Exegesis of Matthew 16:13-20, made in the light of historical and doctrinal terms occurred after 70 years in Judea, in which the evangelist Matthew was presented with its Judeo-Christian Church, indicates clearly existing in the text emphasis and related them to universalist objectives . They primarily guided him to define the saving message of Jesus the Risen of being Christological and Ecclesiological, in the final version edited by himself, in the Gospel of the Kingdom at the turning point for the fate of the Palestinian Church. The scene from Caesarea Philippi is edited in a manner which allows Peter to run his church in the Hellenistic world in order to gain complete doctrinal confidence that the same power of binding and resolving in heaven and on earth which he received from Jesus Simon Barjon to exercise it in the land of Israel, is also possessed by Simon Peter to celebrate it with the same saving efficiency in the lands of the heathen. Without this doctrinal certainty, it would probably be impossible to guarantee its further Judeo-Christian existence in the world of ethnochristians and gentiles.
The main objective of the paper is to show original theological emphasis on Peter the Apostle. Chapter 21 is considered to be a later addition to the Gospel of John. It is necessary to pay a special attention to related issues of editorial text. Despite its seemingly simple structure John 21: 15-19 poses other challenges. One of them is a puzzling variation of terminology. It is therefore necessary to draw attention to possible variants of critical-literary assessment of the biblical text. In John 21: 15-19 Peter is presented as a shepherd. This par-ticular mission is given to him by the Risen Jesus. The flock, which he has to feed, remains Jesus’ property. John 21:18-19 associated the ministry of Peter with his martyrdom. The entire passage has an ecumenical significance. The delegation of pastoral authority can be treated as a one-off event. The historical context of John 21 indicates the unifying character of the ministry of Peter the Apostle. Proper reading of the text can facilitate dialogue on the nature of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
The primacy of the Bishop of Rome is the term for the highest office in the Church. It consists in carrying out a mission appointed to St. Peter and his successors by Christ. The truth about the primacy is a theoretical plane, dogmatically defined at the I Vatican Council in 1870. It also has a practical dimension, which depends on the individual popes and the particular historical context. A characteristic feature of the pontificate of John Paul II was the implementation of the reforms of the II Vatican Council and the Church’s preparation for the Great Jubilee of the third millennium. John Paul II realized the primacy function in accordance with the tradition of the Church, on the grounds of the biblical image of Peter the Apostle, and continuing the line of his predecessors – John XXIII and Paul VI. The leading element of his pontificate was the openness to the world, to man and his dignity, or sensitivity to the signs of the times. The priority at the level of ecclesial unity was a concern for the community at all levels, including the ecumenical field. John Paul II realized the primacy ministry as Servus servorum Dei, in the ancient formula – priority in love .
Joseph Ratzinger discusses papal primacy in the Church, which is a communio based on the relationship between primacy and collegiality. Therefore, he supports jurisdictional primacy executed not in a monarchical way, but collegially, with the Pope as the head of the college of bishops. Joseph Ratzinger discusses the Petrine primacy in the New Testament, which he considers a starting point for a discussion about the succession of Peter’s office, choosing (via media) between papalism and conciliarism. He, therefore, focuses on the personal aspect of primacy connected with a given person. Moreover, the article discusses the relationship between the papacy and doctrinal infallibility. It also poses the question whether after his renunciation Benedict XVI still retains the charisma of doctrinal infallibility (or authentic orthodoxy) and how this refers to the current Pope Francis.
W artykule porównane są dwa modele kierowania Kościołem, które w Kościele katolickim co najmniej od Soboru Watykańskiego II stoją wobec siebie w pewnym napięciu. Model „Communio” strukturyzuje cały Kościół wychodząc od Kościoła lokalnego; Model „Iurisdictio” (bądź też hierarchiczny) wychodzi od prymatu jurysdykcyjnego biskupa Rzymu. Wraz z Walterem Kasperem autor artykulu opowiada się za syntezą Iurisdictio oraz Ordo, co pozostaje jeszcze zadaniem do wykonania na trzecie chrześcijańskie tysiąclecie. Tematem Ekskursu jest teoria eklezjologiczna Josepha Ratzingera, w ramach której w odniesieniu do relacji między papieżem a episkopatem można zaobserwować rozwój od podkreślania kolegialności w kierunku świadectwa pojedynczego biskupa.
Wobec tego, że urząd papieski w swoim od I Soboru Watykańskiego zdefiniowanym kształcie stanowi jedną z największych przeszkód dla jedności Kościołów chrześcijańskich, autor niniejszego artykułu próbuje na nowo zinterpretować wypowiedzi soborowe odnoszące się do tej problematyki. Dokonuje tego w kontekście teologii wiary, która zdecydowanie odnosi treść wiary (fides quae) do fides qua. W ten sposób pewne wypowiedzi dotyczące wiary, także odnoszące się do papieża, są relatywizowane, jednak nie w sensie ich eliminacji, ale w znaczeniu intensywnego odniesienia ich do centrum wiary biblijnej. Przez to zostaje otwarta „przestrzeń”, dzieki której jest możliwe nadanie każdorazowo nowego kształtu urzędowi piotrowemu rozumianemu jako „służba jedności”.
The article tries to find a possible model of role that the papal office can play for ec-umenical dialogue. First, the author reviews opinions about the pope and his office issued by the Evangelical Church in the 16th century, especially in Martin Luther’s theology. In the second step, there is an analysis of the ‘pope’ understanding presented by the modern Polish Lutheran theology. According to the applied method of “unity in reconciled diversity” it seems that the pope, as a head of the Roman Catholic Church could be understood as primus inter pares. The article develops the possible consequence of this papal duty in the vision of the ecumenical Pentarchy. It would be an ecumenical collaboration between the 5 biggest traditions of the modern Christianity: Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Eastern Pre-Chalcedonian Churches, Anglicanism and Lutheran Protestantism. This model does not mean a way to the institutional primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
Sobór Watykański II, który był największym wydarzeniem we współczesnej historii chrześcijaństwa, zainicjował proces otwarcia i reformy Kościoła katolickiego na niespotykaną dotąd skalę. Przez trzy lata dyskutowano na temat najważniejszych tematów, zarówno natury czysto teologicznej i eklezjalnej, jak i pastoralnej i misyjnej. Jednym z tych soborowych tematów było także ożywienie braterskich relacji między katolikami i nie-katolikami. W artykułe dokonano analizy jednego z najważniejszych teologicznych tematów, który niestety pozostał w wyniku soborowej i postsoborowej dyskusji przeszkodą w rzeczywistym dialogu o przywróceniu jedności między katolikami a prawosławnymi. Jest nim prymat papieski, który prawosławni postrzegają jako wynik ludzkiej inwencji, pozbawionej solidnych biblijnych i patrystycznych podstaw. Ternin ten pojawił się po 1054 roku jako podstawowa cecha polityki religijnej związanej z prymatem Rzymu. Kościół prawosławny wierzy w możliwość przywrócenia jedności chrześcijan, jednak nie zgadza się na interkomunię bez uprzedniego osiągnięcia jedności w wierze. Stąd też oczekuje się od Kościoła katolickiego decyzji porzucenia roszczenia prymatu i papieskiej nieomylności bądź też ich przekształcenia zgodnie tradycją pierwszych wieków. Również oczekuje się redefinicji relacji między biskupem Rzymu a kolegium katolickich biskupów w sensie rzeczywistej i efektywnej synodlaności.
One of the essential problems in the relationship between Catholic-Orthodox churches is the difference in the interpretation of the current forms of the primacy in the Church of the Bishop of Rome. Contemporary studies on the essence and on the method of accom-plishing this service on behalf of the universal Church’s unity assumed new dynamics after the publication of the ecumenical encyclical letter of John Paul II – Ut unum sint. The Pope addressed and requested the pastors and theologians to establish with him a “patient and fraternal dialogue” (see US 95-96), for both parties to strive to achieve “the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned” (US 95). The contemporary Orthodox theologians, based on the results of historical studies, are con-vinced that the idea of the Roman primacy has been always presented in the theological awareness of the Christian East. The Eastern Churches do not negate the primacy of the Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, and as the first bishop of the whole Church. Recognizing the primacy of the Holy See as an incontestable historical fact, the Orthodox theologians see the crucial problem in the determination of its nature. They do not accept the primacy in the juridical sense.
The article is a topic outline of the theology of the Church’s unity. It shows the spectrum of contemporary reflection on this attribute of the Church mentioned in the Nicene-Con-stantinople Symbol (credo in unam Ecclesiam). The reflection includes biblical categories, especially the idea of koinōnia/communio, emphasizing the Trinitarian basis for unity of the Church, and its concrete means – bonds of unity. Among these means of unity, particular attention is paid to the bond of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, nota-bly the universal ministry of Christian unity. Individual Churches (denominations) have different visions of unity, but also these concepts are the subject of ecumenical dialogue. The most recent ecumenical vision on the Church, including its unity, is the document of the World Council of Churches Commission on Faith and Order, Towards a Common Vision of the Church (published in 2013). Christian Churches involved in the contemporary ecumenical dialogue are aware that the unity of the Church is a reality given and set, yet incomplete and imperfect, so to speak “on the way”. In this sense they can express their spero in unam Ecclesiam.
The article aims at an exegetical exploration of the theme of reconciliation in Eph 2:11-22. First it is argued that the passage has chiastic literary structure (ABCDD’C’B’A’). Reconciliation is in the structure a central (pivotal) theme around which go all other theo-logical motifs. The first element of pragmatic strategy of the author in Eph 2:11-22 is to show the condition of the addressee of the letter from the point of view of the Old Testament religion. As Gentiles they were deprived of God and His salvific promises. Thanks to the work of reconciliation accomplished by Christ’s death on the cross, both previously divided parts of the world (namely Gentiles and Jews) have become one. Christ’s work of reconcil-iation restores above all the relationship of each hostile group with God. The reconciliation between the two groups is a consequence of their prior reconciliation with God by Christ in the Holy Spirit (Trinitarian theology). Thanks to Christ’s work of reconciliation Gentiles are not strangers to God any more but together with the faithful Christians of Jewish origin form one “holy temple”, “Gods dwelling through the Spirit”, namely the Church.
This article presented some critical remarks relating to the understanding of the panen-theism as a postmodern revelation, proposed by David Ray Griffin in his book Panentheism and Scientific Naturalism. Rethinking Evil, Morality, Religious Experience, Religious Pluralism, and the Academic Study of Religion. The main objection relates to the question that the American philosopher and theologian presents the philosophical, not theological conception of revelation. In addition he used the assumptions taken from process philosophy of A.N. Whitehead to construct this conception. The result of these assumptions is a new and original understanding of postmodernism. According to these assumptions panentheism is a conception that reflects properly the God-world relationship. Moreover, panentheism, as Griffin said, avoids mistakes of classical theism and extremes of early and late modernity. This panentheism is an integral part of naturalismppp. Griffin’s attempt to equate panentheism and revelation is based on the interaction recognized by him between God and the world. It manifests in the religious experiences and in the human drive to discover truth, which is, as Griffin said, a divinely-instilled drive. Process panentheism is the attempt to reconcile this revelation with the revelation that comes to us through the Abrahamic and other the-istic traditions. But it is difficult to accept that the revelation that comes to us from these religions, especially the revelation realized in Jesus Christ, gave rise to the recognition of the God-world relationship in terms of panentheism proposed by process theology
Jesuits arrived in the land of the New Kingdom of Grande (Colombia) at the beginning of the 17th century. They founded colleges in all most important towns and began the mis-sionary service among Indians, according to the scheme of so-called ‘doctrinas’, i.e. villages inhabited by autochthons. During the years 1605-1660 they worked in a few doctrines on Altiplano in the surroundings of Bogota and Tunja and on eastern slopes of the Andes. Their service was usually very effective and carried out according to the established methodology of the missionary work. They were appealing to the following rules: systematic and regular religious education, knowledge of the local languages by missionaries, development of the educational system including study of the singing and the music, practising solemn liturgy based on solid and well equipped churches. The past experience of the work in ‘doctrinas’ was used in the second half of the 17th century during the establishment of Jesuits’ reductions in Casanare, Meta and Orinoko.
In the time of calling for a new evangelization in the Church as a result is at least the creation of the Papal Council for New Evangelization and the convoking of the XIII Ordi-nary Gathering of Bishops Synod under the watchword “New Evangelization for spreading the Christian faith“, one should be aware of the different types of evangelization. Only on this base can one point to the different aims of evangelization in the church connected with choosing the proper ways to carry it into effect. Speaking about three basic types, which are: missionary evangelization, pastoral evangelization and reevangelization or new evan-gelization one can speak about several basic methods of evangelization. You can describe it as a kerygmatic method, a missionary ministry method, bringing back to life faith for the members of the Church connected with self-evangelization and inculturation, a method connected precisely with pre-evangelization and new evangelization which should always have a joyful character.
17 (2022)
Ks. prof. UKSW dr hab. Przemysław Artemiuk, Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie
16 (2021)
Ks. prof. dr hab. Andrzej Anderwald, Uniwersytet Opolski
15 (2020)
Ks. prof. UO dr hab. Andrzej Anderwald, Uniwersytet Opolski
14 (2019)
Ks. prof. UKSW dr hab. Grzegorz Bachanek –
13 (2018)
Dr José María Berlanga, Universidad Pontificia Comillas in Madrid
12 (2017)
Dr. Mojżesz Asaah Awinongya SVD - Philosophisch-Theologische Hochschule in Sankt Augustin, Niemcy
11 (2016)
Dr Anna Abram, Margaret Beaufort Institute of Theology in Cambridge
10 (2015)
Ks. dr hab. Tadeusz Dzidek , prof. UPJPII - Uniwersytet Papieski Jana Pawła II w Krakowie
9 (2014)
Dr hab. Stanisław Achremczyk - Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie
8 (2013)
Ks. dr hab. Roman Bogacz - Uniwersytet Papieski Jana Pawła II w Krakowie
6-7 (2011-2012)
Ks. prof. dr hab. Piotr Morciniec - Uniwersytet Opolski
pl
en
