Repository index

A dolgozatom címe: „A neoprotestáns istentisztelet”. Azt hiszem, ez egyetemi éveim legérdekesebb témája. A mai erdélyi vallási viszonyok között a történelmi egyházainkat leginkább fenyegető veszélyt a neoprotestáns egyházak elszívó ereje jelenti. Mondhatjuk, hogy a mi gyengeségünk, hogy a hívek elhagyták az eredeti gyülekezeteiket, és ez az oka annak, hogy meg kell vizsgálnunk a baptista és adventista istentiszteleteket. Dolgozatom két fő részből áll. Az első részben a baptista istentiszteletről olvashatunk. Láthatjuk, hogy a baptista istentisztelet a legkisebb részekből hogyan válik valódi istentiszteletté. A legapróbb részletekből indultam ki, és az egyes fő részek végén az olvasót elvezetem neoprotestáns istentisztelet a posztmodern kontextusához. Dolgozatom második fő részében az adventista istentiszteletről és homiletikáról írtam. Az adventista istentisztelet jól felépített és teológiailag megalapozott. Az egész adventista istentisztelet az Istennek való hálaadás köré épül.

If we are commanded to remember the Sabbath in the Ten Commandments, why do we go to worship on Sunday? In my paper, I am seeking possible answers to this question. At the beginning of my research, I outline the position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In the following sections, I aim to present a biblical alternative to this position. I argue that the Sabbath institution was not known to the Jewish people before their wilderness wanderings. But here it becomes the sign of the Mosaic covenant. Since the covenant was made with the Jews, the Lord does not require foreign nations to observe the Sabbath. But God promises to make a new covenant that will not only apply to the Jews. This has been realised in Jesus Christ. He is the one to whom the Sabbath points. In light of this, we cannot cling to the shadow when the light of the world has come among us.

In his 1583 ritual entitled Agendarius, which was innovative in many respects in comparison to its Hungarian predecessors, Bishop Miklós Telegdi of Pécs, the administrator of the diocese of Esztergom, added sample-like sermons to the rituals of the administration of the sacraments accompanying the great turning points of life (viz. baptism, confirmation, wedding etc.). He was presumably guided chiefly by pastoral considerations. For the second edition of 1596 (published after Telegdi’s death), the editors added a second funeral sermon, clearly intended for a more educated, urban audience – judging from the scholarly Latin quotations and the general tone. A comparison of the structure and content of the two speeches provides useful conclusions as to what the ecclesiastical authorities of the time considered advisable to preach at the time of death to mourners lacking basic schooling and what to the more learned audience.

My study approaches Unitarian sermon literature from the perspective of church discipline. There are several reasons for this: 1) Historical records of reception are scarce because in the early modern age, only a handful of Unitarian sermons could be published. 2) it was uncommon among Unitarian preachers to use theoretical works (ars concionandi/praedicandi) until the end of the 17th century, they learned instead by observing the written and oral practices of their colleagues. 3) Because of the medium of the manuscript, most early modern Unitarian sermons did not survive beyond the 17th–18th century. Therefore, in our exploration of the rules and ideals of sermon literature as well as the attitudes of followers, preachers, and schoolmasters to the genre, we are forced to rely on inferences based on the norms, especially the offences recorded in (ecclesiastical) court protocols.