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

Refine search results

Journals help

  1. 2 Vox Patrum

Authors help

  1. 2 Bralewski S.

Years help

  1. 1 2016

  2. 1 2015

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  emperor Constantine
help Sort By:

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

Boże zwycięstwo (ενθεοσ νικη) – „ideologia tryumfu” w "Historii kościelnej" Euzebiusza z Cezarei

100%
Bralewski S.
Vox Patrum
|
2015
|
vol. 63
331-351
EN
“Ideology of victory” occupied a very important place in Ecclesiastical His­tory by Eusebius of Caesarea. The victory which he described had a sacred dimen­sion. It was God’s triumph in a war which mankind declared on God himself. Its turning point was the appearance of the Word of God, Wisdom, Jesus Christ, who taught people how to worship God the Father and who was given the power, the eternal reign of the everlasting kingdom. Together with his advent, according to Eusebius, a new Christian people came into being. Since it adopted the lifestyle and customs based on piety originating from the beginnings of mankind, it was not, in fact, a new nation. Christians fought a war against evil spirits, which were hostile to people and which hated God, my means of pure love. Christ, as God’s commander in chief, the Lord and the King, led this battle. Eusebius stated that He armed his army with piety and defeated the enemies completely. Victories achieved by Christians over the enemies of God, inspired by the evil spirit and dominated by hubris, had several dimensions: sacral-military, martyr’s and doc­trinal. The first one corresponded to the Roman tradition and was connected with the choice of the divine patron, to whose power military victories were attributed. Emperor Constantine played a special role in it, as, on the one hand, he chose the Christian God to be his ally and, on the other hand, was himself chosen by God and became a God’s tool. Having defeated God’s enemies, the Emperor put an end to the war between God and mankind and eliminated all the hatred to Him from the world. From the perspective of martyrdom, Christians seemingly suffered a defeat, while their prosecutors saw the triumph of their own gods in the suffer­ing and death of Christians. In fact, martyrs, under the sign of Christ, the great and undefeated athlete, triumphed giving their life for God, which was God’s victory. As a reward for their sacrifice they received the wonderful wreath of immortality. In the third, doctrinal dimension the truth preached by Christians triumphed over false teachings and predominated over them by virtue of their holiness and wis­dom and divine and philosophical principles, on which it was based.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wokół soboru nicejskiego (325): na kanwie monografii autorstwa Henryka Pietrasa SJ

80%
Bralewski S.
Vox Patrum
|
2016
|
vol. 65
75-98
EN
The Council convened by emperor Constantine the Great to Nicea in the year 325 still arouses keen interest of researchers around the world. Against the back­ground of international scholarship, the achievements of Polish academics look quite modest. That is why one should especially appreciate the publication of a book (written in Polish) on the subject by Henryk Pietras, an acclaimed Polish patrologist. The monograph is noteworthy for a number of reasons and compels the reader to a thorough reflection on a cornucopia of facts that have been already discussed by numerous academics and subject to manifold interpretations. Its spe­cial merit lies first and foremost in an erudite analysis of sources conducted by the Author, which is competent enough to exhort all the interested to (at least) re-think their views. It is necessary to admit that the Academic is right, when he argues that the Council (firstly convened to Ancyra, and subsequently to Nicea) was not organized for the reason of discussing the Arian controversy. In reality, it seems that the primary reason for the meeting was the Donatist schism, which the Patrologist underestimated, and additionally the problem of reaching an agree­ment on a date of the Passover celebration. Certainly, the Council was not of an anti-Arian nature, but Arius was condemned by the ecclesiastic meeting as the one who rejected a laboriously reached compromise as for the form of the credo and renounced the term homoousios.
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.