Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

English (EN)·Polski (PL)·Yкраїнський (UK)
Przejdź do strony domowej biblioteki Centralna Biblioteka Wojskowa Link otwiera się w nowym oknie Logo biblioteki Prolib Integro - strona głównaCentralna Biblioteka Wojskowa

Wyszukujesz frazę "Kościoł prawosławny" wg kryterium: Wszystkie pola

  Lista filtrów
Wyrównaj
    Wyświetlanie 1-6 z 6
    Tytuł:
    Cele edukacyjne i wychowawcze nauczania religii prawosławnej w szkołach w latach 1918–1932
    Educational and Upbringing Purposes of Teaching the Orthodox Religion in Schools in 1918–1932
    Autorzy:
    Borkowski, Andrzej
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2171239.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2020
    Wydawca:
    Akademia Supraska
    Tematy:
    katecheza
    nauka religii
    Kościół prawosławny
    Opis:
    The general goal of teaching the Orthodox religion in schools after Poland gained independence in 1918 was to consolidate religious truths and deepen moral principles among children, so that in their later life they could work on deepening the truths of faith and take an active part in the life of the Church. A catechist should be not only a lecturer, but above all an example of the principles of Christian morality, be able to teach students at least the elementary basics of contemporary threats, point out differences with other faiths, and at the same time become a lecturer, apologist and missionary. In the process of teaching and upbringing, attention was paid to knowledge and attitudes that influenced the observance of the principles of faith. When teaching the Orthodox religion, the teacher always remembered the three most important goals: mind education, emotional education, and moralpractical education. The above hierarchy of values made it possible to further deepen the children’s religious knowledge, faith and lively and conscious participation in the services. The formulated goals of teaching the Orthodox religion in schools until 1932 reflected the spirit of the times and changes taking place in the Orthodox Church and the State.
    Źródło:
    Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej; 2020, Dzieci w kulturze duchowej Prawosławia, 11; 89-104
    2082-9299
    Pojawia się w:
    Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Wysłannicy patriarchy konstantynopolitańskiego na soborach w Rzeczypospolitej w XVI wieku
    Representatives of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Orthodoxies Synods in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 16th Century
    Autorzy:
    Borkowski, Andrzej
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2171220.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2014
    Wydawca:
    Akademia Supraska
    Tematy:
    Kościół prawosławny
    egzarcha
    Rzeczpospolita
    patriarcha Konstantynopola
    Opis:
    The offer of the deputies of the patriarch of Constantinople in the orthodoxies synods in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is very important. The ecumenical patriarchs sent or appoint to the Kingdom of Poland in the 16th century yours messengers: Abrahamios, hieromonk Philipos, archbishop of Galata, bishop of Litea and Rendina Damascen, archimandrite Dionisios Rallis Palaiologos, archdeacon Nikiforos Parashis, patriarch’s translator Theodor, patriarch of Antioch Joachim V, archbishop of Domenik and Elasson Arsenios, metropolitan of Dyrrachium Paisios, bishop of Moglen Theofanes, bishop of Luck Cyril Terlecki, metropolitan of Kiev Michal, archbishop of Cyprus Laurentios, archimandrite Cyrillos Lucaris, prince Constantine Ostrogsky, bishop of Lvov Gedeon, archdeacon Cyprian, hieromonk Sofronios, hierodeacon Isaac, monk Ivan Vishensky. The patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah II appointed a new metropolitan, took care function of the local Synod. The metropolitan Elassonos Arsenios worked as teacher in Lvov and published Grammar of the Greek language. The Church Union was officially declared at the Synod of Brest (1596) and the Polish authorities resorted to violent means in order to apply it hit against the Orthodoxy was the pass of all the bishops of the Orthodox Church in Poland excluding both of them into the union. Protagonist in the faith against the union was the patriarch of Alexandria Meletios Pigas and of course locally through a bitter correspondence. Nikiforos Parashis and Cyrillos Lucaris achieved to organize the antyunion Synod of Brest (1596) which condemned the bishops in union. After the Synod of Brest (1596) in different ways the patriarch’s exarches together with the Orthodox brotherhoods took over the role in saving the Orthodoxy. Through their participations in the Polish fight the patriarch’s exarches couldn’t erase the image of the union, but without doubt created and supported the strength for fight against the union keeping unquenched the flame of the Orthodoxy especially in the metropolis of Kiev.
    Źródło:
    Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej; 2014, Synody Cerkwi Prawosławnej w I Rzeczypospolitej, 5; 103-120
    2082-9299
    Pojawia się w:
    Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Rola laikatu w procesie udzielania autokefalii
    The Role of the Laity in the Process of Autocephaly
    Autorzy:
    Borkowski, Andrzej
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2168705.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2018
    Wydawca:
    Akademia Supraska
    Tematy:
    laikat
    autokefalia
    Kościół prawosławny
    Sobór Ogólnoprawosławny
    patriarchat ekumeniczny
    Opis:
    The fundamental principle of the system of the Orthodox Church is the equality of the laity and the clergy who belong to the mystical body of Christ. The clergy and laity are invariably participating in the deaconia of the Church, in varying degrees and ministry, yet they are always equally among themselves brothers in the universal priesthood. According to this triple dignity, laymen participate in the following spheres of church life: ritual, teaching, administrative and legislative. One of the main conditions for autocephaly is the will of the laity. This fact should precede the process itself, by which we mean a clear declaration of the will of the laity, that is, the faithful of a local church striving to achieve autocephaly. In almost all resolutions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate from the 19th-20th about autocephaly of a particular church periphery there is clearly underlined the fact that the faithful have asked for it. There is no doubt that the term “believers” is understood to mean the same clergy and monks, as well as the laity. One-sided operation of one of the mentioned groups does not fulfill the above condition. In spite of this, the form of fulfillment of this condition can not be precisely defined, because it is strictly dependent on the political or other situation prevailing in a given place.
    Źródło:
    Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej; 2018, Rola laikatu w życiu Cerkwi, 9; 18-29
    2082-9299
    Pojawia się w:
    Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Proces sądowy protosyngla i egzarchy patriarszego arcydiakona Nicefora Paraschesa Kantakuzena
    Autorzy:
    Borkowski, Andrzej
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/2167227.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2011
    Wydawca:
    Akademia Supraska
    Tematy:
    Nicefor Parasches Kantakuzena
    Kościół prawosławny
    Polska
    Niceforos Parasches Cantacuzene
    Orthodox Church
    Polska
    Opis:
    Nikephoros was born around 1537 in Trikala in Thesalia. After the monastic tonsure in 1557, he went to study in the famous university of Padua. In 1572 he was nominated patriarch’s Exarch in Venice, though still remaining the administrator of patriarch Jeremiah. He arrived in Constantinople around 1580 at the time of return to the patriarchal throne of Jeremiah II Tranos. Jeremiah had an excellent knowledge of the level of the church life and of problems of the Slavs. Multilateral action against the efforts of Vatican to impose the new church calendar on the orthodox inhabitants of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was an excellent means to tighten the bonds with the distant province of the patriarchal throne. Jeremiah sent for the first time protosyncel Nikephoros, archimandrite Dionisios and their translator Theodore in order to obviate the problem and deliver patriarch’s letters addressed to the hierarchs as well as the orthodox faithful in the Commonwealth. In a decree of the Misonos synod in Constantinople of 1592 the patriarchs of the East expressed the necessity of sending to the Commonwealth the ecumenical patriarch’s exarch. Based on the common decision of the patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople, Meletios of Alexandria and the representatives of Antiochia and Jerusalem the protosyncel Nikephoros was appointed for this post. He was assigned the first in the Church hierarchy, the eldest among the teachers and the protosyncel of the ecumenical throne with all the rights to intervene in the affaires of the diocese belonging to the 51patriarchate of Constantinople. He was also given the right to supervise, summon church trials and counsel in the matters of faith as well as in other church affaires. In 1595 Nikephoros set off for the Commonwealth, but was arrested and imprisoned while crossing the border. He managed to escape after 6 months. Then he strived to fortify and defend the faith, to propagate education. Moreover he was a lecturer at the Ostrog Academy, he dealt with the apostasy among the hierarchy. His activity made him many enemies, therefore Nikephoros was falsely accused of spying for the Turkish/Osman Empire, entering the Commonwealth against the king’s ban, usurping the role of the representative of the patriarch of Constantinople. During the law suit he was also accused of participating in the anti-union synod in Brest. Several prosecutors withdrew their accusations, even the judges were not sure that Nikephoros was guilty, therefore king Sigismund II Vasa could not give the court’s ruling and delayed it till more satisfying evidence would be gathered. In the meantime Nikephoros was kept in the stronghold in Malbork. Though Nikephoros was never proven guilty and despite numerous interventions of patriarch of Constantinople, of patriarch Meletios of Alexandria and of prince Constantine Ostrogsky as well as of many others, the patriarch’s Exarch for Commonwealth died in prison of hunger. He died like a martyr for having fought for orthodoxy against the powerful of the Commonwealth wanting to introduce the Church union.
    Źródło:
    Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej; 2011, Kościół prawosławny na Bałkanach i w Polsce – wzajemne relacje oraz wspólna tradycja, 2; 35-54
    2082-9299
    Pojawia się w:
    Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Autocephaly in the Light of the Preparations to the Pan-Orthodox Council
    Autokefalia w świetle przygotowań do Wielkiego Soboru
    Autorzy:
    Borkowski, Andrzej
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/420368.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2016
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet w Białymstoku. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku
    Tematy:
    Orthodox Church
    autocephaly
    Pan-Orthodox Synod
    Kościół prawosławny
    autokefalia
    sobór pan-prawosławny
    Opis:
    Among the topics submitted, but finally not elaborated and discussed at the Pan-Orthodox Synod, is found the manner of granting autocephaly. Calling the Great Synod signifies a revival of the institution of conciliarity’s activity at the Pan-Orthodox level in a similar manner as at the Great Ecumenical Councils. Unfortunately, the issue of autocephaly was not approved at the Fifth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference. The topic of autocephaly and the means by which it is proclaimed did not receive the required unanimous voting (consensus) despite the in-depth discussion at the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission and the Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference meetings. The resolutions of the abovementioned meetings and lively discussion provoked by the topic, gave the question of autocephaly a new dimension and produced new elements and theories. The manner of granting autocephalous status in the Orthodox Church is an extremely important question today and is awaiting a solution by establishing commonly accepted canons which guarantee the preservation of Orthodox unity. The difficulties experienced in the discussion are caused a the lack of specific and clear canonical resolutions regarding the meaning of autocephaly, the conditions of granting it, who is the responsible organ for its granting or deprivation, and also concerning the internal relations of daughter Churches with their Mother Churches and their relations with the remaining Autocephalous Churches.
    Wśród przedłożonej tematyki, która nie została ostatecznie wypracowana i przedłożona na Soborze panprawosławnym znajduje się sposób ogłaszania autokefalii. Zwołanie Wielkiego Soboru oznaczało wznowienie działalności instytucji soborowości na szczeblu ogólnoprawosławnym, na wzór Soborów powszechnych. Niestety, podczas V Komisji przygotowawczej, na której poruszono temat autokefalii nie osiągnięto ostatecznej zgody. Temat sposobu ogłaszania autokefalii kościelnej, pomimo dogłębnej dyskusji w ramach Międzyprawosławnej Komisji Przygotowawczej i Ogólnoprawosławnej Konferencji Przedsoborowej, nie uzyskał wymaganej jednogłośnej zgody – konsensusu. Uchwały powyższych spotkań oraz wywołana w ich wyniku żywa dyskusja, dodały kwestii autokefalii nowy wymiar oraz wniosły nowe elementy i teorie. Sposób udzielania ustroju autokefalii w Kościele prawosławnym stanowi dziś niezwykle ważną kwestię, oczekującą na rozwiązanie przez ustalenie wspólnie przyjętych kanonów, będących gwarantem zachowania jedności Prawosławia. Trudności w dyskusji polegają na braku konkretnych i jasnych uchwał kanonicznych odnośnie znaczenia pojęcia autokefalii, warunków jej udzielania, kto jest odpowiedzialnym organem udzielania lub jej pozbawiania, ale także odnośnie wewnętrznych relacji Kościoła-córki i Kościoła-matki oraz tych z pozostałymi Kościołami autokefalicznymi.
    Źródło:
    ELPIS; 2016, 18; 165-170
    1508-7719
    Pojawia się w:
    ELPIS
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Ekumenizm a realizacja misyjnego posłannictwa Kościoła w kontekście dokumentów Wszechprawosławnego Synodu na Krecie
    Ecumenism and the implementation of the Church’s missionary mission in the context of the documents of the All -Orthodox Synod in Crete
    Autorzy:
    Borkowski, Andrzej
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/1917239.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2019-11-27
    Wydawca:
    Uniwersytet w Białymstoku. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku
    Tematy:
    Ecumenism
    mission
    Panorthodox Synod
    Orthodox Church
    dialogue
    ekumenizm
    misja
    Synod Wszechprawosławny
    Kościół prawosławny
    dialog
    Opis:
    Uchwały Wszechprawosławnego Synodu kładą podwaliny pod dialog ekumeniczny, podkreślając potrzebę dialogu przede wszystkim ze względu na głoszenie światu „prawosławnego świadectwa” wśród innych Kościołów chrześcijańskich i wyznań. Wypracowano stanowisko Kościoła prawosławnego odnośnie zasad i form uczestnictwa w dialogach teologicznych i w ruchu ekumenicznym oraz przyjęto nowe uchwały, potwierdzające wszechprawosławne stanowisko. Dialog w Kościele prawosławnym zawsze był i pozostaje istotnym i niezbywalnym elementem jego misji soteriologicznej. Przyświeca Jemu chwalebny cel powrotu skruszonych na Jego łono, jak również duszpasterskiej odpowiedzialności, gdyż niezachwianie wyznaje i głosi iż w swej samoświadomości Kościół prawosławny stanowi miarodajną kontynuacje Jednego, Świętego, Powszechnego i Apostolskiego Kościoła oraz arkę zbawienia dla tych w pobliżu i tych z oddala.
    Resolutions of The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church lay the foundations for ecumenical dialogue, emphasizing the need for dialogue primarily because of proclaiming the “Orthodox testimony” to other Christian Churches and denominations. The position of the Orthodox Church was developed regarding the principles and forms of participation in theological dialogues and in the ecumenical movement, and new resolutions were adopted confirming the all-Orthodox position. Dialogue in the Orthodox Church has always been and remains an essential and inalienable element of its soteriological mission. He has a glorious purpose for the return of those repentant to his bosom, as well as pastoral responsibility, because it unwaveringly confesses and proclaims that in its self-awareness the Orthodox Church is the authoritative continuation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and the ark of salvation for those nearby and those from afar.
    Źródło:
    ELPIS; 2019, 21; 93-97
    1508-7719
    Pojawia się w:
    ELPIS
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
      Wyświetlanie 1-6 z 6

      Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies