was born just about the time the Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in the Roman Empire (313 AD) and became bishop of the Holy City of David about 349AD.
This saint's testimony dates back to the earliest years of the Church. He is precisely describing authentic christian worship. Freeper eastsider has posted an excerpt from the saint's writings describing the early christian church, demonstrating that he is following the command of Jesus Christ in John 6:53–56.
The question, however, is why you, doubting the words of Jesus Christ, have declared this a sin.
When he held up a cup and said "take, all of ye, and drink of it: this cup is the new covenant IN MY BLOOD," just as a year before he had said, "unless you eat my flesh AND DRINK MY BLOOD" ... was he being unclear? Setting a bad example? Tempting people to sin by using a figure of speech? Speaking unwisely? Which one?
It's not like we invented this idea out of whole cloth. Do you seriously think Jesus is God, and yet it comes to him as a big surprise that hundreds of millions of people take his words literally?
You can give that nonsense a break. Six of the seven churches addressed in Revelation has already gone off track. Now you want us to appeal to someone over 200 years later? What kind of nonsense is that?
>>The question, however, is why you, doubting the words of Jesus Christ, have declared this a sin.<<
I don't doubt the words of Jesus. He said His words were spirit. It was against the law to eat blood and Jesus was obligated to follow all laws or He would have been sinning. That would have rendered Him incapable of being the sinless sacrifice.
Is Jesus not Lord of the Sabbath? Mark 7:15. Acts 15 comments on eating blood is only there to keep the Gentiles and Christian Jews from offending each other. pastoral guidance. Nothing can supersede Jesus’ word on dietary restrictions.
Good grief WriteOn. Jesus was born under the law and required to keep all the laws. One of the laws God set was not to eat any blood. Your reference to New Testament passages only pertains to meat offered to idols but that's another subject.
Isn’t this the same St Cyril than advocated taking communion in the hand, something that is ridiculed by many FRoman Catholics?
No, He was quite clear. He said His words were spirit and that the flesh profits nothing.
>>It's not like we invented this idea out of whole cloth.<<
Pretty much yes. By refusing to understand that, like He said, His words were spirit.
>>Do you seriously think Jesus is God, and yet it comes to him as a big surprise that hundreds of millions of people take his words literally?<<
Nope, He told us why they wouldn't understand in that same chapter.
Jesus was born under the law and obligated to keep it perfectly Campion. If He had eaten blood and caused others to do so He would have been sinning against that law.
Then you must explain why he violated proscriptions against gathering grain on the Sabbath and healing on the Sabbath and why he violated the blasphemy laws by declaring himself God. obviously if he was born under the law and required to keep them, something is amiss in your argument.
My argument is much simpler. He was the new covenant and released us from the slavery of the law.. And Paul agreed.
Six of the seven churches addressed in Revelation has already gone off track. Now you want us to appeal to someone over 200 years later? What kind of nonsense is that?Not one of the churches addressed in Revelation was admonished for misconstruing Christ's words in John 6 to eat his flesh and drink his blood. They are irrelevant to the present discussion.
St. Cyril is referencing John's gospel, citing the words of Jesus Christ. John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.
To this day, the Catholic Church follows the command of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Notice that this practice dates back to the earliest days of christianity.
Yeah, we’ve all heard all of that before. Now tell me why Catholics assign the sin of eating blood to Jesus.
Six out of seven has already gone off track while John was still alive. So over 85% were already off track. Now you want to rely on someone over 200 years later? One doesn't have to imagine much to understand the errors that had crept in during that time. You go right ahead and trust man. I'll trust what the Holy Spirit had written in the Old and New Testament.
Please show me that law from God that it was a sin to pick up food and eat it on the Sabbath.
>>and healing on the Sabbath<<
Please find the law from God that it was a sin to take away a man's suffering on the Sabbath.
>>why he violated the blasphemy laws by declaring himself God<<
You don't believe He was God? Only if He was not God would it have been blasphemy.
>>He was the new covenant and released us from the slavery of the law..<<
The New covenant didn't begin until Jesus died and arose.
Galatians 4:4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
Jesus would have been sinning against the law given by God had He eaten blood and caused others to do so.
I know I used to believe this in my life long ago, but I tend to take the Bible literally, where the context indicates to do that, and take it figuratively, where the context indicates to do that as well. I take Him figuratively in both instances, because eating blood is not good. My opinion is, it is forbidden. When Gabriel returns to blow his horn, then we will know for sure, won't we? Till then, I am willing to take the chance. I am squirming to avoid swimming the Tiber. I hope people don't mind.
:-)
Jesus was born under the law. There is no "opinion" needed.
Deuteronomy 15:23 But you must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water.
Deuteronomy 12:23 But be sure you do not eat the blood,
Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood,
Jesus would have been sinning by eating blood. If He had sinned He wouldn't have been able to save anyone.
>>I am squirming to avoid swimming the Tiber.<<
?????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.