In his work Gesù il Cristo Alois Grillmeier cites a speech by Joseph Ratzinger entitled: Il signi... more In his work Gesù il Cristo Alois Grillmeier cites a speech by Joseph Ratzinger entitled: Il significato di persona nella teologia. Both authors present the same analysis of the Christological concept of person used at the Council of Chalcedon, whose defining characteristic is its distinction from nature in defence of the humanum of Christ. Analysing their other works, it becomes clear that Grillmeier and Ratzinger use this Christological concept of person to develop a contemporary anthropology. A comparative and analytical-critical method was applied to the publications of both authors in order to create a synthesis of common elements concerning the hermeneutics of Chalcedonian concept of person and the anthropological conclusions derived from it.
In this article, the author addresses the problem of the translation of a passage from the Chalce... more In this article, the author addresses the problem of the translation of a passage from the Chalcedonian Creed as found in the Dokumenty Soborów Powszechnych. The author's thesis is that it does not correspond to the theological thought of the Council Fathers behind this part of the definition. The aim of the article is to justify this thesis and to propose an alternative translation. The method used is complex. Firstly, the author reconstructs the genesis of the passage through a study of the historical and philosophical-theological context of its origin and a literary analysis. Then, based on the results of this research, the author carries out an analysis of the Fathers' Christology contained in the passages, which allows the initial translation to be called into question. The article is therefore divided as follows: a grammatical analysis of the passage; the wide and the narrow context of the origin of the text of the creed; a literary analysis; a theological analysis and the presentation of the new translation. In addition to the text of the Confession, the main sources studied are Cyril of Alexandria's Epistula Altera ad Nestorium and Pope Leo's Tomus ad Flavianum. The conclusions of the research highlight well the difference between the heretics and the Church Fathers in the use of ancient philosophy to express the faith. They furthermore reveal a metaphysical novum of the concepts of person and nature arising from the content of the Creed and the patristic reflection of the time, an issue which is still relevant today and which the translation discussed above unfortunately somewhat overshadows.
The Gadium et spes constitution teaches where the answer to all the questions about man is to be ... more The Gadium et spes constitution teaches where the answer to all the questions about man is to be sought: in the Incarnate Word, in Jesus Christ, “new Adam” (No. 22). The Constitution relates here to the councils which explored the mystery of Christ, including the Council of Chalcedon (451), thus indicating anthropological meaning of its definition of faith. This article, based on analyses of Alois Grillmeier and Adrian Măgdici, discusses modern philosophical issues in the definition of person and, as a solution, proposes its Christological distinction from the concept of nature introduced by the Chalcedon (person is not nature: two-level ontology) to draw from its “negative” approach certain anthropological conclusions, important for our modern Western civilization called “anthropocentric” precisely because it incorporated person and its key status from Christianity.
The Council of Chalcedon proclaimed that Jesus Christ is one (divine) Person in two natures thus ... more The Council of Chalcedon proclaimed that Jesus Christ is one (divine) Person in two natures thus differentiating concepts of person and nature (two-level ontology). This differentiation was quite new in Christology. This resulted in opposition against the Council by “moderate” Monophysites — followers of Cyril, the “master” of orthodoxy, who rejected two-level ontology in favour of his controversial Christological formu-la, mía phýsis. In this article, the Author, based mainly on Jesus der Christus by Alois Grillmeier, will discuss the lacks of the Chalcedonian differentiation of person and nature and the unsatisfactory alternative developed by the prominent representative of Monophysites, Severus of Antioch. His teaching will allow to show that the real reason for their persistent defense of mía phýsis was not the weakness of the Chalcedo-nian definition or Cyril’s authority by rather the very bases of lógos-sárx Christology.
At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Fathers introduced a clear and previously un- known distin... more At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Fathers introduced a clear and previously un- known distinction between the Christological concepts of person and nature. This contributed to various problems, the most important of which was the lack of a new definition of person. For this reason, the council became the subject of sharp criticism primarily from “moderate” Monophysites. In this article, with the help of Alois Grill- meier’s analysis in his work Jesus der Christus, the author presents the efforts of the two most influential theologians who defended and deepened the teaching of the Council within the framework of the so called “Neochalcedonism” in the sixth century, Leonti- us of Byzantium and Leontius of Jerusalem. Theses theologians developed the concept of person as the source of the nature’s existence, thus giving it an existential and primary meaning in relation to phýsis. The author explains how, based on this, they were able to fill in all the questionable deficiencies in the Chalcedonian definition.
What is fatherhood? St Paul says that all paternitas on the earth takes its name from the Father ... more What is fatherhood? St Paul says that all paternitas on the earth takes its name from the Father in heaven (see Eph 3, 14-15). In order to answer the question from a theological point of view, one should examine what has been revealed about Fatherhood of the Father. The aim of this paper is to show that based on it “fatherhood” may be defined as a universal calling which every human being realises in various ways. The author relies on the analysis by Jean Galot on the meaning of Divine Fatherhood which emerges from the mystery of incarnation. The full revelation of the Father is His incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. Galot shows that the whole earthly story of Christ, remaining in a dialogue with His Father, revealed the essence of being a person, i.e. relation, and His fundamental resemblance to the Father, which consisted of following Him in His “being for the other” for love. Galot shows that every human person, like the incarnate Son, is also a relation having His “filial form”. It means that every man shares with The Son similar calling to follow the Father, to perform “fatherhood”, an unconditional love towards the others, whose one of the possible realizations is physical parenthood.
Many contemporary authors claim that in the patristic era of the Church the kerygma was hellenize... more Many contemporary authors claim that in the patristic era of the Church the kerygma was hellenized, i.e. the original message of Christ was distorted through introducing foreign elements from philosophy which contributed to formulating dogmas by first councils. Andrea Milano believes the contrary, i.e. the dialog with the ancient culture did not subjected kerygma to the hellenism but helped to deepen and defend faith: the dogma was a part of the process of “incarnation” of the kerygma which Milano called “ontologization”. In this article, following the studies of Grillmeier and Milano, the author discusses two interpretational approaches to formulating a dogma – “hellenization” and “ontologization” of the kerygma - by the example of the Christological definition of Chalcedon (451), considered to be the symbol of “hellenization”, to show that philosophical concepts applied by the Fathers were in fact the defence against “hellenization” of the faith in Christ and its “ontologization”.
Solidarność: człowiek w sieci zależności społecznych, 2021
John Paul II wrote that solidarity between people is possible only when everyone considers each o... more John Paul II wrote that solidarity between people is possible only when everyone considers each other equal and deserving the same dignity (see Sollicitudo rei socialis No. 39). Thus the condition of interpersonal solidarity appears to be that every human has the status of a person. The purpose of the paper is to show that faith in real humanity of Christ, i.e. his „solidarity” with us, may become the basis of the personal status of each human, thus also the basis of interpersonal solidarity. The author refers to the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) and the Third Council of Constantinople (686 A.D.) which clarified faith in Christ using concepts of person and nature. Analyses of the councils, mainly by A. Grilmeier and A. Măgdici, bring important conclusions for today’s anthropology: 1. Faith in real deity and humanity of Christ „forced” the council fathers to differentiate the concept of person from nature, i.e. to acknowledge two ontological levels (personal and natural) in Him. 2. This differentiation means that Person of Christ is not identical with any part of His natures (mind, consciousness, etc.). 3. „Person” defined this way, since it defines „real” human Jesus, may be universally utilised in anthropology (the principle of “exemplarity” of incarnation) which means, resulting from Christ’s solidarity with our humanity, that each man has two separate existential levels, personal and natural, i.e. everybody has the status of person which is independent from his/her natural features. Thus, the condition of interpersonal solidarity, that John Paul II wrote about, is fulfilled.
Council of Chalcedon is an actual closing point for Christology and a starting point for anthropo... more Council of Chalcedon is an actual closing point for Christology and a starting point for anthropology. Behind the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon, together with later clarifications added by the Second and the Third Councils of Constantinople, there were centuries of dispute between the School of Alexandria and the School of Antioch about the person and natures of Christ (4th/5th – 7th centuries). Therefore the light shed on the man by patristic Christology concerns understanding of his being a person and his nature. The analysis of the Council’s teachings of faith shows that these two concepts belong to two different areas which means that every man, following the man Jesus, is a person whose dignity is on a different level than his natural features (mind, will, consciousness, etc.) – in other words, it originates from transcendence. Simultaneously, person is a relational reality because it puts a man in a relation with God in which the nature can be improved, the nature whose essence – since it was adopted by Logos – is to be capax Dei, or ability to grow in following Christ.
In his work Gesù il Cristo Alois Grillmeier cites a speech by Joseph Ratzinger entitled: Il signi... more In his work Gesù il Cristo Alois Grillmeier cites a speech by Joseph Ratzinger entitled: Il significato di persona nella teologia. Both authors present the same analysis of the Christological concept of person used at the Council of Chalcedon, whose defining characteristic is its distinction from nature in defence of the humanum of Christ. Analysing their other works, it becomes clear that Grillmeier and Ratzinger use this Christological concept of person to develop a contemporary anthropology. A comparative and analytical-critical method was applied to the publications of both authors in order to create a synthesis of common elements concerning the hermeneutics of Chalcedonian concept of person and the anthropological conclusions derived from it.
In this article, the author addresses the problem of the translation of a passage from the Chalce... more In this article, the author addresses the problem of the translation of a passage from the Chalcedonian Creed as found in the Dokumenty Soborów Powszechnych. The author's thesis is that it does not correspond to the theological thought of the Council Fathers behind this part of the definition. The aim of the article is to justify this thesis and to propose an alternative translation. The method used is complex. Firstly, the author reconstructs the genesis of the passage through a study of the historical and philosophical-theological context of its origin and a literary analysis. Then, based on the results of this research, the author carries out an analysis of the Fathers' Christology contained in the passages, which allows the initial translation to be called into question. The article is therefore divided as follows: a grammatical analysis of the passage; the wide and the narrow context of the origin of the text of the creed; a literary analysis; a theological analysis and the presentation of the new translation. In addition to the text of the Confession, the main sources studied are Cyril of Alexandria's Epistula Altera ad Nestorium and Pope Leo's Tomus ad Flavianum. The conclusions of the research highlight well the difference between the heretics and the Church Fathers in the use of ancient philosophy to express the faith. They furthermore reveal a metaphysical novum of the concepts of person and nature arising from the content of the Creed and the patristic reflection of the time, an issue which is still relevant today and which the translation discussed above unfortunately somewhat overshadows.
The Gadium et spes constitution teaches where the answer to all the questions about man is to be ... more The Gadium et spes constitution teaches where the answer to all the questions about man is to be sought: in the Incarnate Word, in Jesus Christ, “new Adam” (No. 22). The Constitution relates here to the councils which explored the mystery of Christ, including the Council of Chalcedon (451), thus indicating anthropological meaning of its definition of faith. This article, based on analyses of Alois Grillmeier and Adrian Măgdici, discusses modern philosophical issues in the definition of person and, as a solution, proposes its Christological distinction from the concept of nature introduced by the Chalcedon (person is not nature: two-level ontology) to draw from its “negative” approach certain anthropological conclusions, important for our modern Western civilization called “anthropocentric” precisely because it incorporated person and its key status from Christianity.
The Council of Chalcedon proclaimed that Jesus Christ is one (divine) Person in two natures thus ... more The Council of Chalcedon proclaimed that Jesus Christ is one (divine) Person in two natures thus differentiating concepts of person and nature (two-level ontology). This differentiation was quite new in Christology. This resulted in opposition against the Council by “moderate” Monophysites — followers of Cyril, the “master” of orthodoxy, who rejected two-level ontology in favour of his controversial Christological formu-la, mía phýsis. In this article, the Author, based mainly on Jesus der Christus by Alois Grillmeier, will discuss the lacks of the Chalcedonian differentiation of person and nature and the unsatisfactory alternative developed by the prominent representative of Monophysites, Severus of Antioch. His teaching will allow to show that the real reason for their persistent defense of mía phýsis was not the weakness of the Chalcedo-nian definition or Cyril’s authority by rather the very bases of lógos-sárx Christology.
At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Fathers introduced a clear and previously un- known distin... more At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Fathers introduced a clear and previously un- known distinction between the Christological concepts of person and nature. This contributed to various problems, the most important of which was the lack of a new definition of person. For this reason, the council became the subject of sharp criticism primarily from “moderate” Monophysites. In this article, with the help of Alois Grill- meier’s analysis in his work Jesus der Christus, the author presents the efforts of the two most influential theologians who defended and deepened the teaching of the Council within the framework of the so called “Neochalcedonism” in the sixth century, Leonti- us of Byzantium and Leontius of Jerusalem. Theses theologians developed the concept of person as the source of the nature’s existence, thus giving it an existential and primary meaning in relation to phýsis. The author explains how, based on this, they were able to fill in all the questionable deficiencies in the Chalcedonian definition.
What is fatherhood? St Paul says that all paternitas on the earth takes its name from the Father ... more What is fatherhood? St Paul says that all paternitas on the earth takes its name from the Father in heaven (see Eph 3, 14-15). In order to answer the question from a theological point of view, one should examine what has been revealed about Fatherhood of the Father. The aim of this paper is to show that based on it “fatherhood” may be defined as a universal calling which every human being realises in various ways. The author relies on the analysis by Jean Galot on the meaning of Divine Fatherhood which emerges from the mystery of incarnation. The full revelation of the Father is His incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. Galot shows that the whole earthly story of Christ, remaining in a dialogue with His Father, revealed the essence of being a person, i.e. relation, and His fundamental resemblance to the Father, which consisted of following Him in His “being for the other” for love. Galot shows that every human person, like the incarnate Son, is also a relation having His “filial form”. It means that every man shares with The Son similar calling to follow the Father, to perform “fatherhood”, an unconditional love towards the others, whose one of the possible realizations is physical parenthood.
Many contemporary authors claim that in the patristic era of the Church the kerygma was hellenize... more Many contemporary authors claim that in the patristic era of the Church the kerygma was hellenized, i.e. the original message of Christ was distorted through introducing foreign elements from philosophy which contributed to formulating dogmas by first councils. Andrea Milano believes the contrary, i.e. the dialog with the ancient culture did not subjected kerygma to the hellenism but helped to deepen and defend faith: the dogma was a part of the process of “incarnation” of the kerygma which Milano called “ontologization”. In this article, following the studies of Grillmeier and Milano, the author discusses two interpretational approaches to formulating a dogma – “hellenization” and “ontologization” of the kerygma - by the example of the Christological definition of Chalcedon (451), considered to be the symbol of “hellenization”, to show that philosophical concepts applied by the Fathers were in fact the defence against “hellenization” of the faith in Christ and its “ontologization”.
Solidarność: człowiek w sieci zależności społecznych, 2021
John Paul II wrote that solidarity between people is possible only when everyone considers each o... more John Paul II wrote that solidarity between people is possible only when everyone considers each other equal and deserving the same dignity (see Sollicitudo rei socialis No. 39). Thus the condition of interpersonal solidarity appears to be that every human has the status of a person. The purpose of the paper is to show that faith in real humanity of Christ, i.e. his „solidarity” with us, may become the basis of the personal status of each human, thus also the basis of interpersonal solidarity. The author refers to the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) and the Third Council of Constantinople (686 A.D.) which clarified faith in Christ using concepts of person and nature. Analyses of the councils, mainly by A. Grilmeier and A. Măgdici, bring important conclusions for today’s anthropology: 1. Faith in real deity and humanity of Christ „forced” the council fathers to differentiate the concept of person from nature, i.e. to acknowledge two ontological levels (personal and natural) in Him. 2. This differentiation means that Person of Christ is not identical with any part of His natures (mind, consciousness, etc.). 3. „Person” defined this way, since it defines „real” human Jesus, may be universally utilised in anthropology (the principle of “exemplarity” of incarnation) which means, resulting from Christ’s solidarity with our humanity, that each man has two separate existential levels, personal and natural, i.e. everybody has the status of person which is independent from his/her natural features. Thus, the condition of interpersonal solidarity, that John Paul II wrote about, is fulfilled.
Council of Chalcedon is an actual closing point for Christology and a starting point for anthropo... more Council of Chalcedon is an actual closing point for Christology and a starting point for anthropology. Behind the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon, together with later clarifications added by the Second and the Third Councils of Constantinople, there were centuries of dispute between the School of Alexandria and the School of Antioch about the person and natures of Christ (4th/5th – 7th centuries). Therefore the light shed on the man by patristic Christology concerns understanding of his being a person and his nature. The analysis of the Council’s teachings of faith shows that these two concepts belong to two different areas which means that every man, following the man Jesus, is a person whose dignity is on a different level than his natural features (mind, will, consciousness, etc.) – in other words, it originates from transcendence. Simultaneously, person is a relational reality because it puts a man in a relation with God in which the nature can be improved, the nature whose essence – since it was adopted by Logos – is to be capax Dei, or ability to grow in following Christ.
Uploads
Papers by Giacomo Calore
The author relies on the analysis by Jean Galot on the meaning of Divine Fatherhood which emerges from the mystery of incarnation. The full revelation of the Father is His incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. Galot shows that the whole earthly story of Christ, remaining in a dialogue with His Father, revealed the essence of being a person, i.e. relation, and His fundamental resemblance to the Father, which consisted of following Him in His “being for the other” for love. Galot shows that every human person, like the incarnate Son, is also a relation having His “filial form”. It means that every man shares with The Son similar calling to follow the Father, to perform “fatherhood”, an unconditional love towards the others, whose one of the possible realizations is physical parenthood.
In this article, following the studies of Grillmeier and Milano, the author discusses two interpretational approaches to formulating a dogma – “hellenization” and “ontologization” of the kerygma - by the example of the Christological definition of Chalcedon (451), considered to be the symbol of “hellenization”, to show that philosophical concepts applied by the Fathers were in fact the defence against “hellenization” of the faith in Christ and its “ontologization”.
The author refers to the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) and the Third Council of Constantinople (686 A.D.) which clarified faith in Christ using concepts of person and nature. Analyses of the councils, mainly by A. Grilmeier and A. Măgdici, bring important conclusions for today’s anthropology: 1. Faith in real deity and humanity of Christ „forced” the council fathers to differentiate the concept of person from nature, i.e. to acknowledge two ontological levels (personal and natural) in Him. 2. This differentiation means that Person of Christ is not identical with any part of His natures (mind, consciousness, etc.). 3. „Person” defined this way, since it defines „real” human Jesus, may be universally utilised in anthropology (the principle of “exemplarity” of incarnation) which means, resulting from Christ’s solidarity with our humanity, that each man has two separate existential levels, personal and natural, i.e. everybody has the status of person which is independent from his/her natural features. Thus, the condition of interpersonal solidarity, that John Paul II wrote about, is fulfilled.
The author relies on the analysis by Jean Galot on the meaning of Divine Fatherhood which emerges from the mystery of incarnation. The full revelation of the Father is His incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. Galot shows that the whole earthly story of Christ, remaining in a dialogue with His Father, revealed the essence of being a person, i.e. relation, and His fundamental resemblance to the Father, which consisted of following Him in His “being for the other” for love. Galot shows that every human person, like the incarnate Son, is also a relation having His “filial form”. It means that every man shares with The Son similar calling to follow the Father, to perform “fatherhood”, an unconditional love towards the others, whose one of the possible realizations is physical parenthood.
In this article, following the studies of Grillmeier and Milano, the author discusses two interpretational approaches to formulating a dogma – “hellenization” and “ontologization” of the kerygma - by the example of the Christological definition of Chalcedon (451), considered to be the symbol of “hellenization”, to show that philosophical concepts applied by the Fathers were in fact the defence against “hellenization” of the faith in Christ and its “ontologization”.
The author refers to the teachings of the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) and the Third Council of Constantinople (686 A.D.) which clarified faith in Christ using concepts of person and nature. Analyses of the councils, mainly by A. Grilmeier and A. Măgdici, bring important conclusions for today’s anthropology: 1. Faith in real deity and humanity of Christ „forced” the council fathers to differentiate the concept of person from nature, i.e. to acknowledge two ontological levels (personal and natural) in Him. 2. This differentiation means that Person of Christ is not identical with any part of His natures (mind, consciousness, etc.). 3. „Person” defined this way, since it defines „real” human Jesus, may be universally utilised in anthropology (the principle of “exemplarity” of incarnation) which means, resulting from Christ’s solidarity with our humanity, that each man has two separate existential levels, personal and natural, i.e. everybody has the status of person which is independent from his/her natural features. Thus, the condition of interpersonal solidarity, that John Paul II wrote about, is fulfilled.