Search

Wczesne „Odpowiedzi” Papieskiej Komisji Biblijnej miały rangę dokumentów doktrynalnych, a ich celem było wyznaczenie granic katolickiej ortodoksji w studiach Pisma Świętego. Dekrety te nigdy nie utraciły swojego znaczenia formalnego, choć zostały niemal całkowicie zapomniane i unieważnione przez teologów. W 1955 roku ukazał się anonimowy artykuł, którego celem było ograniczenie autorytetu „Odpowiedzi” i uznanie ich za przestarzałe. Jednak za artykułem tym nie stał żaden formalny autorytet Kościoła. Obecnie wypada spojrzeć na te dokumenty jako na świadectwo nieustannie aktualnego Magisterium Kościoła zgodnie z zasadą „hermeneutyki ciągłości”.

Copyright of Studia Koszalinsko-Kolobrzeskie is the property of Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecinskiego / University of Szczecin Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article presents the role played by philosophy and biblical exegesis in controversy with Apollinarius of Laodicea. First of all it tries to present the gene­ral context of the dispute, then to develop Basil’s theological thinking and apply it to the problematic Christological field, where Apollinarius directed his challenge. Faced with the anthropological-soteriological problem relating to the defence of the integrity of Christ’s human nature, Basil draws on Stoic and Neoplatonic phi­losophical tradition. Then, this paper focuses attention on Basil’s interpretation of some biblical passages in the confutation of Apollinaris’ doctrine. Basil had star­ted the controversy by describing Apollinarius as supporter of fabulous theories, which are not based on the Scriptures, and of Judaizing ideas which concerned the eschatological renewal. Generally, the Cappadocian prefers to distance himself from Apollinaris and does not intervene in complete manner on the theological de­bate. The bishop – monk tries to unmask the errors of the opponents’ theories star­ting with the correct interpretation of the scriptural passages used by Apollinarius. In some points of his works, the Cappadocian insists that the Savior had a soul capable of feeling and suffering. According to the bishop of Caesarea some of anthropological and philosophical principles used by Apollinaris, along with the distorted reading of biblical texts, revealed the ambiguities and the inconsistencies of his arguments.