St. John Chrysostom

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

(Chrysostomos, "golden-mouthed" so called on account of his eloquence).

Doctor of the Church, born atAntioch, c. 347; died at Commana inPontus, 14 September, 407.

John — whose surname "Chrysostom" occurs for the first time in the "Constitution" ofPope Vigilius (cf. P.L., LX, 217) in the year 553 — is generally considered the most prominentdoctor of theGreek Church and the greatest preacher ever heard in aChristianpulpit. His natural gifts, as well as exterior circumstances, helped him to become what he was.

Life

Boyhood

At the time of Chrysostom's birth,Antioch was the second city of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire. During the whole of the fourth century religious struggles had troubled the empire and had found their echo atAntioch.Pagans,Manichaeans,Gnostics,Arians,Apollinarians,Jews, made theirproselytes atAntioch, and theCatholics were themselves separated by theschism between thebishopsMeletius and Paulinus. Thus Chrysostom's youth fell in troubled times. His father, Secundus, was an officer of high rank in theSyrian army. On his death soon after the birth of John, Anthusa, his wife, only twenty years of age, took the sole charge of her two children, John and an elder sister. Fortunately she was awoman of intelligence and character. She not only instructed her son inpiety, but also sent him to the bestschools ofAntioch, though with regard tomorals and religion many objections could be urged against them. Beside the lectures of Andragatius, aphilosopher not otherwise known, Chrysostom followed also those of Libanius, at once the most famous orator of that period and the most tenacious adherent of the decliningpaganism ofRome. As we may see from the later writings of Chrysostom, he attained then considerable Greek scholarship and classical culture, which he by no means disowned in his later days. His alleged hostility to classical learning is in reality but a misunderstanding of certain passages in which he defends thephilosophia ofChristianity against the myths of theheathen gods, of which the chief defenders in his time were the representatives and teachers of thesophia ellenike (see A. Naegele in "Byzantin. Zeitschrift", XIII, 73-113; Idem, "Chrysostomus und Libanius" inChrysostomika, I, Rome, 1908, 81-142).

Chrysostom as lector and monk

It was a very decisive turning-point in the life of Chrysostom when he met one day (about 367) thebishopMeletius. The earnest, mild, and winning character of this man captivated Chrysostom in such a measure that he soon began to withdraw from classical and profane studies and to devote himself to an ascetic andreligious life. He studiedHoly Scripture and frequented the sermons ofMeletius. About three years later he received Holy Baptism and wasordainedlector. But the young cleric, seized by the desire of a more perfect life, soon afterwards entered one of the asceticsocieties nearAntioch, which was under thespiritual direction of Carterius and especially of the famous Diodorus, laterBishop ofTarsus (seePalladius, "Dialogus", v;Sozomenus,Church History VIII.2).Prayer, manual labour and the study ofHoly Scripture were his chief occupations, and we may safely suppose that his first literary works date from this time, for nearly all his earlier writings deal with ascetic and monastic subjects [cf. below Chrysostom writings: (1) "Opuscuia"]. Four years later, Chrysostom resolved to live as ananchorite in one of the caves nearAntioch. He remained there two years, but then as his health was quite ruined by indiscreet watchings and fastings in frost and cold, he prudently returned toAntioch to regain his health, and resumed his office aslector in the church.

Chrysostom as deacon and priest at Antioch

As the sources of the life of Chrysostom give an incompletechronology, we can but approximately determine the dates for thisAntiochene period. Very probably in the beginning of 381Meletius made himdeacon, just before his own departure to Constantinople, where he died as president of theSecond Ecumenical Council. The successor ofMeletius was Flavian (concerning whose succession see F. Cavallera, "Le Schisme d'Antioche", Paris, 1905). Ties of sympathy and friendship connected Chrysostom with his newbishop. Asdeacon he had to assist at theliturgical functions, to look after the sick and poor, and was probably charged also in some degree with teachingcatechumens. At the same time he continued his literary work, and we may suppose that he composed his most famous book, "On the Priesthood", towards the end of this period (c. 386, seeSocrates,Church History VI.3), or at latest in the beginning of hispriesthood (c. 387, as Nairn with good reasons puts it, in his edition of "De Sacerd.", xii-xv). There may be somedoubt if it was occasioned by a real historical fact, viz., that Chrysostom and his friend Basil were requested to acceptbishoprics (c. 372). All the earliest Greek biographers seem not to have taken it in that sense. In the year 386 Chrysostom wasordainedpriest by Flavian, and from that dates his real importance inecclesiastical history. His chief task during the next twelve years was that of preaching, which he had to exercise either instead of or with Bishop Flavian. But nodoubt the larger part of the popular religious instruction andeducation devolved upon him. The earliest notable occasion which showed his power of speaking and his great authority was theLent of 387, when he delivered hissermons "On the Statues" (P.G., XLVIII, 15, xxx.). The people ofAntioch, excited by the levy of new taxes, had thrown down thestatues ofEmperor Theodosius. In the panic and fear of punishment which followed, Chrysostom delivered a series of twenty or twenty-one (the nineteenth is probably not authentic) sermons, full of vigour, consolatory, exhortative, tranquilizing, until Flavian, thebishop, brought back from Constantinople the emperor's pardon. But the usual preaching of Chrysostom consisted in consecutive explanations ofHoly Scripture. To that custom, unhappily no longer in use, we owe his famous and magnificent commentaries, which offer us such an inexhaustible treasure of dogmatic, moral, and historicalknowledge of the transition from the fourth to the fifth century. These years, 386-98, were the period of the greatesttheological productivity of Chrysostom, a period which alone would have assured him for ever a place among the firstDoctors of the Church. A sign of this may be seen in the fact that in the year 392St. Jerome already accorded to the preacher ofAntioch a place among hisViri illustres ("De Viris ill.", 129, in P.L., XXIII, 754), referring expressly to the great and successful activity of Chrysostom as atheological writer. From this same fact we may infer that during this time his fame had spread far beyond the limits ofAntioch, and that he was well known in theByzantine Empire, especially in the capital.

St. Chrysostom as bishop of Constantinople

In the ordinary course of things Chrysostom might have become the successor of Flavian atAntioch. But on 27 September 397, Nectarius,Bishop of Constantinople, died. There was a general rivalry in the capital, openly or in secret, for the vacant see. After some months it was known, to the great disappointment of the competitors, that Emperor Areadius, at the suggestion of his minister Eutropius, had sent to the Prefect ofAntioch to call John Chrysostom out of the town without theknowledge of the people, and to send him straight to Constantinople. In this sudden way Chrysostom was hurried to the capital, andordainedBishop of Constantinople on 26 February, 398, in the presence of a great assembly ofbishops, byTheophilus,Patriarch ofAlexandria, who had beenobliged to renounce theidea of securing the appointment of Isidore, his own candidate. The change for Chrysostom was as great as it was unexpected. His new position was not an easy one, placed as he was in the midst of an upstartmetropolis, half Western, half Oriental, in the neighbourhood of a court in which luxury and intrigue always played the most prominent parts, and at the head of theclergy composed of most heterogeneous elements, and even (if not canonically, at least practically) at the head of the whole Byzantine episcopate. The first act of the newbishop was to bring about a reconciliation between Flavian andRome. Constantinople itself soon began to feel the impulse of a newecclesiastical life.

The necessity for reform was undeniable. Chrysostom began "sweeping the stairs from the top" (Palladius, op. cit., v). He called hisoeconomus, and ordered him to reduce the expenses of the episcopal household; he put an end to the frequent banquets, and lived little less strictly than he had formerly lived as apriest andmonk. With regard to theclergy, Chrysostom had at first to forbid them to keep in their housessyneisactoe, i.e.women housekeepers who had vowed virginity. He also proceeded against others who, byavarice or luxury, had givenscandal. He had even to exclude from the ranks of theclergy twodeacons, the one formurder and the other foradultery. Of themonks, too, who were very numerous even at that time at Constantinople, some had preferred to roam about aimlessly and without discipline. Chrysostom confined them to theirmonasteries. Finally he took care of theecclesiasticalwidows. Some of them were living in a worldly manner: heobliged them either to marry again, or to observe the rules of decorum demanded by their state. After theclergy, Chrysostom turned his attention to his flock. As he had done atAntioch, so at Constantinople and with more reason, he frequently preached against the unreasonable extravagances of the rich, and especially against the ridiculous finery in the matter of dress affected bywomen whose age should have put them beyond such vanities. Some of them, thewidows Marsa, Castricia, Eugraphia, known for such preposterous tastes, belonged to the court circle. It seems that the upper classes of Constantinople had not previously been accustomed to such language. Doubtless some felt the rebuke to be intended for themselves, and the offence given was the greater in proportion as the rebuke was the more deserved. On the other hand, the people showed themselves delighted with the sermons of their newbishop, and frequently applauded him in the church (Socrates,Church History VI). They never forgot his care for the poor and miserable, and that in his first year he had built a greathospital with the money he had saved in his household. But Chrysostom had also very intimate friends among the rich and noble classes. The most famous of these was Olympias,widow anddeaconess, a relation ofEmperor Theodosius, while in the Court itself there was Brison, first usher of Eudoxia, who assisted Chrysostom in instructing his choirs, and always maintained atrue friendship for him. The empress herself was at first most friendly towards the newbishop. She followed the religious processions, attended hissermons, and presented silver candlesticks for the use of the churches (Socrates, op. cit., VI, 8;Sozomenus, op. cit., VIII, 8).

Unfortunately, the feelings of amity did not last. At first Eutropius, the former slave, now minister and consul, abused his influence. He deprived some wealthypersons of theirproperty, and prosecuted others whom he suspected of being adversaries of rivals. More than once Chrysostom went himself to the minister (see "Oratio ad Eutropium" in P.G., Chrys. Op., III, 392) to remonstrate with him, and to warn him of the results of his own acts, but without success. Then the above-named ladies, who immediately surrounded the empress, probably did not hide their resentment against the strictbishop. Finally, the empress herself committed aninjustice in depriving awidow of her vineyard (Marcus Diac., "Vita Porphyrii", V, no. 37, in P.G., LXV, 1229). Chrysostom interceded for the latter. But Eudoxia showed herself offended. Henceforth there was a certain coolness between the imperial Court and the episcopal palace, which, growing little by little, led to a catastrophe. It is impossible to ascertain exactly at what period this alienation first began; very probably it dated from the beginning of the year 401. But before this state of things became known to the public there happened events of the highest political importance, and Chrysostom, without seeking it, was implicated in them. These were the fall of Eutropius and the revolt of Gainas.

In January, 399, Eutropius, for a reason not exactly known, fell into disgrace. Knowing the feelings of the people and of his personal enemies, he fled to the church. As he had himself attempted to abolish the immunity of theecclesiastical asylums not long before, the people seemed little disposed to spare him. But Chrysostom interfered, delivering his famous sermon on Eutropius, and the fallen minister was saved for the moment. As, however, he tried to escape during the night, he was seized, exiled, and some time laterput to death. Immediately another more exciting and more dangerous event followed. Gainas, one of the imperial generals, had been sent out to subdue Tribigild, who had revolted. In the summer of 399 Gainas united openly with Tribigild, and, to restore peace, Arcadius had to submit to the most humiliating conditions. Gainas was named commander-in-chief of the imperial army, and even had Aurelian and Saturninus, two men of the highest rank at Constantinople, delivered over to him. It seems that Chrysostom accepted a mission to Gainas, and that, owing to his intervention, Aurelian and Saturninus were spared by Gainas, and even set at liberty. Soon afterwards, Gainas, who was anArian Goth, demanded one of theCatholic churches at Constantinople for himself and his soldiers. Again Chrysostom made so energetic an opposition that Gainas yielded. Meanwhile the people of Constantinople had become excited, and in one night several thousandGoths were slain. Gainas however escaped, was defeated, and slain by the Huns. Such was the end within a few years of three consuls of theByzantine Empire. There is nodoubt that Chrysostom's authority had been greatly strengthened by the magnanimity and firmness of character he had shown during all these troubles. It may have been this that augmented the jealousy of those who now governed the empire — a clique of courtiers, with the empress at their head. These were now joined by new allies issuing from theecclesiastical ranks and including some provincialbishops — Severian ofGabala, Antiochus of Ptolemais, and, for some time,Acacius of Beroea — who preferred the attractions of the capital to residence in their own cities (Socrates, op. cit., VI, 11;Sozomenus, op. cit., VIII, 10). The most intriguing among them was Severian, who flattered himself that he was the rival of Chrysostom in eloquence. But so far nothing had transpired in public. A great change occurred during the absence of Chrysostom for several months from Constantinople. This absence was necessitated by anecclesiastical affair inAsia Minor, in which he was involved. Following the express invitation of severalbishops, Chrysostom, in the first months of 401, had come to Ephesus, where he appointed a newarchbishop, and with the consent of the assembledbishops deposed sixbishops forsimony. After having passed the same sentence on Bishop Gerontius ofNicomedia, he returned to Constantinople.

Meanwhile disagreeable things had happened there. Bishop Severian, to whom Chrysostom seems to have entrusted the performance of someecclesiastical functions, had entered into open enmity with Serapion, thearchdeacon andoeconomus of thecathedral and the episcopal palace. Whatever the real reason may have been, Chrysostom found the case so serious that he invited Severian to return to his own see. It was solely owing to the personal interference of Eudoxia, whose confidence Serapion possessed, that he was allowed to come back from Chalcedon, whither he had retired. The reconciliation which followed was, at least on the part of Severian, not a sincere one, and thepublic scandal had excited much ill-feeling. The effects soon became visible. When in the spring of 402, Bishop Porphyrius ofGaza (see Marcus Diac., "Vita Porphyrii", V, ed. Nuth, Bonn, 1897, pp. 11-19) went to the Court at Constantinople to obtain a favour for hisdiocese, Chrysostom answered that he could do nothing for him, since he was himself in disgrace with the empress. Nevertheless, the party of malcontents were not really dangerous, unless they could find some prominent and unscrupulous leader. Such aperson presented himself sooner than might have been expected. It was the well-knownTheophilus,Patriarch ofAlexandria. He appeared under rather curious circumstances, which in no way foreshadowed the final result.Theophilus, toward the end of the year 402, was summoned by the emperor to Constantinople to apologize before a synod, over which Chrysostom should preside, for several charges, which were brought against him by certainEgyptianmonks, especially by the so-called four "tall brothers". The patriarch, their former friend, had suddenly turned against them, and had thempersecuted asOrigenists (Palladius, "Dialogus", xvi;Socrates, op. cit., VI, 7;Sozomenus, op. cit., VIII, 12).

However,Theophilus was not easily frightened. He had always agents and friends at Constantinople, andknew the state of things and the feelings at the court. He now resolved to take advantage of them. He wrote at once toSt. Epiphanius atCyprus, requesting him to go to Constantinople and prevail upon Chrysostom at to condemn theOrigenists. Epiphanius went. But when he found thatTheophilus was merely using him for his own purposes, he left the capital, dying on his return in 403. At this time Chrysostom delivered a sermon against the vain luxury ofwomen. It was reported to the empress as though she had been personally alluded to. In this way the ground was prepared.Theophilus at last appeared at Constantinople in June, 403, not alone, as he had been commanded, but with twenty-nine of his suffraganbishops, and, asPalladius (ch. viii) tells us, with a good deal of money and all sorts of gifts. He took his lodgings in one of the imperial palaces, and held conferences with all the adversaries of Chrysostom. Then he retired with his suffragans and seven otherbishops to a villa near Constantinople, calledepi dryn (see Ubaldi, "La Synodo ad Quercum", Turin, 1902). A long list of the most ridiculous accusations was drawn up against Chrysostom (see Photius, "Bibliotheca", 59, in P.G., CIII, 105-113), who, surrounded by forty-twoarchbishops andbishops assembled to judgeTheophilus in accordance with the orders of the emperor, was now summoned to present himself and apologize. Chrysostom naturally refused to recognize the legality of a synod in which his open enemies were judges. After the third summons Chrysostom, with the consent of the emperor, was declared to be deposed. In order to avoid useless bloodshed, he surrendered himself on the third day to the soldiers who awaited him. But the threats of the excited people, and a sudden accident in the imperial palace, frightened the empress (Palladius, "Dialogus", ix). She feared some punishment fromheaven for Chrysostom's exile, and immediately ordered his recall. After some hesitation Chrysostom re-entered the capital amid the great rejoicings of the people.Theophilus and his party saved themselves by flying from Constantinople. Chrysostom's return was in itself a defeat for Eudoxia. When her alarms had gone, her rancour revived. Two months afterwards a silverstatue of the empress was unveiled in the square just before thecathedral. The public celebrations which attended this incident, and lasted several days, became so boisterous that the offices in the church were disturbed. Chrysostom complained of this to the prefect of the city, who reported to Eudoxia that thebishop had complained against herstatue. This was enough to excite the empress beyond all bounds. She summonedTheophilus and the otherbishops to come back and to depose Chrysostom again. The prudent patriarch, however, did not wish to run the same risk a second time. He only wrote to Constantinople that Chrysostom should be condemned for having re-entered hissee in opposition to an article of the Synod of Antioch held in the year 341 (anArian synod). The otherbishops had neither the authority nor thecourage to give a formal judgment. All they could do was to urge the emperor to sign a newdecree of exile. A double attempt on Chrysostom's life failed. OnEaster Eve, 404, when all thecatechumens were to receivebaptism, the adversaries of thebishop, with imperial soldiers, invaded thebaptistery and dispersed the whole congregation. At last Arcadius signed thedecree, and on 24 June, 404, the soldiers conducted Chrysostom a second time into exile.

Exile and death

They had scarcely left Constantinople when a huge conflagration destroyed thecathedral, the senate-house, and other buildings. The followers of the exiledbishop were accused of the crime and prosecuted. In haste Arsacius, an old man, was appointed successor of Chrysostom, but was soon succeeded by the cunning Atticus. Whoever refused to enter into communion with them was punished by confiscation ofproperty and exile. Chrysostom himself was conducted to Cucusus, a secluded and rugged place on the east frontier ofArmenia, continually exposed to the invasions of the Isaurians. In the following year he had even to fly for some time to the castle ofArabissus to protect himself from these barbarians. Meanwhile he always maintained a correspondence with his friends and never gave up the hope of return. When the circumstances of his deposition were known in the West, thepope and theItalianbishops declared themselves in his favour.Emperor Honorius andPope Innocent I endeavoured to summon a new synod, but theirlegates wereimprisoned and then sent home. Thepope broke off all communion with the Patriarchs of Alexandria,Antioch (where an enemy of Chrysostom had succeeded Flavian), and Constantinople, until (after the death of Chrysostom) they consented to admit his name into thediptychs of theChurch. Finally all hopes for the exiledbishop had vanished. Apparently he was living too long for his adversaries. In the summer, 407, the order was given to carry him to Pithyus, a place at the extreme boundary of the empire, near the Caucasus. One of the two soldiers who had to lead him caused him all possible sufferings. He was forced to make long marches, was exposed to the rays of the sun, to the rains and the cold of the nights. His body, already weakened by several severe illnesses, finally broke down. On 14 September the party were at Comanan inPontus. In the morning Chrysostom had asked to rest there on the account of his state of health. In vain; he was forced to continue his march. Very soon he felt so weak that they had to return to Comana. Some hours later Chrysostom died. His last words were:Doxa to theo panton eneken (Glory be toGod for all things) (Palladius, xi, 38). He wasburied atComana. On 27 January, 438, his body was translated to Constantinople with great pomp, and entombed in the church of the Apostles where Eudoxia had been buried in the year 404 (seeSocrates, VII, 45; Constantine Prophyrogen., "Cæremoniale Aul Byz.", II, 92, in P.G., CXII, 1204 B).

The writings of St. Chrysostom

Chrysostom has deserved a place inecclesiastical history, not simply asBishop of Constantinople, but chiefly as aDoctor of the Church. Of none of the otherGreekFathers do we possess so many writings. We may divide them into three portions, the "opuscula", the "homilies", and the "letters". (1) The chief "opuscula" all date from the earlier days of his literary activity. The following deal withmonastical subjects: "Comparatio Regis cum Monacho" ("Opera", I, 387-93, in P.G., XLVII-LXIII), "Adhortatio ad Theodorum (Mopsuestensem?) lapsum" (ibid., 277-319), "Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae" (ibid., 319-87). Those dealing with ascetical subjects in general are the treatise "De Compunctione" in two books (ibid., 393-423), "Adhortatio ad Stagirium" in three books (ibid., 433-94), "Adversus Subintroductas" (ibid., 495-532), "De Virginitate" (ibid., 533-93), "De Sacerdotio" (ibid., 623-93). (2) Among the"homilies" we have to distinguish commentaries on books ofHoly Scripture, groups ofhomilies (sermons) on special subjects, and a great number of singlehomilies. (a) The chief "commentaries" on theOld Testament are the sixty-sevenhomilies "On Genesis" (with eight sermons on Genesis, which are probably a first recension) (IV, 21 sqq., and ibid., 607 sqq.); fifty-ninehomilies "On the Psalms" (4-12, 41, 43-49, 108-117, 119-150) (V, 39-498), concerning which see Chrys. Baur, "Der ursprangliche Umfang des Kommentars des hl. Joh. Chrysostomus zu den Psalmen" inChrysostomika, fase. i (Rome, 1908), 235-42, a commentary on the first chapters of "Isaias" (VI, 11 sqq.). The fragments on Job (XIII, 503-65) are spurious (see Haidacher, "Chrysostomus Fragmente" inChrysostomika, I, 217 sq.); the authenticity of the fragments on the Proverbs (XIII, 659-740), on Jeremias and Daniel (VI, 193-246), and the Synopsis of the Old and theNew Testament (ibid., 313 sqq.), isdoubtful. The chief commentaries on theNew Testament are first the ninetyhomilies on "St. Matthew" (about the year 390; VII), eighty-eighthomilies on "St. John" (c. 389; VIII, 23 sqq. — probably from a later edition), fifty-fivehomilies on "the Acts" (as preserved by stenographers, IX, 13 sqq.), andhomilies "On all Epistles of St. Paul" (IX, 391 sqq.). The best and most important commentaries are those on the Psalms, on St. Matthew, and on the Epistle to the Romans (written c. 391). The thirty-fourhomilies on the Epistle to the Galatians also very probably comes to us from the hand of a second editor. (b) Among the "homilies forming connected groups", we may especially mention the fivehomilies "On Anna" (IV, 631-76), three "On David" (ibid., 675-708), six "On Ozias" (VI, 97-142), eight "Against the Jews" (II, 843-942), twelve "De Incomprehensibili Dei Naturæ" (ibid., 701-812), and the seven famoushomilies "On St. Paul" (III, 473-514). (c) A great number of "singlehomilies" deal with moral subjects, with certain feasts orsaints. (3) The "Letters" of Chrysostom (about 238 in number: III, 547 sqq.) were all written during his exile. Of special value for their contents and intimate nature are the seventeen letters to thedeaconess Olympias. Among the numerous "Apocrypha" we may mention the liturgy attributed to Chrysostom, who perhaps modified, but did not compose the ancient text. The most famousapocryphon is the "Letter to Cæsarius" (III, 755-760). It contains a passage on the holy Eucharist which seems to favour the theory of"impanatio", and the disputes about it have continued for more than two centuries. The most important spurious work in Latin is the "Opus imperfectum", written by anArian in the first half of the fifth century (see Th. Paas, "Das Opus imperfectum in Matthæum", Tübingen, 1907).

Chrysostom's theological importance

Chrysostom as orator

The success of Chrysostom's preaching is chiefly due to his great natural facility of speech, which was extraordinary even to Greeks, to the abundance of his thoughts as well as the popular way of presenting and illustrating them, and, last but not least, the whole-hearted earnestness and conviction with which he delivered the message which he felt had been given to him. Speculative explanation did not attract his mind, nor would they have suited the tastes of his hearers. He ordinarily preferred moral subjects, and very seldom in hissermons followed a regular plan, nor did he care to avoid digressions when any opportunity suggested them. In this way, he is by no means a model for our modern thematic preaching, which, however we may regret it, has to such a great extent supplanted the old homiletic method. But the frequent outbursts of applause among his congregation may have told Chrysostom that he was on the right path.

Chrysostom as an exegete

As anexegete Chrysostom is of the highest importance, for he is the chief and almost the only successful representative of theexegetical principles of the School of Antioch.Diodorus of Tarsus had initiated him into the grammatico-historical method of thatschool, which was in strong opposition to the eccentric, allegorical, and mystical interpretation ofOrigen and the Alexandrian School. But Chrysostom rightly avoided pushing his principles to that extreme to which, later on, his friendTheodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius, carried them. He did not even exclude all allegorical or mystical explanations, but confined them to the cases in which the inspired author himself suggests this meaning.

Chrysostom as dogmatic theologian

As has already been said, Chrysostom's was not a speculative mind, nor was he involved in his lifetime in great dogmatic controversies. Nevertheless it would be a mistake to underrate the greattheological treasures hidden in his writings. From the very first he was considered by the Greeks and Latins as a most important witness to the Faith. Even at the Council of Ephesus (431) both parties, St. Cyril and the Antiochians, already invoked him on behalf of their opinions, and at theSeventh Ecumenical Council, when a passage of Chrysostom had been read in favour of the veneration of images, Bishop Peter ofNicomedia cried out: "If John Chrysostom speaks in the way of the images, who would dare to speak against them?" which shows clearly the progress his authority had made up to thatdate.

Strangely enough, in theLatin Church, Chrysostom was still earlier invoked as an authority on matters offaith. The first writer who quoted him wasPelagius, when he wrote his lost book "De Naturæ" againstSt. Augustine (c. 415). TheBishop ofHippo himself very soon afterwards (421) claimed Chrysostom for theCatholic teaching in his controversy withJulian of Eclanum, who had opposed to him a passage of Chrysostom (from the "Hom. ad Neophytos", preserved only in Latin) as being againstoriginal sin (see Chrys. Baur, "L'entrée littéraire de St. Jean Chrys. dans le monde latin" in the "Revue d'histoire ecclés.", VIII, 1907, 249-65). Again, at the time of theReformation there arose long and acrid discussions as to whether Chrysostom was aProtestant or aCatholic, and these polemics have never wholly ceased. It istrue that Chrysostom has some strange passages on ourBlessed Lady (seeNewman, "Certain difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teachings", London, 1876, pp. 130 sqq.), that he seems to ignore privateconfession to apriest, that there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of thepope. But it must be remembered that all the respective passages contain nothing positive against the actualCatholic doctrine. On the other side Chrysostom explicitly acknowledges as arule of faith tradition (XI, 488), as laid down by the authoritative teaching of theChurch (I, 813). This Church, he says, is but one, by the unity of herdoctrine (V, 244; XI, 554); she is spread over the whole world, she is the one Bride of Christ (III, 229, 403; V, 62; VIII, 170). As toChristology, Chrysostom holds clearly that Christ isGod and man in oneperson, but he never enters into deeper examination of the manner of this union. Of great importance is hisdoctrine regarding theEucharist. There cannot be the slightestdoubt that he teaches theReal Presence, and his expressions on the change wrought by the words of thepriest are equivalent to thedoctrine oftransubstantiation (see Naegle, "Die Eucharistielehre des hl. Joh. Chry.", 74 sq.).

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT