The system approach to the miracle is based on the conviction that the complex issues, requiring the interdisciplinary approach, should be captured in a system way. Thus, the problem of miracle, because of its interdisciplinary character, should be captured in a systemic way, because such approach enables the more adequate and comprehensive presentation of these issues. The system approach towards the epistemology of miracle is the attempt of the more adequate presentation of the relationship between the scientific-natural research and theological stage of recognizing the miracle. Because of using systemic categories, it is possible to present the common foundations (environment) of the system of scientific-natural knowledge and the system of theological interpretation, which can be described as the rationality of knowledge. The result of adopting the systemic epistemology of miracle is noticing the relations between the scientific-natural research and theological interpretation in their system complexity. Determining these relations leads to the more general conclusion that the natural sciences and theology as separate and autonomous systems of gaining the knowledge of reality do not have to be treated as the competing but rather as the complementary ones, with their methodological diversity and limitations in mind.
The author presents two directions of interpreting the Biblical relations of miracles which are represented by great figures of the past, namely St. Augustin and St. Thomas, as well as two directions which clearly marked their existence in our contemporary times. These are the interpretation based on depth psychology (Drewermann) and the interpretation of miracles as images and signs of hope (Theissen, Langner, Metz).
The article, while trying to avoid any strait apologetic approach to the religious problem of miracle, considers it in the theological perspective. The theological interpretation seems to be necessary, as those aspects of the Judeo-Christian revelation that make it believable need to be integrated into a broader and deeper outlook, into a broader epistemological and religious framework for its proper understanding. The article consists of the following parts: “Voices of Dictionary”, “Miracle as the Definitive Criterion of Revelation, “Miracle and its Dimensions”, “Miracles as the Credibility of Faith”, “Miracles, Christology, Liberation”, “Functions of Miracle”.
The article is dedicated to an analysis and assessment of the newest critical literary research works on Ex 13,17-15,21. The aim is to find the oldest literary version of the event. In the author’s opinion, it is to be searched in Ex 13,20-22; 14,5-7.10bA.11-14,19-20.21aA.24-25.27*.30-31* and attributed to the non-P authors, who place the entire event ‘by the sea’. In this version of events the Israeli people, after crossing the Egyptian border, found themselves in a desert. For the first time they have expressed some fears of their lives, which is known as ‘the motive of complaining’. They show fear of the pharaoh’s army, so Moses urges them not to fear because they would not see the Egyptians more and YHWH would fight for them. The description has a characteristic of a military battle, although the only acting against the Egyptian military power is the God of Israel. Thanks to a strong wind, which blew for the whole night, he dried the sea and the Israelites reached the other bank walking on dry land, when the Egyptians die when trying to escape pointing to the returning sea waters. The events have their own time scheme: night and danger, dawn and salvation. A final effect is showing by the Israelites a fear of YHWH and his servant Moses. In the author’s opinion this version has originated short time before the fall of Babylon and was written according to a motive of ‘the Day of YHWH’ in its version, which was in force in the utterances of prophets of the period of exile and later (the day of judgment of nations, as a beginning of the salvation of Israel).
The significant differences in content, composition and word design in description of The Trinity revelation to St Alexander Svirsky can be established, firstly, according to the role, which the hagiographer was ascribing to the particular fact from the life of The Saint Monk, secondly, according to the miracles functions as a component of the general text of the appropriate hagiography and, thirdly, according to the hagiography stylistics as a whole.
PL
Istotne różnice w treści, kompozycji i słownej oprawie cudu dotyczącego objawienia się Świętej Trójcy św. Aleksandrowi Świrskiemu, określić można zarówno na podstawie roli, jaką hagiograf przypisywał danemu faktowi z życia Świętego Mnicha, funkcji cudu, jako komponentu całego tekstu danego żywota, jak i stylistyki tego żywota w całości.
Jan Długosz in his cards made a presentation of Annales…fifteenth century priest and reformer – Jan Kapistran. My purpose was to show the characteristic this person, something valued by chronicle writers. Długosz used different methods, to convince the reader about theconcepts of hero sainthood, for example descriptions such as: famous, reverend, smart-which come from the catalog, which were used by the author many times, symbolical, numbers – three, forty, a hundred, which enforce belief, that next to Jan amazing things are happening. Miracle making, prediction, healing, gift of tiers most appeared in this source biography. Comparing the preacher to St. Augustine strengthened the belief in the sanctity of the hero.
In 1863, the publication of Vie de Jésus makes Renan part of the movement of “desymbolisation” and secularization of sacred texts. Eliminating the notion of miracles from his writing on religion, Renan anticipates the pattern of Weber and Gauchet’s “disenchantment of the world”. It is thus by the methods of scientific analysis (eviction of miracles and psychological explications instead) that Renan is able to piece together the Messiah’s life, putting forward the idea of an organic Parousia, and making science a new religious ideal.
The study deals with pilgrimages to Esquipulas, Guatemala, and patterns of miracle in terms of their perception by the pilgrims reaching this prominent religious hub of Central America. Two key pilgrimage discourses are distinguished: traditional Maya pilgrimage, based on regular, calendar customs, and conventional Catholic pilgrimage, founded on occasional journeys to fulfil a vow. The Western understanding of miracle as a transgression of "natural laws" or "common course of nature" is relativized and contested arguing that the ethnographic evidence of Esquipulas shows not only different, but also opposite conceptions. Then, the study presents a spectrum of miracle ideas drawing from the Maya as well as European - the case of Lourdes is exemplary here - traditions in terms of the degree of their uncommonness. It is concluded that anthropology has to comprehend miracles as marvels in its cultural context; nevertheless, there is a widespread idea among many cultures that miracle is something wonderful, related to the awareness of non-obviousness of certain things and phenomena. Miracles find its content and meaning within particular cosmology, but, anchored in the psychological characteristics of the astonishment and the difference between usual and unusual or ordinary and extraordinary, they refer to features of human mind in a more general way.
Celem artykułu było omówienie relacji cudów Jezusa do wiary. Postawiono tezę: czy cud może doprowadzić do zaistnienia wiary, czy wiara jest uprzednia w stosunku do cudu? W punkcie pierwszym omówiono kwestię potrzeby zaistnienia wiary uprzedniej, która stoi u podstaw zrozumienia cudów Jezusa. Aby zrozumieć działalność taumaturgiczną, która jest zapodmiotowana w Nim, trzeba posiadać przynajmniej wstępne rozumienie wymiaru zbawczego cudu. Następnie podjęto temat cudu, który jest wezwaniem do wiary. W cudzie-znaku Bóg manifestuje swoją obecność; objawia się On w celach zbawczych człowieka. Stąd cud jest ofertą skierowaną do człowieka. Boża oferta ujawnia się dyskretnie, stąd człowiek musi być „wyczulony” na Jego znaki by je w właściwie przyjąć i odczytać. W cudach Jezusowych ujawnia się także wymiar łaski. Łaska pełni rolę przygotowawczą wobec decyzji wiary. Łaska Boża oświeca rozum, aby właściwie rozpoznać treść cudu. Na końcu rozważań omówiona została problematyka relacji cudu do Objawienia. W dawniejszej apologetyce, cuda Jezusa stanowiły argument dowodowy na pewność Objawienia. Współczesna teologia fundamentalna dostrzega w cudzie znak Bożego wezwania do wiary. Dlatego cuda Jezusa stanowiąc część Objawienia, objaśniają je i objawiają apel Boży wyrażony w taumaturgii Jezusa. W tego rodzaju ujęciu cudów Jezusa nie dochodzi do przekreślenia jego funkcji motywacyjnej, wręcz przeciwnie, funkcja motywacyjna cudu zostaje wzmocniona i ubogacona, chociaż ze strony adresata cudu (człowieka) potrzebny jest pewien wysiłek, aby odczytać ten znak Boga.
EN
This paper aimed at discussing the relation of the miracles of Jesus to faith. A thesis has been proposed: can a miracle lead to faith or is faith prior to a miracle? In the first section, a question of the need for existence of prior faith, which is the basis of understanding the miracles of Jesus, has been discussed. In order to understand the thaumaturgic activity, which is subjected to Him, one must have at least initial understanding of the salvific dimension of a miracle. Next, an issue of miracle, which is a call for faith, has been raised. In a miracle / sign, God manifests His presence; He reveals for the purposes of saving the man. Hence, a miracle is an offer addressed towards the man. The God’s offer reveals discretely, hence the man must be “sensitive” to His signs to properly receive and read them. In the miracles of Jesus, a dimension of grace is also revealed. The grace plays a preparatory roles to the decision of faith. The God’s grace enlightens the mind to properly recognise the content of a miracle. At the end of these considerations, problems of the relation of a miracle to the Revelation have been discussed. In older apologetics, the miracles of Jesus were an evidential argument for the certainty of the Revelation. Modern fundamental theology sees in a miracle a sign of the God’s call for faith. Therefore, the miracles of Jesus, being part of the Revelation, explain it and reveal the God’s call expressed in the thaumaturgy of Jesus. In this type of approach to the miracles of Jesus, their motivational function is not wiped out; quite the opposite, the motivational function of a miracle is being strengthened and enriched, although an effort is required from the addressee of a miracle (man) to read this sign of God.
The writing by Steczewicz was published in 1672. Its basic role was the confirmation of glorious occurrences that happened due to the picture of Mother of God which was placed in a Rokinto’s temple. In the third part of the analyzed text, readers can find people’s accounts confirming supernatural activities of the picture, its influence on the occurrences happening in Rokitno and nearby towns, and especially on the health of people who have hope in Mother of God. Collected accounts, their diversity, spectrum of touched strands supplied the linguistic material that is a testimony for the faith of the flock who trust Mary and accept their illness recovery as the glorious activity of the picture.
Każdy ze świętych ogłoszonych przez Kościół jest jedyny i niepowtarzalny w życiu i przesłaniu. Święty Andrzej Bobola błyszczy wśród nich wyjątkowością, gdyż inicjatywa wyniesienia na ołtarze nie wyszła od wiernego ludu, ale od niego, przebywającego już w królestwie Bożym. Jego prośba o kanonizację potwierdzona była skuteczną pomocą jezuitom w Pińsku, a potem w wyzwoleniu Polski z niewoli okupantów. Został także patronem Polski. Wobec tych znaków ludzie uwierzyli mu, dlatego z szacunkiem czcili jego ciało, które nie ulegało rozkładowi. Pomimo tylu nieszczęść nikt nie potrafił go zniszczyć. Do dziś leży w sanktuarium ku jego czci w Warszawie. Także w obecnych czasach św. Andrzej jest potrzebny do duchowego zmartwychwstania Polski. Przypomniał o tym w Strachocinie, objawiając się po raz trzeci i nakazując, aby go czcić.
EN
Every saint canonized by the Church is unique through their life and message. St. Andrew Bobola is a shining example among them since the initiative for his canonization process did not stem from the faithful in as much as from the saint himself appearing after his death and asking for it. His request was confirmed thanks to his efficacious aid of the Jesuits in Pińsk, and later during Poland’s liberation from the occupying forces. In light of these signs, people believed him and greatly honored his body which miraculously did not decay and remained intact even after unsucceful attempts to destroy it. The body lies to this day in the Warsaw Shrine dedicated to him. St. Andrew Bobola’s powerful intersession is still very much needed now for Poland’s spiritual resurrection.
Perdicas of Ephesus lived probably in XIVth century in Constantinople. He was cleric and prothonotary of Ephesus. Perdicas visited Jerusalem, Bethany, Bethpage and Bethlehem. He as writer and pilgrim described in his poem, which consists of 259 verses, the miraculous events and places connected principally with Jesus’s and his mother’s history. A poem written by Perdicas indicates the great role of nature: sky, clouds, light, rocks, stones, water and plants, which glorify their Creator and serve Him in miraculous places of the Holy Land, occupied by Saracens.
LA
XIV saeculo Constantinopoli vitam agebat Perdicas Ephesius, qui clericus ac protonotarius Ephesi patriarchae erat. Ille peregrinator et scriptor Hierosolyma, Bethaniam, Bethphage and Bethlehem visitabat. Perdicas poema fecit, in quo loca sancta in ducentis quinquaginta novem versibus descripsit. Hic poeta etiam de natura pulchra Palaestinae narrat. Caelum, nebulae, lux, rupes, lapides, aqua plantaeque mire adorant Creatorem suum et serviunt Deo in locis Terrae Sanctae, quae a Saracenis occupata sunt.
The article is about ukrainian traveler Basyl Grygorovych-Barsky (1701–1747), who visited many countries of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, in particular, visited many cities of Italy, what was left colorful notes. Italian icons (landscapes, descriptions of cities, customs, stories about local miracles) characterized by thoroughness and attention to detail, curiosity and desire to talk about the country is available, interested and emotionally. This, together with complicated syntactic constructions made the unique baroque style of the prose permission crossing traveler and writer.
The article is devoted to the problem of comprehension of the idea of miracle by the encyclopaedists and other enlighteners. The definitions of the concepts we use to designate the miraculous, the amazing and the magic change with the time. This fact may seem trivial at first glance. However, if we draw our sight to the material world we will see that the evolutionary changes taking place with some engineering devices do not affect the functions these devices were invented for. Entirely different is the situation with the semantics of some words denoting abstract concepts. The core function of the word is to convey a certain sense to the addressee. But, as may be seen from the speculations of the miraculous, it is the sense of the word which is gradually changing. The changes mentioned are due to the collisions between different world views at the turn of the epochs. However, the stereotype ideas of the Enlightenment as the period of fighting religious doctrines by means of applying to the reason as the only criterion of the truth, cannot be used to describe the processes in question. Our analysis will also point out at the problem of the periodization of the Age of Enlightenment.
The author discusses the relationship between Czesław Miłosz and Marian Zdziechowski (a historian of literature and of ideas, and a Christian thinker), on the basis of the essay Religijność Zdziechowskiego (Zdziechowski’s Religiosity, my own translation) from 1943 and of the poem Zdziechowski from the volume To (It, my own translation) from 2000. The key problem in both texts is assimilation of the philosophy of pessimism into Christianity. Having posed the eternalquestion of theodicy: how is it possible for evil to exist in a world created by a good God, Miłosz presents Zdziechowski’s answer, reminiscent of Charles Secrétan and Vladimir Solovyov namely, that the world is tainted with evil, it is chaotic and irrational and, as such, could not have been made by the hand of God. However, the reality of evil, which negates the existence of the Creator and which leads to despair, is juxtaposed with the voice of inner experience, which recognizes the presence of God as love. That logical contradiction, which demands that reason transcends its own limitations, directs the thinker toward the discovery of God as an impossible but real miracle which ought to be affirmed. As he depicts the professor, Miłosz recognizes some of his own features in the portrait: the realism of experience which has its origins in sensitivity to human suffering, heroism of faith and of religious thinking, and “hunger for God” – a spiritual yearning for another dimension, which not only inspires the intellect but also stirs the imagination.
PL
Artykuł omawia relację między Miłoszem a Marianem Zdziechowskim (historykiem literatury, idei, myślicielem chrześcijańskim) na podstawie eseju Religijność Zdziechowskiego (1943) oraz wiersza Zdziechowski (tom To, 2000). Kluczowym problemem obu tekstów jest asymilacja filozofii pesymizmu w obręb chrześcijaństwa. Podejmując odwieczne pytanie teodycei, jak możliwe jest zło w świecie stworzonym przez dobrego Boga, Miłosz przedstawia odpowiedź Zdziechowskiego (podążającego za Secrétanem i Sołowjowem): świat jest skażony złem, jest bezładem i bezrozumem i jako taki nie mógł wyjść z ręki Boga. Rzeczywistości zła negującej istnienie Stwórcy i prowadzącej do rozpaczy przeciwstawiony jednak zostaje głos doświadczenia wewnętrznego rozpoznający istnienie Boga jako miłości. Ta sprzeczność logiczna, wymagająca przekroczenia przez rozum jego własnych ograniczeń, prowadzi myśliciela do odkrycia Boga jako niemożliwego, a istniejącego, jako cudu, który należy afirmować. Kreśląc portret profesora, Miłosz rozpoznaje w nim w jakiejś mierze własne rysy: wynikający z wrażliwości na cierpienie realizm doświadczenia, heroizm wiary i myślenia religijnego oraz „głód Boga”, duchową tęsknotę za innym wymiarem, poruszającą nie tylko intelekt, ale i wyobraźnię.
Celem opracowania było przedstawienie potrzeby cudu w dowodzeniu kanonizacyjnym. Autor rozpatrywał fakt uzasadniania i aprobaty cudu oraz propozycje Kongregacji Spraw Kanonizacyjnych odnośnie do tego tematu. Przedstawił procedurę kanonizacyjną, która przeżywała ciągłą ewolucję, a zarazem ukazał, jak akcentowano w niej sprawę cudu i jakie stawiano wymagania do jego akceptacji. W końcowym paragrafie została przedstawiona aktualna procedura kanonizacyjna dotycząca diecezji, a także wymogi samej Kongregacji. Na podstawie dokonanej analizy tekstów prawnych wykazano wartość dowodu z cudu w dowodzeniu świętości kanonizowanej.
EN
The aim of the study was to show the need of a miracle in proving a canonization. We considered the subject of a miracle’s approval. Moreover, we studied the suggestions made by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints related to this topic. Then, we went through the procedures of canonization which was under a continuous development. In addition, we showed the miracle’s necessity and the requirements for its approval. The current procedure of canonization in the diocese and the Congregation’s requirements were presented in the final section. The value of the miracle’s evidence of proving the sanctity has been based on the legal text analysis made during the study.
Co lekarze mają wspólnego z uzdrowieniami? Czy teologiczne pojęcie „cud” jest do pogodzenia z aktualnym stanem wiedzy medycznej? W jaki sposób można rozpoznać cudowne uzdrowienia? Skąd wynika ostrożność Kościoła w uznaniu niewyjaśnianych medycznie uzdrowień jako cudowne uzdrowienia w sensie religijnym? Celem podjętych rozważań jest udzielenie odpowiedzi na powyższe pytania z perspektywy współczesnej teologii katolickiej. Struktura rozważań obejmuje najpierw prezentację aktualnego rozumienia cudu jako znaku Boga (1); następnie udziału nauk medycznych w badaniu cudownych uzdrowień w Lourdes (2); teologicznego procesu uznania niewyjaśnialnych medycznie uzdrowień w Lourdes jako cudu w znaczeniu religijnym (3).
EN
What medical doctors have to do with a healing process? Is the theological term “miracle” even compatible with current medical knowledge? How can a miracle cure be recognized? Where does the church's caution come from when recognizing a medically inexplicable healing as a miracle healing in a religious sense? The paper is to present the answer to this question from a perspective of the contemporary Catholic theology. The whole discussion involves firstly a presentation of a new understanding of a miracle as signs from God. The whole procedure involves first of all the idea of a current understanding of miracles as a sign of God (1). Then it will present the participation of medical science in the investigation of the miraculous cures of Lourdes (2). Finally, theological process of recognizing a medically inexplicable healing as a miracle healing in a religious sense will be analyzed (3).
Z refleksji teologicznej pierwotnego chrześcijaństwa wyłania się myśl teologiczna w formie Ewangelii. Cztery różne spojrzenia na dzieło Jezusa ukształtowały się pod wpływem zmieniających się okoliczności zewnętrznych życia chrześcijan. Niniejszy artykuł jest próbą uchwycenia myśli przewodnich św. Jana w opisie godów weselnych w Kanie Galilejskiej i oczyszczenia świątyni (J 2, 1–22). Jezus w Kanie Galilejskiej otwiera epokę łaski, która jest uobecniana we wspólnocie Kościoła w życiu sakramentalnym, szczególnie w Eucharystii. Krzyż i zmartwychwstanie Jezusa położyły kres świątyni jerozolimskiej. Jezus ustanowił nowy kult „w duchu i prawdzie”. Świątynią stało się Jego ciało. Zmartwychwstały Pan gromadzi narody, jednoczy ludzi z Bogiem i między sobą w sakramencie swojego Ciała i Krwi. On jest nową świątynią ludzkości. Stanowi to sens znaku oczyszczenia świątyni.
EN
From the theological reflection of early Christianity emerges the theological thought in the form of the Gospel. Four different perspectives on the work of Jesus were formed under the influence of changing the external circumstances of the life of Christians. This article is an attempt to capture the guiding thoughts of St. John’s description of the wedding feast at Cana in Galilee, and the cleansing of the temple (Jn 2:1–22) Jesus in Cana of Galilee opens an era of grace, which is actualized in the community of the Church in the sacramental life, especially in the Eucharist. The cross and resurrection of Jesus put the end to the Temple in Jerusalem. Jesus instituted the new worship “in spirit and truth”. His body became the temple. The Risen Lord gathers nations, unites men with God and with each other in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. He is the new temple of humanity. This is the meaning of the sign of purification of the temple.
Some, or all, of the events that are usually taken to be miracles might be explained as falling under the scope of statistical laws, and thus be susceptible to natural explanation. Arguably, they would then be reduced to the status of mere coincidences. Is it reasonable (1) to consider such events as being caused by God, (2) to be divine interventions, or even (3) to consider them to be instances of divine agency at all? Finally, (4) would their status as miracles be undermined? In this paper I focus on the first three questions. I argue that it would not be reasonable to consider them as being caused by God; nevertheless, there is nothing standing in the way of our describing them as expressing divine agency or as divine interventions. In regard to (4), I offer considerations in favor of such events being accepted as miracles, but I do not attempt to give a decisive answer to this question here.
The term ‘miracle’ is often used when we talk about events, the extraordinariness of which follows from the fact that they are inconsistent with our knowledge of the world and with regularities present in it. Most frequently the term ‘miracle’ is used in the religious sense of the word. It means that calling an event a miracle implies not only a declaration that it is an extraordinary–unexpected or extraordinary–improbable one, but also a result of a direct or indirect act of God. A more thorough analysis of the notion of extraordinariness leads us towards distinguishing two more features of the miracle, i.e. its supernaturality and scientific inexplicability. Considering the miracle an event caused by an act of God requires, in turn, the distinguishing of another element, which is the religious significance. A closer analysis of the two characteristics of the miracle understood as an ‘extraordinary event’ should include aspects of the phenomenology of the miracle. This seems still more useful, because the two elements: wonderment and delight are present in the non–religious and religious sense of the miracle, in which they refer to certain situations. We should note that wonderment and delight, understood as elements of the extraordinariness of a miraculous event, play a crucial role in the phenomenology of the miracle, which should be the first step on the way to defining precisely the characteristics of an extraordinary event. The direction of further analyses should be determined by making a distinction between two aspects of the philosophical problem concerning the miracle, namely, ontology and epistemology of the miracle.
PL
Terminem „cud” posługujemy się, najogólniej rzecz ujmując, wtedy, gdy mówimy o zdarzeniach, które charakteryzują się niezwykłością. Niezwykłość ta oznacza, że dane zdarzenie jawi się nam jako niezgodne z ustalonymi i potwierdzonymi prawidłowościami funkcjonowania świata. Najczęściej „cud” jest rozumiany jako zdarzenie niezwykłe, spowodowane przez Boga. Oznacza to, że nazywając jakieś zdarzenie cudem bierzemy pod uwagę nie tylko jego niezwykły charakter, niespodziewaność i nieprawdopodobność wystąpienia, lecz także uznajemy, iż jest ono wynikiem Bożej interwencji. Szczegółowa analiza niezwykłości zdarzenia cudownego prowadzi do wyróżnienia dwóch kolejnych jego cech: ponadnaturalności i naukowej niewyjaśnialności. Z uwagi na to, że cud jest skutkiem działania Boga możemy także mówić o jego religijnym znaczeniu. Bliższa analiza rozumienia ponadnaturalności i naukowej niewyjaśnialności zdarzenia cudownego powinna także uwzględniać aspekt fenomenologiczny cudu. Ujawniające się w tym aspekcie zdarzenia cudownego przyczyny uznania go za niezwykle: zdumienie i zachwyt, stanowią właściwy punkt wyjścia do zrozumienia niezwykłego charakteru cudu. Zatem fenomenologia zdarzenia cudownego wyznacza dalsze kierunki rozważań filozoficznych na temat natury cudu (ontologia zdarzenia cudownego) oraz możliwości jego rozpoznania (epistemologia zdarzenia cudownego).
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.