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

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Hades
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The western and eastern branches of Christianity, broadly speaking Roman Catholicism (RC) and Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), have been formally separate for almost a millennium. Yet they share the fundamental dogmas laid down by the first ecumenical councils. History and politics are entwined in the disputes since the Great Schism of 1054, but even earlier there was controversy over basic dogmatic questions and other doctrinal matters. Some, like using leavened or unleavened bread for Consecration, are now considered “matters of custom,” not requiring argument. Other matters are said to block reunification. One of these is Purgatory, for which EO does not even have a term, making a direct comparison difficult. We begin our analysis with the RC teachings on Purgatory, its locus, characteristics, and functions, and provide a simple relational network that shows Purgatory in relation to the afterlife, in particular to Heaven and Hell. With EO we begin with the teachings about life after death and provide a first approximation of Heaven and Hell and their relation to Paradise and Hades, both in characteristics and functions. Again, a simple relational network is enlightening. A surface comparison between the two networks distinguishes between those beliefs about the afterlife that are shared between RC and EO and those parts which house differences. It is these differences that must be subject to careful semiotic analysis to discover whether they are etic and possibly serious but not grounds for mutual excommunication or emic and a true barrier to reunification. We leave the possibly lengthy semiotic analysis for a subsequent study.
|
2021
|
vol. 30
|
issue 1
37-48
PL
Niniejszy artykuł stanowi kontynuację studium podjętego w 2017 r. na łamach drugiego numeru czasopisma Colloquia Theologica Ottoniana (s. 57–67). Zaproponowana wówczas argumentacja, uzasadniająca odczytanie słowa πύλαι w Mt 16,18 jako „gardziele”, jest tu wzbogacona o kolejne dwie racje przemawiające za takim właśnie zrozumieniem analizowanego greckiego rzeczownika. Przytaczane dowody pochodzą z Antygony Sofoklesa i niejako utwierdzają w słuszności proponowanej interpretacji.
EN
This article follows a study undertaken 2017 in the journal Colloquia Theologica Ottoniana (pp. 57–67). The argumentation proposed at that time justifying the reading of the term πύλαι in Mt 16,18 as “throats” is here enriched with two other reasons for just such understanding of the analyzed Greek noun. The recited evidence comes from Sophocles’ Antigone and in some measure confirms the correctness of the proposed interpretation.
PL
The article is a proposal for a new interpretation of Czesław Miłosz’s poem. The author presents that Orpheus’s catabasis in the poem and in the myth itself – which is revealed while its reading – is a figure of mourning, ending with the second death of Eurydice and coming out to the surface. Interpretation of descent to Hades is inspired by the poet's self-commentary and observations of Freud, and Croce and di Nola on mourning. Such reading also explains the meaning of troublesome for interpreters changes, which Miłosz made in the story of the myth compared to traditional versions by Virgil, Ovid, Rilke.
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.