Misa u Bosni i Hercegovini

Ova greška (rjava) u kucanju teksta je namjerno ostavljena u plavoj boji, ima značenje

Bosanska (rjva) crkva: Novo tumačenje.

FINE, John V.A., Jr. 1975.

Studija o bosanskoj crkvi i njenom mjestu u državi i društvu od 13. do 15
stoljeća. - Istočno Evropska Monografija, Broj X

Taken from:  B O S N E T Apr. 15, 1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Reprinted without permission, for fair use only] [This text is reproduced unedited]

[Comment: In this article, the contributor - DK, had emphasized some of the statements he considered significant. I left them as they came in the original submission.]

Religijskom situacijom u srednjevjekovnoj Bosni bave se brojne knjige i članci. Ovi izvori govore o nekoj bosanskoj crkvi i o nekoj herezi, a većina naučnika uzima da se radi o sinonimima, te da je neka heretička bosanska crkva dominirala vjerskim životom u Bosni od završetka 12. vijeka do turskog osvajanja (1448-1481). Medjutim, nema nikakvog slaganja u pogledu prirode ove crkve ili hereze, a neki tvrde da hereza nije ispravan termin za ovaj bosanski pokret. U literaturi preovladjuju dva glavna pogleda (od kojih se jedan javlja u varijantnim oblicima).

Prvi tvrdi da je ova hereza bila isto što i Bosanska crkva i da je njena doktrina bila dualističkom. Iako je nazivana i drugim imenima, Bosansku crkvu treba promatrati kao dio istog pokreta kome su pripadali Bogumili u Bugarskoj i dualističke hereze u sjevernoj Italiji i južnoj Francuskoj, a time i i kao jednu od brojnih nasljednica manihejaca ili gnostika. Suština dualističkog pogleda na svijet je u tome da postoje dva principa - dobri princip (ili principa dobra - o.p.) koji se obično identifikuje sa duhom i smatra se da je on stvoritelj nebesa i duše, te zli princip (princip zla - o.p.) koji se poistovjećuje sa materijom i smatra se tvoriteljem-stvoriteljem ovog svijeta i ljudskog tijela. Ovdje na Zemlji vodi se jedna faza vječne borbe u kojoj ljudska bića, sa svojim dorbim dušama i zlim tijelima, igraju ulogu a istodobno se trude da postignu spasenje. (1)

Dokazi koji podupiru tvrdnju da su dualističke doktrine slične ovima
postojale u Bosni vade se skoro isključivo iz dokumenata koji poriču od papa ili inkvizicije. Ovaj materijal je koristio istaknuti renesansni humanista Enea Silvio de' Piccolomini (poznatiji kao Papa Julije II, 1458-1464).(2) Njegova djela u kojima se heretici opisuju kao manihejci uključena su (inkorporirana) u djela pisaca kasnog 15. i ranog 16. vijeka - Marc-Antonija Sabellica i Rapfaela Volaterrana, (3) i nakon njih u niz kasnijih hronika i istorija. Bio on tačan ili ne, Pio II (Pius II) je izvor i osnivač škole istorijske misli koja je nastavljena preko pisaca iz 18. vijeka Farlatija i Raynaldija sve do današnjice.(4) Ovo gledište je bilo predominirajuće medju učenjacima; na najuvjerljiviji način je tvrdjeno u 'Bogumili i Patareni' - važnom djelu učenjaka iz 19. vijeka Franje Račkoga
(5), V. Čorovića, S. Ćirkovića, A. Babića, D. Kniewalda, a Solovjova , a drugi istoričari 20. vijeka su u novije vrijeme proširivali i elaborirali na tu temu.(6).

Ovaj drugi pogled, i to onaj koji je osobito bio privlačnim srpskim
piscima, tvrdi da Bosanska crkva, iako često nazivana heretičkom, u stvari nije to bila, nego je u suštini bila pravoslavna (ortodoksna) u pogledu doktrine i da se od srpskog pravoslavlja razlikovala jedino po tome što je njome rukovodila njena sopstvena hijerarhija. Ovo gledište nalazi uporište u obilnim materijalima koji se nalaze u tim izvorima. Učenjaci su pronašli dokaze u domaćim poveljama i u diplomatskim zapisima Dubrovnika da su Bosanci koji su bili članovi Bosanske crkve prihvatali jednu varijantu standardnih hriščanskih vjerovanja i obreda (prakse) koji su bili strani kako dualizmu tako i praksi koja se u italijanskim dokumentima pripisuje bosanskim hereticima.(7) Najpoznatiji proponent ovakvog gledišta bio je V.
Glušac, koji je pokrenuo mnogo valjanih razloga za skepticizam u pogledu interpretacije Račkog, ali čije se općenito korištenje izvorima može jedino nazvati odvažnim. Korišteni su, naime, izvori koji podupiru njegova gledišta, dok su oni koji su u kontradikciji sa njima ignorisani ili odbacivani zbog apsurdnih razloga. (8) Žustrina kojom je pokretao svoja mišljenja i ton uvredljivosti u akademskim odgovorima na njegove radove ilustruju stepen emocionalizma (emotivnosti) koji je karakteristika tolikih djela u kojima se razmatra religija u srednjevjekovnoj Bosni.

JOŠ SE PREVODI

The second view, and the one that appealed particularly to
Serbian writers, maintains that the Bosnian Church, though often
called heretical, really was not, but was, rather, essentially
Orthodox in doctrine, differing from Serbian Orthodoxy only in
that it was governed by its own Bosnian hierarchy. This view
rests on abundant material in the sources. Scholars have found
proof both in Bosnian domestic charters and in diplomatic
records of Dubrovnik that Bosnians who were members of the
Bosnian Church accepted a variety of standard Christian beliefs
and practices that were foreign both to dualism and to the
practices ascribed by Italian Catholic documents to the Bosnian
heretics.(7) The most famous proponent of this view was V.
Glusac, who advanced many sound reasons for scepticism in
regard to Racki's interpretation, but whose general use of sources
can only be called cavalier. Sources in support of his views
were utilized, while those contradicting them were ignored or
rejected for absurd reasons.(8) The vehemence with which he
advanced his opinions and the tone of invective in academic
replies to his work illustrates the degree of emotionalism that has
characterized so many of the works discussing religion in
medieval Bosnia.

The Orthodox theory also has its drawbacks. Not only is it
contradicted by papal and inquisitional sources, but it is also
refuted by various Serbian sources. Bosnian churchmen are
anathematized in the Serbian sinodiks (texts drawn from the
edicts of Church synods). In addition, two medieval Serbian
biographies (one from the fourteenth and the other from the
fifteenth century) refer to the Bosnians as heretics. Thus it is not
surprising that we find serious attempts by scholars to propagate
a variant of this second view which claims that the Bosnian
Church was neither dualist nor Orthodox, but was more or less
"orthodox" (with a lower-case "o")(9) in belief yet in schism
with both East and West. This view was put forward and
strongly defended by J. Sidak up until 1953(10) when he adopted
a position in basic agreement with Racki. Since 1953 Sidak has
written a number of excellent critical studies on specific aspects
of the religious history of Bosnia.(11) In 1953 Fra L.P.(etrovic)
published a stimulating work, _Krscani bosanske crkve_
(Christians of the Bosnian Church),(12) which also takes this
view and makes a devastating attack on the dualist viewpoint.
His emphasis on the monastic character of the Bosnian Church
also deserves serious consideration, although I believe he
exaggerated connections between the Bosnian Church and earlier
Catholic movements in Croatia.

Thus we are left with two basic theories: that the Bosnian
Church was DUALIST [emphasis by DK], and that it was
INDEPENDENT and SCHISMATIC but more or less
ORTHODOX IN DOCTRINE [emphases by DK]. Both views
have a variety of sources to support them. One needs only to
place side by side two documents of the 1460's to see this
vividly; the fifty articles that Cardinal Torquemada drew up to
be renounced by three Bosnian "Manichees" in 1461, and the
Will of the Bosnian Church leader Gost Radin in 1466, which
contradicts several of Torquemada's points and does not exude a
Manichee spirit at all. Thus it is not at all surprising that serious
scholars have advocated such opposing views and that the
problem still has not been resolved.
..
In 1601 when Gost Radin's will and many Bosnian charters were
still buried in various archives, Mauro Orbini, writing his history
of the Slavs, noted contradictions between the dualist tradition in
the chronicles whose material can be traced back to Pius II, and
the material contained in a now lost chronicle, most probably
written in the first half of the sixteenth century, by Pietro Livio
of Verona. Orbini took the natural way out of this dilemma and
decided that there must have been two movements or
heresies.(14) Three hundred years later, in 1892, an Orthodox
cleric writing under the pseudonym of Atom wrote that
historians had taken separate facts, (i.e., that in Bosnia there
were heretics and that in Bosnia there was a Bosnian Church)
and combined them to produce a Bosnian heretical church.
Atom pointed out that the two need not refer to the same
religious movement.(15) However, except for Orbini and Atom,
no other historians have considered the possibility that there
might have been two movements. And even Atom never
followed through on his idea, but instead quickly fell in with the
Orthodox point of view which he argued with considerable
vehemence.
..
Thus the POSSIBILITY that Bosnia contained both a DUALIST
HERESY and a SCHISMATIC NON-DUALIST BOSNIAN
CHURCH [emphasis by DK] is seriously examined in this study.

The hope that heretofore unknown sources will yet be discovered
is not totally bleak. Recently scholars have begun to utilize the
Turkish archives, which contain _defters_ (Turkish cadasters)
describing Bosnia, most of them still unpublished... This
material is tremendously important for the student of the Bosnian
Church... In addition to the Turkish, the Italian archives have
not yet been exhausted by scholars working on Balkan
problems... (pp. 1-4)

Nazad na MI SA kim smo...

INDEX Bogumili     Bogumilska tehnologija kompjutera    PORUKE - MESSAGES

Back to Sveta Zemlja BA web site - Nazad na web sajt Sveta Zemlja BA

Copyright (C) February 2000, All rights reserved. Rudolf Bošnjak.