Jump to content

Talk:Cyril of Alexandria/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Feast Day

Previous version listed a feast day of June 27, but the article later listed two different feast days in the Roman and Greek churches. What's correct? Stephen C. Carlson


His feast day is June 9th or June 27th because he died on either of these two days 172.150.86.116 16:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, but I think it's June 27 (Roman Catholic) and June 9 (Eastern Orthodox). Anyone know? Alpheus 02:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

His optional memorial is 27 June in the Roman Catholic calendar. Carl.bunderson 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that picture a joke!?

Resolved

--Greasysteve13 06:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to the writer that titled his comment, "Is that picture a joke?" It is not. It is an icon and very much honored among those who are partial to that style of iconography.

Problems

Resolved

This article is sadly lacking as far as neutrality is concerned. Consider the following :

"We have to thank Saint Cyril for the firm and uncompromising stand he took with regard to the dogma of the Incarnation - an attitude which led to the clear statements of the great council over which he presided. We ought indeed to be grateful that we, in our generation, are left in no doubt as to what we should believe with regard to that holy mystery upon which we base our faith as Christians." "We have to thank" ? "We ought to be grateful" ? "Our faith as Christians" ?!? Hey, this is Wikipedia, not www.vatican.va ! The Neutral Point of View rule is a fundamental Wikipedia principle !

Romain Baudry

The whole article is taken from [1]. I'm not sure if that document is in the public domain or not. I suggest deleting this version, and using the catholic encyclopedia public domian entry for Cyril as a starting point for a new version.--Andrew c 21:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to spork content on Cyril from somewhere as a starting point, there's also content in the relatively-free-use Creative Common licensed article on OrthodoxWiki at http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Cyril_of_Alexandria

--Aquarius Rising 23:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This CYRIL, who was no saint by any extent of the Imagination, was the exact opposite to his uncle, the former Patriarch. He was a scheming, conniving and evil murderer( although he never 'durtied his own hands'). He urged riot and mayhem, burning and distruction amoung his extremist followers so that he might pursue his own extreme fanaticism. Anyone, behaving in like manner today would be "put away' for a long long time. I have never trusted those who say they do what they do "In the Name of God" what ever their Faith. We should take greater note of Justin Pollard and Howard Reid's research which is so evenly and fairly put in their book 'The Rise and Fall of Alexandria, Birthplace of the Modern Mind', unless there are those who would, like CYRIL, wish to stamp out moderate and balanced thought.

74.13.57.43 21:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Gillium Somerled Alister 2007

Of course you know this of Cyril because you were there right? How else can you toss such venom so easily? I recommend maybe adopting a more.. Materialist (Marxist?) view of texts as to avoid applying your own bias to them. Truly disturbing the commentary above, fanatical and zealous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.43.112 (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Monastic Education of St. Cyril

Resolved

The monastic education of St. Cyril is long disputed, and was never totally accepted.

This Article Must Be Changed

Resolved

I agree that, even by biased standards, what we see must be changed. As a Lutheran, I follow the Western calendar, which commemorates his death on 27 June. It seems that the Eastern Church beats us by more than two weeks, observing his death on 9 June. Perhaps there's a Gregorian vs. Julian calendar difference here.

I could live with either of the aforementioned alternative texts. Another candidate might be a Mr. James Kiefer, who publishes hagiographies at http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/JEK/home.html

Portions of what he writes at http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/JEK/06/27.html could be used as a base and I think I could persuade him to contribute or grant permission. Also, you might note what my church says at http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=3778

As for the "picture," I enjoy some variety in my icons and sort of like this one.

--Xrysostom 25 May 2006

"Citation Needed"s

Resolved

There seem to be a lot of "citation needed" tags in the section about Cyril's bad behaviour against the Jews, implication in the murder of Hypatia and so on. I wonder if they're in there to cast doubt on the veracity of the paragraph. Anyway, I don't know how to do citations, but if anyone else can- Gibbon describes it all in The Decline And Fall. If anyone feels that that is dubious, I found this article on t'web, http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0508/reviews/oakes.html, a review of a book about Cyril which appears to be a sympathetic re-assessment of him- which seems to support Gibbon's report of the facts, and instead suggests that the behaviour of ancient figures shouldn't be assessed by modern post-enlightenment standards. Which may or may not be fair enough- nonetheless I think it's a further indication that the description of Cyril's behaviour is not inaccurate (at least as far as current historical knowledge indicates).82.71.30.178 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Patriarch" not "Pope"

Resolved

Use of the term "Pope" in this article in reference to Cyril is misleading and inaccurate. The term Pope refers exclusively to the Bishop of Rome. The Pope is head of the whole Catholic church, while a Patriarch is head of only a particular region. The Pope is Supreme Pontiff, leader of the whole church. A Patriarch is usually seen as among equals with his fellow Patriarchs. (the use of the term Patriarch has changed over time. In St. Cyril's time, a Patriarch had considerable power over his brother bishops of the region. In modern times a Patriarch (in the Roman Catholic Church) has power similar to a metropolitan. The use of the term in Eastern Orthodox Church varies, but is never used interchangeably with "Pope".) See for more information the wikipedia article on the Pope. The head of the Eastern Orthodox Church in Alexandria is sometime referred to (inaccurately) as "Pope" of Eastern Orthodoxy. However, even this usage in reference to Cyril would be grossly anachronistic as the Eastern Orthodox Church did not exist as a entity separate from Rome until the Great Schism of 1054. It could be argued (though never known for sure) that Cyril himself would be offended by the title of Pope being imposed on him. His allegiance to the Holy See is clear in his correspondence with Pope Celestine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fling13 (talk • contribs) 17:37, November 8, 2006.

I've contacted John Mcguckin, Professor of Byzantine Christian Studies at Columbia University and author of "St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy". He had this to say:

The ancient title was Pope of Alexandria. Patriarch was attached

to the Sees (Rome,Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem) after Chalcedon in 451 - so technically Pope is the more correct, though patriarch

is also generally used.

Scott5834 15:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
so why not leave the title Patriarch of Alexandria, and add that fact to Patriarch? The Jackal God 15:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
As the title Pope is more correct, we should leave it as is. This fact should probably be added to both Patriarch and Pope. Scott5834 16:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure why you see it as a matter of "more correct." We live post-Chalcedon, and since they redefined those terms, as a matter of clarity, I would prefer to see Patriarch, and leave the footnote to the articles Patriarch, and Pope for that matter. Seeing "Pope" can actually be misleading, since our use of the word pope and their use of it was different. (Again, this post-Chalcedon thing, living in the present.) The Jackal God 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with using "patriarch". To virtually all 21st century speakers of English the term "pope" in a religious context means exactly one thing, and that is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. To use it the way it is used here is bound to confuse most readers. I do not think "pope" should be used in the lead paragraph without explanation. I don't really care how correct "pope" is to academic specialists; this article is written for the benefit of non-specialists. I'd be okay with something like "the patriarch (or pope) of Alexandria". Mrhsj 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion Professor Mcguckin ended this debate. Unless you guys have cited references that he should be listed as Pope, contradicting the foremost scholar on Cyril seems fairly ridiculous. Please take this argument to the Pope or Patriarch talk pages. Scott5834 20:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, please see Wikipedia's naming conventions. Specifically:

For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome should not be linked with their episcopal sees; Rome is understood. Also, do not use a pope's personal name. For example, use Pope John Paul I, not Albino Luciani or Pope John Paul I of Rome.

Popes other than Roman are explicitly mentioned. Scott5834 21:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Like Mcgucking said, according to you, patriarch is generally used. You are the one proposing to use pope, not he. I was aware of the convention on copts, but I am not sure whether they (the Copts) apply it to St. Cyril. Moreover, he is not a Copt exclusively, per se - the Churches were all united back then, so they wouldn't get to decide the case unilaterally. In fact, I think the relevance of the Copts is slim, since Copts, and English-speaking Copts, are marginal compared to the hordes of us who call him by the designation Patriarch of Alexandria. With all respect, it seems to me, Scott, that you are interpreting one person's words to override a convention used for the last 1500 years by virtually the entire world. The Jackal God 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Prof. McGuckin is no more an authority on Wikipedia style than any of us here. The Wikipedia style guide is an authority, and I appreciate the link to the relevant naming conventions page, which I hadn't seen before. It does support the "pope" position. I am not sure it really should apply to this case but I'm content to drop the subject now. Mrhsj 22:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Style Guide's convention doesn't apply to St. Cyril, I think Orthodox Copts still retain the use of Pope, so that convention wouldn't apply, unless taking a Coptic PoV of the run of things.

The Coptic Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria

  • The leader of the Coptic Catholic Church, known as Patriarch of Alexandria of the Copts. This Uniate Patriarch, however does not hold the dual Title of Pope and Patriarch. He holds only the title of Patriarch and could, if bestowed upon him from the Pope of Rome, hold the title of Cardinal Bishop.

If it was a minor detail, I wouldn't mind conceding it to the Copts if they thought it was a big deal, but Pope carries a very specific meaning in all but the most academic echelons of converstion. The Jackal God 22:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering he was a Coptic Pope, and the manual of style explicitly names Coptic Popes, I'm not sure how more clear the manual of style can be. Again, we'll need explicit references (contradicting Mcguckin) and a change to Wikipedia's style. Scott5834 13:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I was tring to point out a nuance, Scott, that although to Copts, he one in the line of many Coptic Popes, for the rest of Catholic and most Orthodox Christianity, we isn't a Coptic Orthodox Pope, or a Copt (meaning belonging to the Coptic Church and not Copt meaning Egyptian Christian). So it's not clear to be that this is all obvious; rather I see you interpreting things and the consequence is at odds with general, accepted usage. What I'm addressing is not change, but a different interpretation using the same resources. The Jackal God 17:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Even if the title uses Pope:
Placing the "Coptic Popes" template seems to me a bit POV as this endorses the validity of the Coptic claim of an unbroken lineage from Saint Mark to Shenouda, whereas non-Copts would insist that Coptic would not be appropriate for all these as it denotes one of the party in the Christological disputes since the 5th century. While in a way it is correct to label Cyril and his predecessors a Copt, it is just as correct to label them Catholic, Greek Orthodox etc. as they lived and worked before the split. Even Disocurus is not solely Coptic, though he is the one under whom the schism occured.
How shall we solve this? Str1977 (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It's no more POV than is the placing of a popes-of-Rome template on St Peter; after all, it's obvious that tons of Protestants dispute that. Nyttend 04:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The claim that the Orthodox do not use the title "Pope" when referring to the Bishop of Alexandria is erroneous. Among the Orthodox, he is referred to as "The Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria." See OrthodoxWiki for greater clarification. [1] That article also explains the Greek origins of the title, and interestingly points out that the title was first used in Alexandria, not Rome. To cite "1500 years of convention", then, is not accurate, since the Pope of Alexandria has had that title since around 232 AD, continued to use it throughout the existence of the diocese, and continues to use it to this day. The Bishop of Rome did not begin using that title until 523 AD, about 300 years later. It would seem, then, that even convention is in favor of the continued use of the term "Pope", despite Western proclivities to the contrary. Sambolic (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

General Recommendations from Professor John Mcguckin

John Mcguckin, Professor of Byzantine Christian Studies at Columbia University, was kind enough to give some recommendations to improve the article. I'll try to fold some of these in, but any help would be great! (I'll strike out the ones I've finished with)

  1. You refer to his knowledge of Latin...this used to be thought valid. Nowadays it is realized that he used one of the Alexandrian scribes (a university city) to translate all his dossier of complaints INTO Latin before sending them to Pope Celestine in Rome. This greatly impressed the Roman court (and was intended to). When Nestorius wrote to Rome he did so in Greek, and it was regarded as less respectful. So Cyril was a much better politician than Nestorius, but not necessarily versed in Latin (I think he did not know the language personally).
  2. You refer to his acceptance of the return of John Chrysostom. This should actually be a statement of delight at the return of the relics of St. John Chrysostom ( who had been dead already for a long time). Cyril was a very young man when he attended his uncle Theophilus at the synod which deposed John Chrysostom at Constantinople.
  3. You refer to Cyril managing despite Orestes interventions, to expel the Jews. This is now commonly read by historians as a very large exaggeration of later Church historians. There is no evidence that the whole Jewish population of Alexandria was ever expelled at this time - in fact it continued on as an equally numerous group to the Christians until the Arab invasions of the 7th century. The rhetoric of these texts is often 'over the top'. The historian in question, Socrates, tries to depict Cyril as an insensitive rabble rouser. The Jews who were expelled were the ones he legally prosecuted for the alleged burning of a Christian church. The Christian mob retaliated by burning several synagogues but in the resulting legal fights for compensation Cyril secured his compensation AND secured the expulsion of the leaders of the Jewish area where the fight started - but the Jewish faction came off worse. That is more or less the history behind the event - but it is blown up in the histories (all of which are Christian one might add) to either throw a shine on Cyril as 'defender of faith' or to blacken him as dangerous mob-rouser. In my book you can see how I treated the Jewish incident and the Hypatia incident - as something in - between seeing him as innocent Joe, or proto Hitler.
  4. The Hypatia incident. Cyril was generally tarred as a 'murderer' of Hypata by sending his own 'clerical troops' to stone her to death. This was mainly in Victorian era text books that were heavily biased against him anyway - busy writing up a myth of dangerous bishops who must be kept out of church life (the Victorians were currently being scared witless by the Oxford movement and thinking that holy protestant england might soon be taken over by the arch-episcopal-villain of his holiness the pope). So they penned a lot of vitriol about church fathers, but little of it is based firmly on the evidence. The source you cite for Hypatia is very old and unreliable. So too is Charles Kinglsey whose novel Hypatia spread this charge widely, and is 95% romantic fiction not fact. One of Cyril's minor clerics was leading a mob in the streets which attacked the poor philosopher, known to be a public and vociferous critic of Christian life. They dragged her into a church to force her conversion and in the resultant fight, when she (probably said a few things not so nice to hear about Christ and his Church) they stoned her to death. It is a vile act but has the hallmarks of a mob act of spontaneous violence - for which this city was renowned in antiquity as the most violent of all the (very violent) cities of ancient times. To pin it personally on Cyril only follows if you have already agreed Cyril was guilty in advance. How to handle the Hypatia and the Jewish arson attack are always key factors in determining what kind of balance one has in dealing with Cyril.
  5. I would add, if you like, a final paragraph synopsizing what his position was on theological matters - and why he thought the difference between him and Nestorius so important. Cyril regarded the embodiment of God in the person of Jesus Christ to be so mystically powerful that it spread out form the body of the God-man into the rest of the race, to reconstitute human nature as it was lived-in -Christ, into a graced and deified condition of the saints, one that promised immortality and transfiguration to believers. Nestorius, on the other hand, saw the incarnation as primarily a moral and ethical example to the faithful, to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. Cyril's constant stress was on the simple idea that it was God who walked the streets of Nazareth (hence Mary was Theotokos or Mother of God), and God who had appeared in a Transfigured humanity. Nestorius was always more careful to speak of the distinct 'Jesus the Man' and 'the divine Logos' in ways that Cyril thought were too dichotomous.

"One of Cyril's minor clerics was leading a mob in the streets which attacked the poor philosopher, known to be a public and vociferous critic of Christian life. They dragged her into a church to force her conversion and in the resultant fight, when she (probably said a few things not so nice to hear about Christ and his Church) they stoned her to death." It would be nice to know where all these particulars are coming from. I am not an expert, but I do not recall such details in the sources. --TakenakaN (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment looks very valid to me. Moreover the record of Socrates scholasticus (5th century not Victorian era book) puts it differently to John McGuckin's explanation - Peter the reader Cyril's assitant was leading the mob:

"Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her by scraping her skin off with tiles and bits of shell. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.118.2.13 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

He belongs in the category since he personally led a mob plundering and destroying the synagogues. He also expeled the Jews from Alexandria so it should be a clear case of anti-Semitism. I'm suprised anyone can dubt it. // Liftarn

I don't know whether Cyril was an anti-Semite or not. But I am reasonably sure that the body of the article does not establish that he meets the stated criteria for inclusion in Category:Anti-Semitic people. Just being involved in violence against Jews is not sufficient - the *motive* must also be established as being from a general hostility towards Jews in general. (General George Patton led a great deal of violence against Germans, but was he "anti-German"? No, he was just the leader of battles in which the enemy happened to be German.) Also note that it is not established that Cyril "expelled the Jews from Alexandria"; that is the take of some historians, while others disagree. If evidence exists that Cyril harbored personal hostility towards the Jewish people in general, and that these attitudes motivated his actions, then by all means provide the material and sources in the article and then the category will be a slam-dunk. Mrhsj 15:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I should also have mentioned: please see item 3 above under "General Recommendations from Professor John Mcguckin" for detail on factual disputes about the conflicts in question. I took a stab at clarifying this in the main article recently but more needs to be done. Mrhsj 01:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Year of Death

Do we need 'circa' in front of his year of death? Both my Breviary and Butler's Lives gives the year as 444, not c. 444. Is it ok if I change it or cite one/both, or are there other RS that question the particular year? Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

McGuckin states "Cyril died on the 27th of June 444" (p. 123). Some web sources say "the 9th or 27th of June" but I see no reason to doubt the 444. I'll take out the circa. Mrhsj (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Great, thank you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Formula of Reunion

I'm wondering if the Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonians) subscribe to the Formula of Reunion between Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch? Deusveritasest (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Cyril died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.125.63 (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Any more details about his death available?

It would be interesting to know; how did he die? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.131.66 (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Calculus Gems"?

I've removed this:

In actuality, the death of Hypatia signalled a Christian uprising against the 'learned scholars' of Alexandria, a center of knowledge throughout the ancient world.

Because the source is apparently a pop history book on mathematicians, and the statement itself is NPOV, reading into the motivations behind the attack in a way the mob itself wouldn't have. Twin Bird (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


NOTE FROM ANOTHER USER: There is also this line:

"Historians disagree over the extent of his responsibility for these events, but they agree that Cyril's canonising as a saint by the Catholic church was a direct consequence of the murder."

But no historians are cited. The statement could very well be true, but it sounds so close to popular myths about Hypatia's murder it makes me a tad suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.91.80 (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cyril of Alexandria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://orthodoxwiki.org/Pope
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyril_of_Alexandria/Archive_1&oldid=858246080"