Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 8

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Filastriusz z Brescii
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Egzegeza literalna Starego Testamentu jako źródło herezji. Stanowisko Filastriusza z Brescii

100%
Szram M.
Vox Patrum
|
2017
|
vol. 67
619-629
EN
In the last part of the treatise Diversarum hereseon liber (from chapter 128 to 156), Filastrius of Brescia presents heresies based on the erroneous exegesis of the various biblical texts of the Old Testament. The author of the article dis­cusses several examples of the exegesis considered by Filastrius to be heretical, and wonders whether they indeed had signs of heresy and whether they could pose a significant threat to ecclesiastical orthodoxy. In the light of the examined texts, the Bishop of Brescia appears as a follower of the allegorical exegesis. As for the whole of the Alexandrian tradition from Origen, the overriding criterion of orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures was a spiritual advantage (utilitas spiritalis, scientia caelestis, scientia salutaris). If the proposed interpretation of the biblical text not carried out for such spiritual benefit, it was designated by the Bishop of Brescia as heretical, even if it did not materially harm the doctrinal truths contained in the Rule of the Church’s faith.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

“Varii errores qui ab origine mundi emerserunt”. The semantic scope of the term “heresy” in Philastrius’ of Brescia Diversarum hereseon liber

84%
Szram M.
Vox Patrum
|
2017
|
vol. 68
315-325
PL
Biskup Brescii Filastriusz, autor pierwszego łacińskiego katalogu herezji, na­pisanego między rokiem 380 a 388, przedstawił wyjątkowo dużą ilość ruchów heterodoksyjnych: 28 w łonie judaizmu i 128 we wczesnym chrześcijaństwie. Był to efekt przypisywania terminowi „herezja” (heresis) szerokiego zakresu se­mantycznego. Dla Filastriusza termin ten pokrywał się znaczeniowo z terminem „błąd” (error), rozumianym jako jakiekolwiek odejście od uniwersalnej prawdy w dziejach świata, inspirowane przez szatana jako „ojca kłamstwa”, pojawiające się przede wszystkim w judaizmie i w chrześcijaństwie. Wśród poglądów wczesnochrześcijańskich, określonych przez biskupa Brescii terminem „herezja”, można wyróżnić pięć grup. Pierwsza najliczniejsza grupa obejmuje błędne poglądy dotyczące zasadniczych kwestii teologicznych zawartych w regule wiary, takich jak: koncepcja Boga stwórcy i Jezusa Chrystusa zbawiciela. Grupa druga to błędne doktryny antropologiczne, np. kwestionujące zmartwychwstanie ludzkiego ciała lub głoszące pogląd o materialności ludzkiej duszy. Trzecią grupę stanowią poglądy związane z błędną, przesadnie dosłowną interpretacją Pisma Świętego, zwłaszcza ksiąg Starego Testamentu, a także idee kosmologiczne, które nie zgadzają się z opisami zawartymi w Biblii. Czwarta grupa obejmuje postawy moralne, związane ze sposobem życia, opartym na lak­syzmie lub rygoryzmie, a także z nieprzestrzeganiem praw kościelnych, ale nie zagrażające podstawowym prawdom wiary chrześcijańskiej. Grupę piątą tworzą ruchy określane przez autorów okresu późnopatrystycznego terminem „schizma” (schisma), którego biskup Brescii w swoim dziele w ogóle nie używa. W traktacie Filastriusza znaczenie terminu „herezja” wykracza poza niezgod­ność z chrześcijańską regula fidei. Według niego każde wykroczenie – czy to w za­kresie nauczania doktrynalnego czy praktyki życiowej, a także odnośnie do rozu­mienia tekstu Pisma Świętego – zasługuje na miano herezji, ponieważ obraża Boga i Kościół. Nie należy więc różnicować błędów na większe i mniejsze, ale w rów­nym stopniu potępiać je jako postawy skierowane przeciw Bogu jako Ojcu Prawdy.
EN
The bishop of Brescia, Philastrius, author of the first Latin catalogue of he­resies, written between 380 and 388, presented in his treaty an extremely large number of heterodox movements: 28 within Judaism and 128 in early Christianity. This comes as a result of a wide understanding of the term heresis. For Philastrius this term was synonymous with the term error, recognized as any deviation from the universal truth in the history of the world, inspired by Satan as “the father of lies”, ocurring primarily in Judaism and Christianity. Among the early Christian views defined by the bishop of Brescia as heresy five groups can be distinguished. The first group includes mainly the erroneous views on fundamental theological questions contained in the rule of faith, such as the concept of a creator God and saviour Jesus Christ. The second set of he­resies, closely related with the previous one, contains the erroneous doctrines of anthropology, such as questioning the resurrection of the human body or the view of the materiality of the human soul. The third group includes the views related to the misinterpretation of Scripture, especially exaggerated literal interpretations of the texts of the Old Testament, as well as the cosmological views which do not agree with descriptions contained within the Bible. The fourth group contains the moral issues related to the based on laxism or rigorism way of life, as well as to the attitude of lack of deference to the laws of the Church, but non-threatening the primary truths of the Christian faith. The fifth group of heresies includes the movements defined by the authors of the late patristic period as a schizm, while the term schisma is not at all used by the bishop of Brescia in his work. The semantic scope of the term heresis in Philastrius’ treaty went beyond the noncompliance with the regula fidei. According to the bishop of Brescia each offense – whether in doctrinal teaching or practice of life, as well as with regard to the understanding of the text of Scripture – is a heresy because it offends God and the Church. Therefore, in Philastrius opinion one should not differentiate between superior and minor error, but equally condemn them as attitudes directed against God as the Father of Truth.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wczesnochrześcijańskie ruchy paramonastyczne na podstawie Diversarum hereseon liber Filastriusza z Brescii oraz innych katalogów herezji

84%
Szram M.
Vox Patrum
|
2018
|
vol. 70
217-226
EN
The catalog of the heresies of Filastrius of Brescia, like other early Christian collections of informations about heterodox movements at the time, testifies the existence of groups characterized by excessively rigorous asceticism. Their des­cription is the subject of the article. Most of these unorthodox paramonastic mo­vements were based on the Gnostic and Manichean assumptions. The groups that accentuated the exaggerated role of prayer, among which the Messialians were the leaders, have gained wide coverage. Descriptions of their activities take up a lot of space in the early Christian catalogs of heresies, especially in the case of John of Damascus. Filastrius, however, for some reason misguided the activity of the Messalians. This fact requires a careful treatment of the historical credibility of his work on heresies.
4

Rygoryzm i laksyzm moralny we wczesnochrześcijańskich ruchach heretyckich na podstawie Diversarum hereseon liber Filastriusza z Brescii

84%
Szram M.
|
2017
|
vol. 64
|
issue 4: Historia Kościoła
35-51
EN
The objective of the article is to illustrate the two extremes represented by the broad assortment of movements: the ascetic rigorism and moral laxity. The primary source of text is the first Latin catalogue of heresies, written between 380 and 388 by the Bishop of Brescia, Philastrius. The source selection was dictated on twofold grounds. The treaty contains the most numerous descriptions of heretical groups, yet at the same time is the least known of its kind. The information enclosed in Philastrius' work, summarized in a comparative manner with the descriptions found in other patristic catalogues of heresy – by Epiphanius, Theodoret of Cyrus, John Damascene, Augustine and Isidore of Seville – lead to the following conclusions: 1) for the most part heretical movements followed the ascetic radicalism, motivated most habitually by an exaggerated literal exegesis of the biblical texts (eg. Gnostics, Encratites, Discalced); 2) the few of the laxative-approach movements operated on moral promiscuity (eg. Simonians, Carpocratians, Symmachians), the extent of which is difficult to assess due to the raised issues with the objectivity of Philastrius’ work – undermined by the use of invectives and the apologetic attitude of the author employed in order to defend the orthodox doctrine and morals; 3) paradoxically, there existed also groups that combined inconsistently promiscuity with the elements of asceticism (eg. Borborites, Adamites).
PL
Celem artykułu jest ukazanie dwóch skrajnych postaw, reprezentowanych przez różne wczesnochrześcijańskie ruchy heretyckie: rygoryzmu ascetycznego i rozwiązłości moralnej. Głównym tekstem źródłowym jest pierwszy łaciński katalog herezji, napisany między rokiem 380 a 388 przez biskupa Brescii Filastriusza. Wybór źródła został podyktowany dwoma powodami. Traktat ten zawiera opis największej ilości ugrupowań heretyckich, a równocześnie jest najmniej znany. Informacje zawarte w dziele Filastriusza, zestawione porównawczo z opisami zawartymi w innych patrystycznych katalogach herezji – Epifaniusza, Teodoreta z Cyru, Jana Damasceńskiego, Augustyna i Izydora z Sewilli – prowadzą do następujących wniosków: 1. większość ruchów heretyckich kierowała się radykalizmem ascetycznym, motywowanym najczęściej przesadnie literalną egzegezą tekstów biblijnych (np. gnostycy, enkratyci, bezsandałowi); 2. nieliczne ruchy o podejściu laksystycznym kierowały się rozwiązłością moralną (np. szymonianie, karpokratianie, symmachianie), której rozmiary trudno jednoznacznie ocenić, ponieważ obiektywizm przekazu Filastriusza został osłabiony przez stosowanie inwektywy i nastawienie apologetyczne autora, mające na celu obronę ortodoksyjnej doktryny i moralności; 3. istniały również ugrupowania, które w paradoksalny sposób łączyły rozwiązłość z elementami ascetyzmu (np. borborianie, adamianie).
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Kobiety a ruchy heretyckie według "Diversarum hereseon liber" Filastriusza z Brescii

67%
Szram M.
Vox Patrum
|
2016
|
vol. 66
127-137
EN
The article discusses two issues related to the role of women in heretical movements on the basis of Philastrius’ of Brescia Diversarum hereseon liber (written between 380 and 388): the place and the importance of the feminine in the doctrinal teaching of the heretics, along women’s participation in setting up and functioning of the various heresies. In the Jewish movements false-beliefs were associated with the figures of pagan goddesses, which some groups worshiped in different periods of the history of Israel. Contrary to the widespread in the ancient culture belief of the relationship of the male element in human person with the intellectual sphere, in the early Christian Gnosticism it was thought that the femi­nine was the personification of intellect. An example of this phenomenon on the doctrinal plane was the eon “Wisdom” (sapientia), and on the historical one – Helena accompanying Simon Magus, the precursor of all Christian heresy. Among the female characters of biblical inspiration for erroneous views, resulting from improper, sometimes mythologizing exegesis was especially the mother of mankind Eve. However, the creators of heresies didn’t stress clearly her feminine qualities as that might encourage the emergence of their heterodox doctrines. The known names of women – the members of Jewish and early Christian misbelief movements – appear in Philastrius’ index much less often than men. These are individual cases: Helena accompanying Simon Magus, Priscilla and Maximilla – the co-founders of Montanism heresy.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Praesentia carnalis Christi. Incarnation Terminology in the Anti-heretical Polemic of Philastrius of Brescia

67%
Szram M.
Vox Patrum
|
2023
|
vol. 87
395-414
PL
Terminologia występująca w jednym z najstarszych łacińskich katalogów herezji Diversarum hereseon liber Filastriusza, biskupa Brescii (330-387/388), była dostosowana do potrzeb antyheretyckiej polemiki, a zarazem odzwierciedlała sposób mówienia o ziemskiej misji Chrystusa charakterystyczny dla łacińskiej literatury patrystycznej 2. poł. IV wieku. Szczegółowa analiza filologiczno-teologiczna traktatu Filastriusza pozwoliła na sformułowanie następujących wniosków: (1) Terminologia używana przez autora na określenie wcielenia była zakorzeniona we wczesnochrześcijańskiej tradycji (caro, corpus, incarnatio, incorporatio), ale też oryginalna poprzez zastosowanie własnej formuły praesentia carnalis; (2) Stosowane słownictwo było ściśle zależne od tematyki sporu doktrynalnego. W polemice z herezjami o nastawieniu doketystycznym Filastriusz używał częściej terminu caro niż corpus, określając nim ciało, a także pośrednio całą ludzką naturę Chrystusa. Natomiast w dyskusji z herezjami nieporuszającymi wprost tematu ciała Chrystusa, a także podczas prezentowania ortodoksyjnej nauki Kościoła na temat wcielenia Syna Bożego, stosował częściej termin incorporatio niż incarnatio; (3) Ulubionym sformułowaniem używanym przez Biskupa Brescii na określenie wcielenia był zwrot praesentia carnalis Christi. Za jego pomocą Filastriusz podkreślał kilka istotnych aspektów teologii wcielenia: rzeczywistą cielesność osoby Chrystusa; obecność Syna Bożego wśród ludzi oraz jej zbawczy cel; długi proces objawiania się Boga człowiekowi, związany ze starotestamentalnymi zapowiedziami, których wypełnieniem było przyjście Zbawiciela na ziemię.
EN
The terminology found in one of the oldest Latin catalogs of heresies, Diversarum hereseon liber, written by Philastrius, bishop of Brescia (330-387/388), was adapted to the needs of anti-heretical polemics, and at the same time reflected the way of talking about Christ’s earthly mission, characteristic of the Latin patristic literature of the second half of the 4th century. A detailed philological and theological analysis of Philastrius’s treatise led to the following conclusions: (1) The terminology used by the author was rooted in the early Christian tradition (caro, corpus, incarnatio, incorporatio), but also original through the use of his own formula praesentia carnalis; (2) The vocabulary used in the catalog was strictly dependent on the subject of the doctrinal dispute. In polemics with docetistic heresies, Philastrius used the term caro more often than corpus, describing the body and, indirectly, the entire human nature of Christ. In the discussion with heresies that did not directly address the subject of the body of Christ, and also when presenting the orthodox teaching of the Church on the Incarnation of the Son of God, he used the term incorporatio more often than incarnatio; (3) The favorite phrase used by the Bishop of Brescia to describe the Incarnation was praesentia carnalis Christi. With it, Philastrius emphasized several important aspects of the theology of the Incarnation: the real corporeality of the person of Christ; the presence of the Son of God among people and its salvific purpose; a long process of revealing God to man, related to the Old Testament prophecies, the fulfillment of which was the coming of the Savior to earth.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Geneza herezji wczesnochrześcijańskich w ujęciu Filastriusza z Brescii

59%
Szram M.
Vox Patrum
|
2016
|
vol. 65
631-651
EN
The original Latin catalogue of heresies, produced by Saint Philastrius of Brescia in the second half of IVth century, encompasses several observations re­garding the source of early Christian heterodox movements. These views are dis­persed and interwoven into the analysis of particular heresies, and as such do not constitute an integral and standalone teaching on the nature of unorthodoxy and its genesis. The present work attempts at enucleating this standpoint and summari­sing it in a comprehensive and complementary manner. Regarding the issue of the foundation of heresy, Philastrius proposed his own point of view based on the following threefold argumentation: the theological (Satan is the father of all the world’s heterodoxy – comprehended as a lapse form God’s truth), the moral (heresies rise due to one’s pride), and historical and cul­tural (errors in early Christian doctrine derive from the Judaic sects or else from the counterfactual views of the ancient Greek philosophers). Philastrius’ perspective refers back to an extensive and modestly younger work Panarion by Epiphanius of Salamis, in which the topic of Jewish-deriving deviations from the doctrine was treated even more at length. The Bishop of Brescia’s index has been the inspiration for the later catalogues of unorthodoxy by St. Augustine (narrow in the topic of Judaic origins of heretical movements and rather focused on influences from the ancient philosophical schools) and Isidore of Seville (intermingling both sources of early heretical movements – i.e. Judaic and Greek – withholding the determination which of them has in fact more influ­enced the uprising of heterodoxy and the doctrine itself).
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Ciało złe i dobre. Kwestia pochodzenia i natury ciała Adama i Chrystusa we wczesnochrześcijańskich ruchach heretyckich

51%
Szram M.
Vox Patrum
|
2015
|
vol. 63
77-93
EN
The article expounds on the groundwork laid by the first Latin treaty De haeresibus by Philastrius, the fourth-century bishop of Brescia, analyzed on the background of writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen, how the rooted in Gnosticism representatives of early Christian heresies (Carpocratians, Saturninus, Valentinus, Apelles, Marcion, Manicheans) have comprehended the genesis of man’s body. After a general delivery of early Christian doubts regarding the value of human flesh, different varieties of heretical paradox – ensuing from Platonic and Gnostic cosmo-anthropological tendencies – are presented. The paradox could be formulated in the following manner: human body of the first man Adam – and correspondingly all of his descendants – is genetically and ontologically evil as being an elementary constituent of the material world. Hence the flesh of a new Adam, i.e. Christ, must come form another realm and be free of the earthly materiality in order to be good by nature and worthy of Saviour’s person. The presented mode of thinking instigated the rise of theological misconceptions, in particular the eschatological ones denying human body the possibility of resurrec­tion and recognizing – in a Gnostic fashion – the liberation of man from flesh, not his salvation alongside his body.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.