Kwestia bogactwa i ubóstwa w Kościele imperialnym na zachodzie w IV i V wieku. Próba syntezy zagadnienia

I considered the different views regarding the issues of possession, wealth and poverty in the fourth and fifth century. I focused on the concepts of the fifth-century theologian (St. Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, St. Augustine the Bishop of Hippo), pioneers of the western monastic theology and als...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Dariusz Kasprzak
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin 2011-12-01
Series:Vox Patrum
Subjects:
Online Access:https://czasopisma.kul.pl/index.php/vp/article/view/4240
_version_ 1797753488656039936
author Dariusz Kasprzak
author_facet Dariusz Kasprzak
author_sort Dariusz Kasprzak
collection DOAJ
description I considered the different views regarding the issues of possession, wealth and poverty in the fourth and fifth century. I focused on the concepts of the fifth-century theologian (St. Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, St. Augustine the Bishop of Hippo), pioneers of the western monastic theology and also the earliest monastic theologians and the heterodox pelagianist writers. They regarded soteriological perspective of Christianity. In that early period the socio-economic view did not constitute a doctrine. We can distinguish two essential approaches to the issue of possession in the teaching of the Church Fathers in the fourth and fifth century: a realistic and a pessimistic attitude. (The optimistic version regarded the possession of wealth as the result of Divine Protection and as a reward for pious Christian life. Both those models presumed that all the earthly goods were created by God and that people are only the temporary stewards of the goods given them for use. The realistic approach emphasized that everything which God has made was good and there was nothing wrong with owning possessions but it denounced the unjust means by which it is sometimes achieved or used. The pessimistic approach of Anchorites (monas­ticism, orthodox and heterodox ascetics) accepted the possession of goods which were made with one’s own hands. Everything which was not necessary should be given as alms. Coenobitic monks didn’t have anything of their own because everything belonged to the monastery. Their superior decided how everything could be used. The heterodox followers of Pelagius condemned shared of private property at all, and shared the view that voluntarily poverty was the only possible way for Christian.
first_indexed 2024-03-12T17:19:48Z
format Article
id doaj.art-d023da0a29a5495d9e8c4ea2e3db67fd
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 0860-9411
2719-3586
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-12T17:19:48Z
publishDate 2011-12-01
publisher The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin
record_format Article
series Vox Patrum
spelling doaj.art-d023da0a29a5495d9e8c4ea2e3db67fd2023-08-05T20:59:27ZengThe John Paul II Catholic University of LublinVox Patrum0860-94112719-35862011-12-015610.31743/vp.4240Kwestia bogactwa i ubóstwa w Kościele imperialnym na zachodzie w IV i V wieku. Próba syntezy zagadnieniaDariusz Kasprzak0Uniwersytet Papieski Jana Pawła II w Krakowie I considered the different views regarding the issues of possession, wealth and poverty in the fourth and fifth century. I focused on the concepts of the fifth-century theologian (St. Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, St. Augustine the Bishop of Hippo), pioneers of the western monastic theology and also the earliest monastic theologians and the heterodox pelagianist writers. They regarded soteriological perspective of Christianity. In that early period the socio-economic view did not constitute a doctrine. We can distinguish two essential approaches to the issue of possession in the teaching of the Church Fathers in the fourth and fifth century: a realistic and a pessimistic attitude. (The optimistic version regarded the possession of wealth as the result of Divine Protection and as a reward for pious Christian life. Both those models presumed that all the earthly goods were created by God and that people are only the temporary stewards of the goods given them for use. The realistic approach emphasized that everything which God has made was good and there was nothing wrong with owning possessions but it denounced the unjust means by which it is sometimes achieved or used. The pessimistic approach of Anchorites (monas­ticism, orthodox and heterodox ascetics) accepted the possession of goods which were made with one’s own hands. Everything which was not necessary should be given as alms. Coenobitic monks didn’t have anything of their own because everything belonged to the monastery. Their superior decided how everything could be used. The heterodox followers of Pelagius condemned shared of private property at all, and shared the view that voluntarily poverty was the only possible way for Christian. https://czasopisma.kul.pl/index.php/vp/article/view/4240Kościół w V wiekubogactwoubóstwo
spellingShingle Dariusz Kasprzak
Kwestia bogactwa i ubóstwa w Kościele imperialnym na zachodzie w IV i V wieku. Próba syntezy zagadnienia
Vox Patrum
Kościół w V wieku
bogactwo
ubóstwo
title Kwestia bogactwa i ubóstwa w Kościele imperialnym na zachodzie w IV i V wieku. Próba syntezy zagadnienia
title_full Kwestia bogactwa i ubóstwa w Kościele imperialnym na zachodzie w IV i V wieku. Próba syntezy zagadnienia
title_fullStr Kwestia bogactwa i ubóstwa w Kościele imperialnym na zachodzie w IV i V wieku. Próba syntezy zagadnienia
title_full_unstemmed Kwestia bogactwa i ubóstwa w Kościele imperialnym na zachodzie w IV i V wieku. Próba syntezy zagadnienia
title_short Kwestia bogactwa i ubóstwa w Kościele imperialnym na zachodzie w IV i V wieku. Próba syntezy zagadnienia
title_sort kwestia bogactwa i ubostwa w kosciele imperialnym na zachodzie w iv i v wieku proba syntezy zagadnienia
topic Kościół w V wieku
bogactwo
ubóstwo
url https://czasopisma.kul.pl/index.php/vp/article/view/4240
work_keys_str_mv AT dariuszkasprzak kwestiabogactwaiubostwawkoscieleimperialnymnazachodziewivivwiekuprobasyntezyzagadnienia