지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Historically, the Donatists has been generally described as quintessential heretics of late antiquity, intransigents, millennialists, dangerous fanatics, and even social revolutionaries. However, all such takes the winner’s point of view. If we see the controversy from the loser’s point of view, our interpretation can be quite different from the traditional understanding.
The purpose of this historical study is to reinterpret the Donatist controversy from the perspective of post-modern Christian pluralism, which is both denominational and cultural. Its goal is two-fold: to reconstruct the Donatist ecclesiology apart from Augustinian construction, and to reinterpret the nature of the controversy from this new perspective. In order to do this, this study critically analyzed Augustine’s anti-Donatist writings. By looking at the Donatists with awareness of the distortion of the Augustinian filter, it tried to reveal Augustine’s own construction of orthodoxy as well as uncover the Donatist position.
This study presumed that Augustine’s portrayal of Donatism was a social construction, which reflected his own Catholic interests, norms, and Sitz im Leben. Thus, all his charges against Donatists-theologically deviant(heretics), intellectually immature (nonsense/inconsistency), socially dangerous(revolutionaries), morally double-faced (“perfectionists” in a cynical sense), and spiritually anti-Christ (schismatics)-need to be critically reexamined in the religious and social context of ancient North Africa as well as in his theological framework. This will help us to understand and reconstruct historically the characteristics of the Donatist ecclesiology. Through this study I could draw the following conclusion. Despite Augustine’s ardent efforts to discriminate Donatism as heresy the difference between the Catholic and North African ecclesiologies was not so much fundamental as one might suppose. Traditional descriptions of Donatists as if they were morally perfectionists or they exclusively claimed priestly personal holiness for the sake of sacramental efficacy were resulted from Augustine’s rhetorical exaggeration and narrow-minded misunderstanding of Donatism, and need to be corrected.
The purpose of this historical study is to reinterpret the Donatist controversy from the perspective of post-modern Christian pluralism, which is both denominational and cultural. Its goal is two-fold: to reconstruct the Donatist ecclesiology apart from Augustinian construction, and to reinterpret the nature of the controversy from this new perspective. In order to do this, this study critically analyzed Augustine’s anti-Donatist writings. By looking at the Donatists with awareness of the distortion of the Augustinian filter, it tried to reveal Augustine’s own construction of orthodoxy as well as uncover the Donatist position.
This study presumed that Augustine’s portrayal of Donatism was a social construction, which reflected his own Catholic interests, norms, and Sitz im Leben. Thus, all his charges against Donatists-theologically deviant(heretics), intellectually immature (nonsense/inconsistency), socially dangerous(revolutionaries), morally double-faced (“perfectionists” in a cynical sense), and spiritually anti-Christ (schismatics)-need to be critically reexamined in the religious and social context of ancient North Africa as well as in his theological framework. This will help us to understand and reconstruct historically the characteristics of the Donatist ecclesiology. Through this study I could draw the following conclusion. Despite Augustine’s ardent efforts to discriminate Donatism as heresy the difference between the Catholic and North African ecclesiologies was not so much fundamental as one might suppose. Traditional descriptions of Donatists as if they were morally perfectionists or they exclusively claimed priestly personal holiness for the sake of sacramental efficacy were resulted from Augustine’s rhetorical exaggeration and narrow-minded misunderstanding of Donatism, and need to be corrected.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 성례론 비교
Ⅲ. 교회의 본질론 비교
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2015-200-000983443