Marčanska biskupija: Habsburgovci, pravoslavlje i crkvena unija u Hrvatsko-slavonskoj vojnoj krajini (1611. - 1755.)
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Croatian |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Zagreb
Hrvatski Inst. za Povijest
2007
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Biblioteka Hrvatska povjesnica
Monografije i studije ; 36 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | Zsfassung in engl. Sprache |
| Beschreibung: | 584 S. Ill., Kt. |
| ISBN: | 9789536324620 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV023228197 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20080724 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 080328s2007 ab|| |||| 00||| hrv d | ||
| 020 | |a 9789536324620 |9 978-953-6324-62-0 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)234218370 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV023228197 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a hrv | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 |a DE-Re13 | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a BX1612.C76 | |
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Kudelić, Zlatko |d 1962- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)141194952 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Marčanska biskupija |b Habsburgovci, pravoslavlje i crkvena unija u Hrvatsko-slavonskoj vojnoj krajini (1611. - 1755.) |c Zlatko Kudelić |
| 264 | 1 | |a Zagreb |b Hrvatski Inst. za Povijest |c 2007 | |
| 300 | |a 584 S. |b Ill., Kt. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Biblioteka Hrvatska povjesnica : Monografije i studije |v 36 | |
| 500 | |a Zsfassung in engl. Sprache | ||
| 610 | 1 | 4 | |a Katholische Kirche |
| 610 | 2 | 4 | |a Catholic Church |x Byzantine rite |z Croatia |z Marča (Slavonia) |x History |v Sources |
| 610 | 2 | 4 | |a Catholic Church. |b Diocese of Marča (Slavonia, Croatia) |x History |v Sources |
| 648 | 7 | |a Geschichte 1611-1755 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 648 | 7 | |a Geschichte 1600-1750 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Geschichte | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Kirchengeschichte | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Walachen |0 (DE-588)4118957-7 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Unierte Ostkirchen |0 (DE-588)4186892-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Union |0 (DE-588)4229399-6 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 4 | |a Croatia |x History |y 1527-1918 | |
| 651 | 4 | |a Marča (Slavonia, Croatia) |x Church history |v Sources | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Diözese Križevci |0 (DE-588)4229401-0 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Kroatische Militärgrenze |0 (DE-588)4321578-6 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Kroatien |0 (DE-588)4073841-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Slawonische Militärgrenze |0 (DE-588)4321577-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 655 | 7 | |0 (DE-588)4135952-5 |a Quelle |2 gnd-content | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Diözese Križevci |0 (DE-588)4229401-0 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Unierte Ostkirchen |0 (DE-588)4186892-4 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Geschichte 1611-1755 |A z |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Slawonische Militärgrenze |0 (DE-588)4321577-4 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 689 | 1 | 0 | |a Diözese Križevci |0 (DE-588)4229401-0 |D g |
| 689 | 1 | 1 | |a Union |0 (DE-588)4229399-6 |D s |
| 689 | 1 | 2 | |a Geschichte 1611-1755 |A z |
| 689 | 1 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 689 | 2 | 0 | |a Kroatien |0 (DE-588)4073841-3 |D g |
| 689 | 2 | 1 | |a Unierte Ostkirchen |0 (DE-588)4186892-4 |D s |
| 689 | 2 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 689 | 3 | 0 | |a Diözese Križevci |0 (DE-588)4229401-0 |D g |
| 689 | 3 | 1 | |a Walachen |0 (DE-588)4118957-7 |D s |
| 689 | 3 | 2 | |a Geschichte 1600-1750 |A z |
| 689 | 3 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 689 | 4 | 0 | |a Kroatien |0 (DE-588)4073841-3 |D g |
| 689 | 4 | 1 | |a Unierte Ostkirchen |0 (DE-588)4186892-4 |D s |
| 689 | 4 | 2 | |a Geschichte 1611-1755 |A z |
| 689 | 4 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 689 | 5 | 0 | |a Kroatien |0 (DE-588)4073841-3 |D g |
| 689 | 5 | 1 | |a Unierte Ostkirchen |0 (DE-588)4186892-4 |D s |
| 689 | 5 | 2 | |a Kroatische Militärgrenze |0 (DE-588)4321578-6 |D g |
| 689 | 5 | 3 | |a Geschichte 1611-1755 |A z |
| 689 | 5 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 830 | 0 | |a Biblioteka Hrvatska povjesnica |v Monografije i studije ; 36 |w (DE-604)BV010859037 |9 36 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016413957&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016413957&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 200.9 |e 22/bsb |f 09032 |g 4972 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 200.9 |e 22/bsb |f 09033 |g 4972 |
| 943 | 1 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016413957 | |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1806961765476466688 |
|---|---|
| adam_text |
SADRŽAJ
Predgovor
. 7
Kratice
. 11
l.Uvod
. 13
1.1.
Crkvena unija
-
pojava i razvoj ideje do sabora u
Firenzi
. 13
1.2.
Historiografija i izvori
o Marčanskoj
biskupiji
. 27
1.3.
Vlasi kao historiografski problem
. 57
2.
Katolička crkva i istočno kršćanstvo od sredine
15.
stoljeća
do sredine
18.
stoljeća
. 75
3.
Katolička crkva i Pecka patrijaršija
. 95
4.
Pravoslavni krajišnici Hrvatsko-slavonske vojne krajine
. 121
5.
Nastanak Marčanske biskupije
. 159
5.1.
Utemeljenje Marčanske biskupije i prvi biskup
Simeon
. 159
5.2.
Hrvatski staleži, vlaško pitanje i njegovo vjersko i političko značenje
. 191
6.
Marčanska biskupija između Katoličke crkve i
Pećke patrijaršije
(1630.-1663.). 219
6.1. Benedikt
Vinković i
Maksim
Predojević
. 219
6.2.
Gabrijel i Bazilije Predojevići
. 258
6.3.
Petar Petretić i Sava Stanislavič
. 269
7.
Gabrijel Mijakić: vikar zagrebačkoga biskupa za kršćane
grčkog obreda i/ili marčanski vladika
. 293
7.1.
Razdoblje sedisvakancije
. 293
7.2.
Raskolnik i urotnik? Mijakić i Zrinsko-Frankopanska urota
. 319
8.
Bislcupovanje
Pavla
i Marka Zorčića
(1671.-1689.). 347
8.1.
Pavao Zorčić
-
vikar zagrebačkoga biskupa za Vlahe u
Zagrebačkoj biskupiji
. 347
8.2.
Biskupovanje Marka ZorČića
(1685.-1689.). 364
9.
Marčanski biskupi i djelovanje patrijarha Arsenija III. Crnojevića
. 379
9.1.
Izaija Popović iArsenije III. Crnojević
. 379
9.2.
Marčanski biskup Gabrijel Turčinović
(1700.-1707.)
i pokušaj
obnove jurisdikcijske vlasti marčanskih biskupa
. 394
9.3.
Razdoblje Josipa I.
(1706.-1711.). 411
10.
Marčanska biskupija tijekom vladavine Karla
VI
. 433
10.1.
Biskupovanje
Rafaela
Markovita
i Grgura Vučiniča
. 433
10.2.
Marča-katolička ili pravoslavna?
. 454
11.
Marija Terezija i
Marca
. 481
Zaključak
. 497
Prilozi
.291,344, 345,507
Zemljovidi
.80,119,127,138,167,363,393,410,427,436,447,452,453,492
Izvori i literatura
. 539
Kazalo imena
. 563
Summary
. 575
Bilješka
о
autoru
. 585
SUMMARY
The Greek Catholic
(Uniate) Dioecese
of
Marca
(called "Svidnica" by the
Vienna Court and "Platearum" by the Roman Curia) was established in
1611,
when Greek Catholic Bishop Simeon Vratanja was consecrated in Rome. He
assumed obligation to unite Orthodox frontiersmen (Vlachs) of the Croatian
and Slavonian Military Border and other Orthodox Christians in the Hun¬
garian-Croatian Kingdom with the Catholic Church. In order to become a
Greek Catholic or
Uniate
bishop, Simeon had to accept decrees issued by
the Council of Trent, and especially to recognize the primacy of the Roman
pope, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, the
existence of Purgatory and the use of unleavened bread in liturgy. Although
the Hungarian-Croatian Kingdom was declaratively pronounced as Bishop
Simeons jurisdictional territory, in fact his jurisdiction spread predomi¬
nantly over the Croatian and Slavonian Military Border, where the Orthodox
Vlachs had been settled ever since the late sixteenth century. The monastery
of St. Michael in
Marca in
the
Varaždin
Generalcy (the Slavonian Military
Border) became the see of a new Greek Catholic eparchy. Having analyzed
available sources about Simeon's prelacy, the author concludes that motives
and circumstances of Simeon's acceptance of union with the Catholic Church
cannot be clearly recognizable, and that the majority of the Orthodox popu¬
lation in the Military Border did not accept union with the Catholic Church
in the spring of
1611,
as some historians have previously claimed. In fact,
Simeons union was an example of a so-called "Bishop's union", that is, a un¬
ion of a single bishop with the Catholic Church, whose goal was to gradually
unite Orthodox frontiersmen with the Catholic Church. However, the first
elaborated reports about the Orthodox population in the Military Border,
made at the incentive of the Catholic Church between
1626
and
1630,
sug¬
gested that the acceptance of ecclesiastical union was not as successful as
Catholic clergy had initially planned, and that Bishop Simeon did not exert
significant influence over the Orthodox population in the Military Border
576_
because it remained under strong influence of Orthodox clergy and monks
under the jurisdiction of Orthodox patriarchs in
Peć.
The Roman Curia pro¬
posed to the authorities in Vienna that all Orthodox clergy and monks, who
were coming from the Ottoman Empire, should be expelled from the Mili¬
tary Border, and that old Bishop Simeon should be replaced by a new Greek
Catholic bishop. Vienna rejected this proposal fearing the rebellion of the
Orthodox population in the Military Border, which considered ecclesiasti¬
cal union as a violation of their right to religious freedom and as an attempt
to turn them to serfs of bishops of Zagreb and the Croatian nobility. Such
an understanding of ecclesiastical union emerged due to the demands of
the Croatian nobility and bishops of Zagreb that frontiersmen should pay
taxes for using the land previously owned by the nobility and the Dioecese
of Zagreb. Frontiersmen identified ecclesiastical union with the intentions of
the Croatian nobility and bishops of Zagreb and thought that the change of
religious denomination would change their social position. During the last
period of Simeons service as a bishop there emerged two different positions
concerning the union: first, Roman Catholic bishops whose dioeceses were
inhabited by the Orthodox population opted for a direct acceptance of the
Latin (Roman Catholic) rite and wanted the Orthodox population to come
under their religious supervision. Second, Greek Catholic
Ruthenian
monks
of the Basilian order advocated the preservation of the Eastern Rite puri¬
fied from all the elements that the Catholic Church qualified as superstition
and abuses. The situation would improve with the arrival of Greek Catholic
monks of the Basilian order because they were educating local Greek Catho¬
lic clergy who would in turn replace the Orthodox clergy loyal to patriarchs
of
Peć.
Emperor Ferdinand II rejected demands for expelling Orthodox clergy
and monks from the Military Border and for introducing Catholic schools
for the Orthodox population. He attempted to solve this problem by electing
a member of the
"Vlach"
(Orthodox) clergy as a new Greek Catholic bishop.
Aware of political circumstances, Rome accepted this solution, but also sug¬
gested that the new Greek Catholic bishop should come from the ranks of
Ruthenian
uniate
monks of the Basilian order. Despite this, after Simeon had
voluntarily retired, in May
1630
Ferdinand II appointed the archimandrite
of
Marca
Maksim
Predojević
as a new Greek Catholic bishop. This decision
was made without the agreement of the Catholic Church and the Bishop of
Zagreb,
Franjo Ergelski.
The Emperor used right of the
Habsburg
rulers to
appoint bishops in ten Hungarian dioecesses and appointed
Predojević
who
was recommended by the Border officers. The Roman Curia found out about
Predojević's
appointment in
1632,
but refused to give consent and inaugurate
_577
him because it considered
Predojević
to be schismatic, calling him the enemy
of the Catholic Church, and hoped that he would be replaced by a Greek
Catholic bishop.
The first bishop of
Marca
Simeon died in
1634,
but although his successors
in
Marca
also accepted the same obligation in their appointments, especially
the one related to breaking all the connections with the Orthodox patriarchs
in
Peć (Ipek),
some of them did not honour their commitments in the period
between
1630
and
1670.
In this period bishops of Zagreb, Benedict
Vinković
(1637-1642)
and
Petar Petretić
(1648-1667),
warned the Vienna court and
Rome that the union of the Orthodox population in the Military Border with
the Catholic Church was unsuccessful, and held bishops of
Marca,
Maksim
Predojević
(1630-1642),
Gabrijel Predojević
(1642-1644)
and
Sava Stanislavić
(1648-1661),
responsible for such a situation. They accused these bishops for
having accepted the church union only seemingly: they accepted the Catho¬
lic faith in Vienna in the presence of state and church officials, but in fact
remained Orthodox, protecting the Orthodox population and considering
Orthodox patriarchs of
Peć
as their real ecclesiastical and religious leaders.
Bishop
Vinković
warned the Vienna court and Rome about a difficult posi¬
tion of Catholics in the Military Border, because Orthodox priests, frontiers¬
men and Bishop Maksim
Predojević
tried to impose the Orthodox rite and
customs, and pointed out that the Orthodox clergy had used a divorce to vol¬
untarily convert Catholics to Orthodox Christianity.
Vinković
also warned
the state authorities that it would be difficult to achieve ecclesiastical union
in the Military Border due the lack of education of Orthodox clergy and
because the church hierarchy of the Patriarchate of
Peć
exerted too much
influence over Orthodox frontiersmen.
Vinković
believed that union could
be accepted only by schooling an adequate number of Greek Catholic priests
in Catholic institutions and installing a new
Uniate
bishop sincerely devoted
to the Catholic Church. By accusing Maksim
Predojević
for being a false
Greek Catholic who was advocating Orthodoxy and obstructing ecclesiasti¬
cal union in the Military Border,
Vinković
wanted Maksim to be forced to
accept the Catholic faith and the position of a bishop vicar of Zagreb for
the Eastern Rite Christians in the dioecese of Zagreb, because according to
canon law they could not act as independent bishops. This would ensure that
Orthodox frontiersmen and their bishop would enter into union with the
Catholic Church. Otherwise, Maksim
Predojević
should be replaced with a
true Greek Catholic and
Vinković
proposed as his own candidate Bishop of
Smederevo Rafael
Levaković
to be nominated for the bishop of
Marca, or
at
least for a coadjutor of the bishop of
Marca.
But although die Roman Curia
supported
Vinković's
suggestions, the latter were not acceptable for the
mili-
578_
tary
circles in Vienna, who made a final decision on the affairs in the Military
Border. Regardless of
Vinković
s
attempts to achieve control of the Catholic
Church over the investiture of bishops of
Marca,
the Roman Curia allowed
the Emperor to make the final decision, and the Vienna court accepted the
status quo, by allowing Orthodox frontiersmen to appoint their own candi¬
date as bishop of
Marca.
After
Vinković,
Bishop
Petar Petretić
tried to point to connections be¬
tween Orthodox clergy, monks and some bishops of
Marca
with Orthodox
patriarchs of
Peć
and that some actions of bishops of
Marca
caused the
spreading of Orthodox Christianity in the Military Border. In
Petar Petretić's
view, connections between Orthodox clergy and monks from the Military
Border with patriarchs of
Peć
proved their disloyalty towards the Austrian
emperor and posed a threat for state security because Orthodox monks were
crossing the state border without any control. Because of its connections with
the Patriarchs of
Peć,
Orthodox clergy and monks were suspicious of serving
as spies of the Ottoman empire. Like
Vinković, Petretić
also thought that the
new bishop of
Marca
should be a real Greek Catholic clergyman, educated
in Catholic schools, who would accept the duty of vicar of Zagreb bishop
for Eastern rite Christians living in the dioecese of Zagreb. Such a person
would be able to break all ties with the Patriarch of
Peć
and Orthodox clergy,
and frontiersmen would gradually become united with the Catholic Church.
Petretić
even proposed the arrival of Greek Catholic monks of the Basilian
order from Ukraine, who would replace monks loyal to the Patriarch of
Peć
and bring frontiersmen closer to union with the Catholic Church. The Vienna
court did not accept
Petretićs
proposal because it was a traditional custom
that frontiersmen elect bishops of
Marca
at their meetings and propose their
candidate to the Emperor. The Vienna Court feared that Orthodox frontiers¬
men could rebel against any other candidate for the bishop of
Marca.
Besides,
Vinković
and
Petretić
also suggested that bishops of
Marca
had a role of be¬
ing political representatives of all the frontiersmen, because frontiersmen's
privileges were kept in the monastery of
Marca,
and
Marca
bishops gave
support to frontiersmen in their clashes with the military authorities. Catho¬
lic bishops even suspected that bishops of
Marca
instigated frontiersmen's
rebellions against the Croatian estates and also against the military authori¬
ties. The discussion about the conditions, which the new bishop of
Marca
had
to fulfil, developed into a conflict between two parties. The first consisted of
the Zagreb Bishop
Petretić,
the Zagreb Canon Matija
Slovenčić,
Jesuit
Balta¬
zar
Milovec and members of the Jesuit order in Vienna, who wanted the
appointment of a real Greek Catholic clergyman for the bishop of
Marca,
educated in Catholic institutions. On the other side, there were Croatian Ban
_579
(Viceroy) Nikola
Zrinski,
commander-in-chief of the
Varaždin
Generalcy
Walter Leslie, Hungarian chancellor Szelepcheny and Slavonian
nobelmen
who claimed that the Vlachs saw the proposal of church union as a viola¬
tion of frontiersmens privileges. They were supporting Gabrijel
Mijakić,
the
archimandrite of
Marca,
elected by Orthodox clergy and the Vlachs, with an
explanation that nomination of a candidate unaccepted by Orthodox cler¬
gy and frontiersmen could provoke an uprising in the Military Border in a
moment when war with the Ottoman Empire was imminent. They did not
take into consideration Bishop
Petretić's
accusations that
Mijakić
was only
seemingly a Greek Catholic and that his real goal was to become the Bishop
of
Marca
who would protect Orthodox Christianity in the Military Border
similarly to his predecessors. In the end, the threat of a possible uprising
in the Military Border, in case Gabrijel
Mijakić
was not elected as Bishop
of
Marca
along with a military threat from the Ottoman Empire, prompted
Emperor Leopold I finally to nominate Gabrijel
Mijakić
as a new Bishop of
Marca.
However, he imposed a condition that
Mijakić
should unite Ortho¬
dox frontiersmen and clergy with the Catholic Church, break all connections
with the Orthodox Patriarch of
Peć,
build Catholic schools in the Military
Border for educating the Orthodox youth, and finally accept the position of
a vicar of the Bishop of Zagreb for Eastern rite Christians in the dioecese of
Zagreb. Bishop of Zagreb
Petar Petretić
was against
Mijakić's
nomination,
claiming that nobody could guarantee that he would fulfil these obligations.
But despite
Petretić's
warnings that there is no sign of actual rebellion in the
Military Border, the Vienna court did not take into account his arguments
and nominated Gabrijel
Mijakić
as a new Bishop of
Marca.
Mijakić's
posi¬
tion was unaffected even when he visited the Orthodox bishop in Moldova
to get consecration before talcing an oath in front of representatives of the
Catholic Church. In Vienna
Mijakić
took an oath before the representatives
of the Catholic Church and accepted the Pope as his religious authority. He
renounced the Patriarch of
Peć
and assumed the obligation to accept the po¬
sition of a vicar of the Bishop of Zagreb for Eastern rite Christians in the dio¬
ecese of Zagreb.
Mijakić
also promised to visit Rome to gain confirmation, to
promote Catholic faith among the Vlachs, and to build Catholic schools for
educating the
Vlach
youth. Finally, he promised that he would not take part
in disagreements between frontiersmen and the Border authorities and that
he would not act as a political representative of frontiersmen. After returning
to
Marča, Mijakić
had no contacts with Bishop of Zagreb
Petretić
for a long
time.
Mijakić's
activities received closer attention only after the suppressing
of frontiersmen's rebellion in
1666,
when the investigation about rebellion
accused
Mijakić
and Orthodox clergy for helping leaders of the rebellion.
580_
Investigation also raised the question of meeting the obligations that
Mijaldć
assumed, when he became the Bishop of
Marca.
The reports of bishops of
Zagreb
Petar Petretić
and his successor Martin
Borković
(1667-1687),
mili¬
tary commander of the
Varaždin
Generalcy Honorius Trauttmansdorff and
Colonel of
Križevci
Joseph
Johann
Herberstein
accused
Mijaldć
of support¬
ing the rebellion in
1666,
protecting its leaders and not meeting the obliga¬
tions under which he became the Bishop of
Marca. He
was especially accused
of continuing contacts with the Patriarch of
Peć
and also became suspect
of being involved into the conspiracy of Croatian magnates
Petar Zrinski
and Fran Krsto Frankopan against Leopold I, although there was no direct
evidence for this. Nevertheless, when
Mijaldć
was replaced and imprisoned,
the Vienna court claimed this was done because he allegedly took part in the
conspiracy of the Croatian and Hungarian noblemen. The Court knew that
frontiersmen would revolt, if they had known the real reasons for
Mijakićs
replacement. This was his refusal to fulfil obligations concerning the accept¬
ance of the union he took when he was installed as Bishop of
Marca.
Mijaldć
was arrested during late
1670
and imprisoned in fortress Glatz in Bohemia,
where he died at the end of
1686.
The new Greek Catholic bishop of
Marca
became
Pavao Zorčić,
which
was a monk in
Marca
until the death of Bishop
Sava Stanislavić.
Due to the
disagreements concerning the election of a new bishop between monks and
clergy,
Zorčić
went to Zagreb to Bishop
Petar Petretić,
who became his pro¬
tector by enabling
Zorčić
to study Catholic theology in the Hungarian-Illyr-
ian College in Bologna. In
1667
he returned and became priest in the parish
of
Sveti Ivan Žabno.
After
Mijaldć
had been arrested, Pavao
Zorčić
was ap¬
pointed as Greek Catholic Bishop of
Marca
under conditions earlier accepted
by
Mijaldć.
However, although he recognized the primacy of Roman pope
and accepted the position of vicar of the Bishop of Zagreb, it proved very
difficult to implement union among Orthodox frontiersmen and clergy. The
union meant the removal of rites and customs of Orthodox Christians that
were considered opposite to the Catholic faith, and to enforce such a policy
proved as a difficult task. During his prelacy, Pavao
Zorčić
was strongly op¬
posed by monks of
Marca
and Lepavina monasteries, who claimed that only
they could elect a new bishop, and wanted an Orthodox one, and not a Greek
Catholic. Pavao
Zorčić
had little support from the military authorities. Al¬
though at the beginning of
Zorčić's
service as a bishop fourteen monks who
opposed him were imprisoned, Border officers were not inclined to punish
monks and clergy who formally accepted union, but in fact refused to work
according to
Zorčić's
orders and kept relations with Patriarchs of
Peć.
Monks
spread rumours that the army would use force to impose the Catholic faith,
and Border officers kept obstructing
Zorčić's
activities, which weakened his
position. He encountered the greatest problem when he attempted to change
the established religious tradition of Orthodox frontiersmen because clergy
and monks saw the change of some elements of religious service as a change
of faith, which they equalised with ritual. These problems could have been
solved, if the properly educated Greek Catholic clergy had replaced Orthodox
monks and clergy. Although Emperor Leopold I accepted
Zorčićs
proposal
for the education of Greek Catholic clergy, elaborate plans to conduct reli¬
gious education among frontiersmen where abandoned when
Pavao Zorčić
died in early
1685.
The beginning of the Ottoman-
Habsburg
War in
1683
had an impact on
the official religious policy towards the Military Border similar to that of the
Thirty Years War during the first half of the seventeenth century. This meant
that any decision that could cause instability in the Military Border was
avoided. Already at the beginning of the Ottoman-Habsburg War the ques¬
tion of a new Greek Catholic bishop had arisen, and the Bishop of Zagreb
along with Cardinal Leopold Kollonich supported
Marko Zorčić,
brother of
Pavao
Zorčić,
as a new bishop. Although Orthodox clergy and frontiersmen
wanted to elect their own Orthodox candidate, the Vienna Court nominated
Marko
as a new bishop of
Marca. Rome
disputed the Courts right to nomi¬
nate a new bishop on its own and protracted Marko's nomination. During his
two years long service,
Marko
had to confront the resistance of frontiersmen
and opposition of officers who did not offer him support against monks and
frontiersmen who did not accept him as a bishop. The Court in Vienna did
also not pay attention to his plans concerning Orthodox Christians in the
newly liberated areas after the expulsion of the Ottoman Turks, although
Bishop of Zagreb Martin
Borković
suggested that these Orthodox Christians
should be put under the jurisdiction of the bishop of
Marca.
Marko Zorčić
died in
1688
and the new Bishop of
Marca
Isaia
Popović
was elected without discrepancies between the Vienna Court, monks, fron¬
tiersmen and the Bishop of Zagreb. Nevertheless, the prelacy of Isaia
Popović
was not peaceful because Patriarch of
Peć Arsenije III Crnojević
asked from
the
Habsburg
Monarchy to gain jurisdiction over all the Eastern rite Chris¬
tians living in Monarchy, both Orthodox and Greek Catholic. Therefore, he
also wanted to take control over the Dioecese of
Marca.
The Patriarch of
Peć
based his claim on the privilege received by the Vienna Court in
1690
that
retained the independent position of the Orthodox Church hierarchy in the
Habsburg
Monarchy. During late
1692,
Patriarch
Arsenije III Crnojević
visit¬
ed the
Varaždin
Generalcy where he was warmly welcomed by frontiersmen
who told the Bishop of
Marca
Isaia
Popović
that he must accept Patriarch
582_
Crnojević
as his superior. Nevertheless, Isaia did not do this, but he met with
Patriarch. This provoked a fierce reaction on the part of Cardinal Kollonich
who was the only person to support the interests of Greek Catholic bishops of
Marca
at the Vienna Court. To accept the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Patri¬
arch would mean to limit the rights of Bishops of
Marca.
However, the Vienna
Court did not react to this because it considered Patriarch of
Peć Crnojević
as an ally in the Ottoman-Habsburg War and during the
Rákóczy
rebellion
in Hungary, so that protests of bishops of Zagreb and
Marca
bishops against
Patriarch
Crnojević
were useless. Cardinal Kollonich proposed to limit the
jurisdiction of Arsenije
III Crnojević
only to the Orthodox Serbs which left
the Ottoman Empire and moved to the
Habsburg
Monarchy with Patriarch
Crnojević,
but the Court did not accept this proposal. Instead, the position of
Greek Catholics and their bishops should have been protected by the charter
issued in
1699,
but this was a failure because Greek Catholic bishops were still
under the jurisdiction of Roman Catholic bishops, and depended on their de¬
cisions. The Orthodox Church hierarchy under Arsenije
III Crnojević,
thanks
to Leopold's charter from
1695,
which enabled the independent activity of
Orthodox patriarchs and bishops, developed its activities without any restric¬
tions. Because of such religious policy of the Vienna Court, Greek Catholic
bishops of
Marca
lost their influence in the
Karlstadt Generalcy,
where au¬
thorities and frontiersmen accepted Orthodox Bishop
Atanasije Ljubović.
In
the
Varaždin
Generalcy Orthodox frontiersmen refused to accept a Greek
Catholic bishop and demanded an Orthodox one. In addition, the Vienna
Court nominated new Greek Catholic bishops for
Slavonia
and
Srijem,
and
accepted the installation of an Orthodox bishop in
Pakrac.
Cardinal Kollon¬
ich died in
1707
and Vienna did not support his suggestions on behalf of
the .Dioecese of
Marca.
The position of bishops of
Marca
was weakened and
they could rely only on bishops of Zagreb, but during that period the Court
did not accept the latter's suggestions either. At the same time, the Orthodox
church hierarchy was free to develop its activities on a much wider terri¬
tory than bishops of the dioecese of
Marca
and Orthodox bishops took the
role of supporters and representatives of frontiersmen in their contacts with
the state and military authorities. Unlike their Orthodox counterparts, Greek
Catholic bishops of
Marca
had to renounce such activities since the time of
Bishop
Gabrijel Mijakić.
The position of bishops of
Marca in
the Military Bor¬
der was further weakened by conflicts between the Vienna Court and Rome
concerning its area of jurisdiction that sometimes encompassed a whole of
Croatia and
Slavonia,
and sometimes only the area of the dioecese of Zagreb,
although since the early eighteenth century their actual area of jurisdiction
was restricted to the territory of the
Varaždin
Generalcy.
_583
During the rule of Carl VI Orthodox frontiersmen of the
Varaždin Gen-
eralcy rejected bishops of
Marca
as their legitimate religious representatives.
They claimed that the monastery of
Marca
was originally established as an
Orthodox Christian institution and not a Greek Catholic one and wanted
the appointment of Orthodox bishop in
Marca.
Although Vienna formally
warned the Orthodox metropolitan in
Srijemski Karlovci
that the
Varaždin
Generalcy is not the area of their religious activity and the military repre¬
sentatives of the Military Border recommended various solutions for the im¬
provement of Church union, nevertheless Vienna accepted suggestions of
Border officers and refused to take into consideration proposals of bishops
of
Marca
who asked Emperor to take firm approach toward Orthodox clergy,
bishops and population. After it had become obvious that Greek Catholics
practically do not exist as a religious group in the
Varaždin
Generalacy, the
Court decided to establish an Orthodox bishopric of Lepavina and
Severin,
but this did not calm frontiersmen who asked to take control over
Marca.
They took it by force in
1735
claiming that it had always belonged to Ortho¬
dox frontiersmen. The Vienna court, having received several different reports
on the history of
Marca,
accepted the arguments presented by the Catho¬
lic representatives. It decided that it belongs to the Catholic Church and to
Greek Catholics of the Military Border, and that Orthodox frontiersmen took
it away without any right. Following that decision, Orthodox frontiersmen
attacked and burned down the church and monastery in
Marca.
The authori¬
ties accused Simeon
Filipović,
Orthodox bishop of Lepavina and
Severin
for
organizing the attack on
Marca
and opened investigation against him that
was ended by his death in
1743.
The new residence of Greek Catholic bishops
of
Marca
became
Pribić
in
Žumberak
area, where the new bishop Teophil
Pašić
(1738-1746)
resided. Despite the support from the Catholic Church
and military authorities he did not succeed in strengthening his position and
power in the Military Border because of resistance on the part of Orthodox
frontiersmen. Finally, the dioecese was taken from him because he did not
respect church discipline and he spent the rest of his life in a Basilian mon¬
astery in Lavov. After the frontiersmen revolt in
1755
Empress and Queen
Maria Tlieresia brought the final decision on the destiny of the monastery
and church in
Marca.
Orthodox frontiersmen renounced their rights on
Marca
under the condition that it should belong to the Roman Catholics and
not to Greek Catholics.
Marca
was taken over by the Piarists monks, but they
left
Marca
after
1755.
Greek Catholic bishop
Gabrijel Palković
(1751-1759)
moved from
Marca
to the
Preseká
estate and resided in
Pribić
in
Žumberak.
Contemporaries understood Empress's decisions as a consequence of foreign
political developments. France was the
Habsburg
ally in the Austrian war
584_
with Prussia and France advocated Catholic interests. Russia advocated the
rights of the Orthodox population in the
Habsburg
Monarchy. Therefore, the
arrival of the Piarist order in
Marca
and the assignment of the
Preseká
estate
to Greek Catholic bishop had to satisfy both France and Russia. |
| adam_txt |
SADRŽAJ
Predgovor
. 7
Kratice
. 11
l.Uvod
. 13
1.1.
Crkvena unija
-
pojava i razvoj ideje do sabora u
Firenzi
. 13
1.2.
Historiografija i izvori
o Marčanskoj
biskupiji
. 27
1.3.
Vlasi kao historiografski problem
. 57
2.
Katolička crkva i istočno kršćanstvo od sredine
15.
stoljeća
do sredine
18.
stoljeća
. 75
3.
Katolička crkva i Pecka patrijaršija
. 95
4.
Pravoslavni krajišnici Hrvatsko-slavonske vojne krajine
. 121
5.
Nastanak Marčanske biskupije
. 159
5.1.
Utemeljenje Marčanske biskupije i prvi biskup
Simeon
. 159
5.2.
Hrvatski staleži, vlaško pitanje i njegovo vjersko i političko značenje
. 191
6.
Marčanska biskupija između Katoličke crkve i
Pećke patrijaršije
(1630.-1663.). 219
6.1. Benedikt
Vinković i
Maksim
Predojević
. 219
6.2.
Gabrijel i Bazilije Predojevići
. 258
6.3.
Petar Petretić i Sava Stanislavič
. 269
7.
Gabrijel Mijakić: vikar zagrebačkoga biskupa za kršćane
grčkog obreda i/ili marčanski vladika
. 293
7.1.
Razdoblje sedisvakancije
. 293
7.2.
Raskolnik i urotnik? Mijakić i Zrinsko-Frankopanska urota
. 319
8.
Bislcupovanje
Pavla
i Marka Zorčića
(1671.-1689.). 347
8.1.
Pavao Zorčić
-
vikar zagrebačkoga biskupa za Vlahe u
Zagrebačkoj biskupiji
. 347
8.2.
Biskupovanje Marka ZorČića
(1685.-1689.). 364
9.
Marčanski biskupi i djelovanje patrijarha Arsenija III. Crnojevića
. 379
9.1.
Izaija Popović iArsenije III. Crnojević
. 379
9.2.
Marčanski biskup Gabrijel Turčinović
(1700.-1707.)
i pokušaj
obnove jurisdikcijske vlasti marčanskih biskupa
. 394
9.3.
Razdoblje Josipa I.
(1706.-1711.). 411
10.
Marčanska biskupija tijekom vladavine Karla
VI
. 433
10.1.
Biskupovanje
Rafaela
Markovita
i Grgura Vučiniča
. 433
10.2.
Marča-katolička ili pravoslavna?
. 454
11.
Marija Terezija i
Marca
. 481
Zaključak
. 497
Prilozi
.291,344, 345,507
Zemljovidi
.80,119,127,138,167,363,393,410,427,436,447,452,453,492
Izvori i literatura
. 539
Kazalo imena
. 563
Summary
. 575
Bilješka
о
autoru
. 585
SUMMARY
The Greek Catholic
(Uniate) Dioecese
of
Marca
(called "Svidnica" by the
Vienna Court and "Platearum" by the Roman Curia) was established in
1611,
when Greek Catholic Bishop Simeon Vratanja was consecrated in Rome. He
assumed obligation to unite Orthodox frontiersmen (Vlachs) of the Croatian
and Slavonian Military Border and other Orthodox Christians in the Hun¬
garian-Croatian Kingdom with the Catholic Church. In order to become a
Greek Catholic or
Uniate
bishop, Simeon had to accept decrees issued by
the Council of Trent, and especially to recognize the primacy of the Roman
pope, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, the
existence of Purgatory and the use of unleavened bread in liturgy. Although
the Hungarian-Croatian Kingdom was declaratively pronounced as Bishop
Simeons jurisdictional territory, in fact his jurisdiction spread predomi¬
nantly over the Croatian and Slavonian Military Border, where the Orthodox
Vlachs had been settled ever since the late sixteenth century. The monastery
of St. Michael in
Marca in
the
Varaždin
Generalcy (the Slavonian Military
Border) became the see of a new Greek Catholic eparchy. Having analyzed
available sources about Simeon's prelacy, the author concludes that motives
and circumstances of Simeon's acceptance of union with the Catholic Church
cannot be clearly recognizable, and that the majority of the Orthodox popu¬
lation in the Military Border did not accept union with the Catholic Church
in the spring of
1611,
as some historians have previously claimed. In fact,
Simeons union was an example of a so-called "Bishop's union", that is, a un¬
ion of a single bishop with the Catholic Church, whose goal was to gradually
unite Orthodox frontiersmen with the Catholic Church. However, the first
elaborated reports about the Orthodox population in the Military Border,
made at the incentive of the Catholic Church between
1626
and
1630,
sug¬
gested that the acceptance of ecclesiastical union was not as successful as
Catholic clergy had initially planned, and that Bishop Simeon did not exert
significant influence over the Orthodox population in the Military Border
576_
because it remained under strong influence of Orthodox clergy and monks
under the jurisdiction of Orthodox patriarchs in
Peć.
The Roman Curia pro¬
posed to the authorities in Vienna that all Orthodox clergy and monks, who
were coming from the Ottoman Empire, should be expelled from the Mili¬
tary Border, and that old Bishop Simeon should be replaced by a new Greek
Catholic bishop. Vienna rejected this proposal fearing the rebellion of the
Orthodox population in the Military Border, which considered ecclesiasti¬
cal union as a violation of their right to religious freedom and as an attempt
to turn them to serfs of bishops of Zagreb and the Croatian nobility. Such
an understanding of ecclesiastical union emerged due to the demands of
the Croatian nobility and bishops of Zagreb that frontiersmen should pay
taxes for using the land previously owned by the nobility and the Dioecese
of Zagreb. Frontiersmen identified ecclesiastical union with the intentions of
the Croatian nobility and bishops of Zagreb and thought that the change of
religious denomination would change their social position. During the last
period of Simeons service as a bishop there emerged two different positions
concerning the union: first, Roman Catholic bishops whose dioeceses were
inhabited by the Orthodox population opted for a direct acceptance of the
Latin (Roman Catholic) rite and wanted the Orthodox population to come
under their religious supervision. Second, Greek Catholic
Ruthenian
monks
of the Basilian order advocated the preservation of the Eastern Rite puri¬
fied from all the elements that the Catholic Church qualified as superstition
and abuses. The situation would improve with the arrival of Greek Catholic
monks of the Basilian order because they were educating local Greek Catho¬
lic clergy who would in turn replace the Orthodox clergy loyal to patriarchs
of
Peć.
Emperor Ferdinand II rejected demands for expelling Orthodox clergy
and monks from the Military Border and for introducing Catholic schools
for the Orthodox population. He attempted to solve this problem by electing
a member of the
"Vlach"
(Orthodox) clergy as a new Greek Catholic bishop.
Aware of political circumstances, Rome accepted this solution, but also sug¬
gested that the new Greek Catholic bishop should come from the ranks of
Ruthenian
uniate
monks of the Basilian order. Despite this, after Simeon had
voluntarily retired, in May
1630
Ferdinand II appointed the archimandrite
of
Marca
Maksim
Predojević
as a new Greek Catholic bishop. This decision
was made without the agreement of the Catholic Church and the Bishop of
Zagreb,
Franjo Ergelski.
The Emperor used right of the
Habsburg
rulers to
appoint bishops in ten Hungarian dioecesses and appointed
Predojević
who
was recommended by the Border officers. The Roman Curia found out about
Predojević's
appointment in
1632,
but refused to give consent and inaugurate
_577
him because it considered
Predojević
to be schismatic, calling him the enemy
of the Catholic Church, and hoped that he would be replaced by a Greek
Catholic bishop.
The first bishop of
Marca
Simeon died in
1634,
but although his successors
in
Marca
also accepted the same obligation in their appointments, especially
the one related to breaking all the connections with the Orthodox patriarchs
in
Peć (Ipek),
some of them did not honour their commitments in the period
between
1630
and
1670.
In this period bishops of Zagreb, Benedict
Vinković
(1637-1642)
and
Petar Petretić
(1648-1667),
warned the Vienna court and
Rome that the union of the Orthodox population in the Military Border with
the Catholic Church was unsuccessful, and held bishops of
Marca,
Maksim
Predojević
(1630-1642),
Gabrijel Predojević
(1642-1644)
and
Sava Stanislavić
(1648-1661),
responsible for such a situation. They accused these bishops for
having accepted the church union only seemingly: they accepted the Catho¬
lic faith in Vienna in the presence of state and church officials, but in fact
remained Orthodox, protecting the Orthodox population and considering
Orthodox patriarchs of
Peć
as their real ecclesiastical and religious leaders.
Bishop
Vinković
warned the Vienna court and Rome about a difficult posi¬
tion of Catholics in the Military Border, because Orthodox priests, frontiers¬
men and Bishop Maksim
Predojević
tried to impose the Orthodox rite and
customs, and pointed out that the Orthodox clergy had used a divorce to vol¬
untarily convert Catholics to Orthodox Christianity.
Vinković
also warned
the state authorities that it would be difficult to achieve ecclesiastical union
in the Military Border due the lack of education of Orthodox clergy and
because the church hierarchy of the Patriarchate of
Peć
exerted too much
influence over Orthodox frontiersmen.
Vinković
believed that union could
be accepted only by schooling an adequate number of Greek Catholic priests
in Catholic institutions and installing a new
Uniate
bishop sincerely devoted
to the Catholic Church. By accusing Maksim
Predojević
for being a false
Greek Catholic who was advocating Orthodoxy and obstructing ecclesiasti¬
cal union in the Military Border,
Vinković
wanted Maksim to be forced to
accept the Catholic faith and the position of a bishop vicar of Zagreb for
the Eastern Rite Christians in the dioecese of Zagreb, because according to
canon law they could not act as independent bishops. This would ensure that
Orthodox frontiersmen and their bishop would enter into union with the
Catholic Church. Otherwise, Maksim
Predojević
should be replaced with a
true Greek Catholic and
Vinković
proposed as his own candidate Bishop of
Smederevo Rafael
Levaković
to be nominated for the bishop of
Marca, or
at
least for a coadjutor of the bishop of
Marca.
But although die Roman Curia
supported
Vinković's
suggestions, the latter were not acceptable for the
mili-
578_
tary
circles in Vienna, who made a final decision on the affairs in the Military
Border. Regardless of
Vinković
s
attempts to achieve control of the Catholic
Church over the investiture of bishops of
Marca,
the Roman Curia allowed
the Emperor to make the final decision, and the Vienna court accepted the
status quo, by allowing Orthodox frontiersmen to appoint their own candi¬
date as bishop of
Marca.
After
Vinković,
Bishop
Petar Petretić
tried to point to connections be¬
tween Orthodox clergy, monks and some bishops of
Marca
with Orthodox
patriarchs of
Peć
and that some actions of bishops of
Marca
caused the
spreading of Orthodox Christianity in the Military Border. In
Petar Petretić's
view, connections between Orthodox clergy and monks from the Military
Border with patriarchs of
Peć
proved their disloyalty towards the Austrian
emperor and posed a threat for state security because Orthodox monks were
crossing the state border without any control. Because of its connections with
the Patriarchs of
Peć,
Orthodox clergy and monks were suspicious of serving
as spies of the Ottoman empire. Like
Vinković, Petretić
also thought that the
new bishop of
Marca
should be a real Greek Catholic clergyman, educated
in Catholic schools, who would accept the duty of vicar of Zagreb bishop
for Eastern rite Christians living in the dioecese of Zagreb. Such a person
would be able to break all ties with the Patriarch of
Peć
and Orthodox clergy,
and frontiersmen would gradually become united with the Catholic Church.
Petretić
even proposed the arrival of Greek Catholic monks of the Basilian
order from Ukraine, who would replace monks loyal to the Patriarch of
Peć
and bring frontiersmen closer to union with the Catholic Church. The Vienna
court did not accept
Petretićs
proposal because it was a traditional custom
that frontiersmen elect bishops of
Marca
at their meetings and propose their
candidate to the Emperor. The Vienna Court feared that Orthodox frontiers¬
men could rebel against any other candidate for the bishop of
Marca.
Besides,
Vinković
and
Petretić
also suggested that bishops of
Marca
had a role of be¬
ing political representatives of all the frontiersmen, because frontiersmen's
privileges were kept in the monastery of
Marca,
and
Marca
bishops gave
support to frontiersmen in their clashes with the military authorities. Catho¬
lic bishops even suspected that bishops of
Marca
instigated frontiersmen's
rebellions against the Croatian estates and also against the military authori¬
ties. The discussion about the conditions, which the new bishop of
Marca
had
to fulfil, developed into a conflict between two parties. The first consisted of
the Zagreb Bishop
Petretić,
the Zagreb Canon Matija
Slovenčić,
Jesuit
Balta¬
zar
Milovec and members of the Jesuit order in Vienna, who wanted the
appointment of a real Greek Catholic clergyman for the bishop of
Marca,
educated in Catholic institutions. On the other side, there were Croatian Ban
_579
(Viceroy) Nikola
Zrinski,
commander-in-chief of the
Varaždin
Generalcy
Walter Leslie, Hungarian chancellor Szelepcheny and Slavonian
nobelmen
who claimed that the Vlachs saw the proposal of church union as a viola¬
tion of frontiersmens privileges. They were supporting Gabrijel
Mijakić,
the
archimandrite of
Marca,
elected by Orthodox clergy and the Vlachs, with an
explanation that nomination of a candidate unaccepted by Orthodox cler¬
gy and frontiersmen could provoke an uprising in the Military Border in a
moment when war with the Ottoman Empire was imminent. They did not
take into consideration Bishop
Petretić's
accusations that
Mijakić
was only
seemingly a Greek Catholic and that his real goal was to become the Bishop
of
Marca
who would protect Orthodox Christianity in the Military Border
similarly to his predecessors. In the end, the threat of a possible uprising
in the Military Border, in case Gabrijel
Mijakić
was not elected as Bishop
of
Marca
along with a military threat from the Ottoman Empire, prompted
Emperor Leopold I finally to nominate Gabrijel
Mijakić
as a new Bishop of
Marca.
However, he imposed a condition that
Mijakić
should unite Ortho¬
dox frontiersmen and clergy with the Catholic Church, break all connections
with the Orthodox Patriarch of
Peć,
build Catholic schools in the Military
Border for educating the Orthodox youth, and finally accept the position of
a vicar of the Bishop of Zagreb for Eastern rite Christians in the dioecese of
Zagreb. Bishop of Zagreb
Petar Petretić
was against
Mijakić's
nomination,
claiming that nobody could guarantee that he would fulfil these obligations.
But despite
Petretić's
warnings that there is no sign of actual rebellion in the
Military Border, the Vienna court did not take into account his arguments
and nominated Gabrijel
Mijakić
as a new Bishop of
Marca.
Mijakić's
posi¬
tion was unaffected even when he visited the Orthodox bishop in Moldova
to get consecration before talcing an oath in front of representatives of the
Catholic Church. In Vienna
Mijakić
took an oath before the representatives
of the Catholic Church and accepted the Pope as his religious authority. He
renounced the Patriarch of
Peć
and assumed the obligation to accept the po¬
sition of a vicar of the Bishop of Zagreb for Eastern rite Christians in the dio¬
ecese of Zagreb.
Mijakić
also promised to visit Rome to gain confirmation, to
promote Catholic faith among the Vlachs, and to build Catholic schools for
educating the
Vlach
youth. Finally, he promised that he would not take part
in disagreements between frontiersmen and the Border authorities and that
he would not act as a political representative of frontiersmen. After returning
to
Marča, Mijakić
had no contacts with Bishop of Zagreb
Petretić
for a long
time.
Mijakić's
activities received closer attention only after the suppressing
of frontiersmen's rebellion in
1666,
when the investigation about rebellion
accused
Mijakić
and Orthodox clergy for helping leaders of the rebellion.
580_
Investigation also raised the question of meeting the obligations that
Mijaldć
assumed, when he became the Bishop of
Marca.
The reports of bishops of
Zagreb
Petar Petretić
and his successor Martin
Borković
(1667-1687),
mili¬
tary commander of the
Varaždin
Generalcy Honorius Trauttmansdorff and
Colonel of
Križevci
Joseph
Johann
Herberstein
accused
Mijaldć
of support¬
ing the rebellion in
1666,
protecting its leaders and not meeting the obliga¬
tions under which he became the Bishop of
Marca. He
was especially accused
of continuing contacts with the Patriarch of
Peć
and also became suspect
of being involved into the conspiracy of Croatian magnates
Petar Zrinski
and Fran Krsto Frankopan against Leopold I, although there was no direct
evidence for this. Nevertheless, when
Mijaldć
was replaced and imprisoned,
the Vienna court claimed this was done because he allegedly took part in the
conspiracy of the Croatian and Hungarian noblemen. The Court knew that
frontiersmen would revolt, if they had known the real reasons for
Mijakićs
replacement. This was his refusal to fulfil obligations concerning the accept¬
ance of the union he took when he was installed as Bishop of
Marca.
Mijaldć
was arrested during late
1670
and imprisoned in fortress Glatz in Bohemia,
where he died at the end of
1686.
The new Greek Catholic bishop of
Marca
became
Pavao Zorčić,
which
was a monk in
Marca
until the death of Bishop
Sava Stanislavić.
Due to the
disagreements concerning the election of a new bishop between monks and
clergy,
Zorčić
went to Zagreb to Bishop
Petar Petretić,
who became his pro¬
tector by enabling
Zorčić
to study Catholic theology in the Hungarian-Illyr-
ian College in Bologna. In
1667
he returned and became priest in the parish
of
Sveti Ivan Žabno.
After
Mijaldć
had been arrested, Pavao
Zorčić
was ap¬
pointed as Greek Catholic Bishop of
Marca
under conditions earlier accepted
by
Mijaldć.
However, although he recognized the primacy of Roman pope
and accepted the position of vicar of the Bishop of Zagreb, it proved very
difficult to implement union among Orthodox frontiersmen and clergy. The
union meant the removal of rites and customs of Orthodox Christians that
were considered opposite to the Catholic faith, and to enforce such a policy
proved as a difficult task. During his prelacy, Pavao
Zorčić
was strongly op¬
posed by monks of
Marca
and Lepavina monasteries, who claimed that only
they could elect a new bishop, and wanted an Orthodox one, and not a Greek
Catholic. Pavao
Zorčić
had little support from the military authorities. Al¬
though at the beginning of
Zorčić's
service as a bishop fourteen monks who
opposed him were imprisoned, Border officers were not inclined to punish
monks and clergy who formally accepted union, but in fact refused to work
according to
Zorčić's
orders and kept relations with Patriarchs of
Peć.
Monks
spread rumours that the army would use force to impose the Catholic faith,
and Border officers kept obstructing
Zorčić's
activities, which weakened his
position. He encountered the greatest problem when he attempted to change
the established religious tradition of Orthodox frontiersmen because clergy
and monks saw the change of some elements of religious service as a change
of faith, which they equalised with ritual. These problems could have been
solved, if the properly educated Greek Catholic clergy had replaced Orthodox
monks and clergy. Although Emperor Leopold I accepted
Zorčićs
proposal
for the education of Greek Catholic clergy, elaborate plans to conduct reli¬
gious education among frontiersmen where abandoned when
Pavao Zorčić
died in early
1685.
The beginning of the Ottoman-
Habsburg
War in
1683
had an impact on
the official religious policy towards the Military Border similar to that of the
Thirty Years War during the first half of the seventeenth century. This meant
that any decision that could cause instability in the Military Border was
avoided. Already at the beginning of the Ottoman-Habsburg War the ques¬
tion of a new Greek Catholic bishop had arisen, and the Bishop of Zagreb
along with Cardinal Leopold Kollonich supported
Marko Zorčić,
brother of
Pavao
Zorčić,
as a new bishop. Although Orthodox clergy and frontiersmen
wanted to elect their own Orthodox candidate, the Vienna Court nominated
Marko
as a new bishop of
Marca. Rome
disputed the Courts right to nomi¬
nate a new bishop on its own and protracted Marko's nomination. During his
two years long service,
Marko
had to confront the resistance of frontiersmen
and opposition of officers who did not offer him support against monks and
frontiersmen who did not accept him as a bishop. The Court in Vienna did
also not pay attention to his plans concerning Orthodox Christians in the
newly liberated areas after the expulsion of the Ottoman Turks, although
Bishop of Zagreb Martin
Borković
suggested that these Orthodox Christians
should be put under the jurisdiction of the bishop of
Marca.
Marko Zorčić
died in
1688
and the new Bishop of
Marca
Isaia
Popović
was elected without discrepancies between the Vienna Court, monks, fron¬
tiersmen and the Bishop of Zagreb. Nevertheless, the prelacy of Isaia
Popović
was not peaceful because Patriarch of
Peć Arsenije III Crnojević
asked from
the
Habsburg
Monarchy to gain jurisdiction over all the Eastern rite Chris¬
tians living in Monarchy, both Orthodox and Greek Catholic. Therefore, he
also wanted to take control over the Dioecese of
Marca.
The Patriarch of
Peć
based his claim on the privilege received by the Vienna Court in
1690
that
retained the independent position of the Orthodox Church hierarchy in the
Habsburg
Monarchy. During late
1692,
Patriarch
Arsenije III Crnojević
visit¬
ed the
Varaždin
Generalcy where he was warmly welcomed by frontiersmen
who told the Bishop of
Marca
Isaia
Popović
that he must accept Patriarch
582_
Crnojević
as his superior. Nevertheless, Isaia did not do this, but he met with
Patriarch. This provoked a fierce reaction on the part of Cardinal Kollonich
who was the only person to support the interests of Greek Catholic bishops of
Marca
at the Vienna Court. To accept the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Patri¬
arch would mean to limit the rights of Bishops of
Marca.
However, the Vienna
Court did not react to this because it considered Patriarch of
Peć Crnojević
as an ally in the Ottoman-Habsburg War and during the
Rákóczy
rebellion
in Hungary, so that protests of bishops of Zagreb and
Marca
bishops against
Patriarch
Crnojević
were useless. Cardinal Kollonich proposed to limit the
jurisdiction of Arsenije
III Crnojević
only to the Orthodox Serbs which left
the Ottoman Empire and moved to the
Habsburg
Monarchy with Patriarch
Crnojević,
but the Court did not accept this proposal. Instead, the position of
Greek Catholics and their bishops should have been protected by the charter
issued in
1699,
but this was a failure because Greek Catholic bishops were still
under the jurisdiction of Roman Catholic bishops, and depended on their de¬
cisions. The Orthodox Church hierarchy under Arsenije
III Crnojević,
thanks
to Leopold's charter from
1695,
which enabled the independent activity of
Orthodox patriarchs and bishops, developed its activities without any restric¬
tions. Because of such religious policy of the Vienna Court, Greek Catholic
bishops of
Marca
lost their influence in the
Karlstadt Generalcy,
where au¬
thorities and frontiersmen accepted Orthodox Bishop
Atanasije Ljubović.
In
the
Varaždin
Generalcy Orthodox frontiersmen refused to accept a Greek
Catholic bishop and demanded an Orthodox one. In addition, the Vienna
Court nominated new Greek Catholic bishops for
Slavonia
and
Srijem,
and
accepted the installation of an Orthodox bishop in
Pakrac.
Cardinal Kollon¬
ich died in
1707
and Vienna did not support his suggestions on behalf of
the .Dioecese of
Marca.
The position of bishops of
Marca
was weakened and
they could rely only on bishops of Zagreb, but during that period the Court
did not accept the latter's suggestions either. At the same time, the Orthodox
church hierarchy was free to develop its activities on a much wider terri¬
tory than bishops of the dioecese of
Marca
and Orthodox bishops took the
role of supporters and representatives of frontiersmen in their contacts with
the state and military authorities. Unlike their Orthodox counterparts, Greek
Catholic bishops of
Marca
had to renounce such activities since the time of
Bishop
Gabrijel Mijakić.
The position of bishops of
Marca in
the Military Bor¬
der was further weakened by conflicts between the Vienna Court and Rome
concerning its area of jurisdiction that sometimes encompassed a whole of
Croatia and
Slavonia,
and sometimes only the area of the dioecese of Zagreb,
although since the early eighteenth century their actual area of jurisdiction
was restricted to the territory of the
Varaždin
Generalcy.
_583
During the rule of Carl VI Orthodox frontiersmen of the
Varaždin Gen-
eralcy rejected bishops of
Marca
as their legitimate religious representatives.
They claimed that the monastery of
Marca
was originally established as an
Orthodox Christian institution and not a Greek Catholic one and wanted
the appointment of Orthodox bishop in
Marca.
Although Vienna formally
warned the Orthodox metropolitan in
Srijemski Karlovci
that the
Varaždin
Generalcy is not the area of their religious activity and the military repre¬
sentatives of the Military Border recommended various solutions for the im¬
provement of Church union, nevertheless Vienna accepted suggestions of
Border officers and refused to take into consideration proposals of bishops
of
Marca
who asked Emperor to take firm approach toward Orthodox clergy,
bishops and population. After it had become obvious that Greek Catholics
practically do not exist as a religious group in the
Varaždin
Generalacy, the
Court decided to establish an Orthodox bishopric of Lepavina and
Severin,
but this did not calm frontiersmen who asked to take control over
Marca.
They took it by force in
1735
claiming that it had always belonged to Ortho¬
dox frontiersmen. The Vienna court, having received several different reports
on the history of
Marca,
accepted the arguments presented by the Catho¬
lic representatives. It decided that it belongs to the Catholic Church and to
Greek Catholics of the Military Border, and that Orthodox frontiersmen took
it away without any right. Following that decision, Orthodox frontiersmen
attacked and burned down the church and monastery in
Marca.
The authori¬
ties accused Simeon
Filipović,
Orthodox bishop of Lepavina and
Severin
for
organizing the attack on
Marca
and opened investigation against him that
was ended by his death in
1743.
The new residence of Greek Catholic bishops
of
Marca
became
Pribić
in
Žumberak
area, where the new bishop Teophil
Pašić
(1738-1746)
resided. Despite the support from the Catholic Church
and military authorities he did not succeed in strengthening his position and
power in the Military Border because of resistance on the part of Orthodox
frontiersmen. Finally, the dioecese was taken from him because he did not
respect church discipline and he spent the rest of his life in a Basilian mon¬
astery in Lavov. After the frontiersmen revolt in
1755
Empress and Queen
Maria Tlieresia brought the final decision on the destiny of the monastery
and church in
Marca.
Orthodox frontiersmen renounced their rights on
Marca
under the condition that it should belong to the Roman Catholics and
not to Greek Catholics.
Marca
was taken over by the Piarists monks, but they
left
Marca
after
1755.
Greek Catholic bishop
Gabrijel Palković
(1751-1759)
moved from
Marca
to the
Preseká
estate and resided in
Pribić
in
Žumberak.
Contemporaries understood Empress's decisions as a consequence of foreign
political developments. France was the
Habsburg
ally in the Austrian war
584_
with Prussia and France advocated Catholic interests. Russia advocated the
rights of the Orthodox population in the
Habsburg
Monarchy. Therefore, the
arrival of the Piarist order in
Marca
and the assignment of the
Preseká
estate
to Greek Catholic bishop had to satisfy both France and Russia. |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| any_adam_object_boolean | 1 |
| author | Kudelić, Zlatko 1962- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)141194952 |
| author_facet | Kudelić, Zlatko 1962- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Kudelić, Zlatko 1962- |
| author_variant | z k zk |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV023228197 |
| callnumber-first | B - Philosophy, Psychology, Religion |
| callnumber-label | BX1612 |
| callnumber-raw | BX1612.C76 |
| callnumber-search | BX1612.C76 |
| callnumber-sort | BX 41612 C76 |
| callnumber-subject | BX - Christian Denominations |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)234218370 (DE-599)BVBBV023228197 |
| era | Geschichte 1611-1755 gnd Geschichte 1600-1750 gnd |
| era_facet | Geschichte 1611-1755 Geschichte 1600-1750 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>00000nam a2200000 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV023228197</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20080724</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">080328s2007 ab|| |||| 00||| hrv d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9789536324620</subfield><subfield code="9">978-953-6324-62-0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)234218370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV023228197</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">hrv</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-Re13</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">BX1612.C76</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kudelić, Zlatko</subfield><subfield code="d">1962-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)141194952</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Marčanska biskupija</subfield><subfield code="b">Habsburgovci, pravoslavlje i crkvena unija u Hrvatsko-slavonskoj vojnoj krajini (1611. - 1755.)</subfield><subfield code="c">Zlatko Kudelić</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Zagreb</subfield><subfield code="b">Hrvatski Inst. za Povijest</subfield><subfield code="c">2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">584 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill., Kt.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Biblioteka Hrvatska povjesnica : Monografije i studije</subfield><subfield code="v">36</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zsfassung in engl. Sprache</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="610" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Katholische Kirche</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="610" ind1="2" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Catholic Church</subfield><subfield code="x">Byzantine rite</subfield><subfield code="z">Croatia</subfield><subfield code="z">Marča (Slavonia)</subfield><subfield code="x">History</subfield><subfield code="v">Sources</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="610" ind1="2" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Catholic Church.</subfield><subfield code="b">Diocese of Marča (Slavonia, Croatia)</subfield><subfield code="x">History</subfield><subfield code="v">Sources</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1611-1755</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1600-1750</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Geschichte</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Kirchengeschichte</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Walachen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4118957-7</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Unierte Ostkirchen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4186892-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Union</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4229399-6</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Croatia</subfield><subfield code="x">History</subfield><subfield code="y">1527-1918</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Marča (Slavonia, Croatia)</subfield><subfield code="x">Church history</subfield><subfield code="v">Sources</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Diözese Križevci</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4229401-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Kroatische Militärgrenze</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4321578-6</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Kroatien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4073841-3</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Slawonische Militärgrenze</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4321577-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="655" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4135952-5</subfield><subfield code="a">Quelle</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd-content</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Diözese Križevci</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4229401-0</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Unierte Ostkirchen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4186892-4</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1611-1755</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Slawonische Militärgrenze</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4321577-4</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Diözese Križevci</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4229401-0</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Union</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4229399-6</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1611-1755</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="2" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Kroatien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4073841-3</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="2" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Unierte Ostkirchen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4186892-4</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="2" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="3" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Diözese Križevci</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4229401-0</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="3" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Walachen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4118957-7</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="3" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1600-1750</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="3" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Kroatien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4073841-3</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Unierte Ostkirchen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4186892-4</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1611-1755</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="4" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="5" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Kroatien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4073841-3</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="5" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Unierte Ostkirchen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4186892-4</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Kroatische Militärgrenze</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4321578-6</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="5" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1611-1755</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="5" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Biblioteka Hrvatska povjesnica</subfield><subfield code="v">Monografije i studije ; 36</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV010859037</subfield><subfield code="9">36</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016413957&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016413957&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">200.9</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09032</subfield><subfield code="g">4972</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">200.9</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09033</subfield><subfield code="g">4972</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="943" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016413957</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| genre | (DE-588)4135952-5 Quelle gnd-content |
| genre_facet | Quelle |
| geographic | Croatia History 1527-1918 Marča (Slavonia, Croatia) Church history Sources Diözese Križevci (DE-588)4229401-0 gnd Kroatische Militärgrenze (DE-588)4321578-6 gnd Kroatien (DE-588)4073841-3 gnd Slawonische Militärgrenze (DE-588)4321577-4 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Croatia History 1527-1918 Marča (Slavonia, Croatia) Church history Sources Diözese Križevci Kroatische Militärgrenze Kroatien Slawonische Militärgrenze |
| id | DE-604.BV023228197 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| index_date | 2024-07-02T20:18:55Z |
| indexdate | 2024-08-10T01:23:45Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9789536324620 |
| language | Croatian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-016413957 |
| oclc_num | 234218370 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 DE-Re13 DE-BY-UBR |
| owner_facet | DE-12 DE-Re13 DE-BY-UBR |
| physical | 584 S. Ill., Kt. |
| publishDate | 2007 |
| publishDateSearch | 2007 |
| publishDateSort | 2007 |
| publisher | Hrvatski Inst. za Povijest |
| record_format | marc |
| series | Biblioteka Hrvatska povjesnica |
| series2 | Biblioteka Hrvatska povjesnica : Monografije i studije |
| spelling | Kudelić, Zlatko 1962- Verfasser (DE-588)141194952 aut Marčanska biskupija Habsburgovci, pravoslavlje i crkvena unija u Hrvatsko-slavonskoj vojnoj krajini (1611. - 1755.) Zlatko Kudelić Zagreb Hrvatski Inst. za Povijest 2007 584 S. Ill., Kt. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Biblioteka Hrvatska povjesnica : Monografije i studije 36 Zsfassung in engl. Sprache Katholische Kirche Catholic Church Byzantine rite Croatia Marča (Slavonia) History Sources Catholic Church. Diocese of Marča (Slavonia, Croatia) History Sources Geschichte 1611-1755 gnd rswk-swf Geschichte 1600-1750 gnd rswk-swf Geschichte Kirchengeschichte Walachen (DE-588)4118957-7 gnd rswk-swf Unierte Ostkirchen (DE-588)4186892-4 gnd rswk-swf Union (DE-588)4229399-6 gnd rswk-swf Croatia History 1527-1918 Marča (Slavonia, Croatia) Church history Sources Diözese Križevci (DE-588)4229401-0 gnd rswk-swf Kroatische Militärgrenze (DE-588)4321578-6 gnd rswk-swf Kroatien (DE-588)4073841-3 gnd rswk-swf Slawonische Militärgrenze (DE-588)4321577-4 gnd rswk-swf (DE-588)4135952-5 Quelle gnd-content Diözese Križevci (DE-588)4229401-0 g Unierte Ostkirchen (DE-588)4186892-4 s Geschichte 1611-1755 z Slawonische Militärgrenze (DE-588)4321577-4 g DE-604 Union (DE-588)4229399-6 s Kroatien (DE-588)4073841-3 g Walachen (DE-588)4118957-7 s Geschichte 1600-1750 z Kroatische Militärgrenze (DE-588)4321578-6 g Biblioteka Hrvatska povjesnica Monografije i studije ; 36 (DE-604)BV010859037 36 Digitalisierung BSBMuenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016413957&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016413957&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Kudelić, Zlatko 1962- Marčanska biskupija Habsburgovci, pravoslavlje i crkvena unija u Hrvatsko-slavonskoj vojnoj krajini (1611. - 1755.) Biblioteka Hrvatska povjesnica Katholische Kirche Catholic Church Byzantine rite Croatia Marča (Slavonia) History Sources Catholic Church. Diocese of Marča (Slavonia, Croatia) History Sources Geschichte Kirchengeschichte Walachen (DE-588)4118957-7 gnd Unierte Ostkirchen (DE-588)4186892-4 gnd Union (DE-588)4229399-6 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4118957-7 (DE-588)4186892-4 (DE-588)4229399-6 (DE-588)4229401-0 (DE-588)4321578-6 (DE-588)4073841-3 (DE-588)4321577-4 (DE-588)4135952-5 |
| title | Marčanska biskupija Habsburgovci, pravoslavlje i crkvena unija u Hrvatsko-slavonskoj vojnoj krajini (1611. - 1755.) |
| title_auth | Marčanska biskupija Habsburgovci, pravoslavlje i crkvena unija u Hrvatsko-slavonskoj vojnoj krajini (1611. - 1755.) |
| title_exact_search | Marčanska biskupija Habsburgovci, pravoslavlje i crkvena unija u Hrvatsko-slavonskoj vojnoj krajini (1611. - 1755.) |
| title_exact_search_txtP | Marčanska biskupija Habsburgovci, pravoslavlje i crkvena unija u Hrvatsko-slavonskoj vojnoj krajini (1611. - 1755.) |
| title_full | Marčanska biskupija Habsburgovci, pravoslavlje i crkvena unija u Hrvatsko-slavonskoj vojnoj krajini (1611. - 1755.) Zlatko Kudelić |
| title_fullStr | Marčanska biskupija Habsburgovci, pravoslavlje i crkvena unija u Hrvatsko-slavonskoj vojnoj krajini (1611. - 1755.) Zlatko Kudelić |
| title_full_unstemmed | Marčanska biskupija Habsburgovci, pravoslavlje i crkvena unija u Hrvatsko-slavonskoj vojnoj krajini (1611. - 1755.) Zlatko Kudelić |
| title_short | Marčanska biskupija |
| title_sort | marcanska biskupija habsburgovci pravoslavlje i crkvena unija u hrvatsko slavonskoj vojnoj krajini 1611 1755 |
| title_sub | Habsburgovci, pravoslavlje i crkvena unija u Hrvatsko-slavonskoj vojnoj krajini (1611. - 1755.) |
| topic | Katholische Kirche Catholic Church Byzantine rite Croatia Marča (Slavonia) History Sources Catholic Church. Diocese of Marča (Slavonia, Croatia) History Sources Geschichte Kirchengeschichte Walachen (DE-588)4118957-7 gnd Unierte Ostkirchen (DE-588)4186892-4 gnd Union (DE-588)4229399-6 gnd |
| topic_facet | Katholische Kirche Catholic Church Byzantine rite Croatia Marča (Slavonia) History Sources Catholic Church. Diocese of Marča (Slavonia, Croatia) History Sources Geschichte Kirchengeschichte Walachen Unierte Ostkirchen Union Croatia History 1527-1918 Marča (Slavonia, Croatia) Church history Sources Diözese Križevci Kroatische Militärgrenze Kroatien Slawonische Militärgrenze Quelle |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016413957&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=016413957&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV010859037 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kudeliczlatko marcanskabiskupijahabsburgovcipravoslavljeicrkvenaunijauhrvatskoslavonskojvojnojkrajini16111755 |