Repository index

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.

A tisztátalanság rabbinikus szabályozása igen összetett rendszer, ahhoz azon­ban, hogy az alább olvasható három fejezetet világosabban megérthessük, ha csak nagy vonalakban is, de el kell igazodnunk benne. A Tóra tisztaságról és tisztátalanságról szóló rendelkezései nem egészségügyi szabályozások, hanem kultikus előírások. Ha nem így volna, nehéz lenne értelmezni, hogy az olyanok esetében, amelyek poklosság, kiütések, menstruáció következményei, miért csak elmúlásuk után kell alkalmazni az eljárást, az olajjal vagy vérrel történő meghintést.

Deși Catehismul a ajuns până la noi din trecut, prin încărcătura sa ideatică, el este extrem de actual, prezența sa este extrem de necesară în dezbaterile metafizice și ideologice din contemporaneitate. Problema „apartenenței” credinciosului, așa cum ne-o prezintă Catehismul, nu este una pur teologică, valabilă exclusiv întrun anumit cadru religios și confesional de discuție, ci ea vizează, cu maximă gravitate, omul și condiția sa aici și acum, propunându-și să ne pună în gardă cu privire la pericolele grave care pândesc existența umană. Cea mai mare amenințare pentru om este omul însuși, cu modul său defectuos de gândire.

Rotterdami Erasmus ezt írta 1519-ben, Jacob Hoogstraetenhez címzett levelében: „Ha keresztényi dolog gyűlölni a zsidókat, akkor bőven keresztények vagyunk itt mindnyájan.” Ez a mondat olyan, mintha a reformáció századának görbe tükre lenne, amely az (ön)irónia sajátos torzításával mutatja meg, hogyan viszonyult a 16. század értelmiségének javarésze – némi anakronizmussal fogalmazva – a zsidókérdéshez. Erasmus szerint a zsidógyűlölet egyértelműen része a kereszténységnek, noha a humanista mester úgy gondolta – és az irónia jobbára ebben van –, hogy a hiteles kereszténység nem merülhet ki a zsidók gyűlöletében.

The purpose of this study is twofold. First, it sets the historical context in which Aphrahat wrote his Demonstrations and deals with the interesting relationship between his writings, ‘against the Jews’ and the Sassanian persecution of Christians. It also treats his refutation of the Jewish charges. Secondly, it addresses his ‘unique’ view of christology which is not in line with the Nicene decision concerning one aspect yet at the same time it is congruent with it. The paper also tries to point out that his view on christology was ‘unique’ but not exceptional in the Early Church.