Abstract
The vision of Albert Maria Weiß on Catholic anti-modernism and his bitter fight against the tendency of adapting Catholic doctrine to the changing world’s expectations was esteemed by Pius X, but his legacy was long forgotten by the Holy See. His rediscovery is due to the 21st-century traditionalist movement, but his vision on modernism is still problematic because of his explication of the corruption that had emerged in Catholic theology. To him, Protestantism is the origine of all heresy, liberalism being its descendant which represents the greatest threat to Catholic doctrine ever: Catholic modernity. His anti-liberal and anti-Protestant visions made him unacceptable to later the mainstream Catholic thought, which supported democratic ideals and oecumenism instead.
1. Introduction
The modernist crisis in the Catholic Church has been quite well analyzed by the great works of Émile Poulat and others (Poulat 1963, 1969; Arnold and Vian 2017; etc.), and it is quite clear in the Catholic Church’s history what happened to the anti-modernist movement after the death of Saint Pius X: its supporters lost influence in every field, and at the arrival of Pius XI, they were even more shunned than during Benedict XIV’s pontificate between 1914 and 1922. Despite the movement losing ground against progressivist views, it did not stop its activities—there are interesting waves of reconstitution after Pius XI—but the original integrist movement has lost the battle (Poulat 1969).1
One of its key figures, Father Albert Maria Weiß OP (1844–1925), and his life after 1910 illustrates quite well the fate of the integrist movement (Woods 2004). By knowing his personal views, we can obtain a specific understanding of that slowly declining intellectual movement which had a strong impact on Catholic doctrine for much of the 19th and 20th centuries. Weiß was a German Dominican theologian and apologist whose work bridged 19th-century Catholic thought and the challenges posed by modernism and liberalism. His theological argumentation was deeply rooted in Thomistic philosophy and Catholic tradition, focusing on the defense of the faith against contemporary ideological currents. His example demonstrates clearly the fate of the anti-modernist movement after its defeat (Arnold 2003).
2. Aim of Research
The fact that traditionalist theologians were disfavored by the new pontiff shortly after the death of Pius X is well known. The question we wish to find an answer to is what were the specific reasons for the neglection of Weiß? Did he develop any problematic argumentation? If so, what could have been the problem? Is it possible that his intellectual legacy was rejected after WWI? If so, what could have been the key ideas and the core problems of his works? To find answers to these questions, we will analyze Weiß’s teachings based on his publications, focusing on the core subjects.
3. Life and Work of Albert Maria Weiß
When at 9 a.m. on 18 August 1925 the ashes of the late Bavarian Dominican, Father Albert Maria Weiß, were laid to rest in the chapel of the Dominican convent in Freiburg’s Albertinum, it was more than a simple burial. It was the end of an intellectual movement. During his lifetime, Weiß was celebrated by Church dignitaries; he was hailed by Catholic intellectuals and his death mourned by Catholic newspapers, but then an almost perpetual silence began that has lasted to this day. How did that happen? Was his work of too limited scope, or have times changed since then? The answer is neither. Father Weiß was one of the leading figures of the Catholic Church, an intellectual who—with a surprising élan—defended the interests of the Catholic Church on all the battlefields of culture (Landersdorfer 1998, pp. 195–96).
In his active years, he was a well-known apologist; he was much cited, and also much debated. He fought liberalism with singular ardor, and as such, he made no compromises with the enemy.2 His star was at its peak under the papacy of Pius X,3 and what happened to him after Pius’ death was a highly controversial period.
The life of Albert Maria Weiß is both typical and exemplary.4 Born in the Bavarian village of Indersdorf in 1844, baptized Adalbert Gottlieb, he was the son of the local physician Franz Paul Weiß and his wife, Catherine Steiger. After completing his studies at the school of the Benedictine monastery in Munich, he studied linguistics at the Royal University of Munich between 1861 and 1866. During this time, he lived with his widowed mother in the Bavarian capital, but came under the influence of Franz Xaver Reithmayr,5 a very conservative professor and supporter of Döllinger. He succeeded in breaking free from the closed mindset of the Old Catholics and began his studies at the Freising Seminary in 1866. After his ordination, he made study trips throughout Germany, visiting the universities of Würzburg, Mainz, Bonn, and Tübingen, where he attended lectures by Professors Kuhn6 and Hefele,7 who had a great influence on the young priest.
His scientific career began with the redaction of a new edition of the famous Kirchenlexikon in 1872. As an appointed professor of dogmatics during the following year, he published his first work (under the pseudonym Henrich von der Clana), a pamphlet entitled Protestantische Polemik gegen die katholische Kirche, published in 1874. He was an ardent defender of Catholic intransigent teaching and was totally opposed to the slowly secularizing modern world. There is no surprise then that most of his work is marked by hard apologetics.
4. Historical Context
If we want to understand his point of view, respected by both Leo XIII and Pius X, it is worth analyzing it. His vision about the history of mankind was marked by the history of the Catholic Church, as the understandable and perceivable evidence of the history of divine salvation. Weiß’s approach was a historical one, not only because of his conservative attitude or ultramontane position but also because of by the inner logic of his whole explication. Secular history cannot be explained without the history of the holy, and therefore one needs to know the role the Roman Catholic Church has played during the centuries when dealing with contemporary (in that case, late 19th–early 20th century) history. But his era was marked by a strong anti-Catholicism, the “Los von Rom!” movement, the Kulturkampf, and the laicization of any kind of institutions (Altermatt 1989). This resulted in a defensive attitude, and Weiß felt the mission to convince the modernizing world of the necessity of recognizing the merits of Christianity and especially Roman Catholicism (O. Weiß 1998). The first great work he developed over a decade was an apology and defense of Catholic doctrine.
The impressive, five-volume-long Apologie des Christentums (1878–1889) stands as a significant contribution to Catholic apologetics. In this work, he systematically defended Christianity from moral, cultural, and philosophical critiques, employing a rigorous scholastic methodology. His approach was marked by a profound engagement with the Church Fathers, medieval mysticism, and the scholastic tradition, aiming to demonstrate the rational coherence and moral superiority of Catholic doctrine.
Weiß was hailed by the traditionalist, ultramontane, and conservative theologians. On the one hand, we can find official—and even personal—encouragement from Pius X,8 but surprising attacks from the other—German—side. Catholic interests and the old Dominican’s vision were beginning to diverge, for Weiß had always seen a trap for the Catholic faith in the formation of a party, and he expressed his dissatisfaction with the Zentrum’s attitude to the policies of Bismarck and then Wilhelm II (A. M. Weiß 1911). To him, no secular political movement can replace the unchangeable and eternal truth revealed by God. Kulturkampf was a political form of an emerging heresy—the statolatric ideology of a Protestant lay majority—but the Gegenkampf could not be a simple countermovement. The locum tenens of Christ should never degrade himself to fight on the level of ordinary political battles. He has a vocation to be the only true leader of all Christians, and anybody who acts in His name is unauthorized and therefore unworthy. It is not surprising that Pope Pius X appreciated him so much—in a time when no political conflict was possible due to the lack of the Holy See’s political power, the spiritual role of the Magisterium became more important than ever. When political sanction is not possible, moral and spiritual sanctioning become the first weapons of self-defense (O. Weiß 2004).
5. Weiß Against the Corrupted World
His anticapitalistic position was marked by strong anti-Judaism, but to avoid anachronistic explications, it is important to see that he identified the capitalist (hence liberal) economic order with the emancipated Jewry, who—from his perspective—were not only traditional enemies of Christians on a theological basis but also lacked sympathy for a social order which discriminated against them for centuries (Langer 2011, pp. 51–66). In Weiß’s vision, the values of the traditional social order were to be respected, although the entire structure should go through a modest transformation (Dirsch 2006, pp. 154–67). In his perspective, the modernizing, liberal, capitalist, secularizing world was nothing but a presumed victory of an essentially anti-Christian ideology over the almost 2000-year-old Christian legacy. And liberalism, he added, is not only intolerant but also radical.9 To him, there is no moderate liberalism; if one may claim that it does exist, it is only for tactical reasons, but its aim remains the same: destroying Christianity10.
Weiß was thus an ardent anti-modernist, based on a coherent theological and a historical apologetic argumentation.11 He evolves his idea about the evolution of modern liberalism, beginning with Abaelard and Occam.12 When his book came out, Weiß was severely attacked both by the German secular authorities and also by liberal Catholics. One cannot understand these attacks without a brief presentation of his declared positions in which he named all Protestant movements of the 16th century as heresies and excluded any compromise with them—this being a serious ultramontane perspective which was not welcomed in Belgium or the Netherlands. The image of a triumphant Catholicism requires a historical explication. In Weiß’s views, the revolt against pontifical authority is the beginning of all modern revolutions, having in focus the takedown of all kinds of authorities: first the spiritual, then the political, and finally the social authorities. To Weiß, that intellectual attitude leads us directly to the destruction of not only traditional culture but also the social body;13 therefore, it is in a sense a categoric imperative to all of the faithful to stop it. But in his visions, the faithful must be strongly armed against the temptations of liberalism, to not make any deal with it. The most problematic are the so-called liberal Catholics because their compromises prepared the devolution of the sacred tradition in favor of modern society.14 He even presented them as betrayals of the faith: “Der Liberalismus ist Anti Ultramontanismus”—liberalism is anti-ultramontanism, he noted.15 Therefore, to Weiß, making the slightest concession in Rome’s teaching is equivalent to capital sin.16
Modernism was defined by Pius X as “the sum of all heresies” when he introduced the anti-modernist vow.17 To understand what “anti-modernism” means, we need to refer briefly to the term “modernism”. The introduction of the word is generally attributed to Weiß, who coined the term in his Apologie des Christentums vom Standpunkt der Sitte und Kultur. The expression is considered as a definition of a heresy18 to those who respect tradition and refuse adaptation of it to contemporary conditions. The word is mostly a battle cry and not an exact definition.19
Throughout his career, Weiß sought to integrate faith and reason, demonstrating that Catholic doctrine is not only spiritually enriching but also intellectually robust. His works reflect a commitment to the idea that reason can lead to a deeper understanding of faith, and that faith, in turn, provides the ultimate truth that reason seeks. Truth is objective and revealed; therefore, His eternal truths cannot be the object of discussion, reinterpretation, or even evolution. Modern theology was trying to develop historical and critical approaches, but that ‘epistemological toolkit’ appeared as blasphemy to Weiß (Wolf 1998).
Weiß’s apologetic approach is deeply rooted in the Thomistic tradition, employing a scholastic method that combines philosophical reasoning with theological insights. He engages with contemporary philosophical currents, particularly German idealism and secular humanism, to demonstrate the coherence and superiority of Christian doctrine.
Weiß’s theological perspective was above all marked by a deep engagement with eschatology and Christology, and he was fighting against the separation of secular from spiritual20 (Denifle and Weiß 1904, t. II., pp. 843–89). He emphasized the centrality of Christ’s person and mission, viewing Jesus as the definitive revelation of God and the fulfillment of eschatological promises. His Christology was not merely doctrinal but aimed to present Jesus as a living, imitable figure whose life and teachings provide a model for Christian living.21
In his 1922 work Jesus Christus—die Apologia perennis des Christentums (A. M. Weiß 1922), Weiß argued that the person of Christ is not just a figure in history but the eternal truth of humanity and divinity united. According to him, Christ and His Church are the timeless standard against which all ideologies and philosophies must be judged. This view led him to oppose any theology that reduced Christ to a moral teacher, a mythical figure, or a social revolutionary, as liberal theologians sometimes did.
Weiß’s influence extended beyond his own time, contributing to the shaping of Catholic thought in the face of modern challenges. His works were instrumental in the development of Catholic social teaching and apologetics, providing a foundation for subsequent theological endeavors. His legacy continues to be studied by those interested in the intersection of Catholic theology and modern philosophical currents. Albert Maria Weiß’s theological argumentation was characterized by a rigorous defense of Catholic doctrine, a critique of liberalism, a Christocentric eschatology, and an integration of faith and reason.
As a Dominican theologian, Weiß strongly defended the Magisterium and the Holy See, in the spirit of Vatican I, which declared papal infallibility. He believed that doctrinal authority resided in the Church, not in private interpretation, individual conscience, or democratic opinion.22 He rejected the idea of popular sovereignty on a theological basis: Weiß’s anthropology was deeply Augustinian and Thomistic—in his views, man is wounded by original sin and cannot save himself by reason or will alone. Therefore, Divine Grace and Revelation are essential to overcome human brokenness.
Weiß saw liberalism and humanism as falsely optimistic about human nature and as ignoring the need for redemption. This led him to reject theological systems that downplayed sin, miracles, or supernatural intervention—hallmarks of modernist and liberal approaches.
6. Apology of Christianity
When encouraged by Pius X, he began to redact his manifesto against the progressive movements of his time. The book, entitled Liberalismus und Christentum, was published the same year Pius X died. This work offers a rigorous critique of liberalism from a Catholic perspective, emphasizing its incompatibility with traditional Christian doctrine and ecclesiastical authority.
In Weiß’s perspective, liberalism is described here as being equal with anti-ultramontanism. It means that Weiß identified liberalism as fundamentally opposed to not just to Christianity in general but ultramontanism in particular, this one being the fundamental belief in pontifical supremacy. He argues that liberalism’s essence lies in undermining the Church’s central authority, positioning it as a modern form of semi-Protestantism that seeks to diminish the role of the papacy and ecclesiastical hierarchy.
Weiß traces back the roots of liberalism to earlier heretical movements, suggesting that its persistent influence poses a continuous threat to the integrity of Christian society. He views liberalism not as a passing phase but as a chronic issue that requires vigilant resistance. He also criticizes the thought that liberalism can coexist with Catholicism, asserting that attempts to reconcile the two lead to doctrinal dilution and compromise. Weiß emphasizes the necessity of maintaining doctrinal purity and ecclesiastical discipline to preserve the faith. Echoing the sentiments of Pope Pius X in Pascendi dominici gregis, Weiß calls for a steadfast defense of the faith against internal and external threats. He advocates for a proactive approach to safeguarding Catholic doctrine and authority, warning against the dangers of accommodating modern ideologies that conflict with traditional teachings.
The second, but probably more important, work of Albert Maria Weiß is titled Apologie des Christentums vom Standpunkte der Sitte und Cultur (Apology of Christianity from the Standpoint of Morality and Culture), first published between 1878 and 1889, and is a comprehensive five-volume work that systematically defends Christianity against the intellectual and cultural challenges of the 19th century. Weiß aimed to demonstrate the rationality and moral superiority of the Christian faith, drawing upon the rich traditions of patristic and scholastic thought (A. M. Weiß 1878–1884).
The work was well received by Catholic intellectual circles and contributed to the development of Catholic apologetics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Weiß’s emphasis on the moral and cultural dimensions of Christianity provided a robust framework for defending the faith against secular and modernist critiques. His work influenced subsequent generations of theologians and apologists, particularly in the areas of social doctrine and the relationship between faith and reason. But his historical approach was marked by the consequent logic of rejecting Protestantism as a key problem of the 19th-century modernist crisis within the Catholic Church. He saw Protestantism as the first actor of transforming Christian tradition by trying to adapt it—erroneously—to the changing social and political conditions. Every interpretation appearing later just continue the heretic tradition, while the Catholic Church has the divine obligation to reject them. In his vision, a true anti-modernist cannot tolerate any forms of heresy, beginning with Luther’s Reformation.
7. Against Protestantism
To him, Protestantism is nothing but a heresy, and the Reformation of 1517 is the very beginning of all bad things that have ever happened to Western civilization. Weiß and the intransigents argued that Martin Luther’s core error was not just theological but structural: by replacing the objective authority of the Church with “sola scriptura” and “private judgment,” Protestantism was seen to have placed the individual’s will above God’s established order. This “subjectivist” turn was viewed as the seed of all subsequent intellectual errors. To them, it was not merely the beginning of a decline: to the counterrevolutionaries like Joseph de Maistre, Protestantism was the first rebellion, this time against the Pope, which was succeeded by the Enlightenment, which represented a rebellion against the Revelation; finally, the French Revolution was a rebellion against the political and social order. Weiß—as many of his contemporaries fighting for the slowly collapsing traditional world—was of that point of view, and his approach closely related him to his friend and colleague Heinrich Suso Denifle OP, with whom he collaborated closely in a voluminous critic of Protestantism, beginning with the analysis of the founder of the Reformation—Luther.
Albert Maria Weiß OP’s contribution to Heinrich Denifle’s Luther und Luthertum (1904–1906) is encapsulated in the second volume titled Lutherpsychologie als Schlüssel zur Lutherlegende (Luther Psychology as the Key to the Luther Legend). This work critically examines the psychological dimensions of Martin Luther’s character and how these aspects have been mythologized in Protestant historiography (Denifle and Weiß 1904, t. II., pp. 843–89).
Heinrich Denifle, a prominent Catholic historian,23 initiated the project of Luther und Luthertum to challenge the prevailing Protestant narratives that idealized Luther and the Reformation. Denifle’s first volume, published in 1904, focused on the early development of Luther’s theology, utilizing extensive archival research to argue that Luther’s doctrines were not original but rather a distortion of Catholic teachings. The second volume, which Weiß completed after Denifle’s death in 1905, delves into the psychological aspects of Luther’s life and character, aiming to deconstruct the “Luther legend” that had been constructed by Protestant apologists (Harvey 1918, pp. 332–35).
Weiß—in a quite original way—applies a psychological approach to analyze Luther’s writings and actions, suggesting that Luther’s theological innovations were deeply influenced by personal psychological struggles. He posits that Luther’s doctrines, particularly his views on justification and concupiscence, were projections of his own unresolved inner conflicts and moral anxieties. By examining Luther’s personal letters, sermons, and theological works, Weiß attempts to uncover the psychological motivations behind Luther’s break with the Catholic Church.
In that huge work, Weiß critiques the idealized image of Luther that had been propagated by Protestant historians and theologians. He argues that this “Luther legend” was a constructed narrative that obscured the more complex and less flattering aspects of Luther’s character. Weiß contends that Luther’s actions and writings, when viewed through a critical lens, reveal a figure who was deeply conflicted, often inconsistent, and at times morally questionable. Weiß suggests that Luther’s personal issues led him to develop doctrines that were not only theologically unsound but also morally problematic. For instance, he examines Luther’s teachings on concupiscence and justification, arguing that these doctrines were influenced more by Luther’s personal struggles than by sound theological reasoning.
Weiß’s psychological analysis of Luther was part of a broader Catholic scholarly effort to challenge Protestant interpretations of the Reformation. His work was met with criticism from Protestant scholars, who defended Luther’s character and theological contributions.24 However, Weiß’s critical approach has been recognized for its attempt to apply psychological insights to historical figures, a methodology that has influenced subsequent historiographical studies.
In his Lutherpsychologie als Schlüssel zur Lutherlegende, Albert Maria Weiß OP offers a critical psychological examination of Martin Luther, challenging the idealized image of the Reformer and suggesting that his theological innovations were deeply intertwined with personal psychological struggles. While his conclusions have been contested, the conflict it generated among Protestants and Catholics became more problematic to the Holy See after Pius X. When the war ended, the refusal of Protestantism on the grounds Weiß developed became a burden to the Catholic Church. What was a coherent and logical argumentation during the pontificate of Pius X was transformed into a huge obstacle in the process of modernizing Roman Catholicism after his death. The intransigent and ultramontane point of view, which denied the necessity of making compromises with secular actors, became politically a problem because of the necessity of working together with all secular powers to maintain the Holy See—even after the collapse of such great supporters as the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. The worst enemy emerged—collectivism—but Weiß and the conservative theologians still insisted that the real enemy was liberalism.
8. Against Liberalism
Weiß, as a proud anti-modernist, was convinced to the necessity of fighting liberalism in its every form. It may sound strange that a dogmatist, an apologist, and a historian of the church feels the need to enter into conflict against the ideology based on liberty. Weiß was an ardent defender of the Christian notion of liberty but refused the concept of liberalism by explaining that it is in contradiction to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. In his view, any form of radicalism is unacceptable, and—to him—liberalism does not exclude radicalism. According to Weiß, liberalism can play any role and can appear in a very cosmopolitan and engaging form, but also in a very violent one, for it only changes roles, but by no means its nature. Its nature is and always will be that of radicalism (A. M. Weiß 1914, p. 93). Weiß even summarized his critics by pointing out the seven mortal sins of that ideology.
The first sin is the aversion to ecclesiastical authority, especially that of Rome, despite all pious rhetoric. No amount of anger or denial can hide this, says Weiß. The second comes directly from this: the hatred of the principles of traditional philosophy and theology does not even bother to hide or gloss over itself. It is only possible when we reject the whole concept of Catholicism. The word minimalism means that people readily admit that they only accept as binding what the Church expressly commands or forbids ex cathedra under consequence of excommunication, and that they will not tolerate anything else.
Because of the fear of the supernatural or the miraculous, revelation might become too uncomfortable for our sober minds, says Weiß, in a way that the demands of Christian morality and asceticism might impose duties and struggles on us that no longer suit our tastes.25 This being the general attitude, warns Weiß, once we agree on dealing with the zeitgeist, we are doomed to fail.
It is quite interesting how Weiß explains that adaptation: according to him, there is a corresponding increase in consideration for public opinion, science, education, the culture of the times, and the pathological addiction to living in peace, even friendship and community, with the world. Of course, this again leads to the desire to soften the harsh demands of Catholicism in consideration of the spirit of the times and to reconcile them with it, resulting in a lack of principles, eclecticism, half-heartedness, vacillation, and unreliability in word and deed.
But all this would be impossible if the old concept of inner bondage were to persist; it is therefore replaced, less often explicitly in doctrine, but even more in practice, by the principle of self-importance, subjectivism, and autonomy (A. M. Weiß 1914, pp. 7–9). This directly paves the way to evolving individualism.
One can observe that the logic of his argumentation is that the decline in zeal leads to a weakening of religion. And the weakened religiosity becomes defenseless and vulnerable when confronting the modern world. Thus, in Weiß’s perspective, the refusal of the modernity is more than the conservation of a theological legacy and the respect of ecclesial traditions: one must reject the idea of adapting the Catholic Church’s teachings to the modern world because it is corrupted. The only way to conserve both Christian values and harmony in social life is to respect traditional Catholic teachings—the neo-Thomist interpretation of faith.
To Weiß, liberalism is based upon a fatal misunderstanding of human nature: to suppose that man is inherently good is heresy, and to build up a false interpretation of Christ’s legacy is blasphemy. Humanism is the root of modern liberalism because man is at the center of all explications. However, Weiß is not a misanthrope—he only claims to understand the humanistic view in the right way—he could accept an approach one could describe as Christian humanism (as it appears in Augustine or Thomas Aquinas’ texts), but firmly rejects secular humanism, especially in its Enlightenment or post-Kantian forms. Weiß argues that true humanity (Humanität) is only possible through Christianity, while humanism (Humanismus) without Christ becomes self-idolatry—thus, a “counterfeit religion”. For Weiß, the only real humanism is Christ-centered humanism—one that acknowledges the fall of man, the original sin, and the need for grace. To him, Renaissance and Enlightenment humanism tends to idealize man as autonomous, rational, and sufficient unto himself. When man becomes the measure of truth (instead of God), this leads directly to liberalism, which asserts individual autonomy as the highest principle in politics, ethics, and religion. Because of this, Weiß sees liberalism as humanism radicalized and weaponized against divine revelation and the Church, saying that while humanism is more philosophical and cultural in tone, liberalism is its political and doctrinal manifestation.26
To summarize his opinion, the history of humanism is a history of decline, because it leads to moral relativism, which makes respect for moral authority impossible. The fruit of it is a moral (rather than political) chaos, which should be avoided by recognizing the “mal social”, social sickness. To achieve this goal, he proposes to return to ancient forms of Christian work ethics and other values (Botos 2007).
9. Conclusions
The complex and analytic examination of the most important writings of Father Weiß leads us to the understanding of his views on the legacy of Christian civilization. It is a very specific vision, because of naming liberalism as the most important enemy of Christianity, in a time when new, radical collectivist movements fragmentated the social body of European societies. It may sound curious that a Bavarian ultramontane theologian sees the situation of Catholicism as more threatened by the spread of liberalism than that of socialism. To him, modernization echoed the ruining of traditions, and that was more important than the way in which it was to be done. Because he identified contemporary liberalism with revolutionary anticlericalism, anti-Christianism, and anti-ultramontanism, Father Weiß became a convinced anti-liberal. And if liberalism wished to promote modernization in any form, he was against it. In that sense, he was a forerunner of later conservative or traditionalist movements within the Catholic Church (Jodock 2000). Unfortunately, his anti-Protestant attitude slowly became a burden to the Holy See, which began to cooperate with conservative Protestant movements—a tendency which reached its height at Vatican II, when oecumenism became the official goal of Rome. In that line, figures like Weiß were not presented as proud and convinced protectors of faith even if they did not change; they remained the representatives of a traditional definition of the divine doctrines, the duty of the church, and the eternal truth of the Revelation. While they remained constantly loyal to the Magisterium and the sacred traditions, it was the Church which was in change. Weiß was one of those men. He had to suspend his publications and his teaching activity, but still he stayed alone, standing upon the ruins of a concept considered outdated. When forced into silence, he continued to compose his manuscripts, waiting for better times. And these times are changing. Although he was forgotten for a long time, the rediscovery of an “old off-duty writer”27 slowly began among Catholic integralists, as well as among those who criticize 21st-century political liberalism or who reject the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath on the basis of the fight against modernism within the Catholic Church.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The original data presented in the study are available in the Archives of the Dominican Order, Fribourg (ADOF), Switzerland with the permission of the convent superior, in the Weiss dossier.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviation
The following abbreviation is used in this manuscript:
| ADOF | Archives of the Dominican Order, Fribourg |
Notes
| 1 | A short distinction between political integralism and doctrinal anti-modernism seems to be justified. Political integralism was an idea addressed to the outside world, focused mainly on the relation between the state and society. It rejected the liberal separation of Church and State, advocating for a (Catholic) confessional state where civil law was subordinated to religious authority. Its goal was the “Social Reign of Christ,” opposing religious pluralism and democratic secularism. To integralists, society could only function correctly if it were an organic, hierarchical body, officially guided by the Holy See or the Pope himself. In contrast to this, doctrinal anti-modernism was an inner construction focused on intellectual and theological purity. It targeted “Modernism,” which it viewed as a Trojan horse bringing secular philosophy and historical-critical methods into the doctrines of the Church. By promoting neo-scholasticism as the exclusive framework for truth, that movement sought to prevent dogma from evolving. While integralists fought liberal politicians, anti-modernists fought “liberal” or modernist (or even more: progressive) theologians and scientists. |
| 2 | That is why he was invited as professor to the newly formed—informally Catholic—University of Fribourg, Switzerland, at the Faculty of Humanities, then later at the Faculty of Theology. |
| 3 | It is noted that Pius X once said: “Whoever attacks Father Weiß, it is an attack against me.” (Alberta 1935, cited by Arnold 2005, p. 166, footnote 51‚ Vgl. das Pius X. zugeschriebene Diktum “Wer Pater Albert Maria Weiß angreift, greift mich an”; Camilla Alberta 0. P., Zum 10. Todestag des P. Maria Weiß, in: Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung Nr. 35, August 1935, p. 553.). |
| 4 | The life and work of Weiß have been not researched in depth. Besides the doctoral thesis of Sebastian Peter (Lebensweg und Lebenswerk …), one can find just short biographies in works like Zöckler, Otto: Geschichte de Apologie des Christentums, 697 and following pages; Knoll, Aug. M. Staatslexikon, t. 5., Freiburg, 1932. pp. 1146–49; Walz, Angelo: Enciclopedia Cattolica XII, 1663; Hocedez, E. Histoire de la Théologie au XIXe siècle, t. 3., pp. 213–15. Father Gallus M. Häfele remembered Weiß in the Theologische-praktische Quartalschrift, in 1926 (pp. 281–96, 552–67, 774–84). |
| 5 | Franz Xaver Reithmayr (1809–1872) was a German Catholic theologian, specialized in New Testament exegesis. He himself was a disciple of Johann Adam Möhler (1796–1838), a German Roman Catholic theologian and priest associated with the Catholic Tübingen school. Möhler, a conservative historian of the Church, impressed the young Reithmayr. On the other hand, as a theologian, he influenced the progressive French theologians of the 20th century such as Henri de Lubac (1896–1991) and Yves Congar (1904–1995). |
| 6 | Johannes Evangelist von Kuhn (1806–1887) was a German Catholic theologian, an important speculative dogmatist of the Catholic Tübingen school. |
| 7 | Karl Josef von Hefele (1809–1893) was a Roman Catholic bishop and theologian of Germany. Professor of Church history and patristics in the Roman Catholic faculty of theology of Tübingen, he was the author of the most important history of the councils (Conciliengeschichte I-II, Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1855–1856). While his theological opinions inclined towards the more liberal school in the Roman Catholic Church, he nevertheless received considerable signs of favor from its authorities and was a member of the commission that made preparations for the Vatican Council of 1870. |
| 8 | “Dilecto filio Religioso Viro Patri Weiss in Ordine Praedicatorum sodali ad exemplum, doctoris eximio, de re catholica optime merito, in Universitate Friburgensi in Helvetia institutori praestantissimo, aetatis suae annum septuagesimum propediem feliciter complenti gratulamus ex animo, et fausta quaeque ac felicia ad multos etiam annos a Domino adprecantes, grati et benevolentis animi testem, Apostolicam Benedictionem peramanter impertimus. Ex Aedibus Vaticanis, die 9 Aprilis, 1914. Pius PP. X.” (ADOF). |
| 9 | “Was mit diesen Worten gesagt sein soll, das läßt sich leicht erklären. Der Liberalismus hat durchaus keine andere Natur als der Radikalismus, keine andere als die Kirchenzertrümmerer nach Art von Ockham, nach Art der Basler und Gallikaner, keine andere als der Protestantismus, keine andere als der Josephinismus und der Modernismus. Er will nur nicht so weit gehen wie diese seine Blutsverwandten, jedenfalls will er sein Ziel, ob es nun dasselbe ist oder ob er auf halbem Wege stehen bleiben will, nicht so rasch, nicht so offen, nicht so gewaltsam erreichen, sondern vorsichtiger, durch Mittel, die unauffälliger, dafür aber um so sicherer und nachhaltiger wirken, so daß es den Anschein hat, das Ergebnis sei ganz von selbst gekommen, wie man sagt auf dem Wege der Evolution.” (A. M. Weiß 1914, p. 106). |
| 10 | “Daraus ergeben sich sehr verschiedene Abstufungen des Liberalismus bis zum vollen Radikalismus, der das Übernatürliche höchstens noch dem Namen nach gelten läßt. Auf allen Stufen aber hat der Liberalismus als das Wesentliche dies, daß er sich aus eigener Machtvollkommenheit an der Grundlehre des Christentums vergreift, an dem richtigen Verständnis der Lehre vom Verhältnis der Natur zur Übernatur, und an der sichtbaren und fühlbaren Verwirklichung dieser Lehre im Bau der katholischen Kirche.” (A. M. Weiß 1914, p. 93). |
| 11 | Weiß explains in his 1914 book that the early heresies just reappeared during the Renaissance, and he even points out Erasmus as the first to attack the traditional pontifical sovereignty. He even refers to his book written with Denifle about Luther that “Bekanntlich haben schon die Zeitgenossen des Erasmus den Spruch geschmiedet: Erasmus hat das Ei gelegt, Luther hat es ausgebrütet.” (It is well known that Erasmus’ contemporaries coined the saying: Erasmus laid the egg, Luther hatched it.) (Denifle and Weiß 1904, II, p. 58). |
| 12 | “Der erste Liberale, nach modernen Begriffen gemessen, ist Abaelard.” (A. M. Weiß 1914, p. 95). |
| 13 | “Auch die übrige Menschheit hat aus der Revolution nichts gelernt. Die Zeit hat sich mehr und mehr der Fürsten entledigt, das aber, wodurch diese ihren Sturz herbei geführt haben, beibehalten, ja verschärft. An die stelle des persönlichen Fürsten ist der unbestimmte Begriff Staat getreten, wie den persönlichen Gott im Denken unseres Geschlechtes der unpersönliche Allgott ersetzt hat.” (A. M. Weiß 1904, IV/1, p. 45). |
| 14 | “Verbindung mit den Zeitideen, Aussöhnung mit der “modernen Kultur”, Ausgleich zwischen dem “Katholizismus”, wie man zu sagen beliebte, und der öffentlichen Meinung, Amalgam zwischen dem Evangelium und dem Abfall von ihm, ein modernisiertes Christentum, das ist das Ziel, auf das auch die bescheideneren dieser Reformbestrebungen hinarbeiten, für viele freilich schon der als unvermeidlich bezeichnete Ausgangspunkt, von dem aus sie ihre weitere Tätigkeit entfalten… Also verlange das Heil der Menschheit eine Allianz zwischen der Kirche und dem modernen Geist. Diese aber sei nicht möglich ohne Transformation des Katholizismus.” (A. M. Weiß 1904, p. 310). |
| 15 | The whole phrase is: “… Der Liberalismus ist Anti Ultramontanismus. Das ist die kürzeste, die vollständige Erklärung für sein Wesen.” (A. M. Weiß 1914, p. 127). |
| 16 | See the explication of Sardá y Salvagny: “Die Wahrheit, die an sich selber glaubt, kann nicht tolerant oder duldsam sein, d.h. sie gesteht keiner anderen Idee Gleichberechtigung zu, sie steht mit allem, was ihr widerspricht, in einem immerwährenden Kampf ohne Waffenstillstand. Schon die ersten Christen haben es mit Entrüstung zurückgewiesen, als die toleranten Römer sich anerboten, ihren Christus in das Pantheon der Götter aufzunehmen, ihm auch neben den anderen göttliche Ehre zu erweisen. “Unser Christus”, sagten sie, “steht nicht neben euren satanischen Göttern; unser Christus ist vielmehr mit dem Vater und dem heiligen Geist der einzige Gott, und was ihr da habt, sind Ausgeburten der verirrten Phantasie und des bösen Geistes.” (Sardá y Salvagny 1889, p. 20). |
| 17 | It is generally supposed that Weiß participated both in the formulation of the anti-modernist oath and the encyclical “Pascendi”, see (Arnold and Vian 2017, p. 92). |
| 18 | The tradition of the evolution of modernism as a heresy begins with the Counter-Reformation, pretending the Protestant explications are new forms of ancient heretic thoughts. Modern theology begins in the early 18th century among Protestant thinkers who often declared themselves as enemies of other interpretations. Their work influenced some Catholics also—the most famous is the motion of liberal Italian priests (Il programma dei modernisti, 1908). |
| 19 | “Denn ursprünglich ist »Modernismus« kein Begriff der Geschichtswissenschaft, sondern ein ausgesprochen negativer Kampfbegriff, der aber im Gegenzug auch die positive Identifikation mit der so charakterisierten »modernen Irrlehre« provozieren konnte.” (Arnold 2007, p. 10). |
| 20 | Which is not surprising: a true apology must have in its center the supreme goal of human existence. From that perspective, theology has no reason to deal with human beliefs—especially when the end goal of an ideology is unacceptable. “Es ist der Theologie keine geringe Ehre, daß das Streben nach Erreichung dieses Zieles nur über ihre Leiche hinweg gehen kann; der Liberalismus weiß, daß er zuerst an das Werk der Enttheologisierung gehen muss, wenn er sein eigentliches Ziel, die Loslösung dieser Welt und dieses Lebens vom Übernatürlichen, erreichen will.” (A. M. Weiß 1914, p. 118). |
| 21 | Compared to his contemporary French author, Ernest Renan (1823–1892), with his history of the early Christian times and the Life of Jesus (Vie de Jésus, Michel Lévy Frères, Libraires-Éditeurs, Paris, 1863), or to Chateaubriand’s Le Génie du christianisme, ou Beautés de la religion chrétienne (at Migneret, Paris, 1802), Weiß was a less popular author—his Germanic thoroughness, the language and the style he used, but also the targeted group was quite specific. |
| 22 | “Im Windschatten der Enzyklika “Pascendi” kämpften europäische Antimodemisten auch gegen den sogenannten sozialen und politischen Modernismus, der sich für sie in den Christlichen Gewerkschaften und der Christlichen Demokratie verwirklichte.” (Arnold 2005, p. 153). |
| 23 | Heinrich Seuse (or Suso) Denifle (born Joseph Denifle) O.P., 1844–1905. Paleographer and historian. Beside his impressive work on Luther, Denifle also wrote a work on the origins of medieval universities. In 1897, he became a corresponding member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. In December 2012, the Académie honored him with an international conference on his work. Denifle received honorary doctorates from the universities of Münster, Innsbruck, and Cambridge. The Prussian Academy of Sciences accepted him as a corresponding member in 1890. From 1896, he was a foreign member of the Academy of Sciences in Göttingen (Harvey 1918, pp. 332–35). |
| 24 | Mostly by Reinhold Seeberg (1859–1935) and Carl Gustav Adolf von Harnack (1851–1930), the two most important German Lutheran theologians of the late Wilhelmine German Empire. |
| 25 | “Es verlohnt sich der Mühe, einen kurzen Überblick über die verschiedenen neueren Auffassungen von dem sog. Moralprinzip anzustellen, damit wir uns selber davon überzeugen, wozu der Mensch seine Zuflucht nimmt, um der Stimme Gottes zu entfliehen. Es ist kaum zu viel gesagt, wenn wir behaupten, daß ihm auch das unnatürlichste willkommen ist, wenn er damit dem Zeugnis seiner besseren Natur entkommen zu können glaubt.” (A. M. Weiß 1904, p. 140). |
| 26 | See more detail in Weiß, Albert Maria O.P. Humanität und Humanismus (Volume 2 of his major apologetic work Apologie des Christentums). |
| 27 | Following his own words, written on the top of his second manuscript: “Solitudo et Silentium, Lebensabend einer Schriftstellers ausser Dienst” (Archives of the Dominican Order, Fribourg—ADOF—Switzerland). Besides his official documents, he has left three handwritten notebooks in the file “Fr. Weiß. Confessions et méditations d’un vieux théologien (Confessions and meditations of an old theologian)” and a typewritten essay. |
References
- Alberta, Camilla O. P. 1935. Zum 10. Todestag des P. Maria Weiß. Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung Nr. 35, August. p. 553. [Google Scholar]
- Altermatt, Urs. 1989. Katholizismus und moderne. Zur sozial-und mentalitätsgeschichte der Schweizer Katholiken im 19, und 20. Jahrhundert. Zürich: Benziger Verlag. [Google Scholar]
- Arnold, Claus. 2003. Neuere forschungen zur modemismuskrise in der Katholischen Kirche. Theologische Revue 99: 91–104. [Google Scholar]
- Arnold, Claus. 2005. Der Antimodernismus unter Pius X. Von Alfred Loisy zu Charles Maurras. Historisches Jahrbuch 125: 153–68. [Google Scholar]
- Arnold, Claus. 2007. Kleine Geschichte des Modernismus. Freiburg: Herder. [Google Scholar]
- Arnold, Claus, and Giovanni Vian, eds. 2017. The Reception and Application of the Encyclical Pascendi. Studi di Storia 3. Venezia: Edizione Ca’Foscari. [Google Scholar]
- Botos, Máté. 2007. Egy Domonkos közgazdász: Albert Maria Weiss OP. In A domonkos rend Magyarországon: A Piliscsabán, 2003. okt. 27-28-án “A domonkos rend kultúrateremtő szerepe az újkorban” címmel rendezett konferencia szerkesztett anyaga. Edited by Illés Pál A. Budapest: Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem BTK, Magyar Egyháztörténeti Enciklopédia Munkaközösség (METEM), pp. 482–92. [Google Scholar]
- Denifle, Heinrich Suso, and Albert Maria O. P. Weiß. 1904. Luther und Luthertum in der ersten entwickelung; quellenmässig dargestellt, t. I–II. Mainz: F. Kirchheim. [Google Scholar]
- Dirsch, Felix. 2006. Solidarismus und sozialethik. Ansätze zur neuinterpretation einer modernen strömung der Katholischen sozialphilosophie. Berlin: LIT, pp. 154–67. [Google Scholar]
- Harvey, Andrew Edward. 1918. Martin Luther in the Estimate of Modern Historians. The American Journal of Theology 22: 321–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jodock, Darrell. 2000. Catholicism Contending with Modernity: Roman Catholic Modernism and Anti-Modernism in Historical Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Landersdorfer, Anton. 1998. Albert Maria Weiß OP (1844–1925): Ein leidenschaftlicher kämpfer wider den modernismus. In Antimodernismus und modernismus in der Katholischen Kirche. Beiträge zum Theologiegeschichtlichen Vorfeld des II. Vatikanums. Edited by Hubert Wolf. Paderborn: Schöningh, pp. 195–216. [Google Scholar]
- Langer, Michael. 2011. Zwischen Antijudaismus und antisemitischer Versuchung. Katholische Theologen und das Judentum im 19. Jahrhundert. In Ausschluss und Feindschaft. Studien zu Antisemitismus und Rechtsextremismus. Festschrift für Rainer Erb. Edited by Michael Kohlstruck and Andreas Klärner. Berlin: Metropol. [Google Scholar]
- Poulat, Émile. 1963. Histoire, Dogme et Critique Dans la Crise Moderniste. Paris: Casterman. [Google Scholar]
- Poulat, Émile. 1969. Intégrisme et Catholicisme Intégral: Un Réseau Secret International Antimoderniste: La “Sapinière,” (1909–1921). Paris: Casterman. [Google Scholar]
- Sardá y Salvagny, Felix. 1889. Der Liberalismus ist Sünde. Brennende Fragen. Miami: HardPress Publishing, pp. 9–20. [Google Scholar]
- Weiß, Albert Maria. 1878–1884. Apologie des Christentums vom Standpunkte der Sittenlehre, Bd. I–V. Freiburg am Breisgau: Herder. [Google Scholar]
- Weiß, Albert Maria. 1904. Die Religiöse Gefahr. Freiburg am Breisgau: Herder. [Google Scholar]
- Weiß, Albert Maria. 1911. Leben- und Gewissenfragen der Gegenwart, Bd. I–II. Freiburg am Breisgau: Herder. [Google Scholar]
- Weiß, Albert Maria. 1914. Liberalismus und Christentum. Trier: Petrus Verlag. [Google Scholar]
- Weiß, Albert Maria. 1922. Jesus Christus—Die Apologia perennis des Christentums. Freiburg am Breisgau: Herder. [Google Scholar]
- Weiß, Otto. 1998. Modernismus und Antimodernismus im Dominikanerorder. Zugleich ein Beitrag zum «Sodalitium Pianum». Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet. [Google Scholar]
- Weiß, Otto. 2004. Ultramontanismus als “Lebensforschungsprojekt”. In Kulturen—Mentalitäten—Mythen. Zur Theologie- und Kulturgeschichte des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts. Paderborn: Schöningh, pp. 509–33. [Google Scholar]
- Wolf, Hubert, ed. 1998. Antimodernismus und Modernismus in der katholischen Kirche. Beiträge zum theologiegeschichtlichen Vorfeld des II. Vatikanums. Paderborn: Schöningh. [Google Scholar]
- Woods, Thomas E., Jr. 2004. The Curch Confronts Modernity. Catholic Intellectuals and the Progressive Era. New York: Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.