This textual analysis aims to identify and explore liberating, indecent, and anthropological un­derstandings of the sinner in Lutheran interpretations of the doctrine of justification. The un­derlying assumptions and the themes discernible within the works of Martin Luther are exam­ined along with “traditional,” and contemporary radical, queer interpretations of Lutheran jus­tification. The ways in which points of intersection between these interpretations and queer theological critique may contribute toward a more liberating and inclusive understanding of Lutheran justification are discussed. Several perspectives presented by queer theology, are ap­plied to the material under examination. The results of the analysis confirm the existence of queer openings with liberating potential within established, “traditional” Lutheran theology. These openings are further explored by fusing different queer concepts presented in the radical and queer parts of the material. Also, support for the queer emphasis on corporeality, without making essentialist assumptions, can be found in established Lutheran holistic anthropology. The concept of subject positions is in­troduced as a relational, queer, and inclusive alternative, favouring an understanding of the effects of sin and God’s justification respectively as an altering of positions in relation to other beings. To be liberating, theology must consider the whole, holistic body, and include the in­decent “Other.” In relation to justification, this “Other” is understood as the ignored human experience of sin as something which causes the holistic body harm and suffering. This results in a relational understanding of sin where being a sinner means both affecting and being af­fected. The potential of Lutheran theology is thus found in its ability to challenge the normative hegemony, to include the experiences otherwise exiled to the theological periphery, and to make the centre uncomfortable. The effects of physical, mental, and spiritual trauma caused to the body by violence are the same as the Lutheran understanding of sin, as primarily expressed through human unbelief. It is therefore argued that it ought to be included in the definitions of sin and the sinner, and taken into consideration when doctrines of justification and salvation are formulated. This conclusion is supported by the co-alignment of the queer acknowledgement of multiplicity and simulta­neity, with the Lutheran characteristic of bi-duality that is most clearly expressed in the concept of simul iustus et peccator. Thus, the conclusion must be that excluding the effects caused to bodies by sin cannot only be construed as being consciously limiting and oppressive but that it is, in fact, in conflict with the holistic Lutheran anthropology and the historical emphasis within Lutheran theology on simultaneity.

Capillary zone electrophoresis (CZE) is a widely used analytical method. CZE is described theoretically very well and there are many simulation programs, which enable one to predict results of electrophoretic separations, and alternatively to study phenomena taking place during the electrophoretic separation in detail. The CZE method is not only an analytical method, but is often used for determination of many physical parameters of compounds, such as stability constants or complex mobilities. Among methods most often used for determination of complexation parameters belongs the affinity capillary electrophoresis (ACE). Its alternative is the vacancy affinity capillary electrophoresis (VACE). Whereas by the ACE method the stability constant is determined from the dependence of the analyte effiective electrophoretic mobility on the background electrolyte (BGE) composition, in the case of the VACE system peaks are used for this purpose. In this work the legitimacy of using system peaks in the VACE method for determination of stability constants was investigated. Several approaches dealing with the concentrating of complexing agent in the peak area were compared, both for the ACE and the VACE method. Two different kinds of electrophoretic systems were studied. In the first one, neutral cyclodextrin was used as...

Une question demeure récurrente : les divisions qui subsistent depuis le XVIè siècle entre Catholiques, Luthériens et Réformés sont-elles autant d’ordre anthropologique que théologique ? Cette problématique paraissant pouvoir être soutenue, il convenait alors de déterminer les différends anthropologiques, de les analyser et de se demander s’ils sont une entrave à la Κοινωνία. L’étude de la situation au XVIè siècle a permis de conclure que les concepts anthropologiques portés par une philosophie existentielle ont joué un rôle important dans la rupture au sein de l’Église d’Occident. Le retour sur la pensée de Pannenberg, Moltmann, Rahner, théologiens de trois confessions différentes, autorise à dire qu’au XXè siècle la vision de l’homme a toujours une incidence sur les concepts théologiques, mais les différences sont de moins en moins séparatrices et deviennent souvent des dons à partager. L’analyse de dialogues œcuméniques a mis en évidence que les différends anthropothéologiques ont été partiellement réconciliés et font l’objet d’accords, voire d’une déclaration commune sur la Doctrine de la Justification. Aujourd’hui, un défi reste à relever celui d’une déclaration sur le Ministère en vue du partage à la même table eucharistique. Une démarche de consensus différencié serait une aide à la recherche d’une pleine communion. / An issue has been ever recurring : are the discords which have been going on since sixteenth century between Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists as much anthropological as theological ? As this question can be supported it seems suitable to determine these anthropological disagreements, analyse them and wonder whether or not they are obstacle to the Κοινωνία. A study concerning the situation during the XVIth century has allowed to conclude that the anthropological concepts conveyed by an existential philosophy have played a mojor role in the severing within the Western Church. The return on the thoughts developed by Pannenberg, Moltmann and Rahner, theologians of three different confessions, allows us to tell that in the XXth. century man’s vision has always an incidence on the theological concepts but are less and less separative and are often gifts to be shared. The analysis of ecumenical dialogues have clearly shown that theanthropological disagreements have been partly reconciled and are now subject to consensus, even a joint declaration on the doctrine of justification. Today we have to take up a challenge about a declaration on the ministry in order to share the body of Christ at the same table. A differing consensus method could be a help to find a complete communion.