Self-Image and Mutual Perception of the Catholic and Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Upper Hungary in the Context of the Second Confessionalization

Abstract

This study analyzes confessionally conditioned self-image and mutual perception of the Catholic and Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Upper Hungary in the context of the second confessionalization process. Based on comparative research of the contemporary press, including either the printed or handwritten homiletic and catechetical literature, predominantly from the area of Upper Hungary, the study examines which phenomena and processes taking place since the 1830s until the end of the 1850s signaled a renewal in confessional identities in both the Catholic and Evangelical Churches. A particular emphasis has been placed on indicators of the second confessionalization, such as the debate on mixed marriages, a rising number of conversions, or legislative interventions in the freedom of religion. Through discourse analysis, the study explores how the image and self-image of the Catholic and Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession evolved as a result of the expansion of the catechetical literature and apologetic works and identifies the narrative strategies employed in their respective confessional discourses. The Catholic discourse stressed maintaining dogmatic integrity and Church authority in particular, whereas the Evangelicals more frequently accentuated a thorough biblicality and rationality as a counterposition to Catholic piety. Both traditions claimed exclusive access to “true religion” and used apologetic genres to defend and enhance their identity. Polemical texts also served as tools to form confessionally conditioned collective consciousness, as well as a part of contemporary cultural and political debates.

1. Introduction

The process of forming confessionally conditioned self-images and mutual perceptions between the Roman Catholic and Evangelical (i.e., Lutheran) populations in the Kingdom of Hungary underwent a significant transformation over the course of the 19th century. The effort to equalize Protestantism with Catholicism legally and socially resulted in numerous tense situations as early as the 1830s and 1840s; often, political and religious characteristics were typical for these tensions. Confessional conflicts mingled with a political battle between liberally oriented Hungarian nationalism and conservative streams that remained loyal to the centralized monarchy and its clerical–bureaucratic apparatus in Vienna. A confessional stratification of Hungarian society corresponded significantly with ethnic differentiation (among Hungarians, Slovaks, and Germans, in particular) and posed a structural obstacle in the process of national homogenization and the forming of modern ethnic–political collective identities. In this context, religious affiliation remained a determining element of social integration, yet also became a factor of political mobilization, most distinctively demonstrated during the 1848/9 revolution, as well as during neoabsolutist interventions in relation to the religious life (Concordate in 1855, Protestant Edict in 1859) and in the relationship between the state and churches.

The prominent status of the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession within Hungarian Protestantism in the second third of the 19th century was mainly characteristic of the region of Upper Hungary (Hungaria superior), which served as the spiritual and institutional center of Lutheranism. The dominant representation of Slovak Evangelical communities in this region was reflected not only by their numbers—more than half of Evangelical Lutherans in the Kingdom of Hungary were Slovaks—but also by their active involvement in ecclesiastical and wider social discourse. Friedrich Gottas estimated that there were approximately 830,000 Lutherans before the 1848/9 revolution, including 450,000 Slovaks, 200,000 Germans, and 180,000 Hungarians (Gottas 1985, p. 503). Most existing Evangelical parishes, as well as the most prominent educational and ecclesiastical–legal institutions of the Evangelical Church, were concentrated in this region. There were seats of three out of four Evangelical districts, grammar schools, lyceums, and higher education institutions that played a crucial role in shaping a spiritual elite. It was in this particular space where programs for the defense of Protestant rights, resistance against Catholic domination, and, gradually, concepts of religious and civil modernization were formed. Upper Hungary thus represented not only a geographic and demographic center but also a cultural center of Lutheran life until the period of dualism (Schwarz and Brandt 2021, p. 494).

A concept of the second confessionalization was presented by German historiography at the end of the 1990s to serve as an analytical tool to explore these processes. This concept accentuates the fact that different religious identities and pertaining religious conflicts represented an essential factor in political, social, and cultural development during the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century (Blaschke 2000, 2002b; Blaschke and Kuhlemann 2000). While confessional tensions and conflicts in religiously heterogeneous regions were significantly suppressed during the period of Enlightenment and via religious reforms enforced by the state, during the 19th century, confessional tensions had changed their character and returned to political and social discourse (Lübbe 2004; Blaschke 2002a). Subsequently, these tensions contributed to completing and solidifying social and mental barriers among individual confessional communities (Blaschke 2004).

It is important to research the second confessionalization that occurred in the Kingdom of Hungary and its successor states from the early 19th century to the mid-20th century (and the ascension of the communist regime) in order to acquire a more detailed picture of the dynamics unfolding in the relationship between two dominant religious groups, (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals of the Augsburg Confession), as well as with other confessions and religions (Greek Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Calvinists, and Jews). In the 19th century, a confessional identity wielded a significant influence in the formation of cultural and political institutions in Hungarian society but also determined national movements’ development and the linguistic–ethnic communities emerging as a result of that development. Religious affiliation influenced the social networks of individuals, as well as the structure of local communities. It was demonstrated in political, as well as social (charitable, voluntary) activities and readership preferences; it impacted accessibility and level of achievable education, the extent of political socialization, and political preferences of individuals and groups.

1.1. Sources

The study focuses on an analysis of confessionally conditioned images and stereotypes which were being formed in the 19th century and subsequently reproduced via various types of official media that can be split into two groups. The first group is represented by the periodical and non-periodical press that was frequently censored and manipulated by editorial boards, to various extents, between the 1830s and 1860s. An image of one’s own, as well as of a “different” church, was construed and presented, and a list of the most frequent linguistic devices and stereotypes was edited and stylized. The second major group of sources consists of official catechisms—printed and manually rewritten versions approved by secular or ecclesiastical authorities and used for religious education in schools, as well as sermon preparation guides and popular religious literature. These two groups of documents also communicate a normative discourse representing official views of individual confessional authorities.

The limitations and bias of those two groups of sources can be, to a certain degree, balanced and alleviated by the second category of analyzed sources, namely, unofficial catechetical and homiletic texts (respectively, non-sanctioned by authorities). These were compiled by individual clergymen or teachers from both confessions and further used in pastoral and religious education, especially in the case of smaller parishes. These were handwritten, semi-official catechisms, instructive documents, and practical religious manuals that had not been formally approved. However, these often served as an everyday tool for forming a religious identity. These texts reflect ecclesiological and theological interpretations adapted to the mentality and experience of the faithful and thus bear witness to popularized forms of confessional education and everyday religious discourse.

1.2. Methodology and Research Questions

Methodologically, the study is based on concepts of discourse analysis (Daniel 2001; Jäger 2012) and symbolic capital that research mechanisms by which the religious life is transferred into social practice (Rey 2008). These tools enable one to analyze not only explicit linguistic statements about “the others” but also implicit forms of normation, delimitation, and marginalization within confessional discourse (Köhle-Hezinger 1976) and are particularly suitable while reconstructing mechanisms of symbolic domination which were demonstrated, in different ways, in the Catholic and Protestant milieu in the Kingdom of Hungary in the first half of the 19th century. In addition, the study works with catechetical texts, applying the source criticism method with an emphasis on the function of these texts as tools of confessional socialization and of the construction and enhancement of identity. The analysis captures an interaction between a normative discourse “from above” (official church documents) and pastoral practice constituting its mediated “from below” reflection (manuscripts and practical catechisms). This combination enabled us to describe the process of spreading and internalizing confessional stereotypes in the context of the bi-confessional milieu of Upper Hungary, as well as in specific circumstances of the nationally engaged Slovak intelligentsia, which, at that time, consisted mainly of Catholic and Evangelical clergy (Hučko 1974).

The fundamental research questions that the study attempts to answer can be split into two sections:

1.2.1. Reconfessionalization Tendencies as a Reaction to Religious Indifferentism

What phenomena and processes between the 1830s and late 1850s signaled a renewal of confessional identities in the Catholic and Evangelical Churches? A special emphasis is placed on indicators of the second confessionalization, such as debates about mixed marriages, a growing number of conversions, and legislative interventions in the freedom of religion.

1.2.2. Confessional Image and Church Self-Reflection

How were the self-images of the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession and their perception in the conditions of “reconfessionalization” (involving the expansion of the catechetical literature and apologetic works) changing? What narrative strategies were used by individual confessional traditions while representing “the other” in catechetical and polemical texts in particular?

2. Reconfessionalization Tendencies as a Reaction to Religious Indifferentism

During the 1830s and 1840s, critical reflections concerning the condition of religious life were emerging with increasing frequency; these provided examples of alarming issues such as a drop in piety and the weakening of religious practice, as well as of obvious limitations of church influence on the everyday life of churchgoers. The most frequently discussed phenomena included a low turnout of believers at ecclesiastical festivities and in traditional forms of popular religiosity, which the church failed to revive even decades after the Josephinian reforms (Hollerweger 1976, pp. 390–93; Hollerweger 1983, pp. 62–64). This was partially due to the fact that the Josephinian order of services, albeit with certain amendments, remained valid until the mid-1850s. A major reversal in liturgical regulation took place only as late as 1850, when Franz Joseph I assigned the competence to rule on all liturgical issues, as well as on all forms of service practices, exclusively to a particular bishop (Hollerweger 1976, p. 392). The Concordate between the Holy See and the Habsburg monarchy from 1855 strengthened the authority of bishops even more, as they were then explicitly entitled to permit or limit displays of popular religiosity, including public processions and pilgrimages (Rieder 1859, p. 47).

Catholic elites in the Kingdom of Hungary were primarily concerned with the rise in secularism and religious indifference—phenomena referred to in contemporary discourse as indifferentism or churchlessness. These developments were perceived as serious threats to religiosity and the integrity of ecclesial life (Horváth 1867, p. 78). The growing rejection of, or disregard for, binding affiliation with institutionalized religion was seen by Catholic observers of the time as one of the most significant spiritual and social dangers of modernity. Since the promulgation of Pope Gregory XVI’s encyclical Mirari Vos, tendencies towards the formation of closed and defensive structures—typical of modern Catholicism—intensified within the Catholic Church in the Habsburg monarchy. The Belgian theologian Lieven Boeve refers to this self-understanding of Catholicism as a counter-narrative (Boeve 2003, pp. 44–47). Since their emergence in the late 1840s, Catholic magazines communicated—in an accessible language and within an apologetic framework—arguments in favor of binding church affiliation and against displays of so-called “non-churchness” or indifferentism.1

Similar diagnoses related to the decline in religiosity and the spread of religious indifferentism and godlessness were also frequently discussed by Evangelical scholars in their sermons and articles. They viewed these tendencies as consequences of the Enlightenment and rationalism in the religious education of Evangelical Christians, namely, among the aristocracy and town elite. An Evangelical priest, Ondrej Šoltýs (1804–1867) from Ivančinná, Turiec County (Hung. Turóc Vármegye), accentuated in his handwritten apology of the Evangelical Church that Christ’s religion had, for almost 1837 years, targeted not only uneducated, simple people but also “the most educated and the brightest among people”. He added that “nowadays”, many mocked the truths of this religion and rejected them while arguing that among Christians, there was more chaos, issues, and arguing than among pagans.2 He called for a renewal of the Christian Church together with the elimination of all negative behavior patterns present in priests, as well as of their wealth and secular power; he demanded a return to modesty, moderateness, and simplicity. He encouraged priests to abstain from “excessive zealousness” and offensive and belittling comments during their sermons3 Similar renewal initiatives are also to be found in homilies from the 1850s. In his sermon Veľká potreba v našej cirkvi znovu sa zrodiť (Great Need of Our Church to be Reborn), the author Daniel Kicska (1813–1889) observed a declining interest in service attendance not only on Sundays but also on major church holidays.4

Theologian and church historian Ján Borbis (1832–1913) assessed education in higher schools in the 1840s as being soaked with superficial, rationalized faith, where it sufficed to observe certain principles. In his own words, “we were raised to be unbelieving and unchurchly” (Borbis 1861, p. 238). Therefore, forms of piety interconnected with traditional displays of everyday faith were to be found only in the rural environment. The religious life of local communities was determined by regular attendance of services, emphasis on individual and family prayer, and culturally ingrained reverence for church songs, which played not only a liturgical role but also an important identity-creating and socializing role. Catechetical guidelines from the mid-19th century presented growing concerns about the weakening of the confessional identity and the decline in traditional piety in the rural environment. The guidelines particularly warned against so-called “unchurchness”, which was an attempt to relativize dogmatic differences among respective confessions (Hurban 1855, p. VII).

For Hungarian Evangelical Christians, the first third of the 19th century represented a period of institutional consolidation and flourishing. The higher education network was expanding and thus attracting students of various confessions from the entire monarchy. Simultaneously, a political battle was taking place aiming at the removal of persisting forms of legal discrimination and at the completion of civil emancipation of the Evangelical community. Despite the gradual expansion of freedom of religion, there was a continuous, albeit slow, demographic decline present in the Evangelical community, perceived as a sign of a long-term threat to this confession. This decreasing trend, resulting from various factors (migration, mixed marriages, conversions, population growth), cannot be fully quantified–there is a lack of reliable statistical data from the first half of the 19th century. The drop was more significant in the case of Evangelical church parishes in towns. Historical centers of Lutheranism, such as Prešov (Hung. Eperjes; Germ. Preschau) or Bardejov (Hung. Bártfa; Germ. Bartfeld) serve as typical examples of this confessional profile transformation. At the beginning of the 19th century, approximately 21% of Prešov’s inhabitants were Evangelical Christians, whereas in 1850, they constituted only 15% of the population; this occurred despite absolute stagnation in the numbers of churchgoers. The main reason for this change was an increase in the number of Roman and Greek Catholics who were moving to the town from neighboring rural areas. An even more significant drop was recorded in Bardejov, traditionally considered one of Hungarian Lutheranism’s strongholds. While the Josephinian population census from 1784 established approximately the same numbers of Catholic and Evangelical Christians in the town, in the mid-19th century, the latter constituted only 18% of its population (Damankoš 2010, pp. 120, 144).

This development had demographic but also psychological and mental ramifications. Gradually, a collective idea of a “threatened minority”, facing the pressure from a strengthening Catholic majority, was emerging. This narrative became incorporated into the confessional memory, and it enhanced internal solidarity but also prompted defensive and apologetic strategies in the public discourse. References to the loss of influence, decrease in the number of church communities, or endangering of religious identity became frequent topics in the church press and in homiletic and apologetic texts of Evangelical clergymen.5 Apart from these tendencies, the Protestant church elite in the Kingdom of Hungary considered proselytism an omnipresent threat.

Mixed Marriages

One of the most debated issues of confessional conflicts in Hungarian society of the 19th century was mixed marriage and the pertaining issue of the religious upbringing of children in such families. Within the legal framework, there was a distinctive tension between civil law regulations and the requirements of Roman Catholic canon law. According to the Hungarian civil law, the principle of asymmetry was applied: when a father was a Catholic, all the children born in such a marriage were to be raised in the Catholic faith; if only a mother was a Catholic, it was admissible that sons would observe the Protestant faith of their father (Šoltés 2015b, pp. 826–27). The canon law code maintained that a mixed marriage was to be deemed valid only if all the children of the couple were to be raised in the Catholic faith. This normative ambiguity generated numerous conflicts in practice—not only between a husband and a wife but also between confessional communities, as these felt damaged or threatened in terms of pastoral education, economic provision for parishes, and general demographic reproduction. Further discussions about the so-called written undertakings (pledges about the Catholic upbringing of potential children), the competence of clergymen to officiate wedding ceremonies of mixed couples, or the validity of civil ceremonies without the consent of church authority permeated the general public and thus contributed to forming religious and political views. The issue of mixed marriages was one of the main factors triggering wider political and cultural debates beyond the framework of private law. It also influenced the discourse on freedom of religion, civil equality, and the relationship between the state and church (Šoltés 2015a, pp. 41–42; Fazekas 2005, pp. 236–37).

Once the Edict of Toleration was issued, the stance of the Evangelical clergy on mixed marriages was recorded in a handwritten text Wýstraha pred Manželstwjm rozdjlného Náboženstwj (Warning against the marriage of different religions, 1817) by a parish priest, Kristián Fornet from Vyšná Boca (Liptov County, Hung. Liptó Vármegye). In his pastorally motivated text, written exclusively for internal needs, the author vigorously argues against confessionally mixed unions, which he perceived as a spiritual threat to both individual and community. Fornet identified five main reasons why the Evangelical Church refuses such marriages: they are against God’s will, they disrupt the integrity of the true church, they expose Evangelical Christians to the danger of apostasy, they disable maintaining the Evangelical upbringing of children, and they disrupt shared spiritual practices in a family. The Evangelical religion represented a key value, the legacy of the Reformation, and thus, was to be protected via thorough religious education and by becoming acquainted with the fundamentals of the faith, as well as with errors and abuse in the Catholic Church. These actions would make it possible to recognize the true journey to salvation as complicated for the Catholic faithful. As a tool to prevent this threat, Fornet stressed a consistent catechetical formation and critical knowledge of the Catholic “fallacies” which, as the author maintained, were preventing Catholics from obtaining the true knowledge. While following this logic, he encouraged all parents concerned about the salvation of their children to enhance their conviction that the Evangelical religion is “the only true and salvable.”6

An increasing number of conversions—frequently directly connected with a growing number of mixed marriages, as well as with the gradual weakening of confessional borders—were referred to by Evangelical clergymen in their sermons or separate apologetic brochures.7 These texts, usually in the form of dialogues, warned against severe spiritual risks stemming from doctrinal differences among respective confessional traditions. The acceptance of the Catholic faith is likened in one of these brochures to “apostasy from already known truth and acceptance of fallacies”. To remain in the renewed Evangelical Church was presented as a symbol of loyalty to the true teaching of Christ. To strengthen this stance, homiletic and didactic genres often referred to positive examples of spiritual stamina, citing such biblical figures as Abraham, Eleazar, or apostles, as well as distinctive personalities of their own reformation tradition, including Jan Hus or Jerome of Prague.

At Hungarian Diets in the 1830s and 1840s, Protestant circles presented various proposals openly questioning a privileged position for the Catholic Church. The representatives demanded the abolition of Marian feast days and suggested moving most ecclesiastical festivities to Sundays (except for Easter); representatives from some counties with a Protestant majority even proposed secularization of church property (Fazekas 2008b, pp. 105–6, 125). They argued not only from an economic point of view but also emphasized the religious diversity of the Kingdom of Hungary, where more than one-third of the population was not of Catholic confession.

At the turn of the 1830s and 1840s, a predominant generation of Catholic priests active in pastoral life was formed, in terms of their theology and values, during the times of the Napoleonic Wars, when ideas of the Catholic Enlightenment were still somewhat present in seminaries. The state was also dedicated to the effort to reduce interconfessional pressure (Primetschofer 1967, pp. 67–69). In the Evangelical milieu, priests were being trained by two dominant theological schools—the first was the rationalist Protestant theology influenced by the principles of the Enlightenment, and the second was an unorthodox confessional tradition which highlighted the continuity with historical confession. In pastoral practice, however, there was still an active generation of clergymen who had reached adulthood during the reign of Maria Theresa, and they still vividly remembered pre-tolerant circumstances. Thanks to their personal experience and by passing on the stories of older generations, the Evangelical community preserved, in their collective memory, recollections of dramatic episodes of church oppression from the 17th and 18th centuries, aggressive occupation of their temples, or repressive measures against Protestant clergy during the rebellions of Emericus Thököly and Francis II Rákóczi, as well as of “silent”, “bloodless” recatholicization in the 18th century, personified in the figure of a perfidious Jesuit. Confessional stereotypes and emotional prejudices had persisted, and together with rationalized concerns, they were often demonstrated in homiletic and catechetical activities of Evangelical clergymen who were becoming important personalities impacting public opinions in their parishes. It was this very historical memory and feeling of endangerment of the confessional identity, passed across generations, that significantly influenced the approach of the Evangelical community to mixed marriages and their legal and social regulation.

The years 1839–1844 were labeled by the contemporary press (with a certain exaggeration) as an era of “religious chaos” which corresponded with parallel developments in German countries where similar conflicts concerning mixed marriages were escalating. This situation was triggered by the so-called “Cologne Incident”, when the state authority of Prussia intervened against Clemens August Droste zu Vischering, the Archbishop of Cologne. In his circular, the archbishop revoked all valid confessional compromises and strictly demanded that Catholic clergymen would not grant blessings to those betrothed who would fail to present a granted dispensation, as well as a commitment to raise their future children in the Catholic faith. The archbishop was subsequently arrested in November 1837, which elicited strong international reactions, particularly in European Catholic circles (Keinemann 2015). Ecclesiastical circles in the Kingdom of Hungary perceived this reaction as a legitimate response to the state’s intervention in regulating mixed marriages, which were weakening the church’s jurisdiction and the bishop’s authority (Berg 2015, p. 63). Inspired by the incident in Cologne, Imre Lajcsák, the Bishop of Oradea (Hung. Nagyvárad; Germ. Großwardein), and János Scitovszky, Bishop of Rožňava (Hung. Rozsnyó; Germ. Rosenau), made public statements. In his pastoral letter from 15 March 1839, Lajcsák provided the clergy with particularly specific directives on how to approach petitions for a mixed marriage ceremony—the duty to guarantee Catholic upbringing and exclusion of any confessional compromise were particularly emphasized.

The pastoral letter of the Bishop of Oradea from March 1839 represents an important source for understanding mixed marriages, as viewed by the Catholic hierarchy. The bishop cautions against leaving the decision to select one’s own religious orientation to children of such a marriage; as a result, they would grow up convinced of the equality of all the confessions. The bishop claimed that this approach would inevitably result in religious relativism and, subsequently, to utter indifference:

“Where can this horrifying concord lead?” the bishop asked and immediately provided an answer himself: “Hardly to anything else than that these unhappy children, while loving their parents equally, would embrace an idea that all the religions are equal and of equal importance. Later, while developing their skills, they would realize the differences among religions and would consider each faith equally worthless. Therefore, they would become dangerous for faith, civil society, as well as for themselves.”

(Mailáth 1845, p. 110).

The Catholic Church maintained that the increasing frequency of mixed marriages was to be considered one of the main vectors of spreading religious indifferentism8, which posed, according to church elites, not only a theological but also social and moral threats—a sign of the collapse of the order defined by the religion, as well as by confessional identity. Within this context, the Kingdom of Hungary was far from being unique; quite the contrary, it was yet another example of the tension between the state and church, where mixed marriages represented a major test of borders between secular and ecclesiastical power. Efforts to strictly regulate churches were a part of a wider ultramontanistic turnaround reacting to spreading indifferentism as a symptom of weakened confessional discipline and order. Ultramontanism is typically presented as a synonym for backwardness and enmity against the Enlightenment in the anticlerical milieu (Nowak 1995, pp. 130–34; Conzemius 2002, pp. 253–63). However, in political and ideological terms, it referred to the modern concept of the church’s independence from the state. The movement used modern institutional and communication means as well, namely, various clubs and religious press (Tropper 2011, p. 28).

During the three Hungarian Diets (1839/40, 1843/44, and 1847/48), mixed marriages became one of the key points of confessional and political battle, which mobilized wide masses of the society.9 The conflict resonated particularly in church circles, where it was targeted by bishop circulars, homiletic practice, catechetical education, and pastoral dialogues. Thus, the mixed marriages controversy was transferred into a broader discussion concerning a form of church–state relations, as well as the position of confessional communities within the religiously pluralistic monarchy. Searching for an acceptable model of coexistence gradually became a central topic of Hungarian political discourse (Fazekas 2005; Fazekas 2008a).

Protestant views on the issue of mixed marriages were published in 1843 by Gustav Steinacker (1809–1877) in the brochure An Issue of Mixed Marriages in the Kingdom of Hungary. Bearing in mind public opinion, this teacher at a school for girls in Debrecen (and later a priest in Gelnica, Hung. Gölnicbánya, Germ. Gölnitz, and in Trieste) attempted to systematically clarify legal and confessional aspects of mixed marriages. Although he explicitly admitted that the Catholic Church had the right to maintain its dogmatic principles, he openly questioned whether these were compatible with the ethos of the period, social expectations, and the “unstoppable progress of this period”. Thus, he aptly defined the very question of how sustainable the position of the Catholic Church as the state religion was. The argumentation leaned upon the discourse of progress, justice, and principles of religious freedom, while implicitly doubting the sustainability of the Catholic Church as the privileged state institution.10 He deemed it necessary to consider “if and to what extent it is still in the interest of the state and both its Catholic and non-Catholic populations to persist in the dogma of the only salvable church with all relevant consequences” (Steinacker 1843, pp. 28–29). Steinacker’s contemplation ends with an appeal to revise that part of the Catholic doctrine which he considered irreconcilable with the spirit of Christianity and the contemporary idea of rationalism. However, he also emphasized that no believer should be forced to act against their conscience—this referred to both a layperson signing a written undertaking and a clergyman blessing the matrimony. He suggested entrusting these acts to Protestant clergy who were not limited by dogmatic norms while blessing marital unions. The issue of children’s upbringing was to be based on the principle of reciprocity, while he recommended a reform to the law in effect, as the current one resulted only in religiously divided families. He considered a just provision to base the religion of children on the confessional affiliation of their father. Steinacker’s suggestions corresponded in many respects with legislative proposals of the Table of Representatives of the Hungarian Diet, which had been promoting and defending them in the long term. The Roman Catholic Church, during this whole period, consistently maintained the position of fundamentally rejecting confessionally mixed marriages, which they perceived as undesired and potentially damaging to the integrity of the religious education of children. Religious periodicals at the turn of the 1840s and 1850s were attempting to acquaint their believers with this approach through apologetic articles, stories, poems11, and other genres of trivial literature. In 1852, the Katolícke noviny (Catholic Newspaper) published a series of articles offering a manual on how to select the right partner. Special attention was dedicated to the risks of mixed marriages. Such unions were depicted in the articles as a threat to the spiritual zeal, as well as the religious integrity, of a person. Mixed marriages were blamed for the loss of zeal in faith and for having promoted mundane and temporary values over eternal ones. There was a remarkable effort to transfer responsibility from the church and secular authority onto families. Tepid religious education in families was the reason that indifferentism and churchlessness spread across the whole society.12

The views of Evangelical intellectual elites underwent a major transformation during a relatively short time. Originally, they were defensive while emphasizing protection against the loss of religious identity, but later, they opted for stressing a requirement of full legal equality with the Catholic Church. Therefore, representatives of Evangelical Christians became predominantly interested in the issue of legal and civil emancipation. To eliminate any form of legal obligation, regardless of labeling it as a written undertaking, prenuptial pledge, or contract, became the most crucial demand. To assert the superiority of civil law above canonical norms of the Roman Catholic Church represented a crucial step within the process of legal emancipation of non-Catholic confessions and their incorporation into the modern religious–legal order of the state.

The Catholic Church hierarchy and a major part of the clergy viewed Protestant political initiatives in the period of reforms (1825–1848) as part of a strategic effort to violate the Roman Catholic Church’s authority, as well as to weaken the institution socially and economically. With respect to legislative discussions at the Hungarian Diet, a demand to secularize church properties gained traction; it had been proposed several times already, yet these proposals were unsuccessful. However, it re-emerged in the early 1840s with new intensity (Šoltés 2015a, pp. 59–60). Protestant representatives who were in favor of these proposals were being instructed by county congregations that were reflecting on the changing social and political climate, as well as growing requests for confessional equality (Rada 2019, p. 138). The Catholic hierarchy and conservative political circles were even more concerned, as such discussions were at that time taking place across Europe (Langewiesche 2018, pp. 40–41).

The defeat of the 1848/49 revolution represented a breaking point not only in the political organization but also in the wider social organization of the Kingdom of Hungary. Revolutionary elites were removed from public life either by enforced exile or by political disqualification, which enabled the consolidation of the neoabsolutist regime. This political reversal had a significant impact on church affairs as well, and on the Catholic clergy in particular, as their values and ideological orientation had undergone a fundamental transformation within mere years. While at the end of the 1840s, seminaries for priests were still under the influence of intellectual streams based on rationalism, enlightened Catholicism, and a certain type of liberal reformism, after the revolution, there was a distinct shift towards conservativism built upon principles of ultramontanism. This ideological shift only partly resulted from the centralized church politics of the new regime; it was inspired by the need to renew the social influence and authority of the church.

The post-revolution period was thus characterized by a growing emphasis on popular religiosity and mass demonstrations of the faith. On the other hand, rationalistic and reform tendencies were being increasingly criticized. This trend was apparent in the Catholic milieu in particular, although a similar development was also detected in the Slovak Evangelical clergy (Šoltés 2017, pp. 480–81). As British historian Hugh McLeod pointed out, the clergy became strikingly more conservative in the 1850s compared with the previous decade (McLeod 1997, p. 47; McLeod 2000, p. 31).

3. Confessional Image and Self-Reflection of Catholicism and Lutheranism

Since the diet in 1839/40, a younger and middle generation of clergy repeatedly criticized the inactivity of bishops, as well as the defensive stance of Primate József Kopács (1775–1847). There was a group being formed around Bishop József Lonovics (1793–1867), consisting of clergymen, Catholic nobles, and county representatives, that was trying to define the strategy to stop secularism and religious indifferentism from further spreading (Barány 2014, p. 31). The proposed measure served a double purpose—political and pastoral. The Roman Catholic Church in the Kingdom of Hungary was forming defensive strategies to react to this current challenge predominantly by having intensified their pastoral activities; they strengthened religious associations and made wider use of the religious press to spread apologetic attitudes. In terms of clerical administration, the initiative aimed at reviving the church life from below by revitalizing various brotherhoods, prayer groups, and religious associations that were forced to cease their activities during the Josephinian reform period. According to János Mailáth (1786–1855), one of the most agile activists, these communities were to assist in “transforming indifferentism of the Catholics, which was indeed horrible, into zeal for Catholicism”.13 Bishop Lonovics turned out to be the most active representative: in his bishopric, he established the Brotherhood of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, which was to serve as a model for other bishoprics. The initiative of the Catholic hierarchy also featured an ambition to create a Catholic union, as a counterbalance to Gustav-Adolf-Stiftung, to support Catholic communities in the Protestant milieu.

3.1. Catholic Catechisms

Catechism served as the most common and most time-tested tool to instill the basics of Christian doctrine and principles of personal piety. It was utilized in classes of religious education, during preparations for First Communion in the case of Catholics, and in confirmations for both Catholics and Protestants. Catechism did not only communicate basic religious knowledge and rules of church discipline but also helped to enhance confessional identity. Catholic catechisms published in the first half of the 19th century followed the soteriological tradition of the Council of Trent. They emphasized that there was only one true faith and only one true God and that this faith—“holy, Roman apostolic, established by our Lord the Christ”—was a necessary condition of eternal salvation.14 The soteriological doctrine contained in catechisms also accentuated the necessity to merge the faith with deeds: it did not suffice to believe in God’s revelations; it was also necessary to implement this faith while leading a proper Christian life. The church was defined as a visible community of true believers—Christians who accept the only invisible head, Jesus Christ, and one visible head, his deputy, Saint Peter, and his successors, Roman popes. The Catholic Church perceived itself as the very church founded by Jesus Christ himself: a harbinger of the pure word of God, administering sacraments in accordance with the provisions of Christ. The Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession was, together with other Protestant Churches, a new church established by humans. Catechism categorically rejected the concept of the pluralism of confessional forms: there was only one true Church, and there was no salvation beyond it.15

As certain pastoral needs emerged in the German milieu, theological and ecclesiological differences between the Catholic Church and Protestant confessions were frequently presented in catechisms in the 1830s and the 1840s in particular. Their major areas of impact were the German-speaking regions; however, there was also a registered reception in the Kingdom of Hungary. The existence of several Christian churches was explained as a consequence of the Reformation, when the unified and general Christian Church split into several confessions and particular churches. The Christian Church spirit was hovering above all of them; however, these churches were not all in equally close relation with this spirit (Marheineke 1836, p. 85). When asked whether it was true that the Catholic Church condemned all who were not part of it, the catechisms answered in a relatively inclusive manner. There were two distinctive instances: those who out of accidental lack of knowledge considered their church the true one and had no possibility to get to know the true church; however, they were willing to get to know it and join it, and they could still hope to be saved. The others, living and persisting outside of the true church community, were left out there for the Last Judgement.16 Claims of the Protestant teaching that achieving blessedness did not depend on the external church community but only on the faith itself were rejected by these polemical catechisms. They maintained that the true church preaches the pure word of God and administers sacraments, adhering to Christ’s provisions.

“How does the Catholic Church view the Protestant Church? The Catholic Church is the true church established by Jesus Christ and was given all its teachings and sacraments by Jesus Christ and his apostles. The Protestant Church is a new church, established by a human, with no God’s blessing, and thus is no true church of the Christ.”17

During the whole 19th century, Hungarian Catholic as well as Evangelical Christians closely observed the development of religious relations in the German states. Continuous tension in these relations resulted repeatedly in conflicts. Thanks to the German press, the Hungarian milieu was well aware of these occurrences. In the early 1840s, the so-called religious chaos broke out, with one of the most vocal controversies concerning the Catechism of Mainz, published in 1844.18 The most controversial was the passage of an instruction concerning mixed marriages. The catechism adhered to the Catholic Church doctrine, disagreeing with mixed unions, as these were putting the faith in jeopardy and posed an obstacle to the Catholic aspect of marriage, as well as for potential children. For a Catholic partner, it was unacceptable to consent to the upbringing of all or some of their children in the non-Catholic religion, as this would be “an obvious disparage and indifference towards their own church as well as spiritual bliss of their children”.19 The catechism was condemned by not only the Hessian press but also major German newspapers; it was rebuked for teaching children and youth to be intolerant, harsh, and disrespectful towards non-Catholic Christians.

In 1858, a provincial synod took place in Esztergom, where the clergy of the Kingdom of Hungary decided to use the catechism of Joseph Deharbe (1800–1871), Katholischer Katechismus oder Lehrbegriff, first published in 1847, for religious education at Roman Catholic church schools, as well as for lower grades of higher schools (Deharbe 1848). Originally, it was intended for South German bishoprics and was published in five different editions, according to the level and type of school. In the second half of the 19th century, it was introduced as an official bishopric catechism in almost all German bishoprics. To meet the needs of the Habsburg monarchy, it was printed in 1860 in three languages (namely German, Hungarian, and Slovak) in Vienna by a publishing house for state-issued books. There were two versions of the Slovak translation: Katechismus pre počátečníkov (Catechism for Beginners) and Malý katechizmus (Concise Catechism), intended for the Esztergom Archbishopric. The so-called Prostredný Katechismus (Intermediate Catechism) was used for the purposes of religious education in the 19th century; it was first published in Buda in 1860.20 It had a significantly apologetic character and was based on evidence of neo-scholastic theology. It was written as a reaction to numerous Protestant catechisms and was a part of the wider reconfessionalization effort of the Church, particularly in Catholic German regions and in the Austrian Empire. It aimed to standardize Catholic teaching after several decades of the lasting influence of Enlightenment rationalism. Deharbe’s catechism provided clear, systematic Catholic dogmas and thus contributed to religious identity and loyalty to the Church (Simon 2020, p. 58). It was an official textbook of the Catholic religion at Catholic schools across the Habsburg monarchy, and it remained in use for the preparation of sacraments in Slovakia until the mid-20th century.

With respect to the issue of attaining salvation, Deharbe’s catechism was based upon the principle that there is no salvation beyond the Church—“Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”. However, he did not interpret this principle rigidly; on the contrary, he tried to maintain space for pastoral gentleness and inclusion. Only the person who is a part of the true church of Christ and adheres to its teaching and sacraments, as defined by Christ, can be saved. He distinguished between conscious and voluntary existence outside of the Church and the condition of “innocent ignorance” where salvation still can be attained. Those who blamelessly do not know the true church but are searching for the truth and act in accordance with their conscience may be saved as well, but only through the grace that has been provided by Christ to his church. Marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics that were “from ancient times out of important reasons damned” by the church may be contracted only once the Catholic upbringing of children has been ensured.21

Catholic priests were also using handwritten prayer books22 as catechisms in their pastoral practice; however, these were used to a lesser extent when compared with their Protestant counterparts. These catechisms, usually in the form of questions and answers, provided an overview of basic articles of the Catholic faith in as dense and simple a form as possible. For instance, this was the case for a concise, 37-page catechism by Ondrej Radlinský (1817–1879) compiled for rural Catholic youth in the early 1860s. Radlinský formulated a soteriological definition of the true faith: “To believe in a Christian-Catholic manner means to hold as an infallible truth everything revealed by the God and what Holy Church envisaged, whether passed in writing or orally”.23 This formulation highlights the importance of extra-biblical source traditions, which Catholic teaching deemed equal to the Holy Scripture. However, in response to the question of whether a person could be saved outside of the Roman Catholic Church, Radlinský answers unequivocally: “They cannot”. When asked who belongs to the Catholic Church, he states the following: “All those baptized who adhere to the Catholic faith and obediently accept the Roman pope as their head”. In addition, he stressed that it did not suffice to believe, in one’s heart, in God’s revelations. Faith must be demonstrated in deeds and openly proclaimed orally.

3.2. Evangelical Catechism

At Evangelical schools, several catechisms were being used for the purposes of religious education. In terms of doctrinal and ecclesiological affairs, they were based on Luther’s Small Catechism, a fundamental doctrinal norm for Protestant education in faith. Some of these catechisms were supplemented by further dogmatic and ethical interpretations. A relationship with other Christian denominations, particularly with the Catholic Church, was fundamentally critical. The Evangelical theology interpreted Catholicism as a theologically misguided, even fallacious, religion. Despite this criticism, Evangelical catechisms did not build upon a strict exclusive soteriology.

Evangelical doctrine was based on the fundamental thesis that personal faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior was sufficient to attain salvation, regardless of a formal affiliation with an institutionalized church. The church was perceived as a spiritual community of believers, not as an exclusive and necessary administrator of graces or sacraments. As an implicit consequence, it was clear that salvation was possible even beyond the “true” church, reformed by Luther, provided that genuine and authentic faith had been preserved.

Since the 1840s, Evangelical Church elites systematically worked on improvements within catechesis and publications of new hymnals and catechisms. Many translations of German biographies of Martin Luther were published, together with works of local authors. Evangelical schools used several catechisms for religious education. All of them were based on Luther’s Small Catechism; however, they were updated pedagogically and supplemented by further dogmatic and ethical interpretations. Karol Kuzmány’s (1806–1866) Katechizmus evanjelický (Evangelical Catechism, 1845) became, together with another religious guideline, Příprava konfirmantů (Preparation of Confirmands, 1843), an essential textbook in the formation of the confessional identity of Slovak Evangelical Christians until the 20^th century.

In contrast to older doctrinal traditions as presented by Kristián Fornet, Kuzmány’s interpretation was strongly influenced by theological rationalism. He does not provide an explicit answer to the question of which is the true, salvable faith and of what church is its harbinger. There is only one general, holy, and eternal Church of Christ, and it is perfect, standing above visible and imperfect churches. It is omnipresent wherever Christians gather in the name of the Lord (Kuzmány 1845). Similarly, some other interpretations of Luther’s Small Catechism were compiled and published in the first half of the 19^th century, including a relatively well-distributed interpretation by Štefan Plačka (István Placskó 1806–1855) from 1840 and a rhymed catechism by Matej Ambrózi (1797–1869) intended for middle-graders, published in 1844, as well as a catechism by Ján Šulek (1774–1837), which was a generation older and first published in 1815. Subsequent re-editions were published by various printing companies during the 1830s. For more than half a century, the latter remained a common religious education textbook for Evangelical Christians of the Augsburg Confession not only in the Kingdom of Hungary but also in the Czech lands (Nešpor 2010, p. 141).

Šulek’s catechetical guideline was strongly influenced by theological rationalism, which was also apparent from his views on other confessional traditions. In the chapter “Učenie kresťanské evanjelické” (“Christian Evangelical Teaching”), Šulek worked with such terms as “true religion” or “true faith” in a more general, less exclusive dimension. A person can attain salvation via the true Christian religion, which was here defined as a way to get to know and worship God established by Christ. When asked where the true faith in Christ resides, the catechism answers: in a firm confidence in God, whereas this faith leads to moral rectification, liberation from sins in the earthly life, and eternal salvation (Šulek 1865, p. 19).

Along with this more rational interpretation, a Slovak translation of the Interpretation of Small’s Catechism by Heinrich Wendel, edited by Leopold Branislav Abaffy (1827–1883), became widely popular among Slovak Evangelicals of the Augsburg Confession. This catechism was characterized by a perception of other confessions that was confessionally more exclusive, and its formulations adhered more strictly to traditional Evangelical soteriology. While answering the question, “Which is then the true church?”, the catechism responds: “Where the word of God is preached purely, and sacraments are administered according to provisions of the Christ.” When asked, “Which is then the real faith in which the Holy Spirit maintains the whole Christianity on Earth?”, the catechism responds: “Such faith which we have just got to know in these three articles.” (Abaffy 1870, p. 94). Evangelical catechisms, as well as other religious textbooks, presented individual Christian denominations, including those of the Catholic and Orthodox Church, as visible and imperfect forms of the general Christ’s church on Earth. Although all these churches were based upon the Holy Scripture, they differed in liturgical practices, understanding of sacraments, and relations to traditions, as well as in their forms of church discipline. The Evangelical Church perceived itself as a renewed church, “the Church of Scripture”, while its confessional identity was defined by complete loyalty to its biblical foundation. In accordance with this thesis, Jozef Miloslav Hurban (1817–1888) declared, in his religion textbook intended for Evangelical youth, exclusivity of the Evangelical Church in preserving the Holy Scriptures: “We, Evangelical Christians, observe the Holy Scripture fully and thoroughly” (Hurban 1855, pp. 58–59). Simultaneously, he admitted that the general Church of Christ is present on Earth only in its partial forms, and therefore, each Christian is obliged to be anchored in a specific church community, respect its teaching, and obey its authority. Thus, Hurban promoted the idea of a single, general, holy, and perfect church that is eternal and reigns over all mundane, erring, and imperfect churches. However, in a practical dimension, he emphasized that Christian identity was realized exclusively via loyalty to a particular confessional tradition where an individual had been placed by birth, baptism, and doctrinal education. For Hurban, a true Christian could not be only an abstract representative of universal Christendom but always needed to be a Christian of a specific church. He pointed out that they “must be and should be not only Christian in general but also a Christian in particular, a true one, bearing witness to the Church of the Christ” (Ibidem, p. 59). Therefore, he criticized those who consciously turned their back on their confessional affiliation and stopped respecting the norms, teaching, and traditions of their church. He perceived such an attitude as a display of individualism that threatened the internal integrity of the church society.

In the handwritten homiletic and catechetical literature in the 19^th century, emerging beyond the framework of the censored press, there were often more explicit and openly critical comments against Roman Catholic doctrine and piety than are to be found in official textbooks or published sermons. These criticisms were particularly related to practices and dogmas which, as viewed by Evangelical authors, had no grounds in the Bible. In one of these handwritten sermons, there was a question: “Which church prays correctly?, answered in a clearly exclusive and polemical manner: “The one that prays to the Father. The one who prays to any other than the Heavenly Father is an idolator, and his religion is idolatry and his church idolatrous”.24 In another sermon, those who did not accept the truth of Christ were labeled as worshippers of religious fallacy, and their religion was referred to as mere superstition and idolatry.25

Primarily, theological polemics as recorded in the catechisms also reflected the wider apologetical context of the defense of confessional identity. The Roman Catholic Church was presented as “spiritually and physically” weaker than the Evangelical Church. This argument was built upon a comparison of Catholic and Protestant countries. In Catholic countries, education was less emphasized, and people were more prone to revolting against secular power, which frequently failed to govern justly. In this respect, an allegedly lower level of respect and trust in Roman Catholic clergymen, when compared with Evangelical Christians, was pointed out. This was an assessment of the acceptance of the dogma concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary (1854), which they considered incompatible with Biblical revelation and rational thinking: “…they believed in something which cannot be proved rationally, and which is not referred to in the Holy Scripture. It does not enhance nor enlighten the true faith, quite the contrary, it is harmful to the faith and true virtue”.26

Authors of handwritten catechetical texts presented the Reformation as an inevitable response to the increasing deformation of the original Evangelical legacy that was, according to their interpretation, disturbed by accumulating “human addenda” and the introduction of fallacious teaching. The most criticized was the practice of indulgences, which were based on the idea that sins can be forgiven via monetary donations. Religious practices such as Marian reverence or worshiping of saints were being rejected as forms of inappropriate piety that distracted attention from the exclusive adoration of God. The texts were similarly harsh towards the conviction that miracles or God’s presence were bound to certain relics, images, or pilgrimage places.27

The role of Martin Luther was predominantly interpreted in a hagiographical and theological–apologetic dimension. Luther was presented as a “great man”, specifically called by God to execute a major reversal in the history of Christendom—the Reformation. His historical role was defined as an act of divine providence that interconnected a return to biblical foundations of the faith with its cleansing from human fabrications.28

A remarkable boom in writing and publishing of catechisms by the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession continued in the 1860s. Despite more intensive activity by authors and a growing number of new catechetical texts, Luther’s Small Catechism maintained its popularity and status as a fundamental tool of religious education in the Evangelical milieu. New adaptations and editions with commentaries appeared, authored by prominent literary and theological personalities of Slovak Evangelical life: Karol Kuzmány (1866), Jozef Miloslav Hurban (1868), Ján Leška (1870), or Leopold Branislav Abaffy (1870) (Brtáňová 2016, p. 412). This activity underlined the importance that was ascribed by the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession to the preservation and confessional clarity of Lutheran teaching in the changing cultural and political context of the second half of the 19^th century, while facing secularization challenges, as well as persisting efforts to establish a union with Calvinism (Hurban 1861, pp. 284–90).

4. Conclusions

Analysis of the catechetical literature, homiletic texts, and religious journalism has demonstrated that the formation and reproduction of confessional identity in Upper Hungary during the 19th century occurred through a complex set of discursive and pastoral practices. Between the 1830s and 1850s, both the Roman Catholic and Evangelical communities faced the challenges of modernization, secularization, and religious indifferentism. Particularly, mixed marriages became a sensitive indicator of these changes and were perceived within Catholic circles as a threat to the Church’s control over the religious socialization of children and, within the Evangelical milieu, as a potential danger to the very survival of the confession.

In response, apologetic and defensive strategies were intensified. Catholic discourse increasingly emphasized the exclusivity of salvation within the institutional church, while the Evangelical narrative—especially within Slovak-speaking contexts—stressed freedom of conscience, the rationality of faith, and a supra-confessional understanding of Christ’s Church. At the same time, a powerful defensive narrative of the “threatened minority” took shape within the Evangelical community, rooted in the collective memory of persecution and the repressive experiences of the pre-toleration era. This narrative was propagated not only in journalistic writings but also in manuscript sermons and religious manuals that conveyed enduring prejudices and stereotypes towards Roman Catholic piety.

Through discursive analysis of these sources, it becomes evident that the “second confessionalization” in Hungary did not replicate early modern disciplinary mechanisms but rather represented a historically specific process of symbolic identity consolidation under the conditions of modernity. While church hierarchies and state institutions played important roles, the local context (schools, parishes, sermons, confraternities, and instructional texts) remained the key site of confessional reproduction. The Roman Catholic Church responded to contemporary challenges, especially through an ultramontanist-oriented renewal of popular religiosity, whereas the Evangelical community emphasized pedagogical modernization and legal emancipation.

The case of Upper Hungary thus offers a significant contribution to the study of reconfessionalization in Central Europe as a dynamic and differentiated process in which confessional identity was shaped through the tension between historical memory, theological tradition, and the evolving conditions of a modernizing society.