The present overview of current Christian-Jewish dialogue shape firstly specifes the dialogue and its partners concept meaning applied to the relations between religious societies. It draws our attention to the polarisations within the Christianity and Judaism as well as to the differencies in dialogue advancement between bodies keeping the dialogue and the general public. It points out the different motivation prompting Jews and Christians to keep the dialogue and the infuence of this on understanding the sense, the choice of its representatives and the theme of the dialogue.

The deepening mutual cognition along with the growing awareness of both; chances and limits of consensus in the dialogue, are indicated among the previous achievements. From the side of the catholic church, irreversible will of the dialogue along with the appropriate directions of doctrinal clarifcations of the Church Teaching are strongly emphasized.

The theological questions are raised that on the Christian side develop from the acknowledgment of irremovability of the covenant between God and Israel. The questions refer to the contemporary situation and the eschatological perspective of existence of two communities considering themselves as continuation of the covenant between God and Abraham, as well as their relation towards Israel Land. The article at its conclusion stipulates the deepening of the awareness of the mystery whenever resuming the religious topics in the dialogue.

This article focuses on an extremely urgent problem of today’s Christian dialogue with China, i.e. the culture (and politics) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and asks whether a Christian dialogue with China – which understand herself as an atheist and Communist state, which, however, is a country of many religious traditions, is possible, and if so in what form? What are its prospects and challenges?

The starting point of the article, after some historical remarks, is a kind of heterotopy of the dialogue in Chinese context, involving (III.1.) the historical and political context, then (III.2) its partners, and fnally (III.3) its forms and contents. in this framework, this article is (IV) refection on the challenges, opportunities and prospects of the Christian dialogue with Chinese culture. This refection is not taken here from the standpoint of theology, but is rather a phenomenological description of the status quo. At the end of the article (V) some statements of pope John Paul II with regard to the dialogue of Christianity with Chinese culture are quoted as a kind of summary.

The article states a great asymmetry of partners of the dialogue in China caused by the restrictive religious policy. There are some forms of dialogue which, however, are realized outside of the institutionalized Christianity, i.e. the Christian Churches. The Churches themselves, due to their historical background, are not very interested in or prepared for an inter-religious dialogue.

The article contains an analysis of Boris and Gleb novel written by a contemporary Russian writer Y. Buida. The analysis is realized in reference to certain postmodern tendencies in literature. The author emphasizes mainly the dialogic character of postmodernism and depicts particular features of the movement in post-Soviet culture. Specifically, the dialogic character of the novel is realized through multilayer interferences of culture codes which suit the idea of chaosmic reality by Deleuze and Guatarri. Correspondingly, the dialogue is also displayed by the eclecticism of genders and styles.

This paper discusses the essence of marriage in the world’s major religions (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, religions of primitive peoples) and presents the customs and forms of concluding marriage as well as the ethics of marital cohabitation. The paper goes on to analyse selected statements by the teaching offce of the Church on the subject of marriage and family in various religions. The question of „mixed” or interreligious marriage is analysed from the perspective of religious rules, law and interreligious dialogue. Attention is drawn to the pastoral care shown by the Catholic Church to mixed marriages and families. This care is a manifestation of interreligious dialogue. Each religion has its own unique understanding of the institution of marriage and family. A mixed marriage brings together two different views of this institution: these views are mutually exclusive in some aspects and coincident in other aspects. Marriage and family undoubtedly constitute the foundation of societies representing various cultures and religions. The religious views on marriage exert an indisputable impact on the moral and social order of individual groups, communities and societies.

In this paper I respond to Elżbieta Mikiciuk’s polemic with my article: The Brothers Karamazov: Dostoevsky’s Tainted Hosanna (“Slavia Orientalis” 2017, nr 1; the polemic was published in “Slavia Orientalis” 2017, nr 2). I use this opportunity to look at my article anew and restate my interpretative approach to Dostoevsky’s last novel as well as the line of argumentation I had decided to adopt. The substance of my response relies heavily on the point evoked several times by E. Mikiciuk, concerning my “biased” selection of citations from the novel which generates a “one-dimensional”, “manipulated”, and “false” image of Christianity as a religion that approves of an “economic” idea of God, a God from whom one has to “buy” a right to salvation. Recalling narrations of starets Zosima on the problem of involuntary suffering and death, and meditating on an indefi nite, unpredictable or highly ambiguous nature of such characters as Dymitr and Alyosha Karamazov or Smerdyakov, I emphasize the radical openness and polyphonic nature of Dostoevsky's text which allows for manifold, even contradictory readings and understandings of the same fragments of his complex works. Further, I develop a key thesis that both theological/religious interpretations of Dostoevsky’s oeuvre, as supported by Elżbieta Mikiciuk, and philosophical/ existential ones, as advanced by me, are feasible and valuable as long as they remain anchored in a close reading and do not lay claims to representing the one and only valid approach to his literary universe. The paper ends with a conclusion in which I encourage a mutually inspirational dialogue (the agon, if you will) between these two exegetic strategies. Such a dialogue seems essential for a reinvigoration of Dostoevsky’s literary work, against which one should continuously measure himself in a constant, even painful at times, sense of insuffi ciency of his/her interpretative insight facing a paradoxical, axiologically ambivalent, and strictly polyphonic oeuvre.

The article describes the Roman Catholic understanding of the ecumenical dialogue as stated in the Decree on ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council and in further documents of the RC Church. This ecumenical dialogue may be conducted only among Christian Churches and Church Communities as it aims the restoration of full visible unity of Christians.

The dialogue should primarily lead to the common rediscovery of the truth, and never to any kind of establishing the truth, of elaborating it or reaching the compromise. The true dialogue has nothing to do with negotiating the common position, where each party wants to force oneself upon another and to make the less concessions possible. This is because we cannot reduce the requirements of the Gospel to any kind of necessary minimum, a common basis recognized by all the churches and ecclesial communities.

Such a dialogue contains its inner dynamics, its existential dimension. The truth is personal, as Christ himself is the Truth, so the search for unity belongs to the proper essence of being a Christian. So the ecumenical dialogue is “an imperative of Christian conscience” (John Paul II), so it is something that inevitably ought to be taken and accomplished by Christians.

The ecumenical dialogue however is not the goal for itself. Neither it is only mutual recognition of Christian Communities or even common prayer. The common aimis the restoration of full visible unity of divided Churches. On the way of ecumenism we cannot limit to the prayer or the ecumenical dialogue. On the contrary – we should develop all the possible ways of collaboration, because unity of action leads to the full unity of faith. Neither the unity nor uniformity of doctrine or churchly traditions, but only the unity in one faith is the far-reaching goal of the ecumenical dialogue.

The documents of the RC Church give also clear hints how to lead the ecumenical dialogues: the dialoguing parties must be expert in theology, seeking the truth, not a victory, moving from easier topics to the more diffcult ones, trying to use the language free of polemical connotations.

Before the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church didn’t lead any offcial ecumenical dialogue, what didn’t mean the lack of any ecumenical encounters. The first ones, however, were unoffcial and did not engage the offcial Church authority. Widespread engagement in the ecumenical dialogues in the time of popes Paul VI and John Paul II can be justly perceived as a direct fruit of the Second Vatican council and its Decree on ecumenism.

During the decades the commissions of dialogue have already elaborated thousands of pages of common statements and agreed declarations. The Churches must be however aware, that without strong effort of reception of these documents in their midst, the fruits of the dialogues will have no infuence on the reconciliation of Christians in one faith.

Even if there may be some kind of deception because of slowness of ecumenical process, we can be certain that meetings in the dialogue enabled Christians of various Churches an Church Communities to grow towards full, visible unity wanted by our Lord for His disciples.

Joseph Ratzinger warns about a multitude of trials to superficially undertake the subject of religion. In this diverse world of religion, he sees some common points. The first step in the history of religion was to transcend the primitive, moving into myth. Second, most important step, was to leave the myth behind. This leaving is threefold – which is represented by three irreducible shapes of religion: the identity mysticism, the monotheistic revolution and the enlightenment. An expression of the first two are, respectively: the identity mysticism and the personal love mysticism. The fact that religions are affecting each other must not be omitted, either. The place of Christianity in the history of religion – nota bene gained by both, the dialogue with other religions and standing against them – defines standing with the God of faith and the God of the philosophers, and the decisive choice of faith and mind together with the truth and the cult. In his thoughts concerning the dialogue of religions, J. Ratzinger points out two types: the mystical and theist, of the religion. Along them walks as a temptation the pragmatic type, in which the question about the truth is ignored. The result of the dialogue of the religions will not be a unification of all religions. In this dialogue, the truth cannot be ignored. At last, it cannot be forgotten that there is a religio vera, and that it is Christianity.

One of the essential problems in the relationship between Catholic-Orthodox churches is the difference in the interpretation of the current forms of the primacy in the Church of the Bishop of Rome. Contemporary studies on the essence and on the method of accom-plishing this service on behalf of the universal Church’s unity assumed new dynamics after the publication of the ecumenical encyclical letter of John Paul II – Ut unum sint. The Pope addressed and requested the pastors and theologians to establish with him a “patient and fraternal dialogue” (see US 95-96), for both parties to strive to achieve “the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned” (US 95). The contemporary Orthodox theologians, based on the results of historical studies, are con-vinced that the idea of the Roman primacy has been always presented in the theological awareness of the Christian East. The Eastern Churches do not negate the primacy of the Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, and as the first bishop of the whole Church. Recognizing the primacy of the Holy See as an incontestable historical fact, the Orthodox theologians see the crucial problem in the determination of its nature. They do not accept the primacy in the juridical sense.

Since the beginning of islam in the 7th century christians and Muslims have been a permanent challenge for themselves. the confrontation and the closeness which accompany them through the entire history are rooted in the universal and monotheistic character of both religions. From the christian point of view it would be diffcult to talk about interreligious dialogue or at least its modern developments, without the Second Vatican council (1962–1965) and the declaration nostra aetate. The council recognized in it the spiritual, moral and cultural values present in different religions, emphasizing spiritual and moral values between Muslim and christians. For the frst time in the history of the Catholic Church, the council’s fathers offcially called for the co-operation with Muslims. This is the starting point of the real dialogue between Christians and Muslims.

This article attempts to describe and analyse – in three parts – some aspects of the dialogical initiatives of Christian-Muslim relations. A greater part of it refers to the Roman Catholic Church, but some examples of interpretation and dialogical initiatives of the Orthodox and protestant churches are included as well. Islam as a point of reference is taken as a whole. After a short introduction containing a general defnition of dialogue and its interreligious form the frst part deals with historical facts which shaped the dialogical attitudes. The selected historical facts build a background for some theological ideas on islam in orthodox, catholic and protestant traditions. The second part focuses on the practical aspects of dialogue – its forms and representative institutions, i.e. the pontifcal council for interreligious Dialogue, World council of churches and Orthodox center of the ecumenical patriarch in chambésy which are engaged in the dialogue on behalf of the main christian churches. The third part offers some ideas concerning aarguments for dialogue, its effciency and quality which might be important for the future of dialogue. The modern history of Christian-Muslim relations shows that the dialogue between adherents of these two largest religions is possible despite that it is not an easy undertaking. the author underlines that there is no alternative to dialogue as there is no better way to defeat prejudices and heal the wounds of the past.

The article analyzes the implementation of dialogicality in the artistic discourse referring to dialogue as a form of explication of dialogicity in text communication, as a special type of speech interaction which serves as the most relevant means of verbalizing the speaker’s communicative intentions and is represented by a question/answer complex of stimulus/reaction exchange. Based on the voluminous factual material, the explication of dialogic intentions is traced in two typological registers of communication: tolerant and a-tolerant; it is indicated that, on the one hand, the addressant/addressee continuum of speech interaction conveys a be-nevolent atmosphere and expresses the modality of interlocutors’ mutual understanding and tolerant attitude about themselves being realized through various modal-intentional utterances, primarily interrogative, and stimulating and optative constructions, the use of which contributes to the progress of the communicative process; on the other hand, there is a-tolerant register – a natural phenomenon that reflects the imbalance in relations between communicating parties, the principled incompatibility of views, a conflict in general, represented by counter-questions, echo-questions, evil wishes incentive imperatives, invectives, etc.

Since Vatican II there have been issued many Church documents of different rank, which are explicitly devoted to dialogue with non-Christian religions or contain statements on the matter; there is also a very comprehensive bibliography on interreligious dialogue. The article presents three issues which occupy a signifcant place in these works. The frst is the theological bases for dialogue. They have been expressed in the trinitarian structure. At the heart of the dialogue is faith in God, the creator and father of all people, in the Son, through whom universal salvation took place and the Spirit, which everywhere personifes the salvation work of God in three persons. The second issue, which is the content of the article, expresses a unique position of Judaism in dialogue of Christianity with other religions. The importance of Israel for the emergence and existence of the Church, and at the same time for her salvation role for the entire Jewish people, is an important spur to the refection on the salvation relationship of christianity to other religions. The dialogue is diffcult to operate without a proper spiritual attitude. This issue is the subject of interest of the third point in the article. Spirituality shaped by attitudes of conversion and submission to the will of God, especially in the prayerful elation of the human heart, becomes a source of behaviours which are conducive to dialogue.

In this article the author tries to resolve the problem of what is the relation (is it a dialogue?) between Christianity and the European culture in the past and today. He tries to see it in the light of John Paul II’s teaching in a few steps: the role of Christianity in the origin of Europe, the role of Christianity in the history of Europe, the role of Christianity in the identity of Europe and its culture, and the modern European culture in its relation to Christianity. Christianity has created Europe and the culture (and ethos) of dialogue. Christianity was present in – sometimes tragic – history of Europe motivating many positive changes, although christians were not always following the principles of their religion. Christianity is the most important element of the Europe’s identity and culture, although during its history some other elements, far from Christianity, appeared. Modern european culture, which is still in a process of building its identity, consists of many tendencies – far or close to christianity. far from it do not dialogue with it, but close to it – do so. Christianity and the Church, who represents it, is ready to the dialogue, although she is aware of its diffculties and necessity.

The Catholic image of Martin Luther in the course of the centuries evolved from the literally negative one during the time of the Reformation and the centuries that followed, through the theological attempts and historically in-depth analyses inspired by the ecumenical movement up to contemporary acceptance of several theological postulates. Contemporary movements of Roman-Catholic thinking of Luther well summarize historically vulnerable and dogmatically deepened opinions of the recent popes: John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis. Following the agreement texts of the Lutheran-Catholic Commission at the world forum, ecumenically open popes can find out in Martin Luther a profoundly religious man, the witness of the Gospel whose theological thought is still relevant and a challenge for the presently secularized world.