Konfesinis ir politinis XV a. pabaigos Bažnytinės Unijos aspektas Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštijoje

LTŠiuo straipsniu nesiekiama išsamiai išanalizuoti XV a. pabaigos bažnytinę uniją. Pabrėšime kelias, mūsų nuomone, svarbias problemas, nesiekdami rasti galutinio atsakymo į jas, o palikdami jas kaip tolesnio išsamaus tyrimo gaires. XV a. pabaigoje pagrindiniu Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos geopolitiniu veiksniu tapo Maskvos Didžioji Kunigaikštija. Karai su Maskva, kuriuos pastaroji įvilko į religinę skraistę, vertė ieškoti konfesinio LDK valstybės integracijos modelio1. Ldk Aleksandro vedybos su Maskvos didžiojo kunigaikščio Ivano III dukterimi Elena ne tik kad neišsprendė konfesinės problemos, bet ir sukėlė dar daugiau kontroversijų. Lietuvos rusėniškų žemių stačiatikybė ir Ldk Aleksandro žmonos Elenos konfesija tapo bene pagrindiniu diplomatinių derybų su Maskva objektu. Toks įvykių kontekstas verstų atsakyti į klausimą, kaip stačiatikybė buvo interpretuojama Lietuvoje ir Maskvoje, žlugus stačiatikybės dvasiniam centrui - Konstantinopoliui. Juk pati konfesija nesuponuoja traukos centro pasikeitimo tarp Vilniaus ir Maskvos pastarosios naudai.Ši problema glaudžiai susijusi su kita problema. Bažnytinės unijos idėja gimė Aleksandro ir Elenos dvaro aplinkoje. Istoriografijoje įsigalėjusi nuomonė, kad 1498-1501 m. bažnytinės unijos iniciatorius buvo Ldk Aleksandras, o jos įgyvendintojai raštininkas Jonas Sapiega ir Smolensko vyskupas Juozapas Bulgarinovičius2. Kaip minėta, Elenos konfesija buvo puikus Maskvos politinis ir diplomatinis ginklas prieš Lietuvą. Todėl bet koks sprendimas dėl Elenos konfesijos turėjo liesti ir Ponų tarybos interesus, nes tai jau buvo valstybinė, nebe individuali Ldk Aleksandro problema. Jeigu bažnytinė unija buvo sprendimo variantas kovoje su Maskva, tai kiek prie jos įgyvendinimo prisidėjo Ponų taryba, kas išjos narių galėjo proteguoti valdovo raštininką Joną Sapiegą ir Smolensko vyskupą Juozapą Bulgarinovičių? Pastarąsias problemas ir mėginsime pagvildenti šiame straipsnyje. [Iš straipsnio, p. 235]

ENThis paper aims to investigate some aspects of the Church Union in Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the end of the 15th century. In this article it is tried to formulate some problems which haven’t been discussed in historiography. What was the role of Council of nobility in attempt to realize the Church Union in Grand Duchy of Lithuania. What persons of Council of nobility protected Jonas Simonaitis Sapiega and his relative orthodox bishop of Smolensk Iosyf Bulharinovich as the main persons who tried to realize the Church Union in Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In what ways was orthodoxy interpreted and understanding in Moscow and Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Grand Duke Alexander’s marriage with Helena, the daughter of grand duke of Muscovy, made the confession problem urgent in the relationship with Muscovy and in Lithuania itself. This problem had to be solved by Council of Nobility. The part of Jonas Zaberczinskis prefect of Polock and later governor - general of Trakai weren’t of minor importance in solving this problem. Perhaps, the people of his medium protected Jonas Simonaitis Sapiega and bishop losyf Bulharinovich as the most proper candidates to realize the Church Union in Lithuania. Jonas Sapiega married Elzbieta the daughter of Stanislovas Hlebavičius. In Council of nobility Stanislovas Hlebavičius belonged to the party of Jonas Zaberezinskis. Perhaps, Stanislovas Hlebavičius protected Jonas Sapiega as his relative. This Union was the sphere of interests of J. Zaberezinskis and his political party, but not the intention of some unfamous noblemen or grand duke of Lithuania Aleksandras only as there is supposed in historiography. This presumption needs an exhaustive investigation.In the diplomatic relations with Muscovy, for Helena’s confession, a different interpretation of orthodoxy came to light in Muscovy and in Lithuania. Different conceptions of orthodoxy formed: a Muscovy conception and a conception of Grand Duchy. For this reason Moscow and Vilnius interpreted it differently. Muscovy adopted the role of Constantinopol. That’s why Muscovy perceives itself as an emboder of the real orthodoxy. Grand duke of Muscovy Ivan III insisted on his daughter to be an orthodox believer of a Muscovy orthodoxy. Meanwhile in Lithuania orthodoxy had the traditional meaning - Greek’s rites Church of Constantinopol. That’s why Grand duke of Muscovy Iwan III insisted on building the church to his daughter Helena in Vilnius. He ignored the affirmations of Grand duke of Lithuania Aleksandras that in Vilnius there were orthodox church sufficiently. Moscow looked at Orthodox Church of Grand Duchy of Lithuania distrustfully. Orthodox Church of Grand Duchy of Lithuania had canonical contacts with Constantinopol. Meanwhile Muscovy cut any canonical realationships with Constantinopol because it was occupied by muslims turks and made the Church Union with Rome. That’s why any agreement with Muscovy was impossible.The patriarch of Constantinopol approved of the Church Union and it was treated in Lithuania as a canonable action which enabled to consolidate the different conffesional communities in Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Perhaps there were two projects of the Church Union. The question of subordination of orthodox believers’ church differed. Firstly, uniatic Church hierarchy, which would be directly within the jurisdiction of the Pope, was forming. Secondly, there were efforts to subordinate the communities of orthodox believers to a direct dependency of the Catholic Church of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Discussing the both Union possibilities, it is difficult to explain the way of distribution of political strenghts in Coucil of Nobility. This question needs an exhausitive analysis. [From the publication]