The Changing Image of the Church in the Thought of the Enlightened Catholic Intelligentsia

Abstract

In the last half century, the approach that identifies the influence of the Enlightenment in the academic and public activities of the ecclesiastical intellectuals has taken root in the history of ideas, including in Central and Eastern Europe. One of the aims of this trend is to identify the reform ideas that emerged among the leaders of Christian churches and non-Christian religious communities to modernize pastoral practice. As one of the most important results, the changes that took place in the second half of the 18th century are no longer seen as the inevitable consequence of external forces, primarily from the state, but also as the derivative of internal aspirations in dialog with the ‘Zeitgeist’. Previous scholarly work, however, rarely examined the theoretical considerations behind the reform of religious practice, which can in fact be explained by changes in the image of the church among the ecclesiastical intelligentsia. The study aims to illustrate these changes in the ecclesiastical image by means of three contemporary texts, focused on the episcopal oath and the reform of the clergy.

1. Introduction

Earlier research regarding the Catholic church reform during the Age of Enlightenment often examines the phenomenon from the perspective of power. These studies focus on the efforts of the late 18th century rulers to break the influence of the church structure, which enjoyed a privileged position in the political, social, and economic spheres, and to place its institutional system in the service of the state. However, there were more complex motivations behind the reform process in question. One of these was the changing image of the Church: people of that era viewed the religious institutional system that defined their everyday lives quite differently than in previous centuries, and this view had deeper theological and philosophical roots. This article aims to reconstruct the image of the church and draw attention to the similarities between the 18th and 21st century. The church can be understood as a mirror image of society: while it serves the needs of society at any given time, it also becomes part of those needs. Changes in ecclesiology, i.e., the teaching about the church, must therefore be understood in the context of the political and social needs of the time (Frank 1979, p. 144). To reconstruct the concept of the Church in the 18th century, this study surveys texts from the period between 1780 and 1790, focusing primarily on their choice of topics and terminology, followed by an analysis of key concepts. The texts analyzed and subject to this paper address the issues of the episcopal oath to the pope and the reform of the upper clergy; therefore, these topics are also discussed in separate chapters of the present paper. In the following chapters, more general observations are made regarding the challenges faced by the Catholic Church in the 18th century and, in connection with these, the various interpretations of the Church. The paper concludes with a summary outlining the main theses.

2. Different Interpretations of Church

Examining the situation of the Catholic Church in the Habsburg Monarchy at the end of the 18th century, we can see a process of searching for a new path on the one hand and a crisis of self-interpretation on the other. During this period, the Church as an institution was constantly searching for its place in parallel with and in opposition to the growing secular influence, as well as in relation to the rationality-preferring attitude of the Enlightenment. It was in constant discourse and engagement with its environment, striving to fulfill its fundamental task: to provide spiritual care for the believers, while at the same time leading them back to the right path, educating society in the Christian life professed by the church and expected by the state (Gőzsy 2019, pp. 71–80). It did this in a constantly changing environment from the 1770s onwards, while new challenges arose for the secular clergy and monks. In the second half of Maria Theresa’s reign and during the reign of Joseph II, the state assigned more and more secular functions to the Catholic Church, which in result changed the nature of its activities compared to the Tridentine and Baroque periods. The change in function can best be illustrated by the fact that, besides traditional pastoral care, the clergy had—as mentioned above—to educate society in the Christian way of life professed by the church and expected by the state, and also had to spread intellectual and rational insights. In addition to communicating religious and moral norms, a pragmatic approach has been adopted. As a result, the clergy’s role became significantly more secular: they had to take on an instructive role in social and economic issues (Gőzsy 2014, pp. 59–79).

According to Isnard W. Frank (1930–2010), a distinguished German church historian and Dominican monk, the interpretation of the church as the real body of Christ (Corpus Christi reale) and the mystical body of Christ (Corpus Christi mysticum) there has also been a corpus politicum approach to the church since the late Middle Ages. Frank’s view considered the Church, like other human communities, as an organization governed by divine and human laws, thus interpreting it as a social entity. Saint Thomas Aquinas already had this in mind when he stated that the bishop was given the power to act in the person of Christ (in persona Christi) over his mystical body, that is, the Church. Thus, the visible community of believers forms a bond, and the believers, as part of this bond, are subject to ecclesiastical authority. According to this view, the Church is a structured system from both social and legal perspectives. On the one hand, this view led to clericalization, as the community of believers was left with only obedience and had no say in governance. On the other hand, for a long time, the state and the church did not separate, but the respublica christiana was fulfilled, in which the church took over the missing state functions. From the late Middle Ages onwards, the state began to develop and, in parallel with this, the political power of the church was curtailed. This church organization emerged in its purest form in England, which had a strong central power, and then in France. In the Holy Roman Empire, the princely church (Landesfürstliches Kirchenregiment) was organized according to the territorial principle. Similar efforts can be observed among both Protestant and Catholic princes, but it was more difficult to implement this in Catholic areas because of the influence of Rome. By the 18th century, this concept was supplemented by the principles of natural law, making it the sovereign’s primary duty to supervise the organization of the territorial Church, control the clergy, and protect his subjects from the harmful influence of Rome in order to promote the common good. To this end, the “enlightened absolutist” church reform used both episcopalian and (Gallican) state church arguments (Frank 1979, pp. 145–62).

3. On the Episcopal Oath

In the following, I would like to use three contemporary works with Hungarian connections to show how the Catholic intelligentsia of the time (both clerical and lay) tried to shape public opinion to gain acceptance for the legitimacy and necessity of church reform. At the same time, I seek to answer the question of what ecclesiological shift lay behind the reform efforts that were formulated. One interesting feature of the sources I have chosen is that they were written in German, meaning that their target audience was not the Latin-speaking scholarly intelligentsia, but neither can they be classified as part of the Hungarian-language literature that served the early nationalist cause (Hőnich 2015, pp. 35–63). However, the authorship of both works is uncertain: they are anonymous writings, whose authors almost certainly have been incorrectly identified by later research. This also shows, that given the strong position of the ultramontane clergy, even in the last decades of the 18th century, the dissemination of reformist and clearly Josephinist texts was not without risk in Hungary (Bahlcke 2005, pp. 323–48). Nevertheless, these works can be easily integrated into the literary output that was brought to life by the political thaw at the end of the century in the Habsburg Monarchy (Bodi 1995, pp. 17–30).

The first manuscript, which does not mention the author or title, is preserved in the manuscript collection of the Benedictine Archabbey of Pannonhalma in western Hungary (Eyd des Gehorsams s. a.). The library’s printed catalog lists Hungarian Jesuit historian György Pray as the author of the work and gives the following title: “Abhandlung über den Eyd der Bischöfe” [Treatise on the Oath of Bishops] (Szabó 1981). It is true that the work is found in the Jesuitica collection of the manuscript archive and came to Pannonhalma from the estate of the renowned Jesuit scholar (Lischerong 1937, p. 142). Established research does not recognize this work by Pray, and the text even refers to the Jesuit monk in the third person singular: “Freylich sagt der gelehrte Pray in seinen Jahrbüchern der Könige von Hungarn [However, the learned Pray says in his Annales of the Kings of Hungary]” (Eyd des Gehorsams s. a., fol. 23v). Thus, the renowned scholar probably only copied or had the text copied, but was not its author. The title in the catalog refers to another German-language publication which, as we shall see, bears many similarities to the manuscript under examination but is not identical to it.

This work deals with the oath of allegiance that bishops must take to the pope before their inauguration. The choice of topic is understandable: with the help of a historical-legal interpretation of the canonical oath, the relationship between the papacy and the particular churches can be analyzed, and doubts can be formulated regarding Roman influence to the detriment of princely power. Modern literature also deals with the history of canonical oaths: due to the teachings of the Gospel, popes initially refrained from introducing the oath, and we even have evidence that Pope Leo I (440–461) expressly rebuked his vicar, Anastasius, for demanding that the bishop of Nicopolis take such an oath. The relevant Gospel passage quotes the words of Jesus as follows:

“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfil to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”

(Matthew 5:33–37)

Pope Gregory the Great (590–604) introduced the institution of a general oath of allegiance to be taken by his suffragan bishops, i.e., bishops who operated under the jurisdiction of the pope as metropolitan in the suburbicarian dioceses (Gottlob 1963, pp. 1–15). Later, the final text of the oath was formulated and gained canonical confirmation. This oath, supplemented with new elements, appeared in the Pontificale Romanum published in 1595 after the Council of Trent, which was then called the Tridentine Oath. The most controversial part was the call to action against heretics and schismatics. The text was revised again after the Second Vatican Council in 1972 and then in 1987 (Dahl-Keller 1994, pp. 19–20).

The manuscript preserved in the Benedictine Archabbey of Pannonhalma also begins with a historical introduction to the canonical oath, and this text also refers to Pope Leo I’s opposition to this covenant and the later oath text taken from the bishops of the suburbicarian dioceses. However, according to the author, the formerly mentioned form of oath did not show any similarity to the oath used later. It required—in accordance with the teachings of Christ and the Church Fathers purity, steadfastness in faith, and preservation of the unity of the church from the bishops, and sincere loyalty to the Emperor and the homeland. The eighth century opened a new chapter in the history of the oath: Boniface, abbot of Fulda, was consecrated bishop by Pope Gregory II (715–731) in 723 and sent to Germany as an envoy of the Apostolic See. Before this important mission, he had to take a solemn oath of allegiance (obedientiam et subiecionem) to the pope. Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085) went even further and demanded that the metropolitans take an oath similar to that of vassals, which remains in use today. According to the author of our source, the introduction of this formula clearly served the purpose of ensuring that the estates of the archbishoprics would be considered fiefs of the Church in the future. His successors made this custom a general practice and further refined the text of the oath to make it even more similar to the vassal oath. Finally, they extended it to all bishops, as well as to abbots and chapters directly subordinate to the Holy See (Eyd des Gehorsams, s. a., fol. 2r–21v). In other words, according to our source, the introduction of the oath occurred in parallel with the expansion of papal power, to the detriment of episcopal jurisdiction and princely power. The oath formula, taken together with the creed, ensured the loyalty of the bishop to be ordained to the Apostolic See: to the reigning pope and his successors, expressly stating that the new prelate could not take part in any conspiracy against the pope, but had to defend the pope’s rights against everyone, and was obliged to participate in councils, assist the papal legates in his diocese, and visit the tomb of St. Peter regularly, and defend the property of the Church. This formula was supplemented after the Council of Trent with the aforementioned measures against schismatics and heretics among other things. Although according to modern literature, this provision is of earlier origin and did not refer to Protestants, but to late medieval heretical movements (Wycliffites, Hussites, etc.) (Dahl-Keller 1994, pp. 20–21).

The section on the medieval Kingdom of Hungary is particularly interesting in the examined source. According to the text, the use of oath formulas was not customary here until the 12th century. However, when Albert (correctly Fabian), the Archbishop of Kalocsa, died in 1102, King Koloman of Hungary appointed Hugolin (1102–1103) as his successor, who requested the pallium from Pope Pasqualis II (1099–1118). The pope sent him the text of the oath along with the pallium, thus introducing the papal oath to the Kingdom of Hungary. The source for this is György Pray’s yearbook (Annales regum Hungariae, Vienna 1763–1770) and the work of Adam František Kollár, the Chief Imperial-Royal Librarian in Vienna, and an influential advocate of Maria Theresa on the right of the Hungarian kings to act as chief guardians, which provoked fierce protests among the political elite (De originibus et usu perpetuo potestatis legislatoriae circa sacra apostolicorum regum Ungariae, Vienna 1764). In other words, the papal oath was not practiced in the Kingdom of Hungary before the 12th century, and after that, the papacy forced its introduction at the expense of both the bishop and princely power.

The work then goes on to describe the further course of the oath’s history: how the popes extended their power to other countries in Europe and how they modified its text to support their own claims. It contains several provisions that are dangerous and contrary to the princely power. One of these is the question of preserving papal territories. To support this, the author cites the Comacchio conflict (1708–1709) that took place during the War of the Spanish Succession, when Joseph I, Holy Roman Emperor (1705–1711), wanted to persuade Pope Clement XI (1700–1721) to recognize the emperor’s brother, Archduke Charles, as King of Spain by occupying the principality belonging to the Papal States (Aretin 2005, p. 177). According to our source, the bishops of the Habsburg Monarchy found themselves in a serious conflict of conscience at this time: should they serve Rome or their homeland? The clause in the oath stating that the bishop must report to Rome if he obtains information that is detrimental to papal power is tantamount to interference in state affairs. Consequently, of course, the text of the oath also contradicted the Hungarian king’s right, and the passage quoted above, calling for the fight against heretics and schismatics, contradicts the laws of many countries, such as the Peace of Westphalia in the Holy Roman Empire (Eyd des Gehorsams, s. a., 21v–32r).

Based on our source, despite earlier historical precedents, the power of the monarch has been disregarded in Hungary in recent times in favor of papal influence. According to the author, this is well illustrated by the fact that a Hungarian chapter made it compulsory for all pastors to proclaim the bull In Coena Domini, even though Joseph II (1780–1790) had clearly forbidden this (Eyd des Gehorsams s. a. fol. 31r). The bull listed the excommunications reserved for the pope and was traditionally proclaimed on Maundy Thursday (hence its Latin name). Eighteenth-century constitutional lawyers regarded it as an important instrument of papal supremacy, because the Holy See could use it as a political weapon against princes who opposed it. Therefore, it is unsurprising that Joseph II, at the beginning of his reign in 1781, prohibited its proclamation, together with the 1713 bull Unigenitus condemning Jansenist teachings (Beales 2011, pp. 71–89). Nevertheless, our source’s notes on the bull helps us date the text: since it refers to the emperor in the present tense and mentions the decree in question, it must have been written between 1781 and 1790, that is, certainly during the reign of Joseph II. On the other hand, it clearly shows that the text was written in defense of the Josephine church reform. This is reinforced by the last pages of the work, which use early medieval examples to prove that bishops swore allegiance to the prince. According to the author, this should be reintroduced, as the Scriptures also say: “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Eyd des Gehorsams 35v–36v).

As it can be observed from the document, the Benedictine monk who compiled the Pannonhalma manuscript catalog, Flóris Szabó (1925–1988), gave the source the title “Abhandlung über den Eyd der Bischöfe”, even though the text itself does not reveal either its author or title. However, there is a similarly titled publication that appeared in Vienna in 1781—"Abhandlung über den Eyd, welchen die Bischöfe dem Pabst abzulegen verhalten werden [Treatise on the oath that bishops must take to the Pope]”, which is also anonymous, but research attributes its authorship to Joseph Blodig von Sternfeld (1763–1824), Viennese court secretary (Hofsekretär) and writer (see: Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek, URL: https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de; Deutsches Literaturarchiv Marbach, URL: www.dla-marbach.de, (1 October 2025). The publisher of the work is also of interest to us, as he is Joseph Ritter von Kurzböck (1736–1792), the owner of the Vienna University Press (von Wurzbach 1865, pp. 427–28). Thus, the text can be classified as a publication commissioned by the Viennese court to promote its reform policy. The text of the work is not identical to our Pannonhalma source, but it shows many similarities in terms of its content. There are two significant differences: unlike the manuscript presented above, it has no Hungarian relevance, and it formulates its arguments against the papal oath and in favor of the state oath in a more precise, almost scientific manner. We are probably not far off the mark in saying that our Pannonhalma text was inspired by Viennese propaganda and is a reworking of it for a Hungarian readership.

This work also begins with a historical introduction, which shows many similarities (and some differences) to our previous paper. However, what is more interesting for us is that it explains in more detail and more carefully than the Pannonhalma source why princes cannot accept the canonical oath. In its view, it makes more sense for bishops to swear allegiance to the prince rather than to the pope because the latter does not have power over temporal goods (temporalia). If a vassal swears allegiance to his lord, how much more justified is it for a bishop, who possesses significant estates, to do so? The example of bishops who have fallen into disloyalty also shows, that prelates who are not loyal to their princes can cause serious damage. Thus, they should swear allegiance to the king rather than the pope (Blodig von Sterfeld 1781, pp. 11–17).

The author then quotes passages from the Latin version of the oath in German translation to show that unconditional submission to papal power is contrary to princely power. The oath binds bishops to the Papal States rather than to their own countries, and in extreme cases even pits them against the prince himself, in cases for example, such as if they have to represent papal interests in the administration of church benefices. Through bishops, the papacy can intervene in the internal affairs of the state as a foreign power. The nuncios representing papal power directly violate the international law (Völ-kerrecht). The triennial ad limina visit and associated costs are also detrimental to the state and deprive it of revenue. Through visitation reports, Rome assesses the income of the institutions (diocesan and monastic) located in the country. Moreover, episcopal revenues often serve not only ecclesiastical, but also luxury purposes. (Blodig von Sternfeld 1781, pp. 18–35). In other words, this study fully confirms Isnard W. Frank’s statement quoted in the introduction: the influence of Rome on the local church organization is contrary to the interests of the “enlightened absolutist” state and, ultimately, to the welfare of its subjects. Hence it must be curtailed as far as possible, additionally the clergy must be placed in the service of the state. It is important to note that the principle of popular sovereignty already appears in the text, meaning that the work opposes the excessive influence of the Holy See not only with historical but also with modern political arguments.

4. On the Reformation of the Upper Clergy

Our third, also anonymous, publication is titled “Materialien zur Reformation des höheren Klerus in Ungarn [Materials for the Reformation of the Upper Clergy in Hungary]”. It was published without an imprint and with the year 1709 on the title page. According to research, this is a distorted version of the year 1790. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the author also refers to the work of the Cistercian monk Robert Curalt, published in 1781 (Curalt 1781). The work is preserved in the Ballagi Collection of the Metropolitan Ervin Szabó Library in Budapest (reference number: BALL 221/5). The founder of the collection, historian and jurist Géza Ballagi (1851–1907), names (ex)Jesuit monk János Molnár (1728–1804) as the author of the work in his monograph on Hungarian political literature (Ballagi 1888, p. 629). However, since Molnár did not write in German and his works on church history and politics are significantly less radical than the wording of the work in question, this authorship is highly debatable and unlikely. Géza Petrik (1845–1925), who compiled the Hungarian national bibliography, names another János Molnár (1757–1819) as the author of the work (Petrik 1890, p. 777), who did indeed publish extensively in German and served as pastor of the (German-speaking) Lutheran congregation in Pest from 1787, and then as dean of the diocese from 1791 until his death in 1819. Following Petrik, this authorship was also established by the renowned literary historian and bibliographer József Szinnyei (1830–1913) and later by the equally distinguished Protestant church historian Jenő Zoványi (1865–1958). (Szinnyei 1903, p. 214; Zoványi 1977, p. 413). However, this authorship is also rather unlikely, given that the text makes it clear in several places that the author was Catholic. For example, in the first comment attached to the main text, he writes: “If the Protestants were still in our church, now that papal power is so limited, would they still fight against the Pope with the same enthusiasm as Luther, Hutten [Hus], and their first fathers did?” (Materialien 1790, p. 3).

It is much more likely that the text was printed at the expense of the Lutheran pastor in Pest and was taken from a Catholic author who was probably not even based in Hungary but lived in one of the principalities of the Holy Roman Empire, perhaps Bavaria. Unlike the Pannonhalma source, the text does not contain any references to Hungary, but it does include numerous comments on German, especially Bavarian, ecclesiastical conditions. True to its title, the work sets out reforms for the conduct and lifestyle of the Catholic clergy, especially bishops and canons. The first part examines the papal power. According to the text, the pope, as the first bishop, is the center of unity but has no jurisdiction over the other bishops. The national churches (Nationalkirchen) are in a friendly, brotherly relationship with him. Communication between individual churches can only take place in the interests of the state. Individual bishops and the National Assembly of Bishops (Nationalversammlung der Bischöfe) can also take action against false teachings and communicate their decisions to the supreme bishop, i.e., the pope. Therefore, all dependence on Rome must be broken so that bishops cannot swear allegiance to the pope. The papacy has often come into conflict with the Holy Roman Empire; hence the author uses the term “the patriotic German empire (dem deutschen vaterländischen Reiche)” here. However, bishops cannot be dependent on patriarchs and metropolitans either, because their task is to serve the cause of their religion to the extent that it is not restricted by state laws. It is the task of the sovereign to prevent metropolitans and popes from gaining power, because this is harmful to the state. Finally, he mentions the situation of the Jansenists in France as an example of how harmful papal interference in the affairs of the national church is (Materialien 1790, pp. 3–10).

The study then deals with bishops. It argues that ecclesiastical power can be traced back to episcopal power (ius episcopale) based on the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and letters of the Apostle Paul. The first is teaching authority, i.e., preserving the purity of religious teaching and overcoming religious disputes. The next is worship, spiritual care of the believers, and moral teaching. In addition, the sacraments, especially the sacrament of private and public confession, can be traced back to the episcopal office. Episcopal power also includes the supervision of pastors, including their morals and knowledge of faith. However, state power also influences the duties of bishops: in the area of tolerance towards other religions, for example, it is the duty of bishops to prepare decrees of tolerance (Toleranzdekrete) and create an atmosphere of religious tolerance. He notes that believers can leave their religious communities without fear of punishment from church leaders. This right, derived from natural law (Naturrecht), became codified law in the Holy Roman Empire. Bishops also have the right to enact laws relating to religion, but they cannot bring all matters relating to religion under their jurisdiction. Above all, they cannot hinder the enlightenment of the nation (die Aufklärung der Nation). Princes have the right to intervene in the regulation of the number of public holidays, the shaping of fasting and worship customs, the restriction of pilgrimages, and the suppression of superstitions that offend other religious denominations or are contrary to common sense (wider den gesunden Menschenverstand). They may demand that the clergy conduct the liturgy in the national language (Landessprache). Bishops also have the task of ensuring that the external aspects of religion are conducive to the growth of human enlightenment (dem Wachsthume der menschlichen Aufklärung). The author also calls for a reform of ecclesiastical vestments, because the contemporary attire made religion look ridiculous in his viewpoint. The prince also has the right to interfere with how the bishop disciplines his priests and what rules he sets for them. These include the institution of celibacy, which the prince may abolish if he deems it necessary to do so. According to the document celibacy is not a law of Christian origin, and it corrupts the clergy, who are unable to experience the joys of marriage. In the interests of faith and moral purity, the ruler may, therefore, abolish this provision. In the interests of the state and religion, the prince may also regulate the maintenance of the clergy and abolish old privileges. An essential condition for the reform of the prelates was that bishops should be subjects of the sovereign. Where the prelates have their own principality, it is impossible to restore episcopal power to its original sanctity. On the other hand, secular duties distract bishops from their ecclesiastical obligations, making them unskilled in their teaching duties, and the luxury of their courts leads to moral decay among them. Similarly, their jurisdictional right—granted on the basis of imperial and other privileges—caused the distortion of episcopal power, and also this power has led to excessive influence and abuse, making them equal to princes. According to the author radical change in this situation would be the separation of episcopal and princely power, which may be possible in the future. As a first step, however, a princely ecclesiastical council (landesherrliches geistliches Rathskollegium) should be established instead of or alongside the episcopal consistories, thus separating purely ecclesiastical and purely secular matters, introducing reforms, and preventing abuses. To this end, it is worth reading the instructions of Karl Theodor (Elector of Bavaria, 1777–1799). By the author’s view the prince should appoint his own bishops to dioceses under the control of foreign bishops, thereby strengthening the relationship between the diocese and the state. Those bishops (Landbischöfe) were to be selected from among the members of the cathedral chapter, regardless of their origin, and based solely on their merits. Their income should not have exceeded 5000 forints, and this amount should have been provided from the assets of the mendicant orders of men and women, as well as from the assets of the collegiate chapters. The latter, with the exception of the state’s capital city, may be abolished because they were seen as particularly harmful to the church. In summary of the author’s opinion: “Christianity should bear a thousand times more fruit for the state than it does now” (Materialien 1790, p. 11–37).

Finally, the work deals with canons (members of chapters). According to the author, they are the most useless members of the church. Canon benefices reserved for the nobility only harmed the Catholic Church. After their training, the nobles should be employed according to their talents and abilities. The princes should stop placing their children in ecclesiastical benefices. As long as this practice continues, church reform cannot be initiated. Young people who are suitable for the seminary should be sent there at the age of twenty-two, and after six years of training, they should be placed in parishes to learn pastoral care. Only then should they be given a chapter position at the bishop’s call. They should perform their canonical duties personally and not through substitutes (e.g., church hymns, sermons, teaching children the faith, assisting the bishop in his work). This would also ensure the succession of bishops (Materialien 1790, pp. 37–43). Finally, in the closing lines, the author mentions that he considers these steps necessary for the implementation of church reform and that the days when lay people looked away from the sins of the church and behaved as silent servants of the hierarchy are over. Every member of the Church has the right to raise their voice for the common religious welfare (zum gemeinen Religionswohl). The truth is often unpleasant, but only this can lead to the reform of the Church itself. (Materialien 1790, 44–45).

This work also clearly defended and justified Joseph II’s reform of the state church, listing all the criticisms that the “enlightened” intelligentsia had formulated in various forms against the “baroque” Catholic church system. On the other hand, the pages of the work clearly reflect some of the important slogans of early nation-state aspirations that emerged at the end of the 18th century, such as the demand for a national assembly of bishops, the mention of the country’s language, and the patriotic name of the Holy Roman Empire. Equally striking are the frequent references to the Enlightenment in general and to natural law in particular, as well as the linking of the latter concept with tolerance, which is commonly observed in the argumentation of the period (Sorkin 2008, pp. 152–153). Particularly interesting among the concluding thoughts is the use of the concept of religious welfare, which clearly links the teaching of natural law to the reform of pastoral care. These clearly point to the ecclesiological shift mentioned in the introduction.

5. Conclusions

The common feature of the examined texts is the emphasis on the role of bishops in church governance and the independence of local churches. This is particularly evident in the detailed historical arguments presented in works regarding the oath. The arguments outlined in the sources are, of course, selective, as they highlight only those past events that support their line of thought and ignore the historical situations that contradict it. However, their goal is clear: to show that the harmful growth of papal power led to the decline of episcopal power, which can be remedied by increasing princely influence. The state-church approach of the texts naturally serves to support Josephinist ideology, but it also draws on Jansenist roots, since after the publication of the Unigenitus bull in 1713, the latter movement sought to defend princely power against the papacy (Roegiers 2014, pp. 399–400). On the other hand, these efforts were also able to join the “Catholic intellectual revolution” demanding a reduction in papal power, the most striking manifestation of which is known as Febronianism (Lehner 2016, p. 148). The innovations initiated in the areas of pastoral practice and liturgy resonate with the aspirations of the Catholic reform movement traditionally associated with Lodovico Antonio Muratori (1672–1750), which sought to make worship simpler, emphasizing the essential elements of Catholic teaching, and increasing the role of the vernacular to make Catholicism more accessible to the broader masses (Vismara 2014). Thus, the texts analyzed also draw attention to the fact that historians researching the Enlightenment in the Habsburg realms tend to equate the different trends of the Catholic Enlightenment and, in the spirit of a kind of “Feuilleton-Josephinism”, explain all reform efforts with the power ambitions or progressive principles of Joseph II and his circle, even though there is usually a multi-layered ideological background behind specific reform ideas (Aspaas and Kontler 2019, pp. 11–17; Fillafer 2020, p. 67). In fact, some of the reforms listed above can even be classified as part of the post-Tridentine renovatio ecclesiae movement (Wallnig 2019, p. 167), meaning that their roots can be traced to pre-Enlightenment reform efforts.

Views of the aforementioned reforms on episcopal authority, and particularly the relationship between the laity and church reform, can be considered distinctly modern. They formulated principles that were reflected in the teachings of the Second Vatican Council nearly 200 years later: “Bishops, therefore, with their helpers, the priests and deacons, have taken up the service of the community, presiding in place of God over the flock, whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing.” The laity’s rights are as follows: “They are, by reason of the knowledge, competence or outstanding ability which they may enjoy, permitted and sometimes even obliged to express their opinion on those things which concern the good of the Church” (Lumen Gentium 1964). The cooperation between local church leaders and lay people in solving the challenges facing the Church is also in line with the synodality program launched by Pope Francis and is therefore highly topical (Faggioli 2020). This topicality is, of course, far from unprecedented in the reformist literature of the period: research has previously emphasized that the ecclesiastical renewal movement of the second half of the 20th century is linked in many ways to the intellectual currents of the 18th-century Catholic Enlightenment, and the roots of aggiornamento go back to this period (Lehner 2016, p. 13).

However, this synodality at the end of the 18th century primarily served to curb papal power and strengthen the controlling function of the state: the loosening of ties with Rome resulted in many ways in a narrowing of the bishops’ room for maneuver, who, deprived of the authority of the Holy See, became subject to the power of the state (Pototschnig 1979, pp. 16–218). Therefore, despite their topical overtones, the texts analyzed above, along with countless similar texts, can primarily be interpreted in their own context and reflect the political and social aspirations that gave rise to them.