Written by Petrit Latifi

Full text in free translation (part related to the church of Krajë):

“The Orthodox churches also had many different properties and rights, often usurped during war and respected during truce and peace. This is quite logical since their leader resided in the territory of Venetian opponents and supported their policies. While on the other hand, the Venetians, in the expansion of their possessions, found Catholic prelates whose “scismatici officiales” (Orthodox officials) had taken away their goods, the rectors had difficulty resolving the situation complicated by the numerous usurpations.

The Montenegrin lords, the Crnojevićs, demanded in 1443 and again in 1444 the return of the properties that the “commune” and the peasants had taken from the Orthodox monasteries. Although the Senate ordered the Count of Shkodra “quod illis caloieris faciat ius”, he had to delay the execution of this order, as the Catholic priests also addressed the Venetian authorities demanding respect for their rights usurped by the Orthodox.

The Bishop of Suacio claimed his possessions; “The Rector of the Sancte Marie de Goriça suacensis diocese complained against the Metropolitan of Krajë who had occupied the property of his church. The Venetian rectors were sometimes helpless in the face of a great mass of various problems. They cannot be accused of prejudice against Catholics, because they did not hesitate to harm their Catholic colleagues if the interests of the Republic required it.

Francesco Quirin granted an Orthodox priest, Papa Ginacus, leader of a Mrkojevići group, not only unam ecclesiam sclavam sancti Nicolai de Fozas, but also a Benedictine abbey (monasterium sancti Nicolai de Boiana ordinis sancti Benedictis); he deprived it of its abbot Johannem Georgii in order to be able to reward the merits of Pope Ginacus and ensure his loyalty.

A papal bull was necessary for the Senate to revoke this concession (1450) and to return the monastery to the Catholics. In other cases, the Senate always imposed strict respect for every right, every concession, even when it concerned very small goods.

There were also Orthodox churches, with wealth, which few laymen enjoyed iure patronatus». Rajko Moneta’s wife and sons had several churches and their wealth as heirs of their founders. One of these churches was built by Domina Oliveria, daughter of King Vukašin, and endowed with wealth that she had as a dowry. His daughter Elisanta, who succeeded him, received from Balša III a church still “iure patronatus”.

Before she died, she appointed her niece Helena, the wife of Rajko Moneta, as her heir. Although the Senate confirmed his rights, the rectors gave one of his villages with a church to an abbot, while the other church they entrusted to Pope Ginacus. According to their information, the metropolitans of Carniola sent priests and caliphs there, that is, they had these churches at their disposal and claimed that it was not only domina Oliveria and her relatives who provided them with goods, but also other lords of the region.

Relying on the privileges presented by Rajko Moneta, the Senate revoked the concessions and ordered the Count of Scutari to respect “ius patronatus if the Metropolitan of Carniola had not issued statutes confirming his rights. Although the outcome of this controversy is unknown to us, it testifies to the complexity of the property regime in this small region as it was everywhere, moreover, at that time.”

Reference

“THE LAND SYSTEM IN VENICEAN ALBANIA IN THE 15TH CENTURY” by Ivan Božić published in “Studi Veneziani”, volumes 5 and 6, in 1963