Christ Jesus the Secure Foundation According to St. Cyril of Alexandria: Part III

CHRIST JESUS THE SECURE FOUNDATION ACCORDING TO ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA III Jesus The Redeemer St. Cyril is thoroughly Catholic his teaching that Jesus Christ suffered and died for us in order to redeem us from Satan and sin and restore us to God. This doctrine he expresses repeatedly. Besides, he states explicitly that to redeem man was one of the various purposes of the Incarnation of the Son of God.1 Several times he seemingly presents the Redemption as the exclusive motive of the Incarnation . In the following passage he is explaining at length St. Paul's expression, "He emptied Himself." Ironically he states the heretics' doctrine thus: Therefore, (for I will say something) not much concerned about the convenience of the present because of the necessity, let the Only-begotten render many thanks to the lapses of men and to our sins. Let Him know, however, that the sins of mankind were the occasion of His divine glory. For unless we had sinned, He would not have become like us, and unless He had been made like us, He would not have endured the cross, and unless He had died, He would not have to be adored by us and the holy angels.2 To this St. Cyril exclaims, "Folly!" Christ was the Son and the Word and would have to be adored even though He had not become Man and won glory on the cross. The Word took upon Himself this lowliness because of the Redemption when He became Man. Now, from this we cannot argue that St. Cyril would agree to the words of the heretics provided the Incarnate Word and not the Word as such is meant. Even the Incarnate Word does not exist merely because of man's sin and the need of Redemption, as we showed in the previous seaions, especially on Christ as Foundation and Final Scope. In faa, even in this passage St. Cyril seems to rejea the position of our opponents. He is explaining that there is a reason, namely, the 17» Joan. (16:6-7), lib. 10, c. 2 (P. G., 74, 432 A-433 B); Contra Julianum, 8 (76, 925); Ad Reginas, II, 39 (76, 389 A); Adv. Nest., 3, 6 (76, 168 A); Dialog., 5 (75, 933 D-936 D); In Exodum, 2:2 (69, 437 B). 2 Dialog., 5 (P. G., 75, 933 D-936). 399 400DOMINIC J. UNGER, O.F.M.CAP. Redemption, for the "emptying" of the Word; but he by no means says that but for this one reason there would never have been an Incarnate Word. His entire doctrine of the Incarnation is against that. So this passage which has often been quoted against the Franciscans,3 does not, first of all, give the view of St. Cyril direaly, but of the heretics; and secondly, in the light of St. Cyril's doarine on the purposes of the Incarnation as explained in previous sections, it cannot be used even as an a pari argument. A second passage with the same kind of thought is this, Thus the Word of God became Man for no other reason than that, having united all things that are His with our infirmities and in some manner also commingling them, He might strengthen the nature of man and change it to His own strength. 4 This is repeated in his commentary on Luke.5 Now the context in both citations shows that he is merely proving that the aas of the Passion of Jesus do not disprove his divinity; they have their raison d'etre in the faa that the Word assumed human nature in order to suffer for us. They are proper to Jesus as Man, and not as God. Besides , this is a passage of the Fathers where one can apply Scorns' distinaion. St. Cyril is saying that the Word became Man for no other reason than to assume "weak" and passible human nature, and to redeem it? He is not saying that the Word became Man as such for no other reason than to redeem man from sin. His entire doctrine on Christ the Foundation and Final Scope and on Deification is against such...