8/10/2019 Yarnold, Did St. Ambrose Know the Mystagogic Catecheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem

1/3

185

id St. Am

brose knmv th e Mystagogic Catecheses?

Omtione, 27. 7

(Koetschau

p. 367).

MC 5.15.

S. 5.24.

MC

5.

11 : pE7:d

xa{}aeur;

I1VVctl51 I1WJr;

na-r;{;ea i mtyearpopSVOt

TOV fhov

S 5. 19 : bona praesumptio. .

MC 5. 11. S 5.

19.

MC

1. 1: XW( /)Ttxol

TWV

{}stod( wJI pVI1T I}e[WV.

S 1 .1 :

in

christiano

enim

viro prima es t fides.

1.

81ftv

axoijr;

nOAAqJ

ntI1Todea v.

10

M 2.

MC 1. 1. S 1. 1. origin of

the.word

find worthy may

be

a

l i turgical formula;

came latermto common lIturgical use.

E. g. MC 4. 6. S. 4 . 14.

and

Cyril;

the

Milanese

rites

differ

i n many particulars

from

those

erusalem, asdo th e explanations given for th e rites.

evertheless, despite

Dom

Botte s warning, children may 111Sh in where

els fear

to

tread.

It seems

to

me there

are

many striking resemblances

een

and Ambrose s \ ~ o . r k s which individually and

collectively seem

t

explamecl by

the

SUpposItIOn

that Ambrose had

read MC.

These are many similarities in the comments on the

Lord s Pr

aye

en

by

Amb:ose

and

Cyril . Some of

them may

be due

t o t he

fact

that,

lik:

hI ose, Cynl

ha d read

Origen s

work On

Prayer

which

itself

contains

a

~ n e n t a r y

on th ? Pater Noster. The mos t s tr ik ing example

is

the

sug

cIOn that b r ~ a d IS call.ed EnWVaLOr; because

it

i s for th e substance ova/a

he soul: ~ n g ~ n \ CynP and Ambrose

3

all give this explanation. But at

st O I ~ e

snmlanty

the trea tment of the prayer

by

MC and Ambrose is

denved

f rom Ongen .

Cyri1

4

and Ambrose

5

both impIv that

there .

.t . . . J IS a

,

am

presumptIOn

H v o l v ~ d

in calling God Father

(this may be

clue to

occurrence of a

phrase

lIke auclem1tS dicere Pater Noste? in both their

I:gi.es); and. both

6

link the

address with

th e notion

of God s generosity

in

vmgour

sms.

. Both Ambr?se and Cyril adopt

th e

practice of instructing the

neophyte

ut

th e

meamng

the

sacraments

of

initiation

only

after

these

sacra

ItS ha:r

e

been

receIved. The reasons they give partly coincide:

) C.yn17 sa s

that

baptism makes

th e

neophyte receptive of th e sacred

stenes, \ ~ h l C ~ ~ n u ~ t mean that.he is only

then

capable of understanding

F

AmblOse m d l ~ t e s the faIth

that

comes from baptism as a prere

ISIte for und.erstandmg.

~ e s i d e s

this theological reason, both allege

a pedagogICal one. Cynl:

I

well knew

that visual

testimony is

more

stworthy t h a l ~ mere hearsay 9. Ambrose: The l ight of

th e

mysteries is

d more effectIvely on those who

are

unprepared than

on those

who have

ady

received

words

of instruction l(J. c) Both

speak

i n t hi s

context

of

?g found

worthy of baptism Mlw1JE-VUr;,

dignum te Christus

sua grat ia

lCasset)

11.

3. Both

authors

have

an

emphatic

belief

in th e transformation

of

th e

ad

and

wine into the

body and

blood of Christ

. Both fear

that

the

Dhl St. Ambrose

know

the l\ Iystagogic Catecheses

of St. Cyril of Jerusalem?

it

could be shown that the de

Sacramentis

and de Mysteriis of S t.

brose

included direct

borrowings

from the lYI

ystagogic Catecheses

traditiol

ascribed to St. Cyr il of Jerusalem, important deductions could be d

concerning t he date

and authorship

of the la tte r work. O. Faller

1

plan

suggests a

date

of

390-1

for S2, on

the

basis of

comparison

with

Ambr

other writings; M, a re-working of S, must be later. Cyril died in

386.

Co

quent ly there

was no t

much

time for MC

t o h ave r ea ched

Ambrose,

was

written

during th e

episcopacy of Cyril s successor John, as is

0

suggested. The case, therefore, for Cyril s authorship is strengthened.

Ferdinand Kattenbusch

3

in

1894

noted resemblances

between Ambr

works

and

MC

and went

so

far

as

to

suggest

that

their author

knew

latter. There are clearly points of resemblance, especially i n t he ceremol

described, bu t

that

is only

to be expec ted

of works writ ten in explanat

of

th e same sacrament. Again

Ambrose

and

Cyri}

sometimes quote

same scripture texts

(in

fact, they have surprisingly

few

t ex ts in

comm:

and

even

these, with

perhaps

one exception, which will

be treated

la

are

obvious choices):

Romans

6

and Exodus 12 and

14 with

regard

to b

t ism; and , in connection wit h t he Eucharist , Psalms

22 (23)

( The L

is my shepherd ),

33. 9 (34.

8) ( Taste and see ) and

103. 14-15

( B

strengthens

the

heart

of

man ) (LXX

-

Hebrew 104. 14-15 makes die

sense). ButB.Botte

5

and

A.

Piedagne1

6

believe that none of the cones

dences need any

explanation

beyond the fact that both sets of works

treating of the

same subject-matter.

To

my

mind

it would be

chil

says

Dom

Botte forthrightly, to seek to explain th e resemblances

borrowing . His case is strengthened by t he many disagreements be t

E.

J.

YARN OLD

S. J. ,

Oxford

1 S.

Ambrosii

Opera, pars vii, ed. O. Faller, CSEL lxxiii, pp. 26*-27*.

2

S

=

de

Sacramentis.

M

=

de

Mysteriis.

MC

=

Mystagogic

Catecheses.

3 Da s apostolische

Symbol,

Leipzig, 1894,

vol.

1, p p 1 98 -9 , n . 13. KfLttlmb,n

however, doubt s the

Ambrosian

authorship of

both

S

an d

M:

fo r him it is th e

author

of

t he se two work s who seems

to

have read MC.

4 I

use th e

name Cyril simply as a convenient, brief symbol

to

denote

th e

of MC;

th e

use o f

th e

name

is not in tended to pre-empt th e

question of

th e

autho

of MC.

5

Ambroise

de Milan , des Sacraments etc ., Sources

Chretiennes n. 25

bis,

p.

6 Cyr il le de Jerusalem. Catecheses Mystagogiques , Sources

Chretiennes

pp . 73-4.

8/10/2019 Yarnold, Did St. Ambrose Know the Mystagogic Catecheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem

2/3

187

id St .

A m b ro s e k n ow

th e M ys tagogic Catecheses ?

MC

2.5 ,7 etc. 8 1. 20; 2. 1 3 ,1 4 etc.

MC 3. 3 etc.

8.

1 . 1 0. M. 4 4.

MC

1. 3. 8 1. 20, 23 etc.

MC4.

3;

8 4 . 2 1 .

MC 1.11: Ta aY a TWV dY{Wll.

M

5:

reserata s u nt t ib i s a n c ta s a n ct o r um . In 8 4. 2

A m br os e s pe ak s

o f t he

i s te r y a s s e c u nd u m t a b e r n a c ul u m i n q u o vos introduxit sacerdos.

MC 3 . 5 . 8 3.

1 - 2 .

MC

1.9: OlafJJjXl . 8 1.

5-8:

chirographuIl1, cautio, fides, promissio.

.M 28 :

eadem vocis

tuae

cautione constringeris . Cyril

s p e ak s h e r e m o r e g e ne r al l y

eonfession : U f O A O Y ~ J U T S J W T ~ e t o v 0IIOAOY{UV M C 2 . 4 ).

MC 1.5: a ll t ha t yo u

sa y is

r e c or d e d i n God s books.

S

1.6: your bond

is

held

on

e a rt h b u t

i n h e a ve n . M 5 : Y o ur w or ds a re r ec or de d

n ot i n t h e

tomb of

th e

b ut i n th e

b o o k of

th e

living .

C

1.5:

W nueuflu.T 1c; X e t f J ~ J n . S.

1

5 , 8 .

MC 3.1 : TWV xeWTWV TnC; fJsOTI)TOC; swfjork

8 1. 1 6, 1 8.

C2 . 4 .

a ut ho rs m ak e m uc h use of th e distinction

between

symbol

p{P YJO u;, UTA., figura)1 an d

r eal i ty, bet ween

what is seen

e p a t y 6 p e v o ~ ,

tu r

2

)

an d

what

is deeper than

appearance.

Both

regard th e

Old Testament

type

of th e

sacraments

3

. Both speak of th e eucharistic elements as

th e

r v n o ~ ,

figura)4 of Ohrist s body

an d

blood.

Both speak of the ba ptis tery as th e holy of holies , which is e nte red in

after the Renunciation

5

, in M befor e the Renunciation

6

.

. Both

speak

of regeneration ,

no t

only

in

connection with baptism,

h is

predictable,

bu t

in connection with postbaptis mal anointing

7

,

h is surprising.

Both

apply

th e language

of contracts

to the

Renunciation an d Ad

on

8

; Ambrose

als o a pp li es

it to the

profess ion of faith

at

baptism

f9 Do yo u believe in God th e Almighty

Father?

I believe , etc.). Both

this undertaking is r ec or de d o r

stored

in

heaven10.

Both compare th e

chof this c ontrac t with a

breach

ofcivillaw

T he t wo

authors explain

th e

significance of Ohrist s ba ptism in

partly

ilar

terms.

According

to

Oyril Ohrist

w en t d ow n i nt o th e

J or da n, t h us

ng th e waters a share i n t he t ou ch of his divinity 12. In Ambrose th e rea

is that flesh might

be

purified, th e flesh he took from o u r h um a n con

n ;

an d

he adds: so that h e m ig ht sanctify,

an d

th e S pir i t mi ght sanc

Like Oyril, then,

though

less explicitly, Ambrose believes that

Jesus

nce

in

th e Jordan

impregnated

all b ap ti sm al w at er w it h his own

less.

.

In both

Oyril

an d

Ambrose there is a pp a re n t a n

almost

medieval

el ness concerning

th e

Passion. Oyril s

devotion

to

th e Passion

comes

rally

in s er mo ns p re a ch e d i n th e

Holy Places,

wh er e h e c an re mi nd

earers

that

Ohrist was taken from

th e

cross t o

th e

tomb

that

lies before

Ohristendured nails through his

innocent hands

an d feet an d suffered

E. J. Y A R N O L D S. J.

86

1 M C 4. 9;

5 .2 0 .

Cf. 4 . 1 . 6 . 2 S 4.

20;

6. 2 - 3 .

3 M C 1. 7; 3. 3

ofchrislTl);

4. 6;

5 . 1 5 .

4

S 4. 14. M 20 of b ap tismal w ater).

5 M C 2 . 3 ; 3 . 3 .

6 MC

3.3.

7 S 1.

18 ;

2. 1 4.

8 S 3.8.

9 MC 2 . 3 .

10

S 2.

14 ;

A m br os e p e rh a ps a pp li es t hi s p hr a se d ir e ct ly to the descent

f r o m h e a v e n

at th e

invocation

ofElijah

an d Elisha,

an d

o n ly in d irectly

t o t he

o f t h e T r i ni t y in th e

sacramen ts.

11 MC 2. 3. M 23.

12 84 . 14, 16 etc. M 52.

1 3 MC5 .7 .

14 8 4.

15 ;

vides

ergo

q u a m

o p e ra t or i u s s e r m o s i t

Christi.

15 MC

5.7:

olf t iv 8

8/10/2019 Yarnold, Did St. Ambrose Know the Mystagogic Catecheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem

3/3

18 9

i d S t. A mb ro se k no w th e Mystagogic Catecheses?

because

th e shift of

attention

to

Rome

is abrupt

1

; an d

more

im

ntly,

sinc e M 57

proves that in Milan t he

faithful means

t he b a pt i

th e

reference

in

S.

1. 1. the b ap tized a re c a lle d th e faithful ) should

Milanese,

no t Roman, liturgical practice. I f, t he n, one

adopts

th e

19

rec to nomine , Ambrose will

b e imply ing

that,

although

th e cate

ens

are

loosely called

faithful , strictly speaking t he t er m s ho ul d b e

ned

to

th e

baptized. This

r ecal ls a

passage

where Cyril

states

that

e t h e a no in ti ng w i th

chrism,

th e n eop h yte should no t strictly be

called

stian 3, thus implying that t he t er m is loosely applied also to

others.

ese

points

of resemblance, I

m ai nt a in , a re t o o n um e ro us

an d

detailed

e d ismi ssed

in Piedagnel s

phrase

as

commonplaces

of catechesis 4.

ug h th e possibility of a common source

c a nn ot b e excluded,

I

suggest

the most plausible explanation

is

that Ambrose read

an d

echoed

5

lbrose

was

a

keen student

of

Greek

theological

writings,

no t

only those

igen,

bu t

even

works

as

late

as

those

of

Gregory

of

Nyssa. It should

urprise us,

then,

if

he

also

read

Cyril.

Bu t there

is

an an teceden t pro

t y t ha t

he

did. F or in t he middle

of

t h e f o ur t h c e nt u ry

baptismal

ca

sis

underwent

many changes,

exemplified

in MC, an d

there

ar e

grounds

linking

that

Jerusalem

was

th e

source of

this

ne w

movement

G

S

an d

M

it th e

same tendencies. Th e

close

verbal s imilaritie s we h av e n ot ed

te that

Ambros e wa s no t influenced merely

by a

second-hand account

Jerusalem

ceremonies. I

suggest that h e b or ro we d f ro m Jerusalem

of

Cyril s liturgical t ex ts , o r

CyriI s

own c a te c he tica l s e rmons

7

reading

of

o n e f a ln i ly

of

M S S w h ic h i n cl ud e s th e o ld es t, S t.

Gallen, of

th e

1 c e nt u ry . A n o th e r

family

gives th e

u n i nt e l li g ib l e r e a d in g

rethmnae ,

with

ception

of

th e te n th - c en tu r y B a l nb e r ge n s is w h i ch r e a d s r e c t o n o m i n e . I have

ssed

this subject

at

greater l e ng t h i n

JT S 24

1973) p p . 2 0 2 -2 0 7.

Vas

A m b ro s e r e al l y s u ch

a

liturgical

pe da nt t h a t he

w o u l d i m a gi n e

t h a t a pass

llusion to

Ro m a n liturgical

practice

w o ul d h e lp to d r iv e h o m e a

point

for an

nce

in Milan -

an d

in th e th ir d line of

th e

sermon

at

that, when th e shuffling

d

hardly

have

ceased?

m b r o se r e fe r s t o t he

arcane

knowledge

r e v e al e d o n l y

t o t he b ap ti ze d

with

th e

e

fidelis

intellege .

: 3.

5:

TaVTI/s

Tils neoal/yoetas xvetws

[cf. recto nmnine]

ovx

IJU

{1 ;Wt.

Op. cit.,

p.

74.

t could, of course, b e r n ai n ta i ne d

t h a t

MC, as we have it , is n ot t he w or k a s

w r o te i t, b u t an expansion

by

J ohn o f J er us al em o f a n e a r li e r w o r k

by

Cyri1.

is is

so , A U lbro se

is

lTlOre

likely

to

h a ve r e a d

th e

w o rk i n C y r il s o w n version.

Cf.

m y

article B a pt is m a nd

th e

P a g a n Mysteries in

t he F ou rt h

Century ,

hrop

Journal, 1972, pp .

247-267.

A. A. Stephenson, in his introduction to MC Th e

Fathers

of

th e

Church, vo1. 64,

ington, 1970) suggests t h a t MC m ay

be la te r

t ha n S an d M (p. 148).

raises th e

question

whether MC cit ll have c o p ie d A n l br o se ,

an d

no t vice velsa.

is

P r o b a b ly not , fo r MC is r e la t ed i n s o m e p l a ce s to S an d

no t

to M, in

to M an d no t to S. is

unlikely

t h a t J ohn

could

ha d access to both th e un

S

an d

th e

published

M.

E. J.

YARNOL D

S. J.

1 MC 2.5.

2 MC 2. 6.

3

S 2. 23.

4 MC 3.4.

5

S 1. 3.

o MC 3. 4.

7 S 2. :NI 3 is

e v e n m o re

concrete:

so t h a t

each

on e vl ho

approaches

grace

understand

w h a t he

is

asked

an d r81nenlber

w h a t

he ha,s to

answer .

8

MC 1. 2 - 3 . S 1.

20-22.

9 MC 1. 3: oatllOJV

vnof3evxws

yiyovC V v {}aA6 aa?1 M

12:

culpa demergitur.

10

S 1.17: n on

c o l u m ba d e s c en d i t ,

s ed q u as i columba.

11 MC 3. 1:

ovauol/s.

12 MC 2. 4: x uov u Tehov e1s 7: Jvowe. S 2. 21 in

explanation

o f t h e

three

imm(lrsjld

refers

to

Peter s

triple

denials an d

protestations

of love:

Tertio

dixit

ut

tertio

retur .

T h e re a r e o t h e r i n st a nc e s

of Tehov

an d t e r t io b e in g u s e d in this

sense,

b u t

a r e r a re , an d it

seems

a remarkable

coincidence

if

Cyril

an d Ambrose us e t h i s r a r e

independently.

13

Ideo

et

Romae

[ r ec t o n o m i ne ] fideles

dicuntur

qu i

b a p tiz ati s u n t .

E t

p ai n; a nd

by

letting me p ar ti ci pa te i n t he p ai n w i th ou t anguish

he

freely

bestows salvation o n m e l . Christian baptism diffel ;g from

in

that it makes us share by i m it a ti o n i n t he t ru e

sufferings of

Cl

Ambrose write s in s im il ar v ei n : Y o u receive th e l ikeness of death an

rial So

yo u

ar e crucified

with

h im , y ou a re

fastened

to

Christ,

yo

fastened

by th e

nails

of

o u rLo rd Jesus Christ lest

th e devil

p ull y o u

a

12. Both

a ut h or s m a ke use

of

th e text

vVe ar e th e

aroma

of Cht1

God

( 2 Cor

2 15).

Cyril

makes it

a

comment

on th e

anointing

of t

strils with c hris m pe rfume d

oil)4.

Ambrose

refers

it to

th e Apertio

r it e i n which th e ears an d n os tr i ls a re

touched

- less appropriately,

cause

at this

stage

scent

is

no t applied to th e candidate. Perhaps

Amb

is making a clumsy transference of CyriI s thought from th e anointiIl

th e

Apertio;

clumsy, since in th e Milanese

rite

th e senses

were

no t anoi

with

chrism.

13. Cyri

explains that th e ears

ar e

an oin ted with chrism i n order

you may a cq ui re e ar s w hi ch

will

h ea r t he divine

mysteries G; Amb

explains that th e e ar s a re touched at th e Apertio to open them

t o t h e]

op s words

7

.

14. Both

authors

compare

baptism

w it h t he crossing of th e R ed >

and the

drowning

of

t he E gy pt ia ns w it h t he

drowning

of

sin

i n t he

fo

15.

Ambrose s insistence that th e d ov e w hi ch d es ce nd ed o n Jesus

at

bal)tism

wa s o nl y

an

appearance

1

might

well

be

a

correction

of Cy

statement that th e

Spirit s

d es ce nt o n Jesus wa s substantial

16. Both Cyril an d Ambrose s ay i n connection with th e three immersi

for t he t hi rd time

il]t-WV tertio ), wh en

w ha t t he y

really

mean is t

times i l ] { ~ ter)

12.

17.

This point

del)enc1s

on a c ce pting

th e less well

attested

reacling

nomine instead

of

th e usual e t Romae in

S.

1. 1

13

.

E t Romae

is

188