Roczniki Teologiczno-Kanoniczne, 1988, T. 35, z. 2

Stały URI dla kolekcjihttps://theo-logos.pl/handle/123456789/11985

Przeglądaj

Przeglądaj Roczniki Teologiczno-Kanoniczne, 1988, T. 35, z. 2 wg Autor "Rusecki, Marian"

Wpisz kilka pierwszych liter i kliknij przycisk przeglądania
Teraz wyświetlane 1 - 2 z 2
  • Miniatura
    Pozycja
    Cud w apologetyce F. D. E. Schleiermachera
    Rusecki, Marian (Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Naukowego Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1988)
    Contrary to what has been assumed in Catholic theology, there was also a justification of the tenets of faith in Protestantism, though they were understood in a different way. What was the role of a miracle in it and how was it understood? Does it have any ecumenical significance? Such problems were considered on the basis of F. D. E. Schleieremacher's views. He was said to be the father of Protestant apologetics, or even of general apologetics. In view of the world's tendency towards secularization and in view of creating a scientific image of the world, he created a new apologetics of Christianity which apologetics was to accord the scientific and religious understanding of the world. A miracle played a crucial role in the conflict between science and religion, reason and faith. That is why he first accepted the so-called global miracle (the whole work of creation which exists thanks to a constant support from God), since God does not act in individual events, and he severly criticised the Catholic conception of miracle, because it deforms the organic unity of the world. It was connected with his understanding of religion as a feeling totally dependent on the Universe, Infinity, Eternity and God. Hence every phenomenon according to him, even a most natural, can be called miracle, if we can find a religious meaning in it. A miracle, similarly to revelation, influences the emotional sphere of man, increases his piety and leads to religion, analogically to the Universe. He grasped Jesus' miracles not in their objective-motivative function but subjectivemotivalive (Jesus comes to help people in their needs and has become an example for them to follow); Jesus' miracles are so supernatural as much as there His dignity in them. Schleiermacher, contrary to Catholic apologetics, as the starting point preferred not the rational cognition but a (religious) experience related to the feeling of reality. It seems to be of value that he pointed to the meaningful sphere of a miracle, its theological and religious interpretation. However, negation of the empirical sphere of a miracle cannot be accepted, neither can reduction of the revelation to a cosmic revelation and exemplary Christology. There is a group of intuitions in his work (e.g. that a miracle is always actual) which are more and more often perceived today, hence there is a need of further investigations into his thoughts. Those common elements of Schleiermacher's views and contemporary Catholic theology can constitute the doctrinal basis of a theological and ecumenical dialogue.
  • Miniatura
    Pozycja
    Problem dowodzenia z cudu w "drugiej szkole augustyńskiej"
    Rusecki, Marian (Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Naukowego Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1988)
    In the theological-fundamental literature the opinion that in the Middle Ages there was known only the Thomistic conception of a miracle and proving by way of it, has long been advocated. As it has been proved in the present treatise such a view is false. This conception gained greater applause since the end of the 15th century. In the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries there were decisively more advocates of St Augustine's thought which thought was creatively developed by many authors (Anselm, Richard of St Victor, Hugo of St Victor, Alexander Hales, William of Auvergne, William of Auxerre, Bonaventura). The Augustianism of the Middle Ages, using peripathetic and other philosophies to a greater extent, had many types: Bonaventurianism, neo-Platonic, nominalistic, rationalistic, realistic, and traditional which had repercussions in the understanding of a miracle and its molivative function in authors whose standpoints have been discussed here: Henry of Gent (†1293), John Duns Scotus (†1308), Gvidon Terreni (†1342) and Giovanni Baconthorp (†1348). The standpoints of those authors show some common characteristics: opposition to an apodictic understanding of proving by way of a miracle, the defence of freedom and rewards of faith (Baconthorp slightly differed in this point), joining the argument by way of a miracle with the person of Jesus who is a main basis of faith and other arguments; considering the motivative function of a miracle in the history-salvatory perspective, paying greater attention to the theological understanding of the function of a miracle, creative and original development of the thought of the bishop of Hippon. A lot of this kind of justifying by way of a miracle would be disclosed by fundamental theology in our age.