David Filmer provided a link clearly showing the problems with claiming Cyril teaches SS. I can provide additional arguments if you like.
From Gregory of Nyssa:
“But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.” (On the Soul and the Resurrection)
The Holy Scriptures are the rule and measure of every tenet, would you agree with this?
Alright, Sultan, think with me carefully here.
(1) For you to use the quote above from Gregory you have to be maintaining that he held and taught SS.
(2) Yet he also say in the same work before passage you cite: “As for ourselves, we take our stand upon the tenets of the Church, and assert that it will be well to accept only so much of these speculations [of pagan philosophers, “pagan nonsense”] as is sufficient to show that those who indulge in them are to a certain extent in accord with the doctrine of the Resurrection.”
The context is important because he is juxtaposing Christian literature to pagan literature in a work modeled on Plato’s Phaedo. Gregory stresses the authority of his Christian literature to judge it. In all, Scripture alone is used over against “pagan,” “heathen” philosophies to judge them. Nothing is said about it being so used vis-à-vis Tradition and Church, as SS does. Again he does say “we take our stand upon the tenets of the Church.”
(3) The language is inclusive, “every,” not exclusive, “only.” And the language refers to tenets not to Scripture. Think. To say “we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet” is in no way the same as saying “we make the Holy Scriptures only the rule and the measure of every tenet.” And the former proposition certainly does not entail the latter either.
If a doctor ordered “X-rays should be performed on every patient”, that statement in no way means or entails “X-rays only should be performed on every patient.” And if in another setting he ordered “Drug tests should be performed on every patient” that statement in no way means or entails “Drug tests only should be performed on every patient.” Nor are the two medical orders mutually exclusive.
The text itself doesn’t add up to what you want it to mean. Think, please.
(4) Numerous texts from his writing considered as a whole lead to the conclusion that he teaches STC, and nothing like SS.
Take his lengthy treatise against Eunomius on a subject as fundamental as the Trinity, a topic on which the Cappadocian fathers are prolific.
And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, *Against Eunomius, IV, 6]
While the Church teaches that we must not divide our faith among a plurality of beings, but must recognize no difference of being in three Subjects or Persons, whereas our opponents posit a variety and unlikeness among them as Beings,
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, I, 19]
In a famous letter on the Trinity he writes:
The question [regarding the Holy Trinity] is, as I said, very difficult to deal with: yet, if we should be able to find anything that may give support to the uncertainty of our mind, so that it may no longer totter and waver in this monstrous dilemma, it would be well: on the other hand, even if our reasoning be found unequal to the problem, we must keep forever, firm and unmoved, the tradition which we received by succession from the fathers, and seek from the Lord the reason which is the advocate of our faith: and if this be found by any of those endowed with grace, we must give thanks to Him who bestowed the grace; but if not, we shall none the less, on those points which have been determined, hold our faith unchangeably.
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, *To Ablabius: On Not Three Gods]
But since such cases have been passed over by our Fathers, we deem it sufficient on the principle of public teaching, that in purifying the infirmities of avarice through the word we treat them, as far as possible, as a kind of compound condition, and consider only theft, grave-robbing and sacrilege as morbid conditions, for such is the tradition that has come down to us from the succession of the Fathers.
[St. Gregory of Nyssa, Letter 31, Canonical Letter of the holy Gregory to Letoius among the saints, bishop of Melitene, 6]