Search

Copyright of Croatica Christina Periodica is the property of Croatica Christiana Periodica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Along with the Introduction, which provides a brief overview of the history of the KBF library in Sarajevo and its literary treasures, the author describes the goals and outcomes of the project “Historical and cultural heritage at religious schools in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, which was financially supported by the FBiH Ministry of Education and Science. The project lasted a year, from January 2019 to January 2020. Through the project, books related to historical and cultural topics in the KBF library were collected, classified and analytically processed using the COBISS system. Special attention is paid to older books and rare periodicals. The paper is accompanied by a list of older books and rare periodicals and a list of excerpts of selected material obtained by using the search theme (keywords) of ‘heritage’, ‘legacy’ and ‘culture’ in the context of historical research after the material has been processed using the COBISS system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author deals with the origin and development of the conflict between Archbishop Stadler and the Croatian National Community and the mission of Apostolic Delegate Pierre Bastien in reconciling the estranged parties. The paper is in two parts: the first section deals with the origin and development of the conflict, that is, the events from 1908 to the end of 1910, while the second section deals with the mission of Apostolic Delegate Bastien, which - with reference to this matter - lasted from the end of 1910 to the beginning of 1912. The conflict arose over the inclusion or non-inclusion of Catholic principles in the Community statutes. Archbishop Stadler felt that if the Community wanted to care for the well-being of Croat Catholics, it must do so in accordance with the principles of the Catholic faith and make this clear in its statutes. The leadership of the Community considered this unnecessary. The conflict intensified after the annexation of 1908 and the announcement of the organization of political life, that is, the proclamation of elections and the convening of parliament. In this period, Stadler intensified pressure on the leadership of the Community. Fearing that the Community might pursue a policy without cooperating with church structures, he again insisted on the incorporation of Catholic principles in the statutes, also asking the Community to work in cooperation with the clergy. When the Community refused, he tried - but failed - to change its leadership. During these events, the clergy were divided: the diocesan clergy sided with Stadler, while the Franciscan clergy sided with the Community. Concluding that he would not be able to change things in the Community, Stadler set about founding a new political organization - the Croatian Catholic Association. In founding the Association, he forbade the clergy of his diocese, who worked in the parishes, to become members of the Community. The diocesan clergy obeyed, while the Franciscan clergy, although officially exiting the Community, continued to work for it. Mutual recriminations, which at times went beyond the boundaries of decency and ecclesiastical propriety, became public. As the issue manifestly became a Church problem, both sides requested the intervention of the Holy See, which decided to send Benedictine P. Bastien, as Apostolic Delegate, with the mission of reconciling the two parties. The Apostolic Delegate carried out this mission from late 1910 until early 1912. At the end of March 1911, after a three-month stay in Bosnia, he sent the Holy See his first report on the division among Catholics in BiH. Bastien's report diverges substantially from the facts that had led to the conflict. He identified Archbishop Stadler as the main culprit in the dispute, though he attributed some responsibility to both the Community and the Franciscans. Bastien tried to resolve the conflict by mediating a reconciliation effort and finding a solution with the hierarchy. This approach did not bear fruit. The views of Archbishop Stadler and Bishop Markovic, who supported the Community, remained unchanged. After failing with the hierarchy, he turned to the leaders of the Community and the Association. Both sides were inclined to come together. The main obstacle was securing the revocation of Stadler's ban on clergy joining the Community. Representatives of the Association suggested that the ban be rescinded after the proposed merger took place, while Community representatives demanded that the ban be rescinded as a condition for negotiations. Bastien supported the position of the Community. At the same time as Bastien's negotiations with the representatives of the Community and the Association, the Party of Rights from Zagreb was involved in mediating reconciliation. Bastien was asked not to participate in these negotiations. Although he did not participate, he continued to insist that Stadler rescind the ban. Stadler skillfully sidestepped this until reunification in January 1912, after which he rescinded the ban. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author analyses some of the important moments in the public life of Archbishop Josip Stadier during the First World War, on three themes: the Archbishop's reaction to the Sarajevo Assassination and the beginning of the First World War, the Archbishop's pastoral-charitable work during the war, and the Archbishop's advocacy for the survival of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and a solution to the Croatian question with in the Monarchy. The topics are addressed in the context of war events. Archbishop Stadier viewed the Sarajevo Assassination as an attack on the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and as such he condemned it and subsequently identified Serbia as the main cause of the beginning of the war, which, according to him, was not intended only to destroy a portion of Croat territory, as part of which he counted Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also to destroy Catholicism in these countries. One of the Archbishop's important activities during the war was to help people who were in various types of difficulty as a result of the conflict. He repeatedly appealed to the clergy and to the faithful in his Archdiocese, and by example he showed them how to engage in various charitable actions to help those who had strayed, regardless of their religious affiliation. At the beginning of 1918 he was accused by one of the Croatian newspapers of not being a humanitarian, but rather a usurer because he intended to sell some grain from his estate and settle some of his debts. The analysis of archive documents shows that this accusation was simply malicious. When the Slavic question in the southern part of the Monarchy started, the Archbishop presented his proposal. He was committed to the survival of the Catholic Monarchy within which a Croatian state would exist and Bosnia and Herzegovina would be its integral part. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Before the First World War, 27 newspapers of a religious, political, educational and cultural character were edited and published in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Apart from three newspapers, published in Sarajevo, that specialized in Austro-Hungarian interests, all the other papers catered to individual national and religious communities. At the beginning o f the First World War the Orthodox-Serb and Muslim newspapers stopped publication, while Croat-Catholic newspapers for the most part continued to publish. The death of Emperor Francis Joseph I and the accession to the throne o f Karl I, was the main political and social event covered at the end o f 1916, and as such was followed by CroatCatholic newspapers of the period. The death of Emperor Francis Joseph was viewed as a great loss for Croats and Catholics of the time, since the late ruler was seen as their protector and liberator, who had enabled normal life and development for them. They considered him as their Catholic and Croat king. Loyalty to the new emperor was renewed, as the legal successor and in gratitude to the Habsburg crown for what it had done in the past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The first mention of the Diocese of Ston is in the archive of the Split Council in 928, Trebinje diocese is mentioned in a bull by Pope Benedict VIII in 1022, and the Diocese of Bosnia in the Provinciale Vetus archive, in a section created between 1060 and 1075. The jurisdictional area of the Diocese of Ston was Hum (Zahumlje); of Trebinje diocese the „principality" of Tribunija and probably Podgorje, the area between Neve- sinje and Niksic; and of the Diocese of Bosnia the original land area of Bosnia, which later spread with the area of Bosnian Banovina. We know very little about the bishops and their actions in these dioceses until the mid-12th century. From the mid-12th century to the 1330s, these areas came onto the historical stage due to the turbulent political and religious circumstances, and news of them appeared regularly in papal bulls, and in the record of Dubrovnik chroniclers. Bishop Donat of Ston was exiled around 1180from his diocese during the reign of Miroslav Nemanjić. There are only occasional references to the bishops of Trebinje, while the names of Bosnian bishops of the period, which were Slavic, are mostly known to us. The prevailing liturgical language in these dioceses was Slavic, and the rite was Roman. In addition to the Roman rite the Byzantine rite may have co-existed to a small degree, and in outlying areas the two rites may have been mixed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author elaborates historical and legal facts about the Diocese of Mrkan. It seems to have been established at the beginning of the 14th century and was immediately united canonically with the Diocese of Trebinje. It was established because of the inability of the bishop of Trebinje to return to the area of the Diocese of Trebinje because at that time the area was ruled by the kings of Raška. Documents from the late 14th and early 15th century clearly show two dioceses canonically united, ruled by one bishop, who is sometimes called the bishop of Trebinje and Mrkan and sometimes the bishop of Mrkan and Trebinje. The seat of the diocese was in a former Benedictine abbey on the island of Mrkan. The bishop's residence and church were rebuilt in the 1620s. The bishop occasionally lived on the island of Mrkan up to the Candian War (1645-1669), when he had to move permanently to Dubrovnik because of attacks by bandits and pirates. It seems that in those years Mrkan was conclusively abandoned and no liturgical acts were performed there. Bishop Scipio de Martinis (1663-1668) in 1667 performed some ordinations on Mrkan. His successors - evidence of this has been found from the period of Bishop Sigismud Tudišić (1733-1760) - continued to perform ordinations on the island of Supetar. During the renewal of the church hierarchy in Bosnia and Herzegovina the Dioceses of Mrkan and Trebinje, within their then existing borders, became part of the Vrhbosanska ecclesiastical province. The borders then confirmed, were not changed later. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Povijesni Prilozi is the property of Croatian Institute of History and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)