Cyril of Alexandria

The mystery of union beyond distinction is a key of the eucharistic doctrine for Cyril of Alexandria who compares it to the intra-trinitarian union and the union of Christ with his flesh. These three unions do not imply confusion nor division, but a communication of properties, thought according to different manners : substantial union for Trinity, appropriation in the case of Christ, physical participation in the eucharist. The latter permits to transform corporeality (a principle of separation between men) into a means of supreme union. It implies a double participation to God - spiritual and corporeal-, two elements we find in sacramental practices : central position of the Holy Spirit, whose presence is required to receive communion (thus the relationship between baptism and eucharist) ; realistic conversion of bread and wine, importance of the body. Facing the dilemma raised by Nestorius - does the christian eat the body or the divinity ?-, Cyril states that the flesh must belong to the Word as his own in order to preserve the power of the eucharist. 

Le mystère de l'union par delà la distinction est une des clés de la doctrine eucharistique pour Cyrille d'Alexandrie qui la compare avec l'union intra-trinitaire et celle du Christ à sa chair. Ces trois unions n'impliquent ni confusion ni division, mais une communication des propriétés, selon des modes différents cependant : union substantielle pour la Trinité, appropriation dans le cas du Christ, participation physique dans l'eucharistie. Cette dernière permet de transformer la corporéité, facteur de séparation entre les hommes, en moyen d'union suprême. Elle suppose une double participation à Dieu, spirituelle et corporelle, deux aspects qui se retrouvent dans la pratique sacramentelle : place centrale de l'Esprit Saint dont la présence est prérequise pour communier (d'où les relations entre baptême et eucharistie) ; réalisme de la transformation du pain et du vin, importance du corps. Face au dilemme posé par Nestorius - le chrétien mange-t-il le corps ou la divinité ?-, Cyrille affirme que seule l'appartenance en "propre" de la chair au Verbe préserve la puissance de l'eucharistie.

In his Commentary on John, St. Cyril of Alexandria follows the divine Apostle in understanding Christ’s body – or more specifically, His assumed human nature – as the true Temple, the fulfillment of the Mosaic Tabernacle and Jerusalem Temple, which were but shadows and types. For Cyril, the Temple of Christ’s body becomes the central image for understanding not only His incarnation, but the meaning of worship in spirit and truth and the redemption and deification of fallen humanity. Though writing before the Nestorian controversy, Cyril nonetheless stresses that while Christ’s Temple is a real human body and soul, it is not a separate person and in no way divides Him. Jesus sanctifies His Temple through the Holy Spirit in order to sanctify all of human nature –and indeed all of creation – and through this sanctification He affords created nature the potential to become a temple of the Holy Spirit and to participate in God Himself. When the veil of the Temple was torn asunder, worship according to the Law ended and a new era of spiritual worship was inaugurated, which is carried out in the “temple” of each believer. Yet spiritual worship is also ecclesial and sacramental, being figuratively connected with the blood and water that flowed from Christ’s side on the Cross and marked the inauguration of the Christian Sacraments. For by partaking of the body of the Son of God Himself in the Holy Eucharist and receiving the Holy Spirit in Baptism, the faithful become temples of God, the very places where true worship is offered, and are thereby united to God and to one another.

Cyrille, archevêque d'Alexandrie en Égypte (vers 375-444), est un des plus grands exégètes et théologiens de son temps. Il est également un des plus célèbres représentants de l'école théologique alexandrine. Il nous a légué un immense héritage écrit, dont la majeure partie est constituée d‘analyses exégétiques. Dans ses nombreuses oeuvres, il polémique avec les ariens, les païens, les juifs et les nestoriens. Le Commentaire de Cyrille d’Alexandrie sur l’Épître aux Hébreux (CPG 5209 (3)) ne nous est parvenu que dans les fragments contenus dans des chaînes bibliques, des florilèges dogmatiques et chez des auteurs postérieurs. Nous avons traduit de manière critique du grec ancien en français les fragments grecs et latins du Commentaire de Cyrille d’Alexandrie sur l’Épître aux Hébreux tels que les présente l‘édition de P.E. Pusey. Nous avons également traduit en français, à partir de la traduction latine, les fragments arméniens du Commentaire publiés par J. Lebon, qui contribuent beaucoup à l‘étude des fragments grecs et latins.

Cuando Eusebio de Dorilea, un "simple laico" de tan sólo unos veinte años, en la vigilia de Navidad del año 428 se alzó en protesta en la magnífica catedral de Santa Sofía de Constantinopla, en pleno centro político y cultural del Imperio, en defensa de la Maternidad divina de la Virgen María ante la predicación del nuevo Obispo Nestorio, seguramente no era consciente de que aquel gesto de valentía iba a causar una polémica histórica y decisiva para la formulación de la verdadera fe católica. «Es el mismo Verbo eterno de Dios el que ha nacido una segunda vez, según la carne, de la Virgen María» prorrumpió decididamente contra Nestorio el que luego sería obispo de Dorilea. Se iniciaba así una disputa que «puso a toda la ciudad en tensión» y al extenderse por todo el Imperio, todo aquel mundo oriental fervorosamente católico, especialmente en Egipto, se conmocionó. Los piadosos monjes del desierto de Egipto acudieron en protesta al Patriarca de Alejandría, San Cirilo, y después de informarle de lo sucedido le instaban a que interviniera en defensa de la verdadera fe sobre la Madre de Dios.

Any theory of the atonement is fundamentally shaped by one's view of the identity of Christ. Depending on how one thinks of his person and nature will determine how one thinks of the cross. In this essay, I will explain the person of Christ and how that shapes the event of the atonement.

Der Kommentar Cyrills von Alexandrien († 444) zum 1. Korintherbrief des Apostels Paulus gehörte bisher wohl zu den unbekanntesten Schriften der patristischen Literatur. Die vorliegende Studie stellt die erste umfassende wissenschaftliche Untersuchung dieses fast vergessenen Werkes dar. Sie präsentiert erstmalig alle Handschriften, in denen griechische Fragmente des Kommentars überliefert sind, und bietet die erste kritische Edition der Schrift sowie deren erste Übersetzung in eine moderne Sprache. Sie unternimmt darüber hinaus zum ersten Mal den Versuch, anhand einer eingehenden Analyse der hierfür maßgeblichen Stellen die Abfassungszeit des Werkes zu bestimmen sowie dessen sprachlich-stilistische Merkmale zu benennen. Im Mittelpunkt der Studie steht - neben der Edition der erhaltenen griechischen Fragmente des Kommentars - eine detaillierte exegetisch-theologische Analyse der Schrift. Die Untersuchung schließt mit einer komprimierenden Darstellung der von Cyrill im analysierten Kommentar behandelten Themen sowie mit einer zusammenfassenden Präsentierung der exegetisch-hermeneutischen Prinzipien der Bibelauslegung des alexandrinischen Patriarchen. Als Kurzsynthese der vorliegenden Studie kann festgehalten werden: Der Kommentar Cyrills von Alexandrien zum 1. Korintherbrief ist ein Werk von hoher inhaltlicher Komplexität, eine hervorragende Fundgrube für jeden, der erfahren und lernen möchte, was es konkret bedeutet, die biblische Botschaft aktualisierend auszulegen.

"Abstract.
Cyril of Alexandria was not only one of the finest Christian theologians of his day, he also stands out in the ranks of the greatest patristic writers of all generations as perhaps the most powerful exponent of Christology the church has known. Nestorius was enthroned as archbishop on April 10th 428. The contemporary historian Socrates called Nestorius a proud and ignorant man whose innate and undisputed oratorical power masked a weakness of incisive thought. Nestorius argued that Theotokos did not do justice to the fact that, strictly speaking, Mary was not the mother of God but rather the mother of the man whom Christian faith recognizes as divine and thus calls God. On the other hand, the term Anthropotokos acknowledges that Mary is the mother of this man but can itself be taken to suggest that he is merely a man, which again is offensive to orthodox Christian faith in the deity of Christ. In Cyril’s letters against to Nestorius, Cyril not only defends the title Theotokos against accusations that it was reviving the heresy of Apollinariusm, but he denies the very legitimacy of using alternative Christological schemes a such as the ‘association of personas’ the Antiochian thinkers had spoken of. For Nestorius, the language of the exchange of properties was generally suspect, and often odious. He found, in the expressions «Mother of God» and «God suffering», little more than an ignorant piety that had cut so many corners in its implications that it stood very close to pagan mythical conceptions of the deity. For him, God the Logos raised the dead Lazarus, while the man Jesus wept at the tomb.
In Nestorius’ letter to Cyril, he argues that Cyril was right to teach the two natures were united in one person, and right to say that the divinity cannot suffer in itself, but that when he goes on to speak of the deity «participating in suffering» he undoes all his good work. Cyril insists that while of itself human nature is not powerful but passible, in its union with the godhead, as in the dynamic act of Incarnation, the human nature of the Logos thereby becomes an instrument of omnipotent power and thus, in a real thought paradoxical sense, an omnipotent instrument. It is at once powerful and fragile, majestic and humble. One of his favorite phrases is: «The Logos suffered impassibly».
Christ had two natures. Jesus Christ was both fully human and fully divine. Cyril insists that Mary, the mother of God, should be called Theotokos. If Jesus was only human, Cyril argues, and God was elsewhere, the Incarnation, the Word become flesh, would be meaningless. Cyril plunges into the debate with sharp invective, addressing one document «To Nestorius, the new Judas»."

Cyril of Alexandria left to posterity a sizable body of exegetical literature. This monograph attempts to reconstruct his theology of Scripture in order to suggest that his exegetical practice is inseparable from, and must be interpreted in light of, his overarching theological vision. I argue that the most important intellectual factor shaping his exegesis is his Christologically focused, pro-Nicene Trinitarianism, an inheritance that he received from fourth-century authors. Cyril’s appropriation of pro-Nicene thought is evident in his theology of revelation and his theology of exegesis. Revelation, in his understanding, proceeds from the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit, following the order of Trinitarian relations. Moreover, within this Trinitarian scheme, the incarnate Son functions as the central agent and content of divine revelation, a status that further implies the centrality of the gospels in the canon of Scripture. Corresponding to this movement of God towards humanity in revelation is humanity’s appropriation of divine life according to a reverse pattern—in the Spirit, through the Son, unto the Father. This scheme applies broadly to Cyril’s soteriology, but also to his understanding of exegesis, since he regards biblical interpretation as a means of participating in the divine life. More specifically, this Trinitarian pattern implies that the Spirit is required to read Scripture properly, and that in the act of interpretation the Spirit directs the reader to a Christological reading of Scripture, through which the believer beholds the incarnate Son, the exemplar of virtue and the perfect image of the Father, and accordingly advances in both virtue and knowledge. This process continues until the final eschatological vision when the types and riddles of Scripture will be done away with in light of the overwhelming clarity of the Trinitarian vision.

There is no doubt that one of the biggest conflicts in the history of the Church is the Christological controversy that culminated in the fifth century. This controversy is forever linked to the names Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople. Shortly after he was elected as Patriarch of Constantinople in 428, Nestorius opened the door to great controversy when he refused to call the Virgin Mary Theotokos (Mother of God). The main part of the conflict between Cyril and Nestorius was about the two natures of Christ, and this appeared in the Mariology controversy which took the largest share of their disputes, in the Fifth-Century Christological controversy. So, this paper will attempt to focus on the Christological controversy through the Marian controversy as an example and trays to answer many questions like Was Nestorius a heretic? Was he the main reason for the Christological controversy and the division of the church in the fifth century? How did the political conflict background between the Church of Alexandria and Antioch play the main role in this controversy? This paper will argue that the main reason of the Christological controversy was the historical background of the political conflicts between the two churches. And this is through looking at the background of the early life of the two bishops, and the controversies over the term Theotokos that led the events to the council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.

Hypatia of Alexandria was remembered as an inspiring teacher of philosophy, a devoted pagan, and an important mathematician. While her violent death in 415 CE has brought her the most subsequent fame, she also lived an extraordinary life. This volume presents eleven original essays as well as new translations of all the primary sources on Hypatia.

The movie Agora is a study on the life of the Alexandrine philosopher Hypatia, during the turbulent era from the end of the 4th to the beginning of the 5th century A.D., in Alexandria of Egypt. To begin with, it should be noted that the director of the film, Alejandro Amenabar, is an atheist. By his own admission, he was born and raised in a Christian family, then became an agnostic and later on an atheist. This information is being highlighted, so that it will be comprehended why the movie -albeit seemingly not turning against the Christian religion -is in fact portraying the Christians as fundamentalist, obscurantist, ignorant and fanatic, and ending up with an innuendo that a very important Christian saint, the Patriarch of Alexandria Cyril, was nothing more than a fanatic clergyman and the moral instigator of the assassination of Hypatia.

Alexandria adalah sebuah kota pelabuhan yang terletak di selatan laut mediterrania, ditemukan oleh Alexander yang Agung pada tahun 332 SM dan menjadi pusat perdagangan, karena letaknya yang strategis sebagai persinggahan kapal-kapal dagang, sebelum ditemukan dan dibangun oleh Alexander, kota ini bernama Rhakotis. Alexandria merupakan kota yang sangat multikultural sejak dibangun oleh Alexander yang Agung, dimana banyak pedagang dari selatan Eropa yang singgah dan kadang menetap, terdapat kelompok-kelompok besar seperti: Yahudi, Helenis, hingga pada tahun 415 uskup Cyrilus mengusir orang-orang Yahudi dari Alexandria. 1 Berdasarkan tulisan-tulisan sejarah, warga Alexandria cenderung menggunakan nama-nama Yunani, dan Alkitabiah di banding menggunakan nama-nama bercorak Mesir. Christopher Haas menekankan bahwa Alexandria berbeda dari Antiokhia, dimana permasalahan seperti "konversi" yang menjadi issue yang cukup menyita perhatian di Antiokhia tidak terjadi di Alexandria. 2 Menurut para ahli Septuaginta dibuat/ditulis di kota ini. 3 Kekristenan di Alexandria termasuk dalam kekristenan "Coptic" yang meliputi Mesir, Ethiopia, dan sekitarnya, sehingga dalam liturgi, bahasa yang digunakan adalah bahasa Coptic dan Yunani, gereja-gereja coptic sendiri termasuk kedalam golongan "non-Calcedonian church" yang memiliki corak Kristologi yang khas yaitu Monophysites, percaya bahwa Yesus adalah Allah seutuhnya sekaligus manusia seutuhnya, dua kodrat dalam satu, paham atau konsep ini dikembangkan dalam sekolah Alexandria (School of Alexandria). Keuskupan Alexandria dikenal bertentangan dengan keuskupan Konstantinopel, dimana dalam beberapa kesempatan, kedua keuskupan ini berselisih paham, misalnya seperti Theofilus dan Yohanes Chrysostomus, Cyrilus dan Nestorius hingga Dioscorsus dan Flavianus. 4 B. Das Leben Santo Cyrilus dari Alexandria merupakan salah seorang uskup di Alexandria yang berkuasa sekitar 412-444 M dan sebagai pemimpin Konsili Ekumenis ketiga pada tahun 431, Cyrilus adalah salah satu orang paling berpengaruh pada abad ke 5. 5 Berbeda dengan McGukin, Russell menyebut Cyrilus sebagai salah satu "penjahat (villain)" 6 . Cyrilus adalah 1 Kaplow, Lauren. 2006. Religious and Intercommunal Violence in Alexandria in the 4th and 5th centuries CE.

Jerusalem was the center of the world for early Christians. Anyone who wants to understand the Bible needs to know the mysterious role of Jerusalem and the many symbols and prophecies surrounding her in the Scriptures. The present work’s readability has everyman in mind and thus avoids technicalities and dizzying vocabulary and concepts that cause boredom or confusion. The code or insider vocabulary of the Bible presupposes Christian knowledge of anything from local plants to animals and the Temple on Zion. The reader’s mind will be initiated into every mystery surrounding the Jerusalemite technical term: “transubstantiation,” as witnessed among Christians of the Holy City. The reader will marvel how the Bible constantly refers to it from Genesis through to Revelation. The Bible’s underlying message will never be the same again. Anything from the fiery coals of manna falling from heaven to the fiery Seraph on the manna or frankincense tree all have a role in this intense drama. The authors meticulously trace Biblical and Jerusalemite use of transubstantiation from Antiquity by all the major Churches of ancient Christendom whose witnesses culminate in defining the mystery officially in the 1500s. No significant philosopher or theologian is neglected with new names and sources (never before explored on the topic) now made available in plain English and presented in a readable narrative. This is the final word on the history, origins, and meaning of transubstantiation in the Bible and Church history.

The mystery of the incarnation of the Logos holds the power of all the hidden meanings (logoi) and fibres of ^ripture as well as the knowledge of visible and intelligible creatures. Whoever knows the mystery of the cross and the tomb knows the principles (logoi) of these creatures, and whoever has been initiated into the ineffable power of the resurrection knows the purpose (logos) for which God originally made all things.

This dissertation explores the implications of the christology of Cyril of Alexandria for contemporary evangelical spirituality.
Cyril’s christology is traced through his soteriology to his spirituality, giving attention to the foundations and boundaries christology provides for soteriology and spirituality in Cyril’s thought. Consideration is given to how Cyril has been appropriated in the Reformed tradition before exploring how Cyrillian thought can chasten and enrich contemporary evangelical spirituality.
Cyril’s single subject christology unites the two natures of Christ in the single personal subject of the Word, allowing for a communication of properties. Cyril thus preserves the distinction of Christ’s natures whilst avoiding a division between the natures.
Cyril’s christology provides the foundations and boundaries for a soteriology in which deification is a central feature and presents the anthropological dimension of salvation as participation in Christ. Through participation in Christ believers become by grace what Christ is by nature, resulting in the restoration of the divine image in holiness and incorruptibility. Only if the Word is the personal subject of Christ can believers participate in the divine life.
Cyril’s christology and soteriology provide the foundations and boundaries for a spirituality in which the Eucharist is a central feature and emphasises the Christian life as participation in Christ. In the Eucharist believers truly participate in Christ, by faith and the agency of the Spirit, and Christ thus imparts his life to them. Only if the flesh believers feed on in the Eucharist is that of the Word can it be efficacious to impart life to those who receive it.
Whilst Cyrillian soteriology and sacramentology are alien to contemporary evangelical thought, aspects are evident within earlier Reformed thought. Most notable is John Calvin, who demonstrates Cyril’s thought to be compatible with and complementary to a Reformed framework.
Cyril’s thought chastens evangelicalism where its focus has been overly narrow and neglected important aspects of soteriology and spirituality. Cyril encourages evangelicals to widen their focus from ‘conversionism’ to the whole of the Christian life, and from ‘crucicentrism’ to the whole work of the incarnate Christ. Cyril challenges evangelicals to consider how their almost exclusive soteriological focus on forensic aspects, and neglect of participatory aspects, has resulted in a minimisation of sanctification and the Lord’s Supper in evangelical spirituality.
Cyril’s thought can enrich evangelicalism through his vision of the Christian life as participation in the divine, which is a more deeply personal account of of the Christian life than is typically found in evangelical spirituality. Cyril’s account of participation in Christ can encompass both juridicial and transformational aspects of soteriology, connect theology and spirituality, and recover the importance of Lord’s Supper as a true means of communion with Christ and appropriation of his benefits.
An appropriation of Cyril’s thought is recommended as beneficial to evangelical spirituality.

Οι χρήσεις της εθνικής γραμματείας στο έργο του Κυρίλλου Αλεξανδρείας» Ειρήνης Αρτέμη πτ. Θεολογίας, Φιλολογίας. Mphil. Θεολογίας. Υποψήφιας διδάκτορος Θεολογίας. Ο Κύριλλος Αλεξανδρείας είναι μία από τις σημαντικότερες μορφές της αρχαίας Εκκλησίας. Καταλαμβάνει εξέχουσα θέση μεταξύ των πρωτεργατών της δογματικής συγκροτήσεως της Ορθοδοξίας. Βρίσκεται επίσης στη βαθμίδα των μεγαλυτέρων εκκλησιαστικών συγγραφέων όλων των εποχών. Δίκαια, λοιπόν, χαρακτηρίστηκε από τον Αναστάσιο το Σιναίτη ως «σφραγίς των Πατέρων»[1] και από τον Ευλόγιο Αλεξανδρείας «γνώμων της ακριβείας»[2]. Η Ε΄ Οικουμενική Συνοδό τον ονομάζει «της ορθής και αμώμητου Πίστεως συνήγορον»[3]. Η γέννησή του τοποθετείται μεταξύ του 370-380, κατά πάσα πιθανότητα το 375, στην Αλεξάδρεια της Αιγύπτου[4] [5] . Κατά συνέπεια δεν ήταν Αιγύπτιος αλλά εκ της Αιγύπτου καταγόμενος. Θείος του υπήρξε ο τότε πατριάρχης Αλεξανδρείας Θεόφιλος. Μέσα σε ένα τέτοιο περιβάλλον γεννήθηκε και ανατράφηκε ο Κύριλλος.

This innovative study uses one well-documented moment of violence as a starting point for a wide-ranging examination of the ideas and interactions of pagan philosophers, Christian ascetics, and bishops from the fourth to the early seventh century. Edward J. Watts reconstructs a riot that erupted in Alexandria in 486 when a group of students attacked a Christian adolescent who had publicly insulted the students' teachers. Pagan students, Christians affiliated with a local monastery, and the Alexandrian ecclesiastical leaders all cast the incident in a different light, and each group tried with that interpretation to influence subsequent events. Watts, drawing on Greek, Latin, Coptic, and Syriac sources, shows how historical traditions and notions of a shared past shaped the interactions and behavior of these high-profile communities. Connecting oral and written texts to the personal relationships that gave them meaning and to the actions that gave them form, Riot in Alexandria draws new attention to the understudied social and cultural history of the later fifth-century Roman world and at the same time opens a new window on late antique intellectual life.

A theological assessment of the recent turn to Chalcedon and the non-competitive relationship between Christ's divinity and humanity. In response to Rowan Williams' Christ the Heart of Creation and Ian McFarland's The Word Made Flesh, the essay argues for a more dogmatically and ecumenically plausible Christology in the Cyrilline, Neo-Chalcedonian movement of the sixth and twentieth centuries.

The Eucharist is central to Christian doctrine. This may be seen by comparing Oriental Orthodox and Reformed doctrines of the Eucharist.
The Eucharist and debates over it have never simply involved how we speak of the Sacrament in itself. They are always connected to Christological debates as well. This is because our belief about Christ’s Person and Nature lie behind and are revealed in our Eucharistic doctrines.

This thesis is an attempt to understand Cyril of Alexandria’s largely ignored and seemingly oxymoronic notion of Christ’s impassible suffering vis-à-vis the idea of divine passibility reflected earlier by Origen of Alexandria and later by Jürgen Moltmann. The study argues that Cyril’s Christological teaching can contribute towards correcting Moltmann’s notion of divine passibility. To do so, the thesis will employ a comparative analysis in its investigation of Cyril’s conceptions of God’s suffering impassibly in Christ and Origen’s and Moltmann’s idea of God’s passibility. All attempts to understand the crucifixion as an act performed by the one Person of Jesus Christ must take into account the fact that he was and is a God-Man, implying a greater significance for Cyril’s Christological teaching than have been previously postulated.

Cyrille, archevêque d'Alexandrie en Égypte (vers 375-444), est un des plus grands exégètes et théologiens de son temps. Le Commentaire de Cyrille d’Alexandrie sur l’Épître aux Hébreux (CPG 5209 (3)) ne nous est parvenu que dans les fragments contenus dans des chaînes bibliques, des florilèges dogmatiques et chez des auteurs postérieurs. À partir des versets de l‘Épître aux Hébreux, Cyrille réfute l‘arianisme et surtout le dualisme christologique. Dans le Commentaire, Cyrille emploie sa triadologie élaborée avant la controverse nestorienne, il cherche à prouver la divinité du Fils et son égalité avec le Père par nature. Cyrille interprète également les versets de l‘Épître aux Hébreux à partir de sa doctrine christologique, selon laquelle le Verbe est l‘unique sujet des actions et des propriétés divines et humaines du Christ. Lorsque Cyrille s‘oppose aux ariens, il montre la supériorité du Christ en recourant au plan divin. Pour réfuter le dualisme christologique, Cyrille attribue les actions humaines du Christ (le sacerdoce, la naissance de Marie, l‘hérédité, l‘onction par l‘Esprit Saint, les souffrances et la mort, l‘abaissement et l‘exaltation) au sujet du Verbe, mais dans l‘état de kénose.

The author addresses the continuing importance of the Reformation and its ongoing relevance for theology today through an exploration of Luther's understanding of Christology, the doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ. "In Luther's theological position lay a strong and uncompromising affirmation of the absolute centrality of the person of Jesus Christ for the Christian faith. In this sense, the principle, slogan or motto "Christ alone" (solus Christus) is the culmination of the other three, similar phrases - Scripture alone (sola scriptura); by faith alone (sola fide); by grace alone (sola gratia) - which are often associated with Reformation theology. The centrality of Luther's fixation on the person of Jesus Christ as the one, single redeemer of humankind will, I hope, open a perspective for the commemoration of Luther and his Reformation that should be of interest and concern for Protestants and Catholics alike.
The paper uploaded is the original lecture given at Marquette University in April 2017

In this essay, we look at what the the Eastern Church fathers of the first eight centuries say about the immortality of the soul.  As we will see, the answer to whether or not the soul is immortal depends on what one means by the words mortal and immortal. For the term θανατος (and its cognates, θνητος and φθορα) can be, and are, used by the Eastern fathers to indicate any number of things. Some referents for these words the Eastern fathers negate when speaking about the soul, while others they do not. The result is that the Eastern fathers affirm that the soul is immortal in certain senses, while denying its immortality in other senses. At least four possible meanings of the word θανατος (and its cognates) appear in the Eastern writers. We will look at each meaning in turn to decipher the Eastern patristic stance on the immortality of the soul.

The rule that opera Trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt, servato ordine et discrimine personarum is best understood when its two clauses are read together as mutually informative. Read thus, and grasped according to its principles and grammar, the rule articulates two things: the pure benefit of God's activity terminating in time, and the intimate yet unconfused relation between theology and economy.

“This union is impossible, but it is nonetheless accomplished as a simple act of God’s infinite power.”

Insisting on Jesus’ divinity, that he is not a messenger or a prophet, but God himself, is what distinguishes his followers from other religions and cults. But how could Jesus be fully God  and yet be a man who suffers, dies, rises from death, and ascends into heaven? “How can the infinite become finite without losing its infinity?” is how Oakes phrases the question.  It is one of the crucial questions the church had to answer. If it is true that Jesus is God and man, how are humanity and divinity related in him? It seems an almost impossible union.

One of the most influential figures on the articulation of the doctrine of Christ is Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378-444). His works on the relationship between humanity and divinity, a short treatise On the Unity of Christ and his letters to Nestorius and John of Antioch, mostly rely on the same set of texts: John 1:14, Hebrews 1:3, and Phil 2:5-8. Cyril’s theology is fed by two distinct sources: Scripture and the Nicene Creed (325 AD).  A good summary of the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria can be found in his letter to John of Antioch, Let the Heavens Rejoice.  Cyril holds that for the sake of salvation, Jesus must be truly God, homoousion (one in being) with the Father. At the same time, Jesus must be truly and fully human, for what is not assumed cannot be saved. As a result, in Christ there is an ontological union, not merely a moral union, between the Son of God and humanity.  There is a unique union between divinity and humanity in Christ. “All the attributes that pertain to his divinity or humanity are predicated of one and the same Son.”  This is also referred to as the communication of idioms. As we can see, the contours of Cyril’s Christology are determined by his soteriological vision:  God’s purpose in sending his Son to die in our place and how that reflected upon the nature of Christ.

Cyril’s theology is not only the basis of the statement made by the Chalcedon Council of 451 but we can trace expositions, pro and contra Cyril’s Christology throughout history. We will further introduce our exploration of humanity and divinity in Christ with brief discussions of contemporary interpretations of specific elements of Cyril’s Christology by three modern theologians. Wolfhart Pannenberg (b. 1928) on the role of Christology with respect to soteriology, Karl Barth (1886-1968) who prefers the ‘vere deus, vere homo’ statement over the two-natures scheme, and lastly, Jürgen Moltmann (b. 1926) who argues against divine impassibility. The exposition of the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, which follows, will reveal a point missed by both Pannenberg and Moltmann. I will argue that what seems impossible, a union between God and man, was made possible in Christ. And that it is precisely the impossibility of the union that reveals the infinite power of God.

The development of Christology has a rich history, and there are many fine works that cover this study. My interest is to develop a study of this doctrine through the early church. My intent is to provide an introduction into the most significant developments in Christology during this period. This task is primarily meant to be a historical account rather than a systematic account. Nonetheless, good historical construction invites one to delve into the rich primary documentary evidence. This summary will lean upon two kinds of documentary evidence—treatises and correspondence between churchmen. Where possible, I will cite dependable and authorized English translations of texts. Throughout this account, I will mention another significant kind of documentary evidence but only in passing. That kind of documentary evidence is made up of the the various declarations, definitions, and statements crafted by the body of catholic and Orthodox church leadership. These documents were the final authority concerning Christological developments. You will see why I have selected to pass by this evidence for the sake of this study when I come to my closing reflection on the history that I have constructed.

Perhaps during the course of this historical journey through the sources, I will uncover a neglected perspective on Christology or even an overlooked development which invites renewed appreciation. Suffice is to say, my goal is to present a historical summary that highlights the most crucial developments of Christology, developments that affect our thought on Christology today, whether we are familiar with all the details of the development and sources or not. I have chosen to organize my summary of the early church’s Christological development around the heresies that developed and the responses to them. Once again, you will see the purpose for this organization when I reflect on my findings.

This paper closes with a reflection that, rather than summarizing a summary, functions as a reflection on the conditioning of Christology in the early church. The reflection engages the methodology of my entire project, assessing where it lacks, because of my own sapiential shortcomings, and how it might be slanted, as a result of the private judgments I exercised. This closing exercise is for the sake of raising awareness. Every account of historical development is fundamentally an exercise in private judgement. Regardless of the historian’s sincerity and the equitability of his or her endeavor.

This reflection develops the process by which doctrinal clarity unfolded, and it makes a very specific claim about doctrinal development. The final authority of a doctrine has always rested on the catholicity of that doctrine. That doctrine has always been received by a consensus of pastor-theologians; in the early church, we would call these people the ecclesial leadership, and they were always bishops. However, consensus emerged first from the voice of a solitary figure that represented the body ecclesial politic, championed Orthodox doctrine, and chose not to be silent. This person functioned as a personal trainer, who conditioned the church-catholic to exercise sound Orthodoxy, and this person functioned as a nutritionist, who helped the church cut out of its diet unhealthy heresy.

Author’s note: anticipate typos, mistranslated items, and/or incomplete translation. This translation supports a forthcoming article and my own research on Cyril’s use of Hebrews. However, I would still like to share this translation in hopes that others can benefit by it and/or make the translation better.

The hesychast controversy -is it a doctrinal conflict between the East and the West in the byzantine arena 1 or an inner-byzantine debate betwixt nominalists and realists, dogmatic development and theology of repetition? 2 Irrespective of how we opt to answer the posed question concerning the causes of the hesychast controversy, that is, regardless of whether we give advantage to the first or second aforestated interpretation, we will evenly be obligated to acknowledge the fact that the relation between the East and the West was in great measure embroiled in this fairly significant and long-standing religious dispute 3 . This is particularly pertinent to the earliest phase of the aforementioned controversy, when the question of application of different methodologies as regards the doctrine on the Holy Trinity 4 -primarily related to the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit -set the stage for other forms of dissention between Barlaam of Calabria and Gregory

The work of St Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, is primarily focussed on Christology. He is possibly most famous for his part in the Nestorian controversy, where he argued that Θεοτόκοσ (God-bearer) is an appropriate and necessary title for Mary. One of his well-known works is "On the Unity of Christ", and this essay will present a critical assessment of its arguments and assess its significance for Patristic theology and for Christianity today. 1

This article gives an account of Luther's Christology. Luther's theology is strongly Christocentric, but Christology is rarely the central focus of his writings. In some of his most considered summaries of his own faith, he presents Chalcedonian Christology alongside the Church's teaching on the Trinity as the uncontroversial foundation of the Catholic faith, which he shared with his opponents. At the same time, it is evident that Luther's most celebrated theological innovations, including his teaching on justification by faith, his theology of the cross, his soteriology, and in particular, his doctrine of the Eucharist had considerable Christological implications that sometimes seem at variance with received orthodoxy. Luther's Christology must therefore be largely reconstructed from these various strands in his thought. The result is a distinctive albeit not systematic Christology that is focused on the paradoxical unity of divine and human in Christ. In this, Luther often appears close to the teaching of the Alexandrian fathers but with a much fuller emphasis on the concrete humanity of the savior. His historical debt to late scholasticism is most evident in his few, albeit consequential, attempts to enter into the field of technical Christological doctrine, especially his affirmation of the ubiquity of Christ's human nature after the ascension in his controversy with Zwingli.

Deeply informed by the biblical witness and his ecclesial faith, Aquinas held that Christ’s humanity is an instrument of divine agency.  Because Christ’s human will is always aligned with his divine will, every human action of Christ gains divine efficacy by virtue of the fact that his humanity never ceases to be the instrument of his divinity. Here Aquinas builds upon Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria in their use of the Greek word ὄργανον (i.e., organon, Ln., instrumentum) to highlight Christ’s humanity as a conjoined, living, and intelligent instrument.
Aquinas’ understanding of the humanity of Christ as instrument of the divinity beautifully illumines the unity of the whole edifice of the faith. In particular this doctrine preserves the divine transcendence, human exemplarity and sacramentality, and soteriological significance of Christ and his actions.

"Abstract.
Cyril of Alexandria was not only one of the finest Christian theologians of his day, he also stands out in the ranks of the greatest patristic writers of all generations as perhaps the most powerful exponent of Christology the church has known. Nestorius was enthroned as archbishop on April 10th 428. The contemporary historian Socrates called Nestorius a proud and ignorant man whose innate and undisputed oratorical power masked a weakness of incisive thought. Nestorius argued that Theotokos did not do justice to the fact that, strictly speaking, Mary was not the mother of God but rather the mother of the man whom Christian faith recognizes as divine and thus calls God. On the other hand, the term Anthropotokos acknowledges that Mary is the mother of this man but can itself be taken to suggest that he is merely a man, which again is offensive to orthodox Christian faith in the deity of Christ. In Cyril’s letters against to Nestorius, Cyril not only defends the title Theotokos against accusations that it was reviving the heresy of Apollinariusm, but he denies the very legitimacy of using alternative Christological schemes a such as the ‘association of personas’ the Antiochian thinkers had spoken of. For Nestorius, the language of the exchange of properties was generally suspect, and often odious. He found, in the expressions «Mother of God» and «God suffering», little more than an ignorant piety that had cut so many corners in its implications that it stood very close to pagan mythical conceptions of the deity. For him, God the Logos raised the dead Lazarus, while the man Jesus wept at the tomb.
In Nestorius’ letter to Cyril, he argues that Cyril was right to teach the two natures were united in one person, and right to say that the divinity cannot suffer in itself, but that when he goes on to speak of the deity «participating in suffering» he undoes all his good work. Cyril insists that while of itself human nature is not powerful but passible, in its union with the godhead, as in the dynamic act of Incarnation, the human nature of the Logos thereby becomes an instrument of omnipotent power and thus, in a real thought paradoxical sense, an omnipotent instrument. It is at once powerful and fragile, majestic and humble. One of his favorite phrases is: «The Logos suffered impassibly».
Christ had two natures. Jesus Christ was both fully human and fully divine. Cyril insists that Mary, the mother of God, should be called Theotokos. If Jesus was only human, Cyril argues, and God was elsewhere, the Incarnation, the Word become flesh, would be meaningless. Cyril plunges into the debate with sharp invective, addressing one document «To Nestorius, the new Judas»."

Χαρά μεγάλη καί τιμή ἀποτελεῖ γιά ἐμᾶς ἡ συμμετοχή μας μέ τή συγκεκριμένη ἐπιστημονική μελέτη στόν τόμο αὐτό, πού εἶναι ἀφιερωμένος στή μνήμη τοῦ μακαριστοῦ Τ. Ἀθ. Γριτσόπουλου. Τό θέμα τῆς μελέτης μας ἀφορᾶ τήν ἑρμηνεία τῶν Α΄ καί Β΄ πρός Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῶν τοῦ Ἀποστόλου Παύλου κατά τόν ἅγιο Κύριλλο Ἀλεξανδρείας.

“Gathering a mob of rustics, [Memnon] has convulsed the city, sending his clerics to the houses of the most God-beloved bishops and uttering countless dire threats” (ACO I.1.5, 121). This passage reveals an underlying common understanding of markers of urbanity: of urban vs. rural, civilised vs. uncivilised, the use and abuse of urban infrastructure. In this paper, I argue that one may identify a certain ‘rhetoric of urbanity’ when it comes to the documents and proceedings of the Council of Ephesus 431 CE. One may distinguish three categories, pertaining to 1) urban vs. rural (civilised-uncivilised, discipline, lawlessness), 2) urban audience (crowds, mobs, marches, unrest), and 3) urban infrastructure (public manifestations, hiding, separation). Both Cyril’s and Nestorius/John’s parties employ these categories in their rhetoric to cast their antagonists as anti-urban as opposed to themselves as civilised urbanites. I will demonstrate by an analysis of the documents of the Council of Ephesus that on the basis of a ‘rhetoric of urbanity’ there exists a particular shared understanding of urbanity that is used as a tool in ecclesial-political disputes.

Originally submitted: May, 2017. Last edited and expanded: November - December, 2024. In this research thesis we will discover that Augustine’s opinion that concupiscence was an evil, hereditary stain of original sin was not in line with the agreed-upon tradition of the earliest of Church fathers but there are strong arguments for believing that this opinion was based on non-Christian or spurious sources, the most probable direct source being the “Ambrosiaster” document. On this shaky foundation of the inheritance of concupiscence, Augustine built the idea of the massa damnata. It was a novel doctrine, since it was incompatible with the earlier Orthodox tradition. Augustine's claim that this denial of limbo and the positive damnation of unbaptized infants was part of the Catholic tradition, was a novelty to the Church universal. It was unsupported by early sources. This leads me to conclude that Augustine’s threefold philosophical structure of concupiscence, massa damnata and the positive damnation of unbaptized infants was not in accordance with “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3b, NKJV). The lack of orthodox evidence supporting an idea of genetically inheriting sin substantially weakens the basis as proffered by Augustine.