Search

Przedmiotem badania artykułu są źródła pisane powstałe w kontekście polityki chrystianizacji Żydów bizantyńskich w 2 poł IX w.: polemiczny traktat biskupa Grzegorza z Nicei (844–880) oraz wiersze protosekretarza Krzysztofa (850–900). Celem artykułu jest zbadanie stanowiska wspomnianych autorów wobec polityki chrystianizacji Żydów. Artykuł składa się z czterech części, w których zostały przedstawione informacje o źródłach, zdefiniowani docelowi odbiorcy traktatu metropolity Grzegorza i wierszy protosekretarza Krzysztofa. Dokonano w nich także analizy intencji utworów pisanych w konfrontacji zwolenników i przeciwników polityki chrystianizacji Żydów. Pomimo różnicy między dziełami pod względem gatunków literackich, dzieła te były pisane w celach propagandowych popierając lub sprzeciwiając się chrystianizacji Żydów. Artykuł ukazuje w jaki sposób teksty pisane były wykorzystywane przez strony przeciwstawne w celu obrony własnego stanowiska.

The purpose of the article is to present the reaction of the early Christians to the emergence and the spread of the great epidemics. During the early Christian ages (2nd–3rd centuries) different plagues devastated people of the Roman Empire. Christianity has already prepared some modes of activity to deal with epidemics. These were both ideological and practical means. The main conclusion is that the pestilences during which Christians might show their moral principles, the special manner of life, and activity were one of the reasons to explain conversion to Christianity.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the standpoint of Pope Honorius (625–638) at the early stage of the controversy over operation in Christ. Patriarch Sophronius (633/634–638) expressed his protest against the statement on one operation in Christ after it had been officially expressed in the Alexandrian Pact of unity in 633. The Pact was supported by both Sergius of Constantinople (610–638) and Emperor Heraclius (610–641). Patriarch Sergius developed his tactics in order to defend the stance of both the Church of Constantinople and the Emperor. As a result, a significant tension between both Patriarchs arose. After the confrontation between Sophronius of Jerusalem and Sergius of Constantinople, Pope Honorius (625–638) was concerned with the matter of operation in Christ. He maintained the standpoint of Sergius and became one of the implicit initiators of the Ekthesis issued by Emperor Heraclius.

Nauczanie o jednym działaniu w Chrystusie, znane jako monoenergizm (mÒnh ™nšrgeia, m…a ™nšrgeia), głosi, że Chrystus dokonywał zarówno ludzkich, jak i boskich czynów przez jedno bosko-ludzkie działanie. Artykuł składa się z trzech punktów. Dotyczą one nauczania św. Maksyma Wyznawcy o dwóch naturach Chrystusa; jego argumentacji na temat dwóch działań w Chrystusie zgodnie z Jego dwiema naturami; wizji harmonii działania w Chrystusie. Zastosowano analizę dzieł Maksyma Wyznawcy. W wyniku analizy podkreślono główne idee nauczania Maksyma o działaniu w Chrystusie, które poddano także porównaniu i syntezie. Stanowisko Maksyma Wyznawcy wobec nauczania o działaniu w Chrystusie stopniowo się rozwijało: od zainteresowania, przez krytyczne podejście, do wyraźnej opinii. Św. Maksym zdecydowanie nie akceptuje nauki o jednym bosko-ludzkim działaniu w Chrystusie. Uzasadnia natomiast naukę o dwojakim i jednocześnie jedynym działaniu Chrystusa. Dwojakie działanie jest związane z dwiema naturami Chrystusa. Działanie każdej natury jest jej naturalnym oraz istotowym elementem. Jedyne zaś działanie wypływa z faktu, że działanie ludzkiej natury przez przebóstwienie było podporządkowane Słowu, jako zasadzie całego działania Chrystusa. Między dwoma rodzajami działania nie zachodziło przeciwstawienia, ponieważ Chrystus w aspekcie sprawowania ludzkich czynów nie posiadał skłonności do grzechu, którą posiada zwykły człowiek.

The article discusses the question of the relation between the sixth-century Miaenergism, which is the idea of Christ having one divine-human operation, and the Logos-sarx type of Christology. The purpose of the article is to argue that the Miaenergism was dependent on the Christology centered on the divinity of incar­nate Christ. The Logos was acknowledged as the active principle even of Christ’s humanity, so that the human volition and operation of Christ was neglected in fa­vor of the Logos. This model of Christology was being developed especially from the second century in the writings of Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius of Alexandria and Apollinarius of Laodicea; then it was continued by Cyril of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch; it also influenced Leontius of Byzantium and Theodore of Pharan. The Miaenergism of the sixth and then of the seventh century was being developed on a ground of the Logos-sarx type of Christology, although it acknowledged the Dyophysitism of Chalcedon.

The position of Maximus the Confessor concerning the biblical argumentation in the dispute with Monotheletism consists in applying predominantly the literal approach to the interpretation of the New Testament. Since it was a Christological question, the New Testament played a substantial role. However, there are several instances of where Maximus applies allegorical and typological mode of inter­preting the particular passages. Preferring the literal mode of interpretation may signify that Maximus sticking to the letter of the text avoided manipulating the inspired text with many variations in interpretation. Biblical argument is not suf­ficient on its own to be persuasive in theological discussion, therefore it requires additional support and explanation. That is why Scripture is not thought of as the sole authority for Christian faith. It is interpreted by Maximus with taking into account not only the teaching of the Fathers and the Councils but also the philosophical heritage. If the Fathers and Councils can not answer to the current theological question, the interpretation of Scripture should be collated with the teaching of the Holy See.

The article discusses the question of interrelation between the promotion of Miaenergism and its influence on the sense of religious identity of non-Chal­cedonian Christians. The purpose of the article if to point that the promotion of Miaenergism was perceived by Miaphysites as an challenge for their religious iden­tity formed in the period after the Council of Chalcedon (451) on the basis of refu­tation of Chalcedon, absolute loyalty to the teachings of their Patriarchs, especially to Christological notions of Cyril of Alexandria. The promotion of Miaenergism became the stimulus that caused the crystallization of a sense of religious identity of the Miaphysites. The promotion of Miaenergism strongly influenced a sense of the Miaphysite political identity, opposite to Byzantine government.

In the quest of theological agreement in Byzantium in the seventh century Emperors played a leading role. The rulers were promoters of the theological discussions and promulgated documents concerning a Christian doctrine oblig­ing all over the Empire. That would lead to a compromise between supporters of both Monophysitism and Chalcedon. The aim of theological compromise was to achieve peace in the Empire in the face of danger. When the necessity for recon­ciliation with the Monophysites ceased to be valid, Emperor Constantine IV con­vened the Council in Constantinople, which condemned the adherents of Mono­theletism. Emperors had a solid ideological basis for their activities. Emperor was treated as a person with religious authority entitled to intervene in the affairs of the Church, even in matters of faith. His concern for the state included not only the secular affairs, but also religious. Religion is subordinated to state authority. Such ideological contents were supported by majority of the hierarchs of the Byzantine Church in the seventh century. The ideology of the special character of the person of the Emperor was especially alive in Byzantium during various crises.

Autorzy, którzy badali spór wokół chrystologicznej doktryny monoenergety­zmu, zwrócili uwagę na różne aspekty kontrowersji. Celem artykułu jest zrozu­mienie czy kwestia społeczno-kulturowa może być również przedmiotem kon­frontacji między Sofroniuszem z Jerozolimy a Sergiuszem z Konstantynopola. Poglądy Sofroniusza zostały uformowane w tradycji monastycyzmu palestyńskie­go, który był wierny wobec dosłownego wyznania chalcedońskiej chrystologii dwóch natur. W związku z tym wyraził on swój protest przeciwko stwierdzeniu o jednym działaniu w Chrystusie. W odpowiedzi Sergiusz z Konstantynopola opracował swoją taktykę, aby bronić stanowiska Konstantynopolitańskiego Koś­cioła i rządu. W konsekwencji powstało napięcie między dwoma patriarchami. Artykuł analizuje szczególy konfrontacji..

In St. Maximus the Confessor’s teaching human nature consists of the soul and the body, in which logos of power that unifies them together is inscribed. Human nature manifests itself in the individual human being. The human being as the body and the soul naturally longs for God. This longing is fulfilled by the movement, which is connected to dynamism of the entire human structure. The dynamism is inscribed in the mind, reason, spirit, will, sense, passionate powers and body. The dynamic aspiration for God does not imply getting rid of any of the human elements, even passionate and bodily, but on the contrary, it demands ap­preciation and proper use of all the natural powers of the human being. Maximus the Confessor treats the human being as a whole. The human is not only mind, reason and spirit, but also will, sense, passionate powers and body. The dynamism of mental and spiritual sphere should be extended in the senses, passionate pow­ers and body, so that the body also becomes the source of virtues, and is deified together with the soul through unity with the Absolute. This unity as the goal of human longing will never be static, but dynamic, because the fulfillment of this longing is the state with eternal movement. So human being will constantly strive for even more perfect unity with God. Through this unity the human being becomes more human. The originality of the Author consists in the fact that using the anthropological views of the earlier tradition and interpreting them mystically and symbolically, he intertwined the entire dynamism of human being with the structure of the Platonic world. The human being through the longing for God and through the proper use of natural powers mystically unites with God not only himself/herself, but also the entire universe, because the structure of the human being is analogous to the structure of the universe.

Sobór Nicejski nie położył kresu kontrowersji ariańskiej. Po soborze nastą­pił długi okres walki o recepcję chrystologii nicejskiej. Kontrowersja stała się przedmiotem zainteresowania cesarza, ponieważ postrzegano ją jako zagrożenie dla jedności cesarstwa. Z tego powodu zwyczaj ingerowania cesarza w sprawy kościelne stawał się coraz częstszy i nawet dotyczył nauki Kościoła. Taka sy­tuacja wywołała reakcję biskupów i stała się okazją do określenia roli cesarza w Kościele. W IV w. istniały dwa główne stanowiska w tej kwestii – biskupów proariańskich i antyariańskich. Głównym celem artykułu było ukazanie stanowi­ska biskupów proariańskich wobec cesarza. Analiza źródeł historycznych i lite­ratury wykazała, że ich postawa wobec cesarza nie była ani bezwzględnym pod­porządkowaniem się ani całkowitą niezależnością. Ich model stosunków między Kościołem a państwem został zainspirowany przez Euzebiusza z Cezarei, który przeniósł na grunt chrześcijański antyczną, hellenistyczną teorię polityczną oraz hebrajską koncepcję władcy. W kontekście antycznych idei cesarz jako żywe prawo posiadał szczególną rolę w Kościele. Przejawiała się ona szczególnie na synodach. Biskupi proariańscy dopuścili cesarza do interweniowania nawet w sferę kościelnej doktryny. Ich postawa wobec cesarza znacznie różniła się od modelu wypracowanego w dobie przednicejskiej. Z drugiej jednak strony bisku­pi proariańscy starali się dochować wierności Tradycji Kościoła. Z tego powodu nie mogli uznać cesarza za jego głowę. Zakończenie kontrowersji ariańskiej nie uwolniło Kościoła od zależności od cesarza. Kościół Wschodni w okresie recepcji Credo Nicejskiego został niejako zaprogramowany pod kątem uzależnienia od ce­sarza. W ten sposób postawa proariańskich biskupów legła u podstaw przyszłego bizantyńskiego cezaropapizmu.

From the first half of the eighth century until the mid-ninth century the Church of Constantinople struggled with heretical iconoclast movement. Dur­ing the period of iconoclasm, St. Theodore of Studium (759-826) stood at the side of the defenders of the cult of images. He was a great thinker and abbot of the Studium monastery near Constantinople. One of the main themes he discussed was an independant status of Church from secular power, which frequently intervened in issues relating to faith and morals. St. Theodore of Studium wanted to prove that the Church dogmas and rules derive not from emperors, but bishops. In this context, his idea resembles the concept of pentarchy. According to St. Theodore, the guarantee of orthodoxy, which is the basis for the unity of the universal Church, is rooted in ecclesial body of pentarchy. Decisions about divine and celestial dogmas are entrusted to five patriarchs, who should be characterized by unanimity to reach a joint deci­sion at the universal council. All of them together have the highest position in the Church and their consent is necessary for recognition of the ecumenical council. Among the five patriarchs the privileged position has the patriarch of Rome, without whom no ecumenical council can be called. The Roman Church is the reference point and stands at the center of the unity of Church. St. Theodore of Studium considered the primacy of the bishop of Rome not in isolation from other patriarchates but in orbit of the entire Church.

The article discusses a question of the interrelation between the possession of virtues and participation in the reality of the celestial life according to the teaching of St. Gregory the Great. St. Gregory teaches that virtues are the spiritual goods, by means of which a human being acquires the spiritual unity with God. Lasting in the spiritual unity with God causes that a human being, already in the earthly life, participates in the reality of the celestial life. Gregory the Great esteems this state as the celestial and happy life.

The main purpose of the article is to look at the doctrine of Gregory the Great and explore his teaching on the means, through which a Christian can advance spiritually, i.e. achieve a spiritual unity with God. According to the teaching of Gregory the Great, a hu- man being in his/her nature constantly pursues God. To realize human natural longing, the human needs the assistance of God’s grace. The human should consent to the cooperation with God’s grace. First of all, one should discover and wake up in one’s self the longing for God, which is the force d’être of every spiritual development. This longing for God is a state of the introductory unity with God. To improve and solidify this longing human’s should purify it from the earthly devotion, then spiritually improve one’s self in the reading of the Holy Scripture, model one’s self after the life of just people, pray, make use of sacramental grace, observe the commandments of God, and do good deeds.

W opracowaniu

The article discusses a question of the interrelation between suffering and real happiness of life on earth according to the teaching of Gregory the Great. The Pope teaches that the experience of suffering is related to the participation in real happiness, which consists in the possession of spiritual goods and joy as a result of such possession. Suffering purifies a person from sins and prevents a person from committing it. In suffering, every just person acquires virtues, solidifies and reveals them, and thus acquires the real happiness in life on earth. Therefore, Gregory the Great contends that just people, who are afflicted with suffering, are really happy people.