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

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  John Hus
help Sort By:

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

Jan Hus a transsubstanciace z hlediska dogmatické teologie

100%
Pospíšil C. V.
Acta Universitatis Carolinae Theologica
|
2015
|
vol. 5
|
issue 1
9-40
EN
The consistent systematic-theological approach of the paper can be enriching for the scholars of various fields interested in the topic. The work is not aimed to retell the past; it’s goal is to present the past in the most just way as possible on the level of catholic dogmatics. Firstly, the author describes con- temporary concept of transsubstantial model of describing Eucharistic Mystery and refers to the connections between this doctrine and christology on the one hand and ecclesiology on the other. On this basis, he arrives at a new appraisal of Hus’s teachings and also of consubstantiation, which catholic theology need not necessarily perceive as heterodox. Apart from that, it shows that Hus’s essentially orthodox teaching could shed light upon his controversial ecclesiology.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Další aspekty poměru Jana Husa k tajemství eucharistie v kontextu Jakoubkova konsubstancialismu a utrakvismu

84%
Pospíšil C. V.
Acta Universitatis Carolinae Theologica
|
2015
|
vol. 5
|
issue 2
259-288
EN
In this study devoted to other aspects of Hus’s attitude to the mystery of Eucharist, the author extends his results presented in the previous article, which was mainly focused on the orthodoxy of the Bethlehem preacher’s teaching. The respect to the truth demands to discuss also Hus’s non-conformist preaching on the level of “the Service of the Word”. There can be found some disputable points, the most controversial of which is the claim that grave sinners should be regarded as heretics. After that, the author discusses the consubstantialism of Jacob of Mies, and, on the basis of the observations, he concludes that he cannot univocally con- demn Jacob’s attitudes as heretical. In the third point, he focuses on the Hus’s role in the so called Wilsnack Affair. In the concluding part of the study, the dramatic attitude of the Bethlehem preacher to the offering Communion under both kinds to the laity is presented.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

La disputa al Concilio di Basilea tra Giovanni di Ragusa e Giovanni da Rokycana

84%
Canobbio G.
Acta Universitatis Carolinae Theologica
|
2015
|
vol. 5
|
issue 1
67-92
EN
The study is aimed to sketch the dispute which took place on the Council of Basle between the representatives of Czech Church and Roman Catholic Church, namely between John of Rokycany and Ivan of Dubrovnik. The theme of the discussion was mainly the question of communion under both kinds for the laity, which could be regarded just as a disciplinary matter. In: reality, both disputers show that there are ecclesiological consequences: How should the Church be understood? What is Jesus’s relation to this church? The dispute thus reflected the Church reform initiated by John Wycliffe and advanced by John Hus. The question of communion under both kinds for laity provided an opportunity to rethink the nature of the Church, the role of authority in it and the relation between the Church and Eucharist. This would, however, presuppose a certain way of perceiving the Eucharist (a sacrament or a sacrifice?), which both theologians present to justify their notion of the Church. In: order to resolve these questions, it was necessary to face a methodological problem: How to interpret the Bible and who is the supreme authority to offer an authentic interpretation? According to John of Rokycany, it is the Church while Ivan of Dubrovnik claims that it is the authority of the Church. The dispute is thus an example of the relation between the mysteries which theology should pursue.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Sobór w Konstancji wobec Jana Husa i Hieronima z Pragi

67%
Medwid W.
Polonia Sacra
|
2016
|
vol. 20
|
issue 1(42)
157-182
PL
Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie rozwiązania problemu Jana Husa i Hieronima z Pragi przez Sobór w Konstancji. Kwestie obu czeskich teologów pojawiają się trzy razy w dokumentach soborowych. Jana Husa niepokoiło pozostawiające wiele do życzenia życie duchowieństwa, a szczególnie ich zepsucie i chciwość. Mówił także o zepsuciu obyczajów. Był bardzo krytyczny wobec papiestwa i potępiał handel odpustami. Postrzegał Kościół jako Mistyczne Ciało, którego Głową jest Jezus. Nie do przyjęcia była dla niego kara ekskomuniki. Oskarżono go o głoszenie herezji. Jego błędne tezy poruszały tematykę predestynacji, posługi papieża, ekskomuniki i czynów ludzkich. Sobór uznał go za heretyka i osądził. Z kolei Hieronim z Pragi był zaangażowany w powstający ruch narodowy w Czechach i głosił publicznie poglądy Jana Wiklifa. Był zdeklarowanym zwolennikiem Husa. Sobór oskarżył go o przestępstwo błędów i herezji dotyczących religii chrześcijańskiej. Hieronim z Pragi najpierw uznał racje Kościoła katolickiego, ale później zmienił zdanie i odwołał swoje zeznania, zgodę i oświadczenie. Ojcowie z Konstancji ogłosili go heretykiem i ekskomunikowali go.
EN
The purpose of this article is to present the solution to the problem of Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague by the Council of Constance. The issues of both Czech theologians appear three times in the conciliar documents. Jan Hus bother leaving much to be desired lifestyle of the clergy, and at the same time their lust and greed. He spoke about the corruption of manners. In particular, he was critical of the papacy and denounced the trade in indulgences. The church was perceived him as a mystical body whose head is Jesus, the faithful and represent chosen by God righteous. It is not acceptable for him was the punishment of excommunication. He was accused of preaching of the many errors and heresies, and his erroneous thesis raised the questions of predestination, the ministry of the Pope, excommunication and the deeds of men. The Council judged him and found as a heretic. In turn, Jerome of Prague was involved in the emerging national movement in the Czech Republic and proclaimed publicly the views of J. Wycliffe, and he was an outspoken supporter of Hus. Council accused him of the crime of error and heresy regarding the Christian religion. First, he made a real explanation of recognizing the Catholic Church, but later he changed his mind and recanted his confession, consent and statement. Fathers of Constance declared him a heretic and excommunicated him.
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.