Search

Настоящая статья посвящена раскрытию учения о Пресвятой Богородице в трудах православных богословов и определению их позиции в отношении католического догмата о непорочном зачатии Девы Марии. В дореволюционный период в православном богословии активно издавалась полемическая литература, направленная на критику католической мариологии. Православные догматисты выявляли основные аспекты католического учения о Богородице, противоречащие доктрине Православной Церкви. Они подчеркивали преемственность рождения Пресвятой Богородицы от предыдущих поколений святых праотцов Иоакима и Анны. Автор статьи в хронологическом порядке исследует ряд источников по вопросу православно-догматического учения о Матери Божией, обращает внимание на отраженную в них связь учения о Богоматери с христологией. Главный аргумент, опровергающий католический догмат о непорочном зачатии Девы Марии, состоит в том, что Богоматерь не могла быть освобождена от первородного греха раньше искупительного подвига Богочеловека Иисуса Христа. На основе анализа источников дореволюционного периода показана существенная разница между Восточной и Западной Церквами в учении о Пресвятой Деве Марии.This article is devoted to an evaluation of the doctrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the writings of Orthodox theologians and the determination of their position regarding the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. During the pre-revolutionary period, polemic literature in Orthodox theology was actively published, aimed at criticizing Roman Catholic mariology. Orthodox formulations identified the main aspects of the Roman Catholic teaching about the Virgin that are contrary to the doctrines of the Orthodox Church. They emphasized the continuity of the birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary from previous generations of the holy forefathers Joachim and Anna. The author of the article chronologically examines a number of sources on the issue of the Orthodox dogmatic teaching about the Mother of God and draws attention to the connection of the teaching about the Mother of God with Christology. The main argument refuting the Roman Catholic dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary is that the Mother of God could not be freed from original sin before the atoning sacrifice of the God-man Jesus Christ. Based on an analysis of the sources of the pre-revolutionary period, a significant difference between the Eastern and Western Churches in the doctrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary is shown.

To many of his critics, Schleiermacher’s Christology signals an explicit weakness in his theological system, as his emphasis on religious feeling and subjectivity seems to undermine any claims of the distinctive revelatory or supernatural character of Jesus Christ. This essay by contrast underscores both the originality Schleiermacher’s understanding of Christ in history and its centrality to his overall thought by attending to the subtle theme of the “supernatural-becoming-natural” in his Glaubenslehre and Christliche Sittenlehre . Here the appearance of Christ yields a transformative influence that operates within natural and historical processes, inaugurating the reign of God that does not abolish the natural world but draws creation to its completed perfection.

The category of communio belongs to the most important concepts of systematic theology. It refers to the internal life of the Trinitarian God, the relationship between God and man, the mystery of the person of Jesus Christ, the Church and all Christian realities. Today the revelation of God is also perceived as the reality of communication and communion. Communio theology was initially and most widely developed during the post-conciliar times as communio ecclesiology, bearing also the ecumenical importance, but this development was marked also by the broader dogmatic theology, founding its growth so far in Trinitology, sacramentology, Christology, anthropology, theology of creation. As a specific “gold mine” communio includes huge potential that is waiting for exploration primarily in systematic theology, but not only, as it also reaches pastoral theology.

Amidst uncertainty as to the place of doctrinal theology in the academy and its role in civil public discourse, the basic question of the nature and significance of dogmatics has acquired new urgency. This article discusses how Bonhoeffer’s interpretation and use of dogmatics can inspire contemporary doctrinal theology. Four elements of Bonhoeffer’s position seem particularly promising for continuing reflection upon the hermeneutics and function of Christian doctrine: his emphasis on the contextual character of doctrine, his stress upon the responsibility of doctrine in and for the church, his criticism of systematic thinking, and his appeal to christology as a resource for widening the horizon of doctrine.

Though the extra Calvinisticum has played an historically important role for Christology, the doctrine has been criticized not only by Lutherans and modern Christologies ‘from below’ but by some Reformed thinkers as well. This article examines the place of the extra in dogmatic thinking about the incarnation: specifically, Karl Barth's critical response to his own tradition. After examining the differences between Lutheran and Reformed construals of the relationship of the Logos asarkos to the Logos ensarkos I take up Barth's views on the extra, which over the course of his career moved from enthusiastic affirmation to a sharp critique. Finally, I suggest that Barth's mature Christology retains the best of both Protestant positions by correcting a critical inconsistency in Reformed thought. He does not reject the doctrine of the Logos asarkos, but he does suggest a way in which this is related to the life of the Logos ensarkos that marginalizes the former. Barth is right not to discard the extra, but also that it has been misused in how it is deployed in dogmatic theology.

This article examines Karl Barth's conception of the interpersonal relation of male and female and demonstrates that, although Barth superimposes the concept of order within the Trinity onto the specific interpersonal relation of male and female, there is provision within his anthropology concerning interpersonal relations in general (i.e. interpersonal relations which are irrespective of sexual distinctions) to correct this error. I focus on Barth's exegesis of the creation narratives in Church Dogmatics III/1 and his discussion of the interpersonal relation of male and female in Church Dogmatics III/4. Then, because of Barth's principle of analogia relationis, I will briefly examine his doctrine of the Trinity in Church Dogmatics I/1. Whereas the role of christology in Barth's anthropology is frequently highlighted, there is often little regard for the trinitarian grounding of Barth's anthropology, especially with regard to the interpersonal relation of male and female. Finally, I will look at Barth's discussion of interpersonal relations in general in Church Dogmatics III/2 where he delineates a principle of the ‘priority of the other’, which serves to redeem his anthropological statements on the humanity of male and female. I contend that the recognition of the imago Dei in the interpersonal relation of male and female, sustained by the priority of the other, is a better way to achieve the personhood of both sexes than Barth's proposed static relational order.

From her great religious experience and reflection, Teresa de Jesús behaves like a true theologian. This article highlights the process in wich she elaborates the systematization of her mystical experience around the person of Christ. Teresa supported her argumentation with theological methodology (in her own way). The article includes also the opinion of enlightened theologians. The justification of the mystical science depends on the theological presuppositions. Therefore, her conclusions are the result of her unique experience and her deep reflections on Christian faith and life. Teresa de Jesús desde su gran experiencia religiosa y reflexión, sobre todo en el campo de la cristología, se comporta como una auténtica teóloga. El estudio pone de relieve el proceso en que ella elabora la sistematización de su experiencia mística en torno a la persona de Cristo. Se podrá observar que apoya su argumentación con metodología teológica (a su modo). El artículo recoge también buen número de opiniones de esclarecidos teólogos. De modo que es obvio afirmar que en la justificación de la ciencia mística que ella efectúa, lo realiza desde estos presupuestos. Por tanto, sus conclusiones no son sólo derivaciones de su experiencia singular, sino también fruto de sus hondas reflexiones sobre la fe y la vivencia del cristianismo.

This article follows recent scholarship in identifying a robustly pro-Nicene trinitarianism in Augustine's De Trinitate. In particular, a “Johannine logic” is identified and traced as an exegetical basis for his dogmatic articulation of the doctrine of God. This logic unfolds in the Pater–Filius relationship of the Son's begetting, incarnation, and christological forms as “servant” and “God.” Finally, the enlightening love of the Holy Spirit completes Augustine's Trinity.

Reclamant l’inscription explicite dans le credo de la divinite de l’Esprit en depit de son caractere non scripturaire, Gregoire de Nazianze (330-390) se heurta au reproche d’« innovation », categorie dont la charge de sens heresiologique genait la resolution des problemes theologiques divisant les chretiens. Cet article examine les occurrences de la notion chez Gregoire et montre comment, perpetuant l’esprit de Nicee, dont le « consubstantiel » avait constitue « l’acte de naissance » d’une dogmatique emancipee de la Lettre, il justifie au contraire l’innovation dogmatique. Il entend la tradition baptismale recue du Christ comme une theologie trinitaire implicite que l’Eglise a mission de defendre en l’explicitant et la proclamant par des formulations dogmatiques claires. Il legitime par ailleurs ces innovations dogmatiques en les inscrivant dans l’economie divine de la Revelation, plus precisement dans son troisieme temps historial, celui de l’Esprit, inspirateur d’une exegese spirituelle qui accomplit en...

Le sens et la portee de l'ecclesiologie doivent se comprendre dans le cadre de la theologie dogmatique. L'Eglise est a la fois sujet et objet de la theologie. D'une part, elle est le lieu ou la theologie se fait en deployant la foi apostolique ; de l'autre, l'Eglise est objet de la reflexion theologique lorsque les chretiens tentent de definir sa nature et sa place dans le dessein de Dieu. L'exemple de la relation entre christologie, pneumatologie et ecclesiologie permet de montrer que le credo de l'Eglise contient une ecclesiologie implicite. Lorsque cette ecclesiologie devient explicite, la question de l'action de l'Esprit saint dans l'Eglise conduit la recherche theologique a comprendre la communaute chretienne comme etant a la fois Creatura Verbi et Creatura Spiritus sancti.

Karl Barth's interpreters often characterize him as a ‘christocentric’ theologian. This term, however, is subject to a variety of interpretations, ranging from the totalitarian and isolationist critiques of the ‘christomonist’ objection to the indeterminate and decentred approaches offered by various postmodern readings. The disparity between these two approaches suggests a level of ambiguity in the term that hinders its usefulness unless carefully qualified. Indeed, ‘centric’ terminology itself remains rather ambiguous until the substantive formal and material considerations that lie behind any given form of centricity are addressed. This article proposes to alleviate the ambiguity that has thus clouded the use of ‘christocentric’ as a description of Barth's theology by offering five formal and material qualifications; Barth's christocentricity must be understood in terms of (1) a veiling and unveiling of knowledge in Christ, (2) a methodological orientation, (3) a particular christology, (4) a trinitarian focus and (5) an affirmation of creaturely reality. Using these criteria, the article also argues that both the christomonistic and postmodern interpretations break down at certain points because they fail to appreciate fully these qualifications and thus the particular nature of Barth's christocentrism.

The Dogmatic Theology of the nineteenth-century divine William Shedd has received little attention in the literature. Yet it contains a number of theologically interesting arguments. This article sets forth what Shedd has to say on the doctrine of the theanthropic person of Christ. I show that his doctrine of the person of Christ represents one important Chalcedonian stream of Christology, which, in Shedd's estimation, is intimately connected to two overarching themes in his dogmatics, namely, traducianism and Augustinian realism. His commitment to these two doctrines in his theological anthropology has important and unexpected implications for his Christology. Although the conclusion is that Shedd's doctrine of the person of Christ suffers from several serious problems, it represents an important contribution to systematic theology, which has more than historical interest.

Does Karl Barth merit the hermeneutical discredit to which he has been subject especially in the French-speaking world ? This article attempts to bring to light one aspect of his theology which is very present in the fourth volume of his Kirchliche Dogmatik by identifying the elements of the «hermeneutics of historicity». Not only does Barth structure his Christology in terms of the historicity of the Mediator, but he also extends it by exploring the different dimensions of the historicity of revelation and thus gives to the Christological discourse both dramatic and narrative form., Karl Barth mérite-t-il le discrédit herméneutique dont il fait l'objet, spécialement dans l'aire francophone ? L'article entend mettre au jour un aspect de sa théologie, très présent dans le quatrième volume de la Kirchliche Dogmatik, en identifiant les coordonnées d'une «herméneutique de l'historicité». Non content de structurer sa christologie en fonction de l'historicité du Médiateur, Barth la déploie en explorant les différentes dimensions de l'historicité de la révélation, imprimant au discours christologique une configuration dramatique et narrative., Bourgine Benoît. La théologie de Karl Barth comprise comme une herméneutique de l'historicité. In: Revue théologique de Louvain, 34ᵉ année, fasc. 3, 2003. pp. 281-305.

Two professors of dogmatic theology who were colleagues at the Faculty of theology of the Institut catholique de Paris, have just published, quite independently of each other, an essay on Christology. If these works resemble each other in that they are concerned with the thought of Christ today and the modern separation between “Jesus” and the “Christ”, they differ on a number of points. (...)

Most contemporary scholarship on Francisco Suarez focuses on his contributions to metaphysics and law. Suarez only began publishing when he was in his early forties. His first published works reflected on theological topics drawn from courses he had been teaching, and they were written as commentaries on Thomas Aquinas's Summa theologiae , a common practice among theologians of Baroque scholasticism. A systematic exposition of the dogmatic theology of Suarez would require a book-length treatise. This chapter discusses four of Suarez contributions to dogmatic theology. First, there are Suarez's contributions to Mariology . Many Marian scholars today consider him to be "the founder of systematic Mariology". Suarez also makes a significant contribution to Christology in his treatise De Incarnatione . The third major contribution of Suarez is in his theology of grace . The fourth contribution to dogmatic theology can be found in Suarez's ecclesiology . Keywords: Christology ; dogmatic theology; Francisco Suarez; metaphysics; natural law

In order to overcome the dilemma between «the historical Jésus and the Christ of the faith», between the «historical identity» and the «dogmatic identity» of Jésus, the author suggests here the formulation of a «narrative identity» of Jésus. This third path towards an identification of Jésus («Whom do y ou say that I am ? ») is established on the basis of the phenomenology of narrative and the hermeneutics of identity through which philosophy, and hence dogmatic theology and reflexive Christology corne to agrée with the recent discoveries of narrative theology and literary exegesis. The first part of the article is devoted to the quest for this narrative identity ; the second part (which will be published in the next issue) is devoted to the invention of this narrative identity., Gesché Adolphe. Pour une identité narrative de Jésus (à suivre). In: Revue théologique de Louvain, 30ᵉ année, fasc. 2, 1999. pp. 153-179.

The problem of the historical Jesus and the task of dogmatic christology. Dissatisfied by most contemporary christologies based on an attempt to reconstitute the Jesus of history, the writer dismisses both those « from above » and « from below ». On the basis of a christology which he calls « paradoxical », he seeks the mutual relationship between research on the historical Jesus and the formulation of a confessiong christology. He is thus led to nothing less than a proposed writing of new gospels !, Déçu par la majorité des christologies qui aujourd'hui tentent de se fonder sur une reconstitution de ce que fut le Jésus de l'histoire , l'auteur renvoyé dos à dos les christologies d'« en bas » et d'« en haut ». Sur la base d'une christologie qu'il qualifie de « paradoxale », il tente de situer l'une par rapport à l'autre la recherche sur le Jésus de l'histoire et l'élaboration d'une christologie confessante. Cela l'amène à proposer rien moins que la rédaction de nouveaux évangiles !, Kraege Jean-Denis. La question du Jésus historique et la tâche d'une christologie dogmatique. In: Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses, 73e année n°3, Juillet-septembre 1993. pp. 281-298.

The research about Jesus has gone into a new phase since the 80 th of the last century. This paper includes both: the results and the discussions of Jesus-research and tries to draw conclusions for the systematic-theological Christology. That happens in three steps. A first part reflects on the debate on the historical Jesus and its reception in dogmatic Christology. A second part refers to basic aspects of the present Jesus-research. Finally, a third part with the title "Christology as religious hermeneutics" explains the meaning of the third quest for dogmatic Christology which shows that there is a wide but not unequivocal variety of receptions of Jesus of Nazareth as Christ. Christology has got the task to explain the interaction between fact and interpretation which is fundamental for every interpretation of history.