Biskupi impediti diecezji wileńskiej w okresie porozbiorowym: przypadek bpa Adama Stanisława Krasińskiego

Aldona Prašmantaitė
{"title":"Biskupi impediti diecezji wileńskiej w okresie porozbiorowym: przypadek bpa Adama Stanisława Krasińskiego","authors":"Aldona Prašmantaitė","doi":"10.15633/FHC.3743","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Following the partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Vilnius diocese, together with the Samogitian diocese, found itself under the direct supervision of the Russian Empire. It was the intention of lay authorities that the Catholic Church should be governed according to the same principles as the Orthodox Church, which enjoyed the status of the national church in the Russian Empire. Disobedience frequently became a pretext to remove the disloyal hierarch from power over the diocese. This phenomenon became a real plague in the Vilnius diocese. Under the pretext of disloyalty, lay authorities prevented three bishops ordinary of the Vilnius diocese: Adam Stanislaw Krasinski (1863), Karol Hryniewiecki (1885), Eduard von Ropp (1907) from performing their duties, exiling the hierarchs. Based on the literature of the subject and analysis of sources, the article presents the history of the removal of Bishop Krasinski from the episcopal throne. His stance during the January Uprising was a pretext to remove the bishop from the Vilnius diocese. The analysis led to the conclusion that Bishop Krasinski’s stance towards the uprising was in accordance with the statement of the Holy See. However, faced with the requirements of the Russian officials, he did not relent and refused to issue a public circular condemning the uprising. Bishop Krasinski was alien to servile obedience towards imperial authorities. The exile to Vyatka (called Kirov since 1934) in inland Russia was  he price he paid for his personal dignity and the dignity of his office of the bishop of the Roman Catholic diocese. Bishop Krasinski was released from his exile in 1883. However, the analysis does not confirm the currently prevalent view that he resigned from his office of his own initiative. It was determined that the idea of Krasinski’s letter to the Pope with the request to accept the bishop’s resignation from the office of the head of the Vilnius diocese originated in the Ministry of Internal Affairs in 1877. The Russian government adeptly used the case of the exiled bishop in their negotiations with the Holy See. The fate of the Vilnius bishop was sealed in one of the articles of a preliminary agreement from 1880 between the Russian Empire and the Holy See. Bishop Krasinski’s dismissal from the office of the head of the Vilnius diocese and his exile was in line with the policy of the Russian government towards the Roman Catholic Church.","PeriodicalId":30842,"journal":{"name":"Folia Historica Cracoviensia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Folia Historica Cracoviensia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15633/FHC.3743","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Following the partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Vilnius diocese, together with the Samogitian diocese, found itself under the direct supervision of the Russian Empire. It was the intention of lay authorities that the Catholic Church should be governed according to the same principles as the Orthodox Church, which enjoyed the status of the national church in the Russian Empire. Disobedience frequently became a pretext to remove the disloyal hierarch from power over the diocese. This phenomenon became a real plague in the Vilnius diocese. Under the pretext of disloyalty, lay authorities prevented three bishops ordinary of the Vilnius diocese: Adam Stanislaw Krasinski (1863), Karol Hryniewiecki (1885), Eduard von Ropp (1907) from performing their duties, exiling the hierarchs. Based on the literature of the subject and analysis of sources, the article presents the history of the removal of Bishop Krasinski from the episcopal throne. His stance during the January Uprising was a pretext to remove the bishop from the Vilnius diocese. The analysis led to the conclusion that Bishop Krasinski’s stance towards the uprising was in accordance with the statement of the Holy See. However, faced with the requirements of the Russian officials, he did not relent and refused to issue a public circular condemning the uprising. Bishop Krasinski was alien to servile obedience towards imperial authorities. The exile to Vyatka (called Kirov since 1934) in inland Russia was  he price he paid for his personal dignity and the dignity of his office of the bishop of the Roman Catholic diocese. Bishop Krasinski was released from his exile in 1883. However, the analysis does not confirm the currently prevalent view that he resigned from his office of his own initiative. It was determined that the idea of Krasinski’s letter to the Pope with the request to accept the bishop’s resignation from the office of the head of the Vilnius diocese originated in the Ministry of Internal Affairs in 1877. The Russian government adeptly used the case of the exiled bishop in their negotiations with the Holy See. The fate of the Vilnius bishop was sealed in one of the articles of a preliminary agreement from 1880 between the Russian Empire and the Holy See. Bishop Krasinski’s dismissal from the office of the head of the Vilnius diocese and his exile was in line with the policy of the Russian government towards the Roman Catholic Church.
分治后维尔纽斯教区主教:Adam Stanisław Krasiński主教案例
波兰立陶宛联邦分治后,维尔纽斯教区和萨莫吉蒂安教区一起受到俄罗斯帝国的直接监督。世俗权威的意图是,天主教会应按照与东正教相同的原则进行管理,东正教在俄罗斯帝国享有国家教会的地位。不服从经常成为罢免这位不忠的教长对教区权力的借口。这一现象在维尔纽斯教区成为了一场真正的瘟疫。以不忠为借口,世俗当局阻止了维尔纽斯教区的三位普通主教:亚当·斯坦尼斯瓦夫·克拉辛斯基(1863年)、卡罗尔·赫里涅维奇基(1885年)和爱德华·冯·罗普(1907年)履行职责,驱逐了教长。在文献资料和资料分析的基础上,本文介绍了克拉辛斯基主教被逐出主教宝座的历史。他在一月起义期间的立场是将主教从维尔纽斯教区除名的借口。分析得出的结论是,克拉辛斯基主教对起义的立场符合罗马教廷的声明。然而,面对俄罗斯官员的要求,他没有手软,拒绝发布谴责起义的公开通告。克拉辛斯基主教与对帝国当局卑躬屈膝的服从格格不入。流亡到俄罗斯内陆的维亚特卡(自1934年起被称为基洛夫)是他为个人尊严和罗马天主教教区主教职位的尊严所付出的代价。克拉辛斯基主教于1883年从流放地获释。然而,分析并没有证实目前普遍的观点,即他是主动辞职的。据确定,克拉辛斯基给教皇的信中要求接受主教辞去维尔纽斯教区主教职务的想法起源于1877年的内政部。俄罗斯政府在与罗马教廷的谈判中巧妙地利用了流亡主教的案件。维尔纽斯主教的命运被载入1880年俄罗斯帝国和罗马教廷之间的初步协议的一条条款中。克拉辛斯基主教被解除维尔纽斯教区主教职务并流亡海外,符合俄罗斯政府对罗马天主教会的政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书