Repozitórium index

The sermons written for the first Sunday after the epiphany, according to the medieval order of the pericopes, are based on the story of 12-year-old Jesus teaching in the temple (Luke 2:41-52). Therefore, the duties of parents and children are usually presented in these sermons. A following of this pericopal tradition can be found among 16th-century Hungarian publications in the books of the pastors Péter Bornemisza, István Beythe and György Kulcsár, and the priest Miklós Telegdi. Through their sermons, I examine how these authors wrote about the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ child as well as what methods they offered for improving the behaviour and morals of said ‘bad’ child.

I invite the reader to take a journey into the theological world of two little treatises written by one of the most interesting ecclesiastical figures of the fifth century coming from the Antiochene tradition: Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus.

Az Erdélyi Református Egyház 16–17. századi szerkezete sok hasonlóságot mutatott a nyugat-európai református egyházi modellel, amelynek intézményei – a presbitérium kivételével – már a 16. század közepén létrejöttek Erdélyben. A presbitériumok felállításának elmaradását főként az magyarázza, hogy az erdélyi az erdélyi társadalom nem a polgári demokráciára épült, egy meglehetősen feudalista rendszerre, következésképpen a társadalom alsó rétegei nem befolyásolhatták sem a helyi közösségek, sem pedig az ország irányítását. Ezért a presbitériumot mint nyugati demokratikus egyházi intézményt nem lehetett beépíteni egyházi kormányzatba. Így az egyházi kormányzat legalacsonyabb szintje a classis vagy dékánság (synodus specificis) zsinata volt, amelyet a dékán (nyugaton: felügyelő) vezetett.

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.