Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

Did St. Ambrose knmv the Mystagogic Catecheses?

Dhl St. Ambrose know the l\'Iystagogic Catecheses


of St. Cyril of Jerusalem?
E. J.

YARN OLD

S. J., Oxford

If it could be shown that the de Sacramentis and de Mysteriis of St.


brose included direct borrowings from the lYIystagogic Catecheses traditiol
ascribed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, important deductions could be d
concerning the date and authorship of the latter 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
quently there was not much time for MC to have reached Ambrose,
was written during the 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 in the ceremol
described, but that is only to be expected of works written in explanat
of the same sacrament. Again Ambrose and Cyri}!' sometimes quote
same scripture texts (in fact, they have surprisingly few texts 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
tism; and, in connection with the 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). But B.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 the resemblances
borrowing'. His case is strengthened by the many disagreements bet
S. Ambrosii Opera, pars vii, ed. O. Faller, CSEL lxxiii, pp. 26*-27*.
2 S = de Sacramentis. M = de Mysteriis. MC = Mystagogic Catecheses.
3 Das apostolische Symbol, Leipzig, 1894, vol. 1, pp 198-9, n. 13. KfLttlmb,n
however, doubts the Ambrosian authorship of both S and M: for him it is the
author of these two works who seems to have read MC.
4 I use the name Cyril simply as a convenient, brief symbol to denote the
of MC; the use of the name is not intended to pre-empt the question of the autho
of MC.
5 Ambroise de Milan, des Sacraments etc., Sources Chretiennes n. 25 bis, p.
6 Cyrille de Jerusalem. Catecheses Mystagogiques, Sources Chretiennes
pp. 73-4.
1

185

and Cyril; the Milanese rites differ in many particulars from those
erusalem, as do the explanations given for the 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 ~C and Ambrose's \~o.rks 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 Praye
en by Amb:ose and Cyril. Some of them may be due to the fact that, lik:
hI'ose, Cynl had read Origen's work On Prayer, which itself contains a
~nentary on th? Pater Noster. The most striking example is the sug'cIOn that br~ad IS call.ed EnWVaLOr; because it is for the substance (ova/a)
he soul: ~ng~n\ CynP and Ambrose 3 all give this explanation. But at
st OI~e snmlanty 1~1 the treatment of the prayer by MC and Ambrose is
1; denved
from . Ongen.
Cyri1 4 and Ambrose 5 both imp Iv
that there IS
. a
.t
.
.
.J
, am presumptIOn H1volv~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. both6 link the address with the notion of God's generosity in
vmg our sms.
. Both Ambr?se and Cyril adopt the practice of instructing the neophyte
ut the meamng o~ the sacraments of initiation only after these sacraItS ha:r e been receIved. The reasons they give partly coincide:
) C.yn17 sa!s that baptism makes the neophyte receptive of the sacred
stenes, \~hlC~ ~nu~t mean that.he is only then capable of understanding
)F' AmblOse mdlC~tes the faIth that comes from baptism as a prereISIte for und.erstandmg. (~) ~esides this theological reason, both allege
a pedagogICal one. Cynl: I well knew that visual testimony is more
stworthy thal~ mere hearsay'9. Ambrose: 'The light of the 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 in this context of
?g found worthy of baptism (Mlw1JE-VUr;, dignum te Christus sua gratia
lCasset) 11.
3. Both authors have an emphatic belief in the transformation of the
ad and wine into the body and blood of Christ J2. Both fear that the
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 est fides.
1. 1: 81ftv axoijr; nOAAqJ ntI1Todea'v.
10 M 2.
MC 1. 1. S 1. 1. T~e origin of the. word 'find worthy' may be a liturgical formula;
came later mto common lIturgical use.
E. g. MC 4. 6. S. 4. 14.

186

E. J.

YARNOLD

S. J.

neophyte may have difficulty in believing this, because the taste


and the appearance (Ambrose) 2 remain those of bread and wine.
the fact that the sacramental elements are no longer 'ordinary'
'fjJtA6~, UotV6~3, usitatus, commune)4.
4. Both explain sacramental efficacy explicitly in terms of both
and consecration: Oyril speaks of an epiclesis over the oi15 as
eucharist6 : Ambrose over the fonP, and at the sealing 8 . Both introcl
refeTence to 'the saints': Oyril speaks of 'the breath of the saints all.
invocation of God's name'9; Ambrose of the presence of the Trinity
follows 'the word of men, the invocation of the saint'10. Both speak ()
'force' ((jvvapt~, vis) 11 which descends upon the sacred object (oil or font).
true that in connection with the eucharist Ambrose speaks of consecrat'
but Oyril also has the idea 13 ; with Ambrose the consecration is 'wroug
the 'word of Ol1Tist'14, with Oyril by the Holy Spirit 15 , though even he
that the change in the eucharistic species takes place 'according t
Lord's word' 16.
5. I have argued elsewhere that the form of the Renunciation of the
in Ambrose is much more like Oyril's than is normally supposed, ancl
Ambrose, like Oyril, shows that the candidate faces west to renounc
devil and then turns to the east for the act of Adhesion to Ohrist t7. In Oyri
candidate apostrophizes Satan w~ neo~ nae6vTa, 'I renounce thee, Satan, e
In Ambrose the renunciation is performed by question and answer - 'Do
renounce the devil and his works?' 'I do renounce them'19 - But
also speaks of looking at the devil and renouncing him to his
though the devil is not directly addressed.
1 MC 4. 9; 5.20. Cf. 4.1.6.
2 S 4. 20; 6. 2-3.
3 MC 1. 7; 3. 3 (ofchrislTl); 4. 6; 5.15.
4 S 4. 14. M 20 (of baptismal water).
5MC2.3;3.3.
6 MC 3.3.
7 S 1. 18; 2. 14.
8 S 3.8.
9 MC 2.3.
10 S 2. 14; Ambrose perhaps applies this phrase directly to the descent
from heaven at the invocation ofElijah and Elisha, and only indirectly to the
of the Trinity in the sacraments.
11 MC 2. 3. M 23.
12 84. 14, 16 etc. M 52.
13MC5.7.
14 8 4. 15; vides ergo quam operatorius sermo sit Christi.
15 MC 5.7: olf t'iv 8<pU.1j!1)Tat TO aytoV nVSVlla ...
16 MC 4. 6: xunl T~V o8r1noTtx~v . cmo<pu(Jll!.
17 'The Ceremonies of Initiation in the De Sacramentis and De "OL.' ouu'"
8. Ambrose', 8tudia Patristica X (1970) p. 457.
18 MC 1. 4. cf. 1. 2: WC; nUeOVTt.
19 8 1. 5ff.
20M 7.

Did St. Ambrose know the Mystagogic Catecheses?

187

authors make much use of the distinction between symbol


p{P'YJO'u;, UTA., figura)1 and reality, between what is seen (epaty6pevo~,
tur 2 ) and what is deeper than appearance. Both regard the Old Testament
type of the sacraments 3. Both speak of the eucharistic elements as the
(rvno~, figura)4 of Ohrist's body and blood.
Both speak of the baptistery as the 'holy of holies', which is entered in
after the Renunciation 5, in M before the Renunciation 6.
. Both speak of 'regeneration', not only in connection with baptism,
h is predictable, but in connection with postbaptismal anointing 7,
h is surprising.
Both apply the language of contracts to the Renunciation and Adon 8 ; Ambrose also applies it to the profession of faith at baptism
f9 ('Do you believe in God the Almighty Father?' 'I believe', etc.). Both
this undertaking is recorded or stored in heaven10. Both compare the
ch of this contract with a breach ofcivillaw l l .
g. The two authors explain the significance of Ohrist's baptism in partly
ilar terms. According to Oyril Ohrist went down into the Jordan, thus
'ng the waters a share in the touch of his divinity'12. In Ambrose the reais 'that flesh might be purified, the flesh he took from our human conn'; and he adds: 'so that he might sanctify, and the Spirit might sancLike Oyril, then, though less explicitly, Ambrose believes that Jesus'
nce in the Jordan impregnated all baptismal water with his own
less.
. In both Oyril and Ambrose there is apparent an almost medieval
el'ness concerning the Passion. Oyril's devotion to the Passion comes
rally in sermons preached in the Holy Places, where he can remind
earers that Ohrist was taken from the cross 'to the tomb that lies before
'Ohrist endured nails through his innocent hands and feet and suffered
MC 2.5,7 etc. 8 1. 20; 2. 13,14 etc.
MC 3.3 etc. 8. 1. 10. M. 44.
MC 1. 3. 8 1. 20, 23 etc.
MC4. 3; 84.21.
MC 1.11: Ta aYIa TWV dY{Wll.
M 5: reserata sunt tibi sancta sanctorum. In 8 4. 2 Ambrose speaks of the
istery as 'secundum tabernaculum in quo 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 speaks here more generally
'eonfession': (Uf!OAOY~(JUTS T~V (JWT~etov 0IIOAOY{UV (MC 2. 4).
MC 1.5: 'all that you say is recorded in God's books.' S 1.6: 'your bond is held
on earth but in heaven.' M 5: 'Your words are recorded not in the tomb of the
but in the book of the living'.
C 1.5: WC; nueuflu.T''1c; XetfJ~(Jn. S. 1". 5, 8.
MC 3.1 : TWV xeWTWV TnC; fJsOTI)TOC; I'swfjork
8 1. 16, 18.
C2.4.

188

E. J.

YARN OLD

pain; and by letting me participate in the pain without anguish


he freely bestows salvation on me'l. Christian baptism diffel';g from
in that it makes us 'share by imitation in the true sufferings of Cl
Ambrose writes in similar vein: 'You receive the likeness of death an
rial ... So you are crucified with him, you are fastened to Christ, yo
fastened by the nails of our Lord Jesus Christ lest the devil pull you a
12. Both authors make use of the text 'vVe are the aroma of Cht1
God' ( 2 Cor 2. 15). Cyril makes it a comment on the anointing of t
strils with chrism (perfumed oil)4. Ambrose refers it to the Apertio
rite in which the ears and nostrils are touched - less appropriately,
cause at this stage scent is not applied to the candidate. Perhaps Amb
is making a clumsy transference of CyriI's thought from the anointiIl
the Apertio; clumsy, since in the Milanese rite the senses were not anoi
with chrism.
13. Cyri! explains that the ears are anointed with chrism 'in order
you may acquire ears which will hear the divine mysteries'G; Amb
explains that the ears are touched at the Apertio to open them to the]
op's words 7.
14. Both authors compare baptism with the crossing of the Red>
and the drowning of the Egyptians with the drowning of sin in the fo
15. Ambrose's insistence that the dove which descended on Jesus at
bal)tism was only an appearance 10 might well be a correction of Cy
statement that the Spirit's descent on Jesus was 'substantial' H.
16. Both Cyril and Ambrose say in connection with the three immersi
'for the third time' (il]t-WV, tertio), when what they really mean is 't
times' (il]{~, ter) 12.
17. This point del)enc1s on accepting the less well attested reacling
nomine' instead of the usual 'et Romae' in S. 1. 1 13 . 'Et Romae' is
MC 2.5.
MC 2. 6.
3 S 2. 23.
4 MC 3.4.
5 S 1. 3.
o MC 3. 4.
7 S 1. 2. :NI 3 is even more concrete: 'so that each one vl'ho approaches grace
understand what he is asked and r81nenlber what 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: 'non columba descendit, sed quasi columba.'
11 MC 3. 1: ovauol/s.
12 MC 2. 4: xauoveu Tehov e1s 7:(J vowe. S 2. 21 in explanation of the three imm(lrsjld
refers to Peter's triple denials and protestations of love: 'Tertio dixit ut tertio
retur'. There are other instances of Tehov and tertio being used in this sense, but
are rare, and it seems a remarkable coincidence if Cyril and Ambrose use this rare
independently.
13 'Ideo et Romae [recto nomine] fideles dicuntur qui baptizati sunt'. 'Et
1

Did St. Ambrose know the Mystagogic Catecheses?

S. J.

189

because the shift of attention to Rome is abrupt 1; and more imntly, since M 57 proves that in Milan 'the faithful' means 'the baptithe reference in S. 1. 1. ('the baptized are called the faithful') should
Milanese, not Roman, liturgical practice. If, then, one adopts the
19 'recto nomine', Ambrose will be implying that, although the cateens are loosely called 'faithful', strictly speaking the term should be
ned to the baptized. This recalls a passage where Cyril states that
'e the anointing with chrism, the neophyte should not strictly be called
stian'3, thus implying that the term is loosely applied also to others.
ese points of resemblance, I maintain, are too numerous and detailed
e dismissed in Piedagnel's phrase as 'commonplaces of catechesis'4.
ugh the possibility of a common source cannot be excluded, I suggest
the most plausible explanation is that Ambrose read and echoed
5

lbrose was a keen student of Greek theological writings, not only those
'igen, but even works as late as those of Gregory of Nyssa. It should
urprise us, then, if he also read Cyril. But there is an antecedent pro'ty that he did. For in the middle of the fourth century baptismal casis underwent many changes, exemplified in MC, and there are grounds
linking that Jerusalem was the source of this new movement G. S and M
it the same tendencies. The close verbal similarities we have noted
te that Ambrose was not influenced merely by a second-hand account
Jerusalem ceremonies. I suggest that he borrowed from Jerusalem
of Cyril's liturgical texts, or CyriI's own catechetical sermons 7.
reading of one falnily of MSS which includes the oldest, St. Gallen, of the
century. Another family gives the unintelligible reading 'rethmnae', with
'ception of the tenth-century Balnbergensis which reads 'recto nomine'. I have
ssed this subject at greater length in JTS 24 (1973) pp. 202-207.
Vas Ambrose really such a liturgical pedant that he would imagine that a passllusion to Roman liturgical practice would help to drive home a point for an
nce in Milan - and in the third line of the sermon at that, when the shuffling
d hardly have ceased?
mbrose refers to the arcane knowledge revealed only to the baptized with the
e 'fidelis intellege'.
1:0 3. 5: TaVTI/s Tils neoal/yoetas xvetws [cf. recto nmnine] ovx IJU {1!;Wt.
Op. cit., p. 74.
t could, of course, be rnaintained that MC, as we have it, is not the work as
wrote it, but an expansion by John of Jerusalem of an earlier work by Cyri1.
is is so, AUlbrose is lTlOre likely to have read the work in Cyril's own version.
Cf. my article 'Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries in the Fourth Century',
hrop Journal, 1972, pp. 247-267.
A. A. Stephenson, in his introduction to MC (The Fathers of the Church, vo1. 64,
ington, 1970) suggests that MC may be later than S and M (p. 148).
raises the question whether MC citll have copied Anlbrose, and not vice velsa.
is 'Probably not', for MC is related in some places to S and not to M, in
to M and not to S. It is unlikely that John could had access to both the unS and the published M.
1

Potrebbero piacerti anche