Search results

1

Jeszcze o duszy Chrystusa według Dydyma Ślepego

100%

Pancerz R. M.

Vox Patrum

|

2008

|

vol. 52

|

issue 2

827-841

IT

II presente articolo e una breve presentazione dei nuovi elementi scoperti nella dissertazione dottorale: Christi anima apud Didymum Caecum, scritta interamente in latino nella Facolta di Lettere dell’Universita Pontificia Salesiana, nelPanno 2007. La novita della tesi e costituita da 4 punti fondamentali. Anzitutto la dottrina didimiana sull’anima del Salvatore e studiata alla luce di tutte le sue opere auten- tiche, inclusi i frammenti catenari. Poi la tesi tratta la questione della scienza umana di Cristo - argomento quasi mai finora studiato in Didimo. In terzo luogo viene criticamente discussa la tesi di R. Layton sulfambiguita didimiana nella valutazione della propatheia. Infine sono approfondite alcune questioni teologiche concernenti il nostro argomento: la funzione soteriologica delPanima di Cristo, 1’unita del Verbo Incarnato, la discesa di Gesil agli inferi. La dissertazione diventa cos! un contributo non solo alla storia della letteratura cristiana antica, ma anche alla storia del dogma cristologico.

2

Obrona integralnego człowieczeństwa Chrystusa przeciw apolinaryzmowi w dziełach Epifaniusza z Salaminy

100%

Pancerz R. M.

Vox Patrum

|

2017

|

vol. 68

253-269

EN

Epiphanius of Salamis was one of the Church Fathers, who reacted resolutely against incorrect Christology of Apollinaris of Laodicea. The latter asserted that the divine Logos took the place of Christ’s human mind (noàj). In the beginning, the bishop of Salamis tackled the problem of Christ’s human body, since – as he told himself – followers of Apollinaris, that arrived in Cyprus, put about incorrect doctrine on the Saviour’s body. Among other things, they asserted it was consubstantial with his godhead. Beyond doubt, this idea constituted a deformation of the original thought of Apollinaris. Anyway, Epiphanius opposing that error took up again expressions, which had been employed before by the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists in the fight against Docetism. Besides, Epiphanius told that some followers of Apollinaris denied the existence of Christ’s human soul (yuc»). Also in this matter, in all probability, we come across a deformation of the original doctrine of the bishop of Laodicea. A real controversy with Apollinaris was the defence of the human mind of the Saviour. Epiphanius emphasized that He becoming man took all components of human nature: “body, soul, mind and everything that man is”, in accordance with the axiom “What is not assumed is not saved” (Quod non assumptum, non sanatum). A proof of the integrity of human nature was the reasonable human feelings the Saviour experienced (hunger, tiredness, sorrow, anxiety) as well as knowledge he had to gain partly from experience, which was witnessed by Luke 2, 52. In the latter question, the bishop of Salamis was a forerunner of contemporary Christology. The fact that Epiphanius admitted a complete human nature in Christ didn’t bring dividing the incarnate Logos into two persons. Although the bishop of Salamis didn’t use technical terms for the one person of Jesus Christ, he outlined nonetheless the idea of the hypostatic union in his own words, as well as through employing the rule of the communicatio idiomatum. The ontological union of the divine Logos with his human nature assured Christ’s holiness, too.

3

Demon bluźnierstwa w ujęciu Jana Klimaka

100%

Pancerz R. M.

Vox Patrum

|

2014

|

vol. 62

435-441

EN

Among temptations and impediments, which the monk must face on the path to perfection, John Climacus enumerates blasphemous thoughts. He also names them as assaults of the demon of blasphemy. Frequently man exposes himself to his action through the vice of pride, but it also happens, that this demon attacks ingenuous people that get worried too much. The purpose of the spirit of blasphemy is to insidiously cause feelings of guilt in the human heart; to take a man away from a prayer and the Eucharist; to drive him to despair and hope lessness. According to author’s witness, some people struggled with this problem for their whole life, and in extreme cases its effect was even a state of madness. John Climacus, a good “psychologist” and expert in the spiritual life, clearly emphasizes the fact that the assaults of blasphemous thoughts are beyond a man’s control. In that case he is like a passive listener, whom reach some external voices. Besides, stopping the attacks of such thoughts is almost impossible because they are violent and rapid. Therefore, in the author’s opinion, the traditional methods of struggle against the demon of blasphemy, like severe mortifications and spelling repeatedly various scriptural words, do not get expected results. The only way to beat the enemy is to remain calm and indifferent towards such thoughts. Spiritual direction plays an important role in this matter. The monk still has to overcome shame and confess sincerely his own thoughts to an elder (abba). The duty of the spiritual father, in turn, is to calm down conscience of the disciple, so that he will not worry about the problem anymore. We have to admit that no previous writer speaks in such soothing tone about the blasphemous thoughts.

4

Chrześcijanin a dobra materialne w refleksji szkoły aleksandryjskiej: od Klemensa do Dydyma

100%

Pancerz R. M.

Vox Patrum

|

2012

|

vol. 57

483-493

EN

The article presents how three great Alexandrian writers (Clemens, Origen and Didymus the Blind) estimated possession of material wealth. The first of them in Quis dives salvetur? assures Alexandria’s rich Christians that they also can achieve salvation, although under certain circumstances. Clemens explains Jesus’ words to the rich young man: „Sell everything you have, and give to the poor” (Mk 10, 21) allegorically. This order means that the wealthy should remove from the heart attachment to material goods and extirpate all passions which are bound up with them. The author wonders rhetorically: Who will help the poor, if we all will be devoid of material goods? Clemens regards earthly riches as things which are in themselves indifferent (adiafora). Christians should use them in moderation and for God’s glory. Besides, they must look for the poor and help them. Origen, in his turn, first interprets literally the pericope of the rich young man (Mt 19, 16-26). Considering the question from the ascetic perspective, the great writer thinks that it’s impossible to reconcile riches with Christian perfection. Origen accepts also the allegorical interpretation, according to which „possessions” symbolize evil passions and deeds. However to him such explanation seems to be overdone. Besides, in his opinion, the man who didn’t give up his riches, will never be able to free himself from evil passions. Therefore, according to Origen, it’s hard for the wealthy to achieve salvation. That will be possible only thanks to God’s omnipotence. So Origen’s words could infuse worry and uncertainty into the rich. Didymus, the last teacher of the Alexandrian school, following the Stoics and Clemens, defines material goods as adiafora. He adds also that these aren’t goods in the proper sense. Moreover, the author admits that riches are a secondary gift of God. Obviously they are that, if one uses them as far as they are necessary. But the most important aspect is that Didymus emphasizes resolutely a positive potential of material wealth. By means of it one may help other people, including for example the support of the sage. Riches if used right – asserts the author following the Platonic and Aristotelian tradition – can contribute to moral virtue of their owner. This way material goods become an instrument through which one may merit eternal life. Surely with such rhetoric Didymus could impress the rich. We must admit that his stance was due to the historical context as well, since Christianity became in the IV century the official state religion. Its new condition certainly contributed to a more mature look at social and economic questions.

5

Claudio Moreschini, Introduzione a Gregorio Nazianzeno (= Letteratura Cristiana Antica, Nuova serie 11), Brescia 2006, Morcelliana, ss. 140.

100%

Pancerz R. M.

Vox Patrum

|

2009

|

vol. 53

733-734

PL

nie dotyczy

6

Hermeneutyka antropomorfizmów biblijnych u Dydyma Ślepego

100%

Pancerz R. M.

Vox Patrum

|

2010

|

vol. 55

521-534

EN

Uno dei scrittori del IV secolo, che si è inserito nella controversia antropomorfita sorta in quel secolo tra i monaci del deserto egiziano, è Didimo il Cieco d’Alessandria. Nel suo Commento ai Salmi troviamo due immediate menzioni del gruppo degli antropomorfiti e la confutazione del loro errore. L’Alessandrino rimprovera loro di riferire l’essere ad immagine di Dio (Gen 1, 26) al corpo umano, di capire gli antropomorfismi biblici su Dio letteralmente, e in conseguenza di credere che Dio veramente abbia membra umane e una forma esteriore. Commentando molti frammenti biblici che parlano di Dio in questo modo, Didimo spesso mette in rilievo la necessità di un’adeguata interpretazione di tali espressioni. Il fondamentale principio interpretativo – desunto peraltro dalla tradizione anteriore – è quello di intendere queste parole qeoprepîj, cioè in modo degno di Dio, adeguato alla natura di Dio. Il significato degli antropomorfismi non può essere quello suggerito immediatamente dalla lettera della Scrittura, ma deve essere strettamente sottoposto al concetto della realtà a cui essi si riferiscono. Si deve quindi tener conto che Dio è un essere immateriale, spirituale, invisibile, privo di forma e grandezza, incomposto, immutabile, non legato ad alcun posto e libero dalle passioni umane. Nella sua teoria ermeneutica Didimo sembra pure richiamare l’attenzione sulla regola dell’analogia della fede. Nell’interpretazione degli antropomorfismi trova un ampio uso il metodo allegorico, ciò che del resto è tipico per la scuola alessandrina. Così lo scrittore ricava dalle espressioni antropomorfiche della Scrittura diversi significati, non di rado molto profondi: „il volto” di Dio è per esempio il Figlio di Dio oppure la stessa esistenza di Dio, le sue idee o la sua salvezza; lo scrutare gli uomini attraverso „le palpebre” (Sal 10, 4) esprime la divina clemenza nel giudizio; „il grembo” e „il cuore” di Dio Padre, da cui è generato il Figlio, indicano la stessa sostanza del Padre; “le mani” di Dio significano le sue varie potenze (creatrice, punitiva, protettrice), poi i due Testamenti, e infine il Figlio e lo Spirito Santo – due mediatori del Padre nella creazione del mondo; “l’ira” di Dio indica un castigo o un travaglio mandati da Lui, oppure le potenze che fanno il servizio di punizione. Ovviamente in queste interpretazioni Didimo risente spesso della tradizione anteriore (Filone e Origene). Grazie alla presa di posizione contro l’antropomorfismo Didimo appare a noi come un teologo maturo che difende l’immaterialità e la trascendenza di Dio, sa interpretare saggiamente la Scrittura e riesce a ricavarne numerosi e validi contenuti teologici.

Refine search results

6 Vox Patrum

6 Pancerz R. M.

1 2017

1 2014

1 2012

1 2010

1 2009

1 2008

Jeszcze o duszy Chrystusa według Dydyma Ślepego

Obrona integralnego człowieczeństwa Chrystusa przeciw apolinaryzmowi w dziełach Epifaniusza z Salaminy

Demon bluźnierstwa w ujęciu Jana Klimaka

Chrześcijanin a dobra materialne w refleksji szkoły aleksandryjskiej: od Klemensa do Dydyma

Claudio Moreschini, Introduzione a Gregorio Nazianzeno (= Letteratura Cristiana Antica, Nuova serie 11), Brescia 2006, Morcelliana, ss. 140.

Hermeneutyka antropomorfizmów biblijnych u Dydyma Ślepego