Professional Documents
Culture Documents
YARN OLD
S. J., Oxford
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.
187
188
E. J.
YARN OLD
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