Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Unicka eparchia przemyska. Uwagi w związku z książką Wioletty Zieleckiej-Mikołajczyk, Gdzie Wschód spotkał się z Zachodem. Dzieje i organizacja unickiej diecezji przemysko-samborskiej w latach 1596–1772, Toruń 2021

100%

Krochmal J.

|

tom 29

|

nr 29

263-305

PL

Artykuł recenzyjny książki Wioletty Zieleckiej-Mikołajczyk, Gdzie Wschód spotkał się z Zachodem. Dzieje i organizacja unickiej diecezji przemysko-samborskiej w latach 1596–1772, Toruń 2021

2

Męczennicy z Pratulina

84%

Szczepaniak J.

|

tom 15

EN

The article presents the life and death of 13 martirs of Pratulin.

PL

Artykuł omawia męczęńską śmierć trzynastu unitów zamordowanych w Pratulinie, błogosławionych Kościoła katolickiego.

3

Ikonostas z XVII wieku w cerkwi św. Jana Teologa w Nowoberezowie – odkrycie zespołu Katalogu Zabytków Sztuki w Polsce

84%

Jamski P. , Michalczyk Z. , Nowicki J.

|

2023

|

tom 85

|

nr 3

109-146

EN

The article discusses the large sections of a 17th-century iconostasis hitherto unknown to scholars and the conservation services, which have been discovered in the attic of the filial Orthodox church of St John the Theologian in Nowoberezowo (Hajnówka district). It is the earliest extant iconostasis in the Podlachia region and most probably one of the oldest in the lands of the former Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania. Its discovery was made during inventorying procedures carried out by the Catalogue of the Monuments of Art in Poland. An analysis of the records of church visitations from the years 1727, 1759 and 1784 has made it possible to trace the transformations in the structure of the iconostasis in the course of the 18th century and to propose its conjectural reconstructions in the condition it had in the early 18th century and after 1771.

PL

Artykuł omawia odnalezione na strychu cerkwi filialnej św. Jana Teologa w Nowoberezowie (pow. hajnowski) nieznane nauce i służbom konserwatorskim duże fragmenty pochodzącego z ok. 2.–3. ćwierci XVII w. ikonostasu – najstarszego zachowanego na Podlasiu, zapewne jednego z najstarszych na ziemiach dawnej Rzeczypospolitej. Odkrycia dokonano podczas prac inwentaryzacyjnych prowadzonych przez zespół Katalogu Zabytków Sztuki w Polsce. Analiza treści aktów wizytacji świątyni z lat 1727, 1759 i 1784 pozwoliła na prześledzenie przekształceń obiektu w XVIII w. i opracowanie domniemanych rekonstrukcji stanu z początku XVIII w. i po 1771 r.

4

Duchowieństwo unickie eparchii przemysko-samborskiej w latach 1596–1609

84%

Krochmal J.

|

nr 20

135-167

EN

Orthodox bishop of Przemysl and Sambor Michał Kopysteński (1591-1609) did not join the union of Brest in 1596. Therefore, the Przemyśl-Sambor Emparchy did not have Greek-Catholic bishop until 1609, when Atanazy Krupecki was nominated.The article presents the history of the first phase of the church union in Przemyśl-Sambor eparchy (1596-1609). This issue has been poorly explored in historiography. Many historians thought that before 1609, the Eparchy of Przemyśl-Sambor had no Greek-Catholic priests and Greek-Catholics. This view has been verified. Also the myth that the Greek-Catholic Church initially consisted only of bishops, and was deprived of ecclesiastical structures and followers was challenged. The Church Union of Brest was supposed to combine the two Churches - Catholic and Orthodox. As a result of non-acceptance of the Union by the two bishops and a large part of the Orthodox faithful, there were formed two parallel structures of the Eastern Church: Orthodox and Greek-Catholic. This complex legal and religious situation forced the Orthodox popes of the Przemyśl-Sambor Eparchy to face the choice between the Ortodox Church or acceptance of ecclesiastical union. The latter was equivalent with the conversion from the Orthodox to the Greek Catholic denomination. Following the adoption of the Union of Brest state authorities outlawed the Orthodox Church, and recognized as the only legitimate one the Greek-Catholic Church. Pope recognizing the authority of the Metropolitan of Kiev, which was of Greek-Catholic denomination, had to object to his hitherto Orthodox bishop. Moreover, the bishops and priests who did not accept the union of church, were excommunicated by metropolitan of Kiev. An important role in determining denomination of a particular parish had landowners of lands where churches were located. The landowner (the king, the nobles and the clergy) was called. "Ktitor", and had the right to choose a pope. After 1596, decisions on filling the church by the Orthodox and Greek-Catholic priests were taken in accordance with the principle of cuius regio, eius religio. Union developed gradually throughout the Przemyśl-Sambor Eparchy thanks to the support of ktitors. This graduall evolutionary development of the union was followed by natural generational changes that took place in the individual parishes. No information was found on Orthodox priests forcibly removed and replaced by the Greek-Catholics. From 1598 to 1609 Greek-Catholic popes are confirmed in seven decanates of the eparchy, mostly in the towns and villages belonging to the king and Stanisław Stadnicki from Żmigród. Identified were 22 known by name Greek-Catholic priests, plus four popes who were probably of Greek-Catholic denomination. Recognized popes accounted for only about 2% of all priests (both Greek-Catholics and Orthodox) from the eparchy. However, for all Greek-Catholic churches operating at that time this is a significant percentage of the Greek-Catholics parishes. These figures have not been known in historiography yet. During this period, the vast majority of churches and clergy of the Przemyśl-Sambor Eparchy remained Orthodox. Nevertheless, only 19 known by the name Orthodox priests and eight who were probably Orthodox were identified as a result of a query. The number of identified Greek-Catholic and Orthodox priests are comparable, although on the Orhodox should be much more information in the sources. There was also found information about 12 known by name popes who lived by 1596 but there was no hints about their attitude to the union and 18 popes from the period after 1596, whose denomination can not be determined. Orthodox churches served by popes known by name were of a minor percentage of the total number of operating the Orthodox and Greek-Catholic churches. So far, historians have failed to determine the number of churches that existed in that period in the Przemyśl-Sambor eparchy and all data are based on estimations. Therefore, creation of an inventory of the Orthodox and Greek-Catholic churches is an important research proposal. Another objective should be to determine the number of priests serving in those churches. The article shows religious specificity of Przemyśl-Sambor Eparchy over 13 years (1596-1609). Most of the processes had not been completed in that period, so they should be considered in the long term. The final adoption of the church union between 1691 and 1693 ended disputes among Orthodox and Greek-Catholics in the Eparchy of Przemyśl-Sambor.

5

Idea unii kościelnej czy jedności Kościoła? O polisemantyczności dyskursu w polsko-ruskiej polemice religijnej w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej (2 poł. XVI-XVII w.)

84%

Stradomski J.

|

2021

|

tom XVII

9-31

EN

Controversies regarding the proclamation and the consequences of the Union of Brest (1596) were reflected in extensive historical, polemical and religious literature that was created in the Commonwealth of Both Nations over several decades (2nd half of the 16th-17th century). There was a heated dispute between the representatives of the Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The article highlights the use of similar arguments by each of the parties to this religious-political conflict which, however, were given different meanings depending on various ecclesiological, historical and cultural perspectives of the authors of a statement. Thus, in practice, religious polemics became a discussion aimed at strengthening the position of representatives of one’s own party, instead gaining supporters among opponents.

PL

Kontrowersje dotyczące proklamacji i skutków unii brzeskiej (1596) znalazły odbicie w bogatej literaturze historycznej, polemicznej i religijnej, jaka powstała na terenie Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów na przestrzeni kilkunastu dziesięcioleci (2. poł. XVI-XVII w.). Gorący spór toczył się pomiędzy przedstawicielami Kościoła rzymskokatolickiego, greckokatolickiego oraz prawosławnego. W artykule zwrócono uwagę na posługiwanie się przez każdą ze stron tego religijno-politycznego konfliktu podobnymi argumentami, którym jednakże podstawiano różne znaczenia w zależności od odmiennych perspektyw eklezjologicznych i historyczno-kulturowych autorów wypowiedzi. W ten sposób polemika religijna stała się w praktyce dyskusją skierowaną w stronę utrwalania stanowiska przedstawicieli własnego obozu, a nie pozyskiwania zwolenników ze strony przeciwnej.

6

Ławryn Drewiński – najważniejszy prawosławny protagonista szlachecki w czasach Zygmunta III

67%

Kempa T.

|

nr 56

89-150

EN

The article concerns one of the most important Orthodox noble leaders in the times of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth – Ławryn Drewiński. He was one of the most outstanding parliamentarians of the Old Polish era. He participated in 15 parliamentary assemblies. He became famous for his expressive speeches in the parliamentary forum (especially in 1620 and 1621) in defense of the Orthodox Church, which after the conclusion of the Union of Brest (1596) had to compete with the Uniate Church for the preservation of previously held freedoms and privileges. Drewiński was a deputy from the Volyn voivodeship, whose sejmik, during the reign of Sigismund III Vasa, most often spoke about religious matters, consistently advocating for religious tolerance. He played an outstanding role during the interregnum of 1632, when the Orthodox managed (largely thanks to the determination of the king-elect Władysław IV Vasa) to regain some of the bishoprics, and then also a number of churches, previously taken over by the Uniates. Despite his consistent stance of fidelity to Orthodoxy, in 1629 he actively supported the attempt to build a union between the Orthodox Church and Uniates in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Drewiński was also one of the most active activists of the Orthodox brotherhoods in the times of Sigismund III, seeing them as an opportunity for the spiritual and intellectual revival of Orthodoxy in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Despite the emphasized Ruthenian origin, Drewiński was also to some extent polonized. In public activities, he used the Polish language. Like his father Basil, he was a supporter of the Polish-Lithuanian Union, while at the same time being an opponent of involving Moscow in the fight for the restoration of the Orthodox Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (after the Union of Brest).

PL

Artykuł poświęcony jest postaci jednego z najważniejszych prawosławnych liderów szlacheckich w czasach Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów – Ławrynowi Drewińskiemu. Był on jednocześnie jednym z najwybitniejszych parlamentarzystów epoki staropolskiej. Uczestniczył w 15 sejmach. Zasłynął z wyrazistych mów wygłaszanych na forum parlamentarnym (zwłaszcza w latach 1620 i 1621) w obronie prawosławia, które po zawarciu unii brzeskiej (1596) musiało rywalizować o zachowanie wcześniej posiadanych wolności i przywilejów z Cerkwią unicką. Drewiński był posłem z województwa wołyńskiego, którego sejmik w okresie panowania Zygmunta III Wazy najczęściej zabierał głos w sprawach wyznaniowych, konsekwentnie opowiadając się za zachowaniem tolerancji religijnej. Odegrał wybitną rolę w okresie bezkrólewia 1632 r., gdy prawosławnym udało się (w znacznej mierze dzięki determinacji króla-elekta Władysława IV Wazy) doprowadzić do odzyskania części władyctw, a potem także szeregu cerkwi, wcześniej przejętych przez unitów. Mimo zajmowanej konsekwentnej postawy wierności wobec prawosławia, w 1629 r. włączył się aktywnie w próbę budowania unii pomiędzy prawosławnymi i unitami. Drewiński należał też do najbardziej czynnych działaczy bractw prawosławnych w czasach Zygmunta III, widząc w nich szansę na duchowe i intelektualne odrodzenie prawosławia w Rzeczypospolitej. Mimo podkreślanego ruskiego pochodzenia Drewiński uległ też w pewnej mierze polonizacji. W działalności publicznej posługiwał się językiem polskim. Tak jak ojciec Bazyli, był zwolennikiem unii polsko-litewskiej, jednocześnie będąc przeciwnikiem wciągania Moskwy do walki o przywrócenie praw prawosławnym w Rzeczypospolitej.

7

Kwestia unicka w badaniach wychowanków wybranych warszawskich uczelni ostatniego stulecia. Przyczynek do historii historiografii

67%

Jasiński M. S.

|

tom T. 68, nr 4

65--87

EN

The article aims to review academic literature devoted to the Union of Brest and its followers, written between 1915 and 2022 by students and scholars associated with Warsaw. It includes major publications by alumni of universities and other higher education institutions in the capital of Poland, but also minor sketches (mostly unpublished) authored by Warsaw-based Greek Catholics. It explores the resurgence of scholarly interest in the Uniate question in the interwar period, its stagnation during the Polish People’s Republic, and its rekindling in the Third Polish Republic. It dwells on the realization that the authors’ viewpoint and the science policy of their employers - be it the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church or the Communist Party - was the determining factor in the works’ ideological skew. Another trend observed in the late 20th c. was that the religious affiliation of researchers and writers had lost its former significance mainly due to increasing privatization of religion.

8

Edycja i opracowanie naukowe pism polemicznych Kasjana Sakowicza i Piotra Mohyły. Problem badawczy

67%

Kobylińska Z. , Marek M. M.

|

nr 1

151-163

PL

Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie problemu badań na opracowa-niem krytycznym i wydaniem wraz z komentarzem dwóch pism polemicz-nych czołowych reprezentantów katolicko-prawosławnej polemiki wyzna-niowej na ziemiach ruskich I Rzeczypospolitej. Będą to dzieła: Kasjana Sa-kowicza Perspektywa (1642) oraz Piotra Mohyły Lithos (1644). Proponowa-ne badania mogą mieć istotne znaczenie w rozwoju wiedzy na temat staro-polskiej i staroruskiej kultury literackiej tworzonej zarówno przez wyznaw-ców Kościoła katolickiego, jak i przez pisarzy wywodzących się z kręgu chrześcijaństwa wschodniego – prawosławnego w I połowie w XVII wieku.

EN

The purpose of this article is to present the research problem related with conducting a critical analysis of two polemical writings authored by the leading representatives of the Catholic-Orthodox religious polemics who lived on the Ruthenian lands of the First Republic of Poland. The works will include: Perspektywa (1642) by Kasjan Sakowicz and Lithos (1644) by Piotr Mohyła. The project, which is also aimed at later publication of the above texts provided with a commentary, will play a significant role in the devel-opment of knowledge about literary culture created both by the followers of the Catholic Church and by writers originating from the sphere of Eastern Christianity in the first half of the seventeenth century.