Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl
System messages
  • Session was invalidated!

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  conciliarity
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae’s View on Laymen’s Participation in the Infallibility of the Church

100%
Roşu A.
Review of Ecumenical Studies Sibiu
|
2014
|
vol. 6
|
issue 1
29-48
EN
Though Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae did not address the topic extensively, a certain view on laymen’s participation in the Infallibility of the Church could be extracted from his writings. While professing the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church, i.e., insisting on the role of hierarchy in preserving and formulating the faith, Stăniloae alluded to a specific charismatic role of laity in preserving and strengthening the faith. The dialogue with the ecclesiology of I. Karmiris also led Stăniloae to the formulation of a personal theory concerning the limits of Church infallibility. The collaboration between clergy and laymen, as witnessed by the Liturgy, appears to be a suitable description of the manner in which Church infallibility functions.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Synodalność (soborowość) w Kościołach wschodnich

80%
Blaza M.
Studia Bobolanum
|
2020
|
vol. 31
|
issue 2
87-111
EN
The article aims to introduce the understanding of synodality (conciliarity) in the Eastern Churches in order to become an active voice in the contemporary debate on the understanding and implementation of synodality in the Roman Catholic Church. Firstly, the article presents the biblical sources and the practice of the ancient Church in relation to synodal (conciliar) church management. Further is described the institution of the synodos endimousa, i.e. an assembly of bishops presided over by the patriarch. The remaining part of the article deals with the theology of conciliarity in the Orthodox Church, showing its pros and cons. Finally, the understanding of synodality in the Eastern Catholic Churches is presented. The institution of the synodos endimousa in the Christian East limited the proper understanding of the term synodos solely to the collegial body of bishops assembled under the leadership of the patriarch or a lower rank authority of the Orthodox autocephalous Church (archbishop or metropolitan). However, in the first millennium of Christianity, the president of the synod of the patriarch was not only primus inter pares (the first among the equals), but also had a decisive vote on many issues. The following types of councils can be distinguished in the Orthodox Church: seven general councils, “rejected” or “no reception” councils which were not legally valid, local councils and hierarchical councils. In addition, in 2016, the General Orthodox Council was held in Crete, in which, however, not all the autocephalies of the Orthodox Church took part. This fact, as well as the very inability to convene an ecumenical council in the Orthodox Church after the Second Council of Nice (787 a.d.), indicates that at the level of Orthodoxy as a whole, the idea of conciliarity remains pure theory. In this context, it seems that synodality in the Eastern Catholic Churches combined with papal primacy understood in the light of the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council can be implemented with great success. On the one hand, the idea of synodality of this kind emphasizes the important role and importance of the collegiality of bishops together with their patriarch, archbishop major or metropolitan sui iuris, and on the other hand, it treats the bishop of Rome as the highest instance of appeal.
PL
Artykuł ma na celu przybliżenie rozumienia synodalności (soborowości) w Kościołach wschodnich, aby stać się aktywnym głosem we współczesnej debacie na temat rozumienia i realizowania synodalności w Kościele rzymskokatolickim. Najpierw w tym artykule przedstawiono źródła biblijne oraz praktykę Kościoła starożytnego w odniesieniu do synodalnego (soborowego) zarządzania Kościołem. Następnie opisano instytucję synodu endimousa, czyli zgromadzenia biskupów pod przewodnictwem patriarchy. W dalszej części artykułu zajęto się teologią soborowości w Kościele prawosławnym, ukazując jej blaski i cienie. Na końcu przedstawiono rozumienie synodalności w katolickich Kościołach wschodnich. Instytucja synodu endimousa na chrześcijańskim Wschodzie ograniczyła właściwie rozumienie pojęcia „synod” jedynie do organu kolegialnego biskupów zgromadzonego pod przewodnictwem patriarchy lub niższej rangi prawosławnego zwierzchnika Kościoła autokefalicznego (arcybiskupa lub metropolity). Jednak w I tysiącleciu chrześcijaństwa przewodniczący synodowi patriarcha nie był jedynie primus inter pares (pierwszym spośród równych), ale miał także głos decydujący w wielu kwestiach. W Kościele prawosławnym można wyróżnić następujące rodzaje soborów: sobory powszechne w liczbie siedmiu, sobory „odrzucone” albo „bez uzyskania recepcji”, które nie zostały uznane za prawomocne, sobory lokalne oraz sobory hierarchów. Ponadto w 2016 roku odbył się na Krecie Sobór ogólnoprawosławny, w którym jednak nie wzięły udziału wszystkie autokefalie Kościoła prawosławnego. Ten fakt, jak również sama niemożność zwołania soboru powszechnego w Kościele prawosławnym od Soboru Nicejskiego II (787), wskazują na to, że na poziomie prawosławia jako całości idea soborowości pozostaje czystą teorią. W tym kontekście wydaje się, że synodalność w katolickich Kościołach wschodnich połączona z prymatem papieskim rozumianym w świetle eklezjologii Soboru Watykańskiego II może być realizowana z dużym powodzeniem. Z jednej bowiem strony tego rodzaju idea synodalności podkreśla doniosłą rolę i znaczenie kolegialności biskupów wraz ze swoim patriarchą, arcybiskupem większym lub metropolitą sui iuris, z drugiej zaś traktuje biskupa Rzymu jako najwyższą instancję odwoławczą.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Typologia soborów lokalnych Kościoła prawosławnego na ziemiach ruskich i Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego do końca XV wieku

71%
Martynowicz A.
Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej
|
2014
|
vol. Synody Cerkwi Prawosławnej w I Rzeczypospolitej
|
issue 5
9-39
EN
From the very beginning of its existence the Orthodox Church on the Ruthenian lands and on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania created structures and organs indispensable for the normal functioning of the church institution, relating to the praxis of the Byzantine Church as well as to the canonical law. With the development of the church organism the role of councils grew progressively. The local councils of the Orthodox Church, based on the ancient principle of conciliarity of the Eastern Church, formed collegial organs deciding not only on the issues of theological and disciplinary nature, but equally in administrative and juridical matters. The councils of the Orthodox Church gathered primarily in case of important issues, demanding collegial examination. Usually the councils participated bishops, monks (above all archimandrites and hieromonks), married priests (basically namiestniks /i.e.bishop’s deputy/, protopops and krylosy /i.e. diocesan councils/) as well as princes and lay nobility. In the XVI century also representatives of middle class and church brotherhoods participated in the councils. Councils can be divided into the following categories according to the issues debated on them: 1) councils concerning internal church organization, 2) theological and disciplinary (juridical) councils, 3) councils concerning the canonical law, 4) councils dealing with canonisation of the saints. We have very few data about the local councils of the Orthodox Church on the Ruthenian lands before the Tatar invasion. We have more information about the ones that took place after the liberation from the Tatar yoke. The exact number and the time of duration as well as the subject of the debate of the councils are not known exactly. The Old Russian chronicles first of all mention elective councils. The least information was preserved about the councils concerning canonisation. Until the beginning of the XIV century the councils were assembled very rarely and they did not play an important role. Metropolitans equally did not have much power whereas the princes had a huge influence on the Church matters, including the strictly religious issues. The conciliar activity of the Orthodox Church on the Ruthenian lands as well as the territory of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, though developed until the end of the XV century, only in the next century became much more dynamic
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.