Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl
Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników

Znaleziono wyników: 14

Liczba wyników na stronie
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
Wyniki wyszukiwania
help Sortuj według:

help Ogranicz wyniki do:
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
EN
There were many attempts to force Orthodox Christians in Poland to join the church union and become subject to the rule of the Popes. The first attempt took place in the mid-13th century. Daniel, the duke of Volhynia and Halicz was encouraged to join the union by the emissary of Pope Innocent IV, an Italian Franciscan Joannes de Piano Carpine. Having gathered the bishops, ighumens and boyars, the duke refused subjecting the Orthodox Church of Halicz to the pope. This did not discourage the Pope from further efforts to draw the Ruthenian dukes into the union. All the union missions in 1247 and 1248 were unsuccessful. Another attempt at forcing the Orthodox Church into the union took place during the reign of Ladislaus Yahyello. The second attempt at introducing the Florence Union in Poland came in 1474, when the bishop of Smolensk, Mizael Pstrutsky became Metropolitan of Kiev. The problem of church union returned in the times of Alexander the Yahyellonian. In 1494 the prince married the daughter of the Moscow Tsar Ivan III Sophia Paleolog, a niece of the last emperor of Byzantium, who lived in Rome since the fall of Constantinople. At the same time, with the agreement of Alexander the Yahyellonian, Joseph Bulharynowich, became the Metropolitan, He was accepted as Metropolitan by the Patriarch Nifont in 1500. After receiving the Patriarch's blessing the Metropolitan addressed the Pope expressing his will to join the union of Florence. The preparation and the course of the synod in Brest, which led to bringing some of the Orthodox inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania was widely discussed in literature. Prior to this Hipatsy Potsiey and Cyril Terletsky went to Rome as plenipotentiaries of the king and episcopate. Upon coming to Rome in November 1595 the Ruthenian bishops presented 32 articles prepared by the synod as a kind of condition of accepting the union. They demanded Rome to accept their own separate tradition and identity. After the Ruthenian lords visited Rome the Pope sent letters to the king and Latin episcopate asking them to help the Ruthenian bishops organize a union synod. Meeting the assignations of the union project Sigismund III Vasa summoned, in a proclamation of 14 June 1596, the clergy and the faithful of the Orthodox Church to call a synod, during which unity between the Greek and Roman churches would be officially declared. New union projects concerning the Orthodox Church in Poland came into being after the reactivation of the Orthodox hierarchy by the Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1620-1621. Suggestions for a new synod were put forward in the parliamentary sessions in 1623, 1629 and 1636. In response to the Pope's call in 1644 an anonymous union memorial was created. It was sent to the Roman Curia. Peter Mohyla and Adam Kisiel are said to be the authors of this memorial. The authors of the memorial strongly criticized the Union of Brest and presented their own concept of joining the Orthodoxy with the Roman Church. According to Mohyla there are no essential differences between the Greek and Latin Church as far as faith is concerned. The only difference lies in the organizational structure and the rite traditions. Both churches were treated as equal and apostolic. In its essence the Union of Brest could not serve as a model for unity. It lacked 'pure and holy intentions '. The ostensible unity destroyed the identity of the Eastern Church. Mohyla's and Kisiel's project rejected the model of the Union of Brest, which led to severing the ties with the Orthodox community and Constantinopolitan patriarchate. The basic assumption of the Union memorial was agreement of the clergy and the faithful with Rome without severing the ties with Tsarogrod. This was not the last union attempt aimed at the Orthodox Church in Poland in the 17th century. However, the suggested union projects were only part of the plan of the state authorities and Rome to take over all Orthodox bishoprics and total eradication of the Orthodox church. The Vatican's interest in the Orthodox Church in Middle-Eastern Europe was renewed at the end of the First World War. Along with the new Eastern policy of the Vatican Polish bishops prepared plans for missionary activity among Orthodox believers. The new Byzantine-Slavic rite amounted to leaving the full rituality of the Eastern Church, while accepting the Pope as head of Church, adding the filioque to the faith symbol and introducing a few Roman Catholic holidays to the liturgic calendar. The synodal Russian rite was adjusted to Catholic dogmatics. Old Slavonic Orthodox language remained the language of liturgy, while the sermons were given in national languages - Russian, Ukrainian, Byelorussian and Polish. The looks of churches and liturgical clothes remained unchanged. The results of the new union action were unimpressive when compared to the span of the action and resources used to conduct it. According to the data of the Ministry of Religious Denominations and Public Enlightenment in 1927 there were 28 neo-Uniat parishes, 30 clergymen and 17000 faithful. The problem of the new union and conflicts connected with it ended with the beginning of the Second World War. After the Second World War very few Uniat parishes remained under the vjurisdiction of Latin bishops. It was only after 1989 that the Uniats separated from the Latin Church structure in Poland. Two Greek-Catholic dioceses of the Ukrainian rite were created by the Pope and given a wide autonomy within the Roman Catholic Church. With the 400th anniversary of the Union Council the subject of the Union of Brest and its consequences for the Christian community returned in academic literature. The problem of church union had a negative influence on the relations between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in Poland.
EN
Byelorussian lands and their inhabitants were Christianized by the Eastern Church. It is hard to imagine the history of the Byelorussian nation without outstanding figures connected with the Orthodox Church. One of those first canonized in the Ruthenian land was the founder of the Holy Saviour Monastery, the Polatsk duchess - Euphrosyne. Holy hierarchs (bishops) constitute another group of people with everlasting contribution to the history of the Byelorussian nation. Holy monks, hierarchs, lived in monastic centers, where theological and philosophical thinking developed. The Uniate denomination prevailing in Byelorussia in the XVII-XVIII c. did not infuence the national identity of Byelorussians. The Union could only function in the Commonwealth if it retained its clear cultural and ritual distinction. None of denominations existing in the XIX c. Byelorussia facilitated Byelorussian national rebirth. Pointing to the Uniate Church as a source of the national rebirth is a myth. This Latinized in the XVIII c. denomination, became an object of rivalry between the two main Christian denominations: the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. The Russian Orthodox Church, viewed by Byelorussians as a powerful tool of Russification, was not propitious in the Byelorussian national rebirth. The Catholic Church, despite the fact that the majority of pioneers of the national rebirth belonged to it, did not contribute to adding Byelorussian character to the national religious life, either. The Catholic Church remained the Polish Church, adverse towards Byelorussian national ideas.We have no evidence that Protestant or any non-Christian denominations facilitated the development of the Byelorussian national movement.
EN
Due to the partition of the Polish Commonwealth five Uniat dioceses: metropolitan, Polock, Wlodzimiersk, Luck and Chelm - were included into the Russian Empire. The Russian Orthodox Church was malevolent towards Uniats. It was a common belief that Uniats should return to the Orthodox Church. The first action of conversion of Uniats was conducted in Volhynia and Podole in the years 1793-1794. As a result of the missionary action, supervised by bishop Wiktor Sadkowski, about 200 Uniat parishes, with about 1 million people, were converted to the Orthodox Church faith. Tsar Paul II, although not very fond of Uniats, did not discriminate them. During his reign, Luck and Brzesk bishoprics were restituted and the Uniat Church had 1500 parishes, 80 Basilian monasteries and 1428000 faithful. Alexander I did not fight against Uniats but Nicholas I conducted a different policy. He believed that Uniat clergy of Byelorussian or Ukrainian nationality belonged to the eastern cultural sphere, so he spared no efforts to include them into the Orthodox Church. The Uniat Church was to be devoid of Latin influences. Restoration of full eastern ceremony in Uniat churches was to be a preliminary stage of the peaceful unification with the Orthodox Church. Józef Siemaszko was to be the main protagonist of this process. In 1827 he worked out a memorial on the state of the Greek-Catholic Church in Russia being a plan of the unification of the Uniat and Orthodox Churches. The project was supported by Nicholas I. The first significant movements aiming at the separation of Uniats from Catholics were undertaken in 1828. Changes introduced in the years 1828-1829 led to the separation of the Uniat and Catholic hierarchies, organization of the Uniat system of education and the strengthening of the pro-Orthodox mood among the clergy and the faithful of the Greek-Catholic Church. Works on the preparation of the unification synod were accelerated after the November Insurrection. Participation of Catholics and Uniats in the 1830-1831 insurrection gave Tsar Nocholas I a pretext for the introduction of some restrictions imposed on the Uniat faithful. In the years 1835-1839 the organizational structure was rebuilt, Orthodox liturgical books were introduced, Uniat churches' interiors were modeled after Orthodox churches' ones. From 1837 on all issues concerning the Uniat Church were to be handed over to the prosecutor of the Synod. On March 3, 1838 Józef Siemaszko started presiding over the Greek-Catholic College. On February 12, 1839 Uniat bishops, 24 members of higher clergy and some lay representatives gathered at a council. They proclaimed and signed an act of unification. A list of 1305 members of clergy declaring their support for the idea of the unification was enclosed. The unification with the Orthodox Church was not supported by 593 members of the Uniat clergy. On March 25, 1839 the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church admitted Uniat clergy and lay people to its circle. The Greek-Catholic College for Clergy started to be called Lithuanian-Byelorussian College for Clergy and it came under the Synod's supervision. It was headed by Józef Siemaszko - promoted to the rank of Archbishop.
4
Content available Orthodox Culture in Poland to the end XVIII century
100%
PL
Historia kultury prawosławnej na ziemiach dawnej Polski ukazuje mam, że na jej terenie doszło do spotkania dwóch wielkich tradycji religijno-kulturowych: wschodniej (bizantyjsko-ruskiej) i zachodniej (łacińskiej). Prawosławie było stałym elementem struktury wyznaniowej kraju, w niektórych jego regionach religią dominującą. Wschodnia tradycja chrześcijańska zakorzeniła się we wszystkich formach życia ludności ruskiej i wpłynęła na oblicze kulturowe wszystkich mieszkańców państwa. W kraju zdołano wytworzyć takie normy współżycia, gdzie przez wiele stuleci prawosławie nie było wyznaniem obcym lecz własnym. Zaprezentowany obraz dziejów kultury prawosławia w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej ma istotne znaczenie w zrozumieniu jej specyfiki w strukturze wyznaniowej Europy. Obszar, na którym na tak szeroką skalę doszło do spotkania dwóch tradycji chrześcijańskich, wschodniej i zachodniej, zawiera w sobie ogromny bagaż doświadczeń. Pozytywne i negatywne oblicza styków cywilizacyjnych stały się dziedzictwem historycznym naszego państwa.W tym kontekście jakże trudno jest wyobrazić dzieje Rzeczypospolitej do końca XVIII wieku bez kultury Kościoła wschodniego.
7
Content available Nieznane losy pierwszego ihumena supraskiego
100%
EN
Pafnucy Siehen, from Bielsk, was the founder of the Suprasl monastery. He was the one who had the biggest contribution to the creation of the first churches, financial security and determination of the status of the monastery in the Orthodox Church. The Siehen family incurred costs of raising the monastic congregation in Gródek. The Siehens, who co-founded the construction of the monastery, received numerous estates from King Sigismund the Old (Zygmunt Stary). Pafnucy Siehen created a well-organized religious community and supervised legal and material protection of his monastery. At the beginning of 1509 Hegumen Pafnucy Siehen made a request to the king for permission to build a stone Orthodox church of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The construction of the church began in October 1510. According to the majority of historians, this year was the date of Pafnucy Siehen’s death. On the basis of new evidence, it has been proven that Pafnucy Siehen did not die that year; he participated in the council of Vilnius in 1509–1510. At this council Pafnucy Siehen, the hegumen of Supraśl, was declared a bishop. After bishop Wassian’s death in 1512, Pafnucy Siehen became the ordinary of Vladimir-Brest diocese. His nomination was supported by the Metropolitan of Kiev, Joseph and secular Orthodox elites. After choosing hegumen Pafnucy the Vladimir-Brest leader, the importance of the Siehen family rapidly increased. Bishop Siehen, as a bishop, initiated the restoration of numerous churches and monasteries destroyed during the Tatar invasion in 1491. In the years 1514–1516 Pafnucy received from the king the confirmation of privileges granted to the episcopate and the Cathedral of the Dormition in Vladimir-Volynski. Bishop Pafnucy managed the Lutsk-Ostroh diocese since 1523. He officially took over the Lutsk diocese after the death of bishop Cyril in 1526. Pafnucy Siehen held his episcopal function in Lutsk until 1528.
EN
The most difficult period that the Polish Autocephalous Church of the 2nd Polish Republic experienced was in 1938 when, by the decision of administrative authorities, over 127 sacral buildings in Khelm region and Podlachia were pulled down. The third transfer stage took place from 1937 to 1939 and, for the most part, took the form of demolishing Orthodox churches. (It should be noted that the demolition of Orthodox churches happened throughout the whole period of the existence of the Second Polish Republic.) The churches which were destroyed were those which were the symbols of the Russian Tsar’s reign. Over thirty Orthodox churches were destroyed, including the cathedral in Saski Square in Warsaw, the Sts. Cyril and Methodius cathedral in Khelm and the Resurrection cathedral in Bialystok. The demolition of these Orthodox churches – regarded as symbols of Russian rule – was spontaneous and often irrational. Nevertheless, it never happened on a massive scale. Only in 1938 did a programme of destroying Orthodox churches emerge as a distinct element of the Polonisation effort. This programme was initiated by the government itself. The official reason was that those churches were not needed, dilapidated, or had been built as a result of Russifi ation in the past. However, it appears that the reason was to weaken the Belarusian and Ukrainian national minority movement through closing parishes and active Orthodox churches. The “pacification: of parishes in 1937 started in the Lublin region. First, a kind of social movement for the “propagation of Polish values and traditions” was created by the polish local authority. Then the army and police persecuted the Orthodox Church and people in order to convert them to Roman Catholicism. The demolition of Orthodox churches was conducted from the second half of May until the first half of July 1938. The actions were taken up by the local administration and co-ordination committees with help from the army and police in a hostile, anti-Orthodox atmosphere. To this end, the government used youth, army sappers, worker brigades, and even prisoners. Administrative and material measures were used to pressure the Orthodox who were blackmailed and threatened while their churches, which often served thousands of faithful, were destroyed. In most cases, the Orthodox community made no attempt to actively resist the demolitions. They prayed and protested, but were unable to oppose such an officially organised action. The transfer and destruction of Orthodox Church property naturally weakened the position of the Orthodox Church for the campaign limited its priestly activities, in turn creating the very conditions for transfer, the main goal of the state’s policy. Many Orthodox faithful started attending Roman Catholic churches when they had no church or parish of their own. Nonetheless, the threat to the property of the Orthodox Church brought the faithful, clergy, and church hierarchy closer together. Anti-government and anti-Polish attitudes began to grow in the Orthodox community. The result may be seen in the Khelm, Podlachia, and Volhynia regions during the Second World War.
EN
The society of the Commonwealth was always characterized – to a greater or lesser degree – by a diversified religious and national structure. The problem with a society with different religious characteristics had appeared on a large scale already in the 14th century, when ethnically non-Polish people could be found within the borders of the Commonwealth. In the 14th century the Kingdom of Poland lost extensive ethnically Polish areas in the West. The religious and ethnic structure of the state changed due to the incorporation of Red Ruthenia by Casimir III the Great (Kazimierz Wielki). Casimir III the Great – the last representative of the Piast dynasty – understood the importance of the problem connected with the presence of Orthodox Church members within state borders. The king preserved the rights and rites of the Orthodox Church. Political relations between the grand Duchy of Lithuania and Catholic Poland had religious repercussions. It curbed the development of the Orthodox religion and paved the way for the Latin Church – with all the political and cultural consequences. The Orthodox religion changed from the dominating position to a tolerated one. Yet the Jagiellonians understood that Orthodox people inhabited their own – in an ethnic sense – territories. The Jagiellonians, as opposed to the Angevin (Andegawenowie) or the House of Valois (Walezjusze), built their power on the multireligious structure of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They did not intend to follow the western model of a single religion Roman Catholic state, with one dominating Latin culture. Their stand resulted from the ethnic structure of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. During the Jagiellonian dynasty, the Orthodox religion became a national and folk denomination, through the omnipresence of various forms of cult and rites. The power of the Commonwealth was based on its recognition by the Orthodox Ruthenian population of the Crown and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as their own state. Good multireligious and multicultural cohabitation was shaken by the 1596 Union of Brest (Unia Brzeska). The Union of Brest undermined the main element of Ruthenian culture, based on its spiritual unity with Byzantium. A medial element, situated between the two traditions, was added to the existing Catholic-Orthodox model. The Union’s initiators were mistaken in their beliefs that its attractiveness would move Ruthenians from the Orthodox Church. Despite this tendency, the fall of Orthodox culture did not take place; on the contrary, it developed in new forms, which were more adequate to 17th century’s reality. Consequently, the Union of Brest did not turn against the Orthodox Church assuch, but the Orthodox Church in the Commonwealth. The Union of Brest was in some aspects beneficial for the Roman Catholic Church, yet it did not solve any of the internal problems of the state. In Poland the distance between Polish elites and Ruthenian culture increased. A Protestant, brought up in western culture, was closer to a Catholic than a Ruthenian following Byzantine traditions, though increasingly more and more immersed in Polish culture.
PL
Społeczeństwo Rzeczypospolitej w mniejszym lub większym stopniu zawsze posiadało zróżnicowaną strukturę wyznaniową i narodową. Problem związany ze społecznością o odmiennej specyfice wyznaniowej pojawił się w Polsce na szeroką skalę już w XIV w., kiedy w jej granicach znalazły się obszary zamieszkane przez ludność etnicznie niepolską. W XIV w. Królestwo Polskie utraciło znaczne obszary etnicznych ziem polskich na zachodzie. W rezultacie włączenia przez Kazimierza Wielkiego Rusi Halickiej zmieniła się struktura wyznaniowa i etniczna kraju. Wagę problemu obecności w granicach państwa polskiego wyznawców Kościoła prawosławnego rozumiał ostatni przedstawiciel dynastii piastowskiej – Kazimierz Wielki. Kazimierz Wielki zachował prawa i obrządek Kościoła prawosławnego. Związek polityczny Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego z katolicką Polską miał ważne konsekwencje w relacjach wyznaniowych. Zahamował rozwój prawosławia i utorował drogę Kościołowi łacińskiemu ze wszystkimi skutkami polityczno-kulturowymi. Prawosławie z wyznania dominującego stało się wyznaniem tolerowanym. Mimo to, Jagiellonowie rozumieli, że ludność prawosławna była na swym etnicznym terytorium. W odróżnieniu od Andegawenów czy Walezjuszy, swoją potęgę budowali na wielowyznaniowej strukturze Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Obcy był im model zachodni jednowyznaniowego katolickiego państwa, z jedną dominującą kulturą łacińską. Do takiej postawy zmuszała ich struktura etniczna Księstwa Litewskiego. W epoce jagiellońskiej prawosławie stało się wiarą narodową i ludową, poprzez wszechobecność różnorodnych form kultu i obrzędów. Potęga Rzeczypospolitej opierała się na uznaniu przez ludność ruską wyznania prawosławnego Korony i Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego za własne państwo. Fenomen dobrego wielowyznaniowego i wielokulturowego współżycia został zachwiany zawarciem unii brzeskiej (1596). Unia brzeska podważyła główny element podstawy kultury ruskiej, opierający się na duchowej jedności z Bizancjum. Do istniejącego układu katolicko-prawosławnego doszedł jeszcze jeden element pośredni, zawieszony między dwoma tradycjami. Inicjatorzy unii błędnie liczyli, że jej atrakcyjność spowoduje odejście Rusinów od prawosławia. Pomimo tej tendencji nie nastąpił upadek kultury prawosławnej, a nawet jej rozwój w nowych formach, bardziej dostosowanych do XVII-wiecznej rzeczywistości. W rezultacie unia brzeska obróciła się nie przeciwko prawosławiu jako takiemu, ale przeciwko prawosławiu w Rzeczypospolitej. W efekcie przyniosła ona niewielkie korzyści Kościołowi rzymskokatolickiemu, ale nie rozwiązała żadnego problemu wewnętrznego kraju. W Polsce dystans elit katolickich wobec kultury ruskiej i prawosławia został pogłębiony. Katolikowi nadal bliższy był protestant, wychowany w kulturze zachodniej, aniżeli Rusin, hołdujący tradycjom bizantyjskim, ale coraz bardziej powiązany z kulturą polską.
11
Content available Orthodox Education in Poland
100%
EN
The Orthodox educational system has been meeting important tasks, which is raising a general mental level of clergy and faithful. Its foundation was driven by needs of the Orthodox Church. Educating a young generation in the spirit of the Orthodoxy happened to be the main task of the enlightened class. Brotherhood, monastery and parish school were to be part of this program. The Orthodox education shaped religious life, helped preserve the religious and national identity of the believers. An evidence of that is the fact, that only those localities preserved “the Greek faith “, in which next to the monasteries were schools. Higher education, and espe- cially Mohyla Academy, shaped by the then elite, played a vital role in the history of Orthodox Church in the Republic and neighboring countries. A similar role had to play in the interwar period College of Orthodox Theology at the University of Warsaw and in post-war Orthodox Section of the Christian Academy of Theology Presented here outline of history of Orthodox education in Poland indicates to the, appreciated by clergy and hierarchy, need of development of theological schools. Theological schools played and still play important role in shaping the attitudes of clergy and faithful. Schools provide necessary pastoral resources, shape Orthodox cultural and scientific environment. Theological education has remained an essential element for the proper functioning of Orthodox Church in the Polish Republic.
PL
Prawosławny system oświatowy spełniał ważne zadania w podniesieniu ogólnego poziomu umysłowego społeczności ruskiej. Jego powstanie wynikało z potrzeb Cerkwi. Wychowanie młodego pokolenia w duchu prawosławnym stało się głównym zadaniem warstw oświeconych. Szkoły brackie, przyklasztorne i przycerkiewne miały być elementem tego programu. Szkolnictwo prawosławne kształtowało życie religijne, pozwoliło zachować tożsamość wyznaniową i narodową wiernych. O jego znaczeniu świadczy fakt, że jedynie te miejscowości zachowały ,,wiarę grecką”, w których obok monasterów istniały szkoły. Szkolnictwo wyższe, a zwłaszcza Akademia Mohylańska, formowało ówczesne elity, które odegrały istotną rolę w dziejach Kościoła prawosławnego w Rzeczypospolitej i w krajach sąsiednich. Przedstawiony rys dziejów szkolnictwa prawosławnego w Rzeczypospolitej wskazuje na docenianie przez hierarchię i duchowieństwo potrzeby rozwoju szkół teologicznych. Uświadomienie konieczności dobrego przygotowania kadr w odległej i mniej odległej przeszłości potwierdza, wysoki stan świadomości religijnej elit prawosławnych. Szkoły teologiczne odgrywały i odgrywają ważną rolę w kształtowaniu postaw duchowieństwa i wiernych. Szkoły dostarczają niezbędnej kadry duszpasterskiej, kształtują prawosławne środowiska kulturalne i naukowe. Szkolnictwo teologiczne zawsze było i pozostaje niezbędnym elementem do prawidłowego funkcjonowania Kościoła prawosławnego w Rzeczypospolitej.
12
Content available Chrzest Polski z różnych perspektyw
100%
PL
W tym roku obchodzona jest przez instytucje kościelne i państwowe 1050 rocznica chrztu Polski. Szczególnie donośnie obchodzi ową rocznicę Kościół rzymskokatolicki. Powstaje jednakże pytanie czy początek chrystianizacji w obrządku łacińskim jest tożsamy z początkiem ewangelizacji ziem polskich? Chrześcijaństwo na ziemiach polskich ma bowiem znacznie bogatszą tradycję aniżeli tylko jeden jego nurt – łaciński. Sąsiedztwo ziem polskich z Wielkimi Morawami a później ze schrystianizowaną Rusią i Czechami musiało wpłynąć na ich oblicze wyznaniowe. Chrystianizacja ziem polskich została rozpoczęta za panowania księcia morawskiego Świętopełka. W historiografii polskiej problematyka ta została obszernie zaprezentowana. Całą literaturę na ten temat można podzielić na zwolenników i przeciwników poglądu o obecności misji metodiańskiej w Polsce. Najnowsze publikacje, uwzględniające odkrycia archeologiczne, potwierdzają obecność obrządku słowiańskiego na ziemiach polskich przed i po 966 roku. Z uwagi na fakt, że dotychczasowa literatura poświęcona obrządkowi słowiańskiemu podniosła szczegółowo wiele kontrowersyjnych aspektów, w swoich rozważaniach nie będę więc do nich powracał, a skoncentruję się na omówieniu dziejów misji metodiańskiej w państwie polskim. Świadomie więc pomijam prezentację toczącej się od ponad stu lat dyskusji historyków na temat funkcjonowania obrządku słowiańskiego na ziemiach polskich. Zdaję sobie sprawę, że przedstawiona rekonstrukcja dziejów liturgii metodiańskiej ma w wielu wypadkach charakter hipotetyczny, ale brak źródeł nie daje możliwości pełnego wyjaśnienia tej problematyki. Trzeba zaznaczyć, że argumenty podniesione przeciwko obecności obrządku słowiańskiego są oparte na takiej samej bazie źródłowej, jaką posługują się zwolennicy poglądu, że proces ewangelizacji Małopolski i Śląska został zapoczątkowany jeszcze za życia Metodego. Pomimo szeregu wątpliwości co do interpretacji źródeł i faktów historycznych jestem przekonany, że liturgia słowiańska funkcjonowała na ziemiach polskich przed oficjalnym aktem chrystianizacji państwa.
EN
This year is celebrated by the church and state the 1050 anniversary of the baptism of Polish. Especially loudly celebrating the anniversary of the Roman Catholic Church. However, the question arises whether the beginning of the Christianization in the Latin rite is the same as at the beginning of the evangelization of Polish lands? Christianity on the Polish territory is in fact a much richer tradition than only one of its current - Latin. The proximity of the Polish lands and the Great Moravia and later with the Chris¬tianised Rus and Bohemia state must have had great impact on the shape of their faith. The Christianisation of the Polish lands commenced during the reign of the Moravi¬an prince Svatopluk. In Polish historiography this issue was broadly presented. The entire literature focusing on this subject matter can be divided into the adherents and opponents of the notion regarding the presence of Methodian mission in Poland. The newest publications, taking into account the archaeological discoveries acknowledge the presence of the Slavonic rite in the Polish lands before and after 966. Owing to the fact that the literature up to date devoted to the Slavonic rite scrupulously raised numerous controversial aspects, in my dissertations I shall not come back to them but rather focus on discussing the history of the Methodian mission in Poland. Knowing¬ly, I shall neglect the presentation of the over a century-old discussion of historians regarding the functioning of the Slavonic rite in Poland. I am aware of the fact that the presented reconstruction of the history of Methodian liturgy is purely hypothetical in numerous instances; however, the lack of sources does not allow for a thorough clar¬ification of the problem matter. It should be noted that the arguments raised against the presence of the Slavonic rite are based on the same source base as the one used by the adherents of the notion that the evangelisation process of Lesser Poland and Silesia was started when Methodius was still alive. Despite numerous doubts as far as the interpretation of sources and historical facts I am convinced that the Slavic lit¬urgy functioned at the Polish lands before the official Christianisation of the country.
13
Content available Kościół prawosławny w dziejach Rzyczypospolitej
100%
PL
Historia chrześcijaństwa na ziemiach Rzeczypospolitej ukazuje nam, że na jej terenie doszło do spotkania dwóch wielkich tradycji religijno-kulturowych: wschodniej (bizantyjsko-ruskiej) i zachodniej (łacińskiej). Prawosławie było stałym elementem struktury wyznaniowej kraju, w niektórych jego regionach religią dominującą. W historii wielu narodów dawnej Rzeczypospolitej prawosławie stanowiło ich podstawową religię, fundamentalny element ich świadomości, kształtujący rodzimą kulturę i tożsamość. Prawosławie określiło krąg cywilizacyjno-kulturowy Białorusinów i Ukraińców. Późniejsze oddziaływanie na te narody innych wyznań i Kościołów miało drugorzędne znaczenie. Uniwersalistyczny aspekt chrześcijaństwa, tak istotny w średniowieczu, w dziejach Rzeczypospolitej doprowadził do wypracowania specyficznej tradycji kulturowo-religijnej, zwłaszcza na ziemiach Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Ta wielowyznaniowa tradycja, gdzie prawosławie było naturalnym jej elementem, stanowiła specyfikę Rzeczypospolitej.
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.