Kluczowe miejsce w procesie kształtowania się wiary w Jezusa Chrystusa w Kościele zajmuje definicja Soboru Chalcedońskiego. Bazując na biblijnej i apostolskiej tradycji, jest ona syntezą chrystologicznej myśli aleksandryjskiej, antiocheńskiej i łacińskiej. Po dziś dzień stanowi ona klucz do chrześcijańskiego rozumienia rzeczywistości. Czy jest zasadny stawiany soborowi zarzut hellenizacji wiary? Właśnie tego ojcowie soborowi chcieli za wszelką cenę uniknąć. W nauczaniu Chalcedonu mamy do czynienia nie tyle z hellenizacją nauki Kościoła, ile raczej z próbą dehellenizacji monofizytyzmu.
The article points to the basic assumptions of Apollinaris’, the Bishop of Laodicea’s Christology. He undertakes a radical defence of the entity, incarnated in the Son of God viewed in an existential sense as a dynamic and living entity. The specific structure of the Son of God’s incarnated Being results in Apollinaris calling Him “a heavenly man”. Faced with the metaphysical-soteriological problem relating to the defence of the entity and holiness in Christ, Apollinaris seeks to resolve the issue through negating the integrity of Christ’s human nature, depriving it of a rational soul – the autonomous source of one’s decisions and actions. In so doing, he completely denies the redemptory value of Christ’s work. The First Council of Constantinople was convoked in order to combat the Apollinarian controversy and led to the Nicean-Constantinopolitan symbol of faith (382). Its key part is devoted to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, thus confirming the integrity of His human nature.
PL
Apolinary, biskup Laodycei, to radykalny obrońca egzystencjalnej, dynamicznej jedności w Jezusie Chrystusie, określanej przez niego mianem „człowieka niebieskiego”. Dla obrony jedności i świętości we wcielonym Synu Bożym neguje on jednak integralność Jego ludzkiej natury, co całkowicie przekreśla wartość zrealizowanego przez Niego dzieła odkupienia. W odpowiedzi na tę kontrowersję Sobór Konstantynopolski I potwierdza w symbolu nicejsko-konstantynopolskim wiarę Kościoła w integralność człowieczeństwa Jezusa Chrystusa, „który przyjął ciało z Maryi Dziewicy i stał się człowiekiem”.
Escalating in the eighth century in the east heretical defied the trend of iconoclasm in the Church adopted the worship images. In this article, is shown argumentation iconoclasts deny veneration of icons. In their view, it can not be reconciled with a genuine faith and practice, accompanied by numerous abuses, is a departure from the old Christian tradition. Binding remained for them the Old Testament prohibition „Thou shalt not do any image” (Ex 20,4). Significant impact on their views were: the idea of „image consubstantial” negative attitude towards the matter and give its ugly head in iconoclasm echo of origenism. Proved to be decisive Christological argument, leading to accusations of supporters of Nestorianism and Monophysitism.
In the face of the escalating Iconoclast heresy in the 8th century there appeared the necessity of establishing whether the veneration of icons is justifiable from the Christian viewpoint. The debate primarily concerned the Christological question of venerating Jesus Christ’s icons. St. John of Damascus (675–749) is considered to be one of the most outstanding defenders of sacred icons. We owe to him the first Catholic theology of the icon. His work, „The Defence speeches against those who reject sacred icons” constitutes the answer given to the iconoclasts. The most important argument justifying the veneration of icons is the mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God being the image of the invisible God. The incarnation which liberates one from idolatry lies at the root of a positive vision of matter. John of Damascus refers to the ancient Christian tradition of icon veneration recognizing the word and the image as its essential elements. His teaching would play a key role during the Council of Nicaea in 787.
Escalating in the eighth century in the east heretical defied the trend of iconoclasm in the Church adopted the worship images. In this article, is shown argumentation iconoclasts deny veneration of icons. In their view, it can not be reconciled with a genuine faith and practice, accompanied by numerous abuses, is a departure from the old Christian tradition. Binding remained for them the Old Testament prohibition „Thou shalt not do any image” (Ex 20,4). Significant impact on their views were: the idea of „image consubstantial” negative attitude towards the matter and give its ugly head in iconoclasm echo of origenism. Proved to be decisive Christological argument, leading to accusations of supporters of Nestorianism and Monophysitism.
Czy mamy prawo do nadziei na powszechne zbawienie? Tak kluczowa kwestia w dzisiejszej teologicznej dyskusji nie pozostała bez echa w myśli współczesnych nam papieży, Jana Pawła II i Benedykta XVI. W swym nauczaniu poświęcają oni wiele miejsca zbawczej nadziei. Obydwaj papieże wyrażają w istocie to samo przekonanie, że zbawcza wola Boga jest uniwersalna: Bóg pragnie, aby wszyscy ludzie zostali zbawieni i doszli do poznania prawdy.
Il concilio di Nicea (325) è stato convocato per dirimere la controversia ariana. Il presente articolo è dedicato alla riflessione sulla nicena definizione di fede, frutto del consenso dei vescovi fedeli alla tradizione della Chiesa. Nel nostro studio viene analizzato il testo originale del simbolo di Nicea, sottolineando particolarmente le aggiunte antiariane più significative: la clausola „cioè dalla sostanza del Padre” e le frasi „Dio vero da Dio vero”, „generato, non creato”, „consustanziale al Padre”. Rilevata nel testo del simbolo la fedeltà alla tradizione (p.1) e la dimensione comunitaria della fede (p. 2), la nostra ricerca presenta la fede in Gesù Cristo, vero Dio (p. 3) e vero uomo (contesto soteriologico) (p. 4). La parte finale è dedicata alla formazione del linguaggio cristologico in Chiesa (p. 5) e alla deellenizzazione del contenuto del dogma (p. 6).
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.