Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim's Febronius: A Censored Bishop and His Ecclesiology
Identifieur interne : 000F14 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000F13; suivant : 000F15Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim's Febronius: A Censored Bishop and His Ecclesiology
Auteurs : Ulrich LehnerSource :
- Church History and Religious Culture [ 1871-241X ] ; 2008.
Url:
DOI: 10.1163/187124108X354321
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:B4152EEAE207189995C8AC9E5CB86FC538FF3160Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim's Febronius: A Censored Bishop and His Ecclesiology</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Lehner, Ulrich" sort="Lehner, Ulrich" uniqKey="Lehner U" first="Ulrich" last="Lehner">Ulrich Lehner</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:B4152EEAE207189995C8AC9E5CB86FC538FF3160</idno><date when="2008" year="2008">2008</date><idno type="doi">10.1163/187124108X354321</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/B4152EEAE207189995C8AC9E5CB86FC538FF3160/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000F14</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000F14</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim's Febronius: A Censored Bishop and His Ecclesiology</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Lehner, Ulrich" sort="Lehner, Ulrich" uniqKey="Lehner U" first="Ulrich" last="Lehner">Ulrich Lehner</name></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Church History and Religious Culture</title><title level="j" type="sub">Formerly: Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">CHRC</title><idno type="ISSN">1871-241X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1871-2428</idno><imprint><publisher>BRILL</publisher><pubPlace>The Netherlands</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2008">2008</date><biblScope unit="volume">88</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="205">205</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="233">233</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1871-241X</idno></series><idno type="istex">B4152EEAE207189995C8AC9E5CB86FC538FF3160</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1163/187124108X354321</idno><idno type="href">18712428_088_02_s005_text.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1871-241X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></TEI><istex><corpusName>brill-journals</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>febronius</json:string><json:string>hontheim</json:string><json:string>ecclesia</json:string><json:string>ulrich</json:string><json:string>trier</json:string><json:string>mejer</json:string><json:string>chrc</json:string><json:string>lehner chrc</json:string><json:string>justinus</json:string><json:string>abbreviatus</json:string><json:string>raab</json:string><json:string>justinus febronius</json:string><json:string>ibid</json:string><json:string>febronius abbreviatus</json:string><json:string>nikolaus</json:string><json:string>pitzer</json:string><json:string>lehner</json:string><json:string>johann</json:string><json:string>wenzeslaus</json:string><json:string>georg</json:string><json:string>schneider</json:string><json:string>konziliarismus</json:string><json:string>vols</json:string><json:string>papacy</json:string><json:string>seibrich</json:string><json:string>johann nikolaus</json:string><json:string>heribert</json:string><json:string>primatus</json:string><json:string>auxiliary bishop</json:string><json:string>heribert raab</json:string><json:string>romani</json:string><json:string>geschichte</json:string><json:string>jahrhundert</json:string><json:string>klueting</json:string><json:string>katholische</json:string><json:string>ecclesiology</json:string><json:string>auseinandersetzungen</json:string><json:string>clement</json:string><json:string>retraction</json:string><json:string>nuncio</json:string><json:string>katholischen</json:string><json:string>neller</json:string><json:string>mainz</json:string><json:string>gallicanism</json:string><json:string>kumene</json:string><json:string>clement wenzeslaus</json:string><json:string>episkopalismus</json:string><json:string>concordata</json:string><json:string>spehr</json:string><json:string>kirchengeschichte</json:string><json:string>roman curia</json:string><json:string>febronii</json:string><json:string>rechenmacher</json:string><json:string>quae</json:string><json:string>idem</json:string><json:string>xiii</json:string><json:string>conciliarism</json:string><json:string>janson</json:string><json:string>bossuet</json:string><json:string>freiburg</json:string><json:string>katholische konzilsidee</json:string><json:string>kirchenrechtlichen ideen</json:string><json:string>pope clement xiii</json:string><json:string>pope pius</json:string><json:string>catholic church</json:string><json:string>papal rights</json:string><json:string>holy roman empire</json:string><json:string>secular princes</json:string><json:string>harm klueting</json:string><json:string>eighteenth century</json:string><json:string>german bishops</json:string><json:string>wiener nuntiatur</json:string><json:string>curia</json:string><json:string>friedrich</json:string><json:string>papal primacy</json:string><json:string>catholic enlightenment</json:string><json:string>german church</json:string><json:string>archiv mittelrheinische kirchengeschichte</json:string><json:string>johann nikolaus hontheim</json:string><json:string>georg christoph neller</json:string><json:string>eighteenth centuries</json:string><json:string>thomam mamachium</json:string><json:string>conciliarist tradition</json:string><json:string>german episcopalism</json:string><json:string>enlightenment</json:string><json:string>franz</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Ulrich Lehner</name></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>ENLIGHTENMENT</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>FEBRONIUS</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>CHURCH AND STATE</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>ULTRAMONTANISM</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>GALLICANISM</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>FEBRONIANISM</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>NIKOLAUS HONTHEIM</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><qualityIndicators><score>5.512</score><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>453.54 x 680.32 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><keywordCount>7</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>0</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>11401</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>69917</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>30</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>1</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim's Febronius: A Censored Bishop and His Ecclesiology</title><refBibs><json:item><host><pages><last>191</last><first>34</first></pages><author></author><title>Translations appeared in French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese (listed in Volker Pitzer, Justinus Febronius On the free " PR " the forbidden books received</title><publicationDate>2001</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>Manfred Weitlauff</name></json:item></author><host><volume>113</volume><pages><last>402</last><first>355</first></pages><author></author><title>Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte</title><publicationDate>2002</publicationDate></host><title>Von der Reichskirche zur " Papstkirche Revolution, Säkularisation, kirchliche Neuorganisation und Durchsetzung der papalistischen Doktrin</title><publicationDate>2002</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>60</last><first>58</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Febronius Mejer</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>Heribert Raab</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>118</last><first>104</first></pages><author></author><title>Katholische Aufklärung – Aufklärung im katholischen Deutschland Harm Klueting</title><publicationDate>1993</publicationDate></host><title>Die katholische Ideenrevolution des 18 Der Einbruch der Geschichte in die Kanonistik und die Auswirkungen in Kirche und Reich bis zum Emser Kongress</title><publicationDate>1993</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>61</last><first>133</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Die Raab</name></json:item><json:item><name> Concordata</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><first>61</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Febronius Mejer</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><first>75</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Febronius Mejer</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><first>87</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Justinus Pitzer</name></json:item><json:item><name> Febronius</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><first>3</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Der Rechenmacher</name></json:item><json:item><name> Episkopalismus</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>149</last><first>33</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Justinus Pitzer</name></json:item><json:item><name> Febronius</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>Ecclesiae De Statu</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>127</last><first>69</first></pages><author></author><title>De incrementis jurium Primatus Romani, illorumque ansis, tum fortuitis et innocuis, tum sontibus</title></host><title>1: De exteriore forma regiminis, quam in sua Ecclesia Christus Dominus instituit (pp. 1–68); ch. 2: De Primatu in Ecclesia, et genuinis ejus juribus</title></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><pages><last>440</last><first>281</first></pages><author></author><title>De Conciliis Generalibus</title><publicationDate>1930</publicationDate></host><title>Febronius abbreviatus (Frankfurt, 1777): Epistula ad Thomam Mamachium (cf. Leo Just, 'Iustini Febronii Epistola ad Thomam Mamachium Discursus praevius: De subsidiis & methodo in tractandis Ecclesiasticis Disciplinis</title><publicationDate>1930</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>1780</last><first>101</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Febronius Mejer</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>40</last><first>8</first></pages><author></author><title>Capitalis haec quaestio de forma Ecclesiae Monarchia in Concilio Tridentino agitata, nec tamen favore Romanis Pontificis decisa fuit " ), pp Ecclesia hodieque regitur exteriore Christi institutoris assistentia</title></host></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><pages><last>64</last><first>46</first></pages><author></author><title>Das Kirchenverständnis</title><publicationDate>1908</publicationDate></host><title>Ultramontanorum doctrina de Romani Pontificis infallibilitate neque ab aliis Catholicis Ecclesiis agnoscetur […] Neque practicam habet utilitatem Infallibility is for Hontheim the Church's participation in the Divine Febronius (see above, n. 51), ch. 2, §4 ( " In quo consistat natura Primatus, & quae sint genuina eijus jura? " ), pp Fundamentum huius Primatus est bonum Unitatis in Ecclesia. " ) 61) Already in the first sentence of the dedication to Pope Clement XIII the term centrum unitatis is used Junctus Cathedrae Petri, tanquam Centro Catholicae unionis, a quo separari nunquam permissum est […] plenus sincera veneratione erga eum, quem divina Providentia locavit in Apostolico throno […] qui Primatum in universa Ecclesia divinitus institutum, legitime tenet: de huius Primatus jure tractare praesumens, ejusdem veros terminos delineare agredior […]. " Neller seems to have the term from the Febronius. In 1786 we can also find it in the files of " Punctuation of Ems " and the Synod of Pistoia. Although the words were used in Gallicanism since around 1681, they were not restricted to it: even Thomassin and Duperron use centrum unitatis. However, at the end of the eighteenth century the term becomes somewhat identified with Febronianism. Theologians of the nineteenth century avoid it, while the Second Vatican Council used it again</title><publicationDate>1908</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>116</last><first>113</first></pages><author></author><title>Romanus Pontifex habet jus mittendi Legatus ad opus officii sui Primatialis Ecclesia, cui Primatus annectitur, per hoc sit Centrum Unitatis " ; § 6: " Ea, quae ad Ecclesiae statum attinent, ubivis gerantur, ad Romanum Pontificem, tanquam Primatem, referenda sunt. " ). Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42), ch</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>4</last><first>1</first></pages><author></author><title>Graviter sane peccant, qui sensu Romanum Pontificem Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopum dici existimant, quasi Catholica Ecclesia ejus dioecesis sit, in qu ipse proprio jure Episcopum agat, reliqui Epicopi, prater nomen, vicariam illius unius praefecturam tantum administrent Cf. Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42), ch Even the title " Bishop of Rome " was nothing extraordinary in the eyes of Hontheim: " Episcopus Urbis Romae contentus est, nihil aliud extraordinaria illa inscriptione designat</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>1</last><first>32</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Justinus Pitzer</name></json:item><json:item><name> Febronius</name></json:item></author><title>Cf. Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42), ch</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name> Febronius</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>103</last><first>98</first></pages><author></author><title>Cf. Febronius abbreviatus</title></host><title>Romanus Pontifex est tutor et vindex Canonum per universam Ecclesiam</title></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>195</last><first>112</first></pages><author></author><title>Neller taught the same</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><first>119</first></pages><author></author><title>Febronius (see above, n. 51), ch. 2, §11</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>1</last><first>7</first></pages><author><json:item><name> Frowein</name></json:item><json:item><name> Primat</name></json:item><json:item><name> Episkopat</name></json:item></author><title>Febronius (see above, n. 51)</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>51</last><first>22</first></pages><author><json:item><name> Stümper</name></json:item><json:item><name> Die Kirchenrechtlichen Ideen</name></json:item></author><title>Personas, quae post futurum Petri decessum primarium hoc in Ecclesia munus gesturae essent, salvator non designavit: Fecit id vel Petrus ipse, & solus; vel cum eo Ecclesia. Perinde est, qua ratione & quo tempore, id factum fuerit Cum itaque firmum maneat, quoad personam & locum successoris in Primatu, a Deo nihil provisum statutumque [sic!] esse, reliquum est, ut penes Ecclesiam (cui, uti dictum, potestas clavium, & omnis Ecclesiastica authoritas tradita fuit) steterit, & etiamnun perduret jus determinandi, per quem unam alteramve partem clavium administrari, adeoque, per quem primum in Ecclesia officium, per quem inferiora munia, conformiter ad institutionem Christi, geri velit. Hinc, sicut per rationes convenientiae humana auctoritate Romanae urbis Antistiti sacer Primatus creditus fuit</title></host></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><pages><last>77</last><first>76</first></pages><issue>10</issue><author></author><title>Cf. Rechenmacher, Der Episkopalismus</title></host><title>Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42), ch. 3, §1, p. 105: " Successio ipsa & Ratio successionis: illa est ex ordinatione Christi, haec ex instituto hominum</title></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>3</last><first>2</first></pages><author></author><title>Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42), ch. 1, §3; Stümper, Die kirchenrechtlichen Ideen (see above</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name> Cf</name></json:item><json:item><name> Febronius</name></json:item></author><host><volume>2</volume><pages><last>321</last><first>43</first></pages><author></author><title>FebroniusAufgeklärtes Kirchenrecht</title></host><title>Die Auseinandersetzungen (see above Primatus authoritatis et potestatis: primatus curae ac sollicitudinis, primatus quoque in ferendis una cum Corpore Episcoporum legibus et dijudicandis causis</title></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><pages><last>250</last><first>249</first></pages><issue>49</issue><author></author><title>Aufgeklärtes Kirchenrecht</title></host><title>Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42), XXX; Seibrich</title></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><volume>6</volume><pages><last>298</last><first>296</first></pages><issue>3</issue><author></author><title>Cf. ibid., ch</title></host><title>Dedication to Pope Clemens XIII Nulla lege divina aut humana convocatio Universalium Conciliorum summo Pontifico reservatur</title></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>7</last><first>75</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Jean Gerson</name></json:item></author><title>and of a number of Gallican authors were especially important. Nevertheless, he distances himself from Edmund Richer</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>623</last><first>11</first></pages><author></author><title>See Febronius (see above, n. 51), ch</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>Der Schneider</name></json:item><json:item><name> Konziliarismus</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>43</last><first>77</first></pages><author></author><title>ch. 16. May, Die Auseinandersetzungen</title></host><title>Das Konzil sei berechtigt, Appellationen gegen päpstliche Entscheidungen entgegenzunehmen, und der Papst könne sie nicht hindern</title></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>51</last><first>77</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Der Schneider</name></json:item><json:item><name> Konziliarismus</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>426</last><first>36</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Justinus Pitzer</name></json:item><json:item><name> Febronius</name></json:item></author><title>Cf. Febronius (see above, n. 51), ch. 6 Adversus modernos abusus Ecclesia semper in Generalibus Concilibus reclamavit, & eorum reformationem studiose quaesivit. Sed per Romanam Curiam ab optimo proposito nunquam non impedimenta fuit</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>7</last><first>37</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Justinus Pitzer</name></json:item><json:item><name> Febronius</name></json:item></author><title>Febronius (see above, n. 51), ch. 6, §14: " Illos quisquis sponte tolerat, summa injuria in Ecclesiam agit, nec potest salvare animam suam. " 81) Febronius (see above, n. 51), ch</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name> Cf</name></json:item><json:item><name> Klueting</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>43</last><first>42</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Aufklärung Spehr</name></json:item><json:item><name> Ökumene</name></json:item></author><title>Printed separately as Vindiciae Febronianae seu refutationes nonullorum opusculorum quae adversus Justini Febronii Jcti tractatum de statu Ecclesiae et potestate Romani Pontificis nuper prodierunt</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>1774</last><first>1770</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Justinus Febronius</name></json:item><json:item><name>– De Statu Ecclesiae</name></json:item><json:item><name>… </name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>Johann,Nikolaus Raab</name></json:item><json:item><name> Hontheim</name></json:item></author><host><volume>43</volume><pages><last>41</last><first>40</first></pages><issue>2</issue><author></author><title>Kurtrierisches Jahrbuch</title><publicationDate>2003</publicationDate></host><publicationDate>2003</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>141</last><first>125</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Der Vanysacker</name></json:item><json:item><name> Widerruf</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>Franz-Josef Heyen</name></json:item><json:item><name>Das Erzbistum Trier</name></json:item><json:item><name> Das Stift</name></json:item><json:item><name> St</name></json:item></author><publicationDate>1966</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>98</last><first>97</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Mejer Zitiert Nach</name></json:item></author><title>Febronius (see above, n. 2)</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>109</last><first>105</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Febronius Mejer</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>113</last><first>112</first></pages><author></author><title>91) Partially reprinted in Mejer, Febronius (see above</title></host></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><pages><last>1789</last><first>1732</first></pages><author></author><title>Exegese zwischen Aufklärung und Inquisition. Johann Lorenz Isenbiehls 'Neuer Versuch über die Weissagung vom Emmanuel' (1778) als Testfall historisch-kritischer Schriftauslegung</title><publicationDate>2008</publicationDate></host><title>Aufklärung und 'vorgezogener' Restauration (Mainz, 2002), pp. 624–662 as well as Dominik Burkard</title><publicationDate>2008</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><pages><last>361</last><first>349</first></pages><author></author><title>On the process of censoring Catholic theologians in the eighteenth century Ministerium iustitiae</title><publicationDate>1985</publicationDate></host><title>Sollicita ac provida Festschrift für Heribert Heinemann zur Vollendung des 60 94) Partially reprinted in Mejer, Febronius (see above Verum ab hac Prima Sede apprime distinguenda Curialistarum cohors […]. " 95) The manuscript was probably given to Pope Pius VI as a personal " trophy " when he met the Archbishop of Trier in 1782</title><publicationDate>1985</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>125</last><first>116</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Febronius Mejer</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>131</last><first>127</first></pages><author><json:item><name> Ibid</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><first>200</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Der Rechenmacher</name></json:item><json:item><name> Episkopalismus</name></json:item></author><title>Hontheim rejected this term not because he denied an " imperium " within the Church but because for him " monarchia " was connected to the dangers of arbitrariness and despotism, cf. Janson, Das Kirchenverständnis (see above</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>Manfred Brandl</name></json:item></author><host><volume>20</volume><pages><last>108</last><first>77</first></pages><author></author><title>Römische Historische Mitteilungen</title><publicationDate>1978</publicationDate></host><publicationDate>1978</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>Febronius Mejer</name></json:item></author><title>Monumentum revocationis omnium, quae adversum ea et si quae fortasse alia verae doctrinae capita seu universalis Ecclesiae jura, licet praeter intentionem, a me quavis via aut modo dicta scriptaque fuere vel scripta videri possent</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><first>79</first></pages><author><json:item><name> Brandl</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>144</last><first>143</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Febronius Mejer</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>94</last><first>92</first></pages><author><json:item><name> Brandl</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>90</last><first>89</first></pages><author><json:item><name> Ibid</name></json:item></author><title>On the editions of the acta consult Brandl, ibid., 100–105. In the Holy Roman Empire there was no universal censoring of books like in France, cf. Papenheim, 'Die katholische kirchliche Zensur im Reich' (see above, n. 15)</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>166</last><first>163</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Febronius Mejer</name></json:item></author><title>109) The only detailed study is still Mejer, Febronius (see above</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>316</last><first>303</first></pages><author></author><title>111) Reprint of Hontheim's " Promemoria " in Mejer, Febronius (see above</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><first>188</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Febronius Mejer</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>190</last><first>189</first></pages><author><json:item><name> Ibid</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>154</last><first>153</first></pages><author><json:item><name> Cf</name></json:item></author><title>Bemühungen der Wiener Nuntiatur' (see above, n. 100), 82; Mejer, Febronius (see above</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>192</last><first>190</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Febronius Mejer</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Pope Pius VI travelled to Vienna in 1782 in order to convince Joseph II to stop his ecclesiastical politics</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>199</last><first>194</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Hyacinth Gerdil</name></json:item><json:item><name>In </name></json:item><json:item><name>J </name></json:item></author><title>Febronio in suam retractationem editum animadversiones (Rome, 1792); Mejer, Febronius (see above</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>Christoph Raab</name></json:item><json:item><name> Neller Und Febronius</name></json:item></author><title>Raab thinks it possible that Hontheim arranged Neller's move to the university of Trier (ibid., 193) He also observes that whole sections of De statu Ecclesiae are in fact borrowed from Neller's works</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>115</last><first>96</first></pages><author><json:item><name> Cf</name></json:item><json:item><name> Raab</name></json:item></author><title>Die Concordata (see above</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>Peter Frowein</name></json:item></author><host><volume>177</volume><pages><last>116</last><first>103</first></pages><author></author><title>Erzbistum Köln</title><publicationDate>1975</publicationDate></host><title>Analogia Ecclesiae cum Imperio Germanico Zum Kirchenbild des Trierer Kanonisten Georg Christian Neller (d. 1783),' Annalen des Historischen Vereins für den Niederrhein insbesondere das alte</title><publicationDate>1975</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>1758</last><first>1740</first></pages><author></author><title>and created through his transformation of Gallican principles the theoretical foundation of German episcopalism. Raab, Die Concordata (see above</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>Gunther Franz</name></json:item><json:item><name> Neller-Hontheim Und Der Episkopalismus-Febronianismus</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>127</last><first>101</first></pages><issue>2</issue><author></author><title>Johann Nikolaus Hontheim</title><publicationDate>1988</publicationDate></host><title>Aufklärung und Ökumene (see above, n. 16), p. 37. Raab It is possible that Gregor Zallwein OSB (1712–1766) also helped Hontheim with the text of the Febronius. On Zallwein, one of the most important canonists of the eighteenth century, see Stephan Haering</title><publicationDate>1988</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>Hugo Mentioned In</name></json:item><json:item><name> Hurter</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>1272</last><first>1271</first></pages><author></author><title>Nomenclator Literarius Recentioris Theologiae Catholicae, 2 vols. (Innsbruck, 1881)</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><first>498</first></pages><author></author><title>Febronius (see above, n. 51), ch</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>Febronius Mejer</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>1770</last><first>1768</first></pages><author></author><title>Latin Translation under the title Antifebronius, 5 vols</title></host><title>Franciscus Antonius Zaccaria, Antifebronio o sia apologia polemico-storica del primato del Papa… (Pisauri, 1767</title></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>1772</last><first>1771</first></pages><author><json:item><name>In Idem</name></json:item><json:item><name>Justini Febronii Tomum Animadversiones Romano-Catholicae ( Rome</name></json:item></author><title>1774); Antifebronius vindicatus seu suprema romani pontificis potestas adversus J. Febronium eijusque vindicem Theolodorum a Palude iterum asserta et confirmata (4 vols</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>432</last><first>1883</first></pages><author></author><title>Frankfurt, 1771) Cf. Hugo Hurter, Nomenclator Literarius Recentioris Theologiae Catholicae</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>1880</last><first>10</first></pages><author><json:item><name> St</name></json:item><json:item><name> Alphonsus</name></json:item><json:item><name> Liguori</name></json:item></author><title>Vindiciae pro suprema Rom. Pontificis auctoritate contra Iustinum Febronium</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>143</last><first>139</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Janson Frowein</name></json:item><json:item><name>Johann Nikolaus Von</name></json:item><json:item><name> Hontheim</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><pages><last>449</last><first>434</first></pages><author></author><title>Die katholische Konzilsidee (see above, n. 9) Es erging den Widerlegern [des Febronius, U.L.] wie allen Bemühungen, die eine herrschende Ideologie zu bekämpfen unternehmen: Ihre Wirksamkeit blieb eng begrenzt</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>272</last><first>271</first></pages><author><json:item><name> Klueting</name></json:item><json:item><name> Wiedervereinigung</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><first>250</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Aufgeklärtes Seibrich</name></json:item><json:item><name> Kirchenrecht</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>335</last><first>333</first></pages><author><json:item><name> Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek</name></json:item></author><publicationDate>1780</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>71</last><first>68</first></pages><author></author><title>On Kleiner's critique of Febronius, see Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16)</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>65</last><first>63</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Justinus Pitzer</name></json:item><json:item><name> Febronius</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>47</last><first>44</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Aufklärung Spehr</name></json:item><json:item><name> Ökumene</name></json:item></author></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><first>1763</first></pages><author><json:item><name>Carl Friedrich</name></json:item><json:item><name>Bahrdt </name></json:item></author><title>De eo, an fieri possit, ut sublato pontificis imperio reconcilientur dissidentes in religione Christiani contra Justinum Febronianum dissertatio</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><pages><last>74</last><first>72</first></pages><author><json:item><name> Cf</name></json:item><json:item><name> Pitzer</name></json:item></author><title>Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16), pp</title></host></json:item></refBibs><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>88</volume><pages><last>233</last><first>205</first></pages><issn><json:string>1871-241X</json:string></issn><issue>2</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1871-2428</json:string></eissn><title>Church History and Religious Culture</title></host><publicationDate>2008</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2008</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1163/187124108X354321</json:string></doi><id>B4152EEAE207189995C8AC9E5CB86FC538FF3160</id><score>0.03004282</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/B4152EEAE207189995C8AC9E5CB86FC538FF3160/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/B4152EEAE207189995C8AC9E5CB86FC538FF3160/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/B4152EEAE207189995C8AC9E5CB86FC538FF3160/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/B4152EEAE207189995C8AC9E5CB86FC538FF3160/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a">Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim's Febronius: A Censored Bishop and His Ecclesiology</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>BRILL</publisher><pubPlace>The Netherlands</pubPlace><availability><p>© 2008 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</p></availability><date>2008</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a">Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim's Febronius: A Censored Bishop and His Ecclesiology</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Ulrich</forename><surname>Lehner</surname></persName></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Church History and Religious Culture</title><title level="j" type="sub">Formerly: Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">CHRC</title><idno type="pISSN">1871-241X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1871-2428</idno><imprint><publisher>BRILL</publisher><pubPlace>The Netherlands</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2008"></date><biblScope unit="volume">88</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="205">205</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="233">233</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">B4152EEAE207189995C8AC9E5CB86FC538FF3160</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1163/187124108X354321</idno><idno type="href">18712428_088_02_s005_text.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2008</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>ENLIGHTENMENT</term></item><item><term>FEBRONIUS</term></item><item><term>CHURCH AND STATE</term></item><item><term>ULTRAMONTANISM</term></item><item><term>GALLICANISM</term></item><item><term>FEBRONIANISM</term></item><item><term>NIKOLAUS HONTHEIM</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2008">Created</change><change when="2008">Published</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2016-10-10">References added</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2017-01-17">References added</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus brill-journals not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/2.3/journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="e-issn">18712428</journal-id>
<journal-title>Church History and Religious Culture</journal-title>
<journal-subtitle>Formerly: Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis</journal-subtitle>
<abbrev-journal-title>CHRC</abbrev-journal-title>
<issn pub-type="ppub">1871-241X</issn>
<issn pub-type="epub">1871-2428</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>BRILL</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>The Netherlands</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1163/187124108X354321</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title>Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim's Febronius: A Censored Bishop and His Ecclesiology</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Lehner</surname>
<given-names>Ulrich</given-names>
</name>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<year>2008</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>88</volume>
<issue>2</issue>
<fpage>205</fpage>
<lpage>233</lpage>
<permissions>
<copyright-statement>© 2008 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2008</copyright-year>
<copyright-holder>Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</copyright-holder>
</permissions>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="18712428_088_02_s005_text.pdf"></self-uri>
<kwd-group>
<kwd>ENLIGHTENMENT</kwd>
<kwd>FEBRONIUS</kwd>
<kwd>CHURCH AND STATE</kwd>
<kwd>ULTRAMONTANISM</kwd>
<kwd>GALLICANISM</kwd>
<kwd>FEBRONIANISM</kwd>
<kwd>NIKOLAUS HONTHEIM</kwd>
</kwd-group>
<custom-meta-wrap>
<custom-meta>
<meta-name>version</meta-name>
<meta-value>header</meta-value>
</custom-meta>
</custom-meta-wrap>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<p>© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 DOI: 10.1163/187124108X354321 CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 Church History and Religious Culture www.brill.nl/chrc Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim’s Febronius : A Censored Bishop and His Ecclesiology Ulrich L. Lehner Abstract In the second half of the eighteenth century, the greatest enemy of the Roman Curia was no longer French Gallicanism but German Febronianism, since it challenged papal primacy. It gained its name from the pseudonymous author of the book, De statu Ecclesiae ( 1763 ). The author, auxiliary Bishop Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim, was immediately censored and later forced to sign a retraction. This essay will provide the first English synthesis and overview of the publishing history of this important work and its ecclesiology, as well as show how the Curia dealt with this dissident theologian. Keywords Febronius; Church and State; Enlightenment; Ultramontanism; Nikolaus Hontheim; Febronianism; Gallicanism. 245 years ago, in 1763 , the auxiliary Bishop of Trier, Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim, stirred up a hornet’s nest when he dared to publish his book Justini Febronii JCti. de statu Ecclesiae et legitima potestate Romani Pontificis liber singularis: ad reuniendos dissidentes in religione christianos compositus (under the pseudonym Justinus Febronius ). Intransigent Roman theologians from di ff erent European countries immediately attacked the new publication and denounced it as highly biased, even heretical, and dozens of refutations were printed. Others regarded it as a sound piece of scholarship that united the tradition of conciliarism with the so-called Catholic Enlightenment. 1 However, De statu 1) E.g., because it claimed to favor a reunion of Catholics and Protestants. Cf. Harm Klueting, ‘Wiedervereinigung der getrennten Konfessionen oder episkopalistische Natio- nalkirche? Nikolaus von Hontheim ( 1701 – 1790 ), der Febronius und die Rückkehr der Protestanten zur katholischen Kirche,’ in Irenik und Antikonfessionalismus im 17 . und 18 . Jahrhundert , ed. Harm Klueting (Hildesheim, 2003 ), pp. 258 – 277 . Recently, Hontheim’s main works were reprinted: Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim, Justinus Febronius Abbreviatus</p>
<p>206 Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 Ecclesiae did not become a bestseller due to its originality or academic quality, but because it successfully articulated the German dissatisfaction with the Holy See with vigorous conviction and summarized concisely the theses of Gerson, Cusanus, Bossuet, Natalis Alexandre, Claude Fleury, Van Espen, Johannes Schilter, Barthel, and others. 2 The early papal censoring ( 1764 ) increased the book’s audience. This also explains why the book remained a poltergeist for Catholic authorities well into the twentienth century. This essay will explore the publishing history of this groundbreaking work as well as the often-overlooked retraction Hontheim was forced to sign in 1778 . 1 . From Medieval Conciliarism to Early Modern Gallicanism Since the Council of Constance ( 1414 – 1418 ), which helped to heal the Occidental Schism by displacing three popes, had issued the decrees Haec Sancta and Frequens , the authority of the Council over the pope had become a common theological issue. Nevertheless, it was unresolved how the relevant texts should be interpreted: 3 Should the superiority of a council over the pope be reserved to emergencies or should it be regarded as a truth of faith? At the Council of Basel ( 1431 – 1439 ) it became clear that there was no peace in sight between conciliarists and curialists. This council viewed the decrees of Constance as a doctrine of faith against the resistance of Pope Eugene IV (in Etsi non dubitemus , 1441 ). Soon the conciliarist bishops et Emendatus ( 1777 ), ed. Ulrich L. Lehner (Nordhausen, 2008 ); idem, Commentarius in Suam Retractationem ( 1781 ), ed. Ulrich L. Lehner (Nordhausen, 2008 ). I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of this journal, Professor Harm Klueting (Cologne), Mr Tim Cavanagh and Ms Rebecca Highlander for helpful suggestions. I am also grateful to Professor Gert Melville and his team from the Institute for Comparative History of Religious Orders at the Catholic University of Eichstätt, where I wrote a substantial part of this study. 2) Otto Mejer, Febronius. Weihbischof Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim und sein Widerruf (Tübingen, 1880 ), p. 43 ; Georg May, Die Auseinandersetzungen zwischen den Mainzer Erzbischöfen und dem Heiligen Stuhl um die Dispensbefugnis im 18 . Jahrhundert (New York, 2007 ), pp. 41 – 42 ; Heribert Raab, ‘Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim,’ Rheinische Lebensbilder 5 (Cologne, 1973 ), 37 – 39 ; cf. Hermann Josef Sieben, Traktate und Theorien zum Konzil vom Beginn des Grossen Schismas bis zum Vorabend der Reformation ( 1378 – 1521 ) (Frankfurt, 1983 ). 3) Walter Brandmüller, Das Konzil von Konstanz 1414 – 1418 , 2 vols. (Paderborn, 1991 – 1997 ). Cf. Remigius Bäumer, ‘Interpretation und Verbindlichkeit der Konstanzer Dekrete,’ Theologisch-Praktische Quartalschrift 116 ( 1968 ), 44 – 53 ; idem, ‘Die Bedeutung des Konstanzer Konzils für die Geschichte der Kirche,’ Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 4 ( 1972 ), 26 – 45 .</p>
<p>Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 207 lost the support of the secular princes and enabled the papacy to gain an enormously important political victory. Despite the lost battle, the war still went on. Conciliarism was still taught at a number of leading universities, e.g., in Paris, Erfurt, Cologne, Krakow, and Vienna. German-speaking Catholic scholars in particular remembered the deeds of Constance with reverence, but also with vehemence. 4 The Reformation and the Catholic Reform after Trent transformed this movement but did not extinguish it. In France it took the shape of Gallicanism. With its masterthinkers Edmond Richer and Jacques Bossuet, the French ecclesiastics frightened and challenged the Roman Curia throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, since the oldest daughter of the Church o ffi cially considered herself as an independent national church in the Declaratio Cleri Gallicani ( 1682 ). The Declaratio restricted the influence of the pope to the spiritual realm and declared the secular princes exempt from ecclesiastical power. Moreover, the French clergy also claimed that the pope could only teach infallibly if his teachings were received universally. 5 Especially in the Holy Roman Empire, Bossuet’s defense of Gallicanism was widely read and had an enduring influence on the author of the Febronius . 6 In the Empire, the tradition of Conciliarism also continued. A definite point of culmination in the seventeenth century is the Gravamina of the three Rhenish prince bishop electors (Cologne, Mainz, and Trier) in 1673 , in which they asked the Emperor to continue to adhere to the 1448 Concordat of Vienna regarding the freedom of episcopal elections, tithes, and other ecclesiastical appointments. 7 Whereas in the seventeenth and the first half of 4) The decrees of Constance were published as early as 1550 , cf. Acta Scitu dignissima docteque concinnata Constantiensis concilii celebratissimi (Hagenau, 1550 ). Cf. Acta Concilii Constanciensis , ed. Heinrich Finke et al., 4 vols. (Munster, 1896 – 1928 ); Hans Schneider, Der Konziliarismus als Problem der neueren katholischen Theologie (New York, 1976 ), p. 44 . 5) Schneider, Der Konziliarismus (see above, n. 4 ). 6) Robert Duchon, ‘De Bossuet à Febronius,’ Revue d’Histoire Ecclesiastique 65 ( 1970 ), 375 – 422 ; Schneider, Der Konziliarismus (see above, n. 4 ), pp. 57 – 61 . Bossuet’s Defensio is quoted 41 times. For an analysis of the connection between politics and religion in the work of Bossuet, see Kurt Kluxen, ‘Politik und Heilsgeschehen bei Bossuet. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Konservativismus,’ Historische Zeitschrift 179 ( 1955 ), 449 – 469 (reprinted in idem, England in Europa. Studien zur britischen Geschichte und zur politischen Ideengeschichte der Neuzeit (Berlin, 2003 )). 7) Heribert Raab, ‘Der reichskirchliche Episkopalismus von der Mitte des 17 . bis zum Ende</p>
<p>208 Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 the eighteenth centuries French theologians dominated the conciliarist and episcopalist “scene” (including Jansenism), 8 the focus of scholarly attention had since shifted to the Holy Roman Empire ever since canon lawyers there had adopted Zeger-Bernhard van Espen’s ( 1646 – 1728 ) Jus ecclesiasticum ( 1700 ) as their main textbook and thus started to buttress German episcopalism theologically. 9 De statu Ecclesiae ( 1763 ) made its anonymous author, known to the public as Justinus Febronius Jurisconsultus, instantantly famous. 10 2 . Justinus Febronius – De statu Ecclesiae At the time of the publication of De statu ecclesiae ( 1763 ), whose full English title is On the Constitution of the Church and the Legitimate Power of the Pope: A Book Composed for the Purpose of Reuniting Separated Christians , 11 it des 18 . Jahrhunderts,’ in Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte , ed. Hubert Jedin et al., 10 vols. (Freiburg, 1970 ), 6 : 477 – 507 , there 481 – 487 . 8) Cf. Monique Cottret, ‘Der Jansenistenstreit,’ in Die Geschichte des Christentums , vol. 9 , ed. Bernard Plongeron (Freiburg, 1998 ), 348 – 408 ; Jean-Pierre Chantin, Le jansénisme (Paris, 1996 ); Françoise Hildesheimer, Le Jansénisme en France aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (Paris, 1991 ). 9) Guido Cooman et al., ed., Zeger-Bernard van Espen at the Crossroads of Canon Law, History, Theology and Church-State Relations (Leuven, 2003 ). This reception can be observed in the works of the highly influential canonist Johann Kaspar Barthel ( 1697 – 1771 ), cf. Friedrich Merzbacher, ‘Johann Caspar Barthel ( 1697 – 1771 ),’ Würzburger Diözesan- Geschichtsblätter 39 ( 1977 ), 183 – 201 ; Heribert Raab, ‘Johann Kaspar Barthels Stellung in der Diskussion um die Concordata Nationis Germanicae,’ in Herbipolis jubilans. 1200 Jahre Bistum Würzburg. Festschrift zur Sekularfeier der Erhebung der Kiliansreliquien [Würzburger Diözesangeschichtsbätter 14 – 15 ] (Würzburg, 1952 – 1953 ), pp. 599 – 616 ; cf. Matthias Fritsch, Religiöse Toleranz im Zeitalter der Aufklärung. Naturrechtliche Begründung – konfessionelle Di ff erenzen (Hamburg, 2004 ), pp. 269 – 280 ; Hermann Josef Sieben, Die katholische Konzils- idee von der Reformation bis zur Aufklärung (Paderborn, 1988 ), pp. 404 – 405 ; Francis Oakley, The Conciliarist Tradition: Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church 1300 – 1870 (New York, 2003 ), p. 186 . 10) The pseudonym stems from Hontheim’s sister, who under the name Febronia was a nun in Juvigny, or from his niece Febronia , who had chosen the religious name Justina . Ludwig Rechenmacher, Der Episkopalismus im 18 . Jahrhundert in Deutschland und seine Lehren über das Verhältnis zwischen Kirche und Staat (Regensburg, 1908 ), p. 2 , n. 1 . Leo Just, ‘Zur Enstehungsgeschichte des Febronius,’ Jahrbuch für das Bistum Mainz 5 ( 1950 ), 369 – 382 , there 370 . Even the printing location “Bullioni” was invented. In reality the book was printed with G. Esslinger in Frankfurt. 11) Oakley, The Conciliarist Tradition (see above, n. 9 ), pp. 184 – 195 . Oakley believes that Hontheim’s work is truly ecumenical (ibid., p. 187 ).</p>
<p>Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 209 was unresolved what authority the Holy See possessed in diocesan territories and a ff airs, e.g., regarding dispensations. The German prince bishops had to defend their autonomy against the papal nuncios in Vienna, Luzern, Cologne, and Dresden, who tried to intervene with papal jurisdiction within their diocesan lands. Therefore the ecclesiastical princes fostered the publication of episcopalist canon law books, e.g., Bydam Frantiˇsek Kollár (Adam Franz Kollar) ( 1718 – 1783 ), and the edition of conciliarist medieval documents, e.g., the Mainz instrument of acception of 1439 . 12 The tensions between Rome and the Empire reached a point of culmination when in Lüttich two bishops were elected on 20 April 1763 , one with the approval of the Holy See and one without. 13 Therefore support for Hontheim’s Febronius was very much in the interest of German bishops, and indeed their Monitum Palatinum ( 1764 ) as well as the Koblenz Gravamina of 1769 made De statu Ecclesiae a somewhat “canonized” book of the German Reichskirche. 14 When Pope Clement XIII put the work on the Index of Forbidden Books on 27 February 1764 , many liberal- minded thinkers across Europe regarded this as a sign of its literary quality. 15 It is not surprising, then, that within a short time Hontheim’s book was translated into several languages and reprinted again. 16 However, only ten of 26 12) Heinz Hürten, ‘Die Mainzer Akzeptation von 1439 ,’ Archiv für mittelrheinische Kirchen- geschichte 11 ( 1959 ), 42 – 75 . 13) Cf. Heribert Raab, Clemens Wenzeslaus von Sachsen und seine Zeit, 1739 – 1812 (Freiburg, 1962 ), pp. 215 – 240 . 14) Heribert Raab, Die Concordata Nationis Germanicae in der kanonistischen Diskussion des 17 . bis 19 . Jahrhunderts. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der episkopalistischen Theorie in Deutschland (Wiesbaden, 1956 ), p. 132 ; Raab, ‘Johann Nikolaus Hontheim’ (see above, n. 2 ), 39 . Raab informs us that Hontheim – after the death of Prince Elector Franz Georg von Schönborn (d. 1756 ) – applied for a Dutch bishopric in order to finish writing his Febronius under the protection of the government in Brussels. Cf. Leo Just, ‘Hontheims Bemühungen um einen Bischofssitz in den österreichischen Niederlanden ( 1756 – 1762 ),’ Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 21 ( 1929 / 30 ), 256 – 290 . 15) On censorship in the Holy Roman Empire, see Martin Papenheim, ‘Die katholische kirchliche Zensur im Reich im 18 . Jahrhundert,’ in Zensur im Jahrhundert der Aufklärung. Geschichte – Theorie – Praxis , ed. Wilhelm Haefs and York-Gothart Mix (Göttingen, 2007 ), pp. 79 – 98 ; Dominik Burkard, ‘Die kirchliche Bücherzensur in Deutschland,’ in Inquisition, Index, Zensur. Wissenskulturen der Neuzeit im Widerstreit , ed. Hubert Wolf (Paderborn, 2001 ), pp. 305 – 327 . 16) Even the nuncio in Cologne, Caprara-Montecuculi, thought that the enormous success was due to the hastened censoring of Hontheim’s book by the Curia. Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 74 – 75 ; cf. Christopher Spehr, Aufklärung und Ökumene. Reunionsversuche zwischen Katholiken und Protestanten im deutschsprachigen Raum des späteren 18 . Jahrhunderts</p>
<p>210 Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 German clerical princes publicly announced that the book had been censored. 17 Pope Clement XIII even regarded it as necessary to call on the German bishops in three briefs to stop the “infamous” work with its attack on papal authority since it called for an ecclesiastical revolution that would deprive the church of its buttress. 18 The pope was right in a certain sense: With De statu Ecclesiae , or as it was more commonly called Febronius , a “Catholic intellectual revolution” began, 19 which united not only Catholic intellectuals and Protestants in their antipathy to the Roman Curia, but also the otherwise competitive German bishops: already on 19 March 1764 the three Rhenish prince bishop electors asked the newly elected Roman king (emperor since 1765 ) Joseph II ( 1764 – 1790 ) to forbid all appeals to the nuncios and the Roman Curia. 20 A few months later, Hontheim, still in disguise but aware of the turmoil he had started, o ff ered his resignation as auxiliary bishop to the Elector and Prince-bishop of Trier, which was nonetheless not accepted. 21 He refused to retract, however, as such a step would be incompatible with his being a “man of honor.” 22 Due to the controversies he caused, Hontheim still concealed his author- ship. Therefore a number of episcopalist canonists, in particular Benedikt Oberhauser O.S.B., Johann Baptist Horix, Christoph Neller, and Ludwig Philipp Behlen were suspected to be the instigator. However, in spring 1764 the papal nuncio, Niccolo Oddi, learned from the Frankfurt canon, Damian Friedrich Dumeiz ( 1728 – 1802 ) that Hontheim was the creator of the Febro- (Tübingen, 2005 ), p. 34 . Translations appeared in French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese (listed in Volker Pitzer, Justinus Febronius. Das Ringen eines katholischen Irenikers um die Einheit der Kirche im Zeitalter der Aufklärung (Göttingen, 1976 ), pp. 191 – 192 ). On the free “PR” the forbidden books received, see Peter Godman, Weltliteratur auf dem Index (Berlin, 2001 ). 17) Manfred Weitlau ff , ‘Von der Reichskirche zur “Papstkirche.” Revolution, Säkularisation, kirchliche Neuorganisation und Durchsetzung der papalistischen Doktrin,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 113 ( 2002 ), 355 – 402 , there 378 . 18) Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 58 – 60 ; May, Die Auseinandersetzungen (see above, n. 2 ), p. 48 . 19) Heribert Raab, ‘Die katholische Ideenrevolution des 18 . Jahrhunderts. Der Einbruch der Geschichte in die Kanonistik und die Auswirkungen in Kirche und Reich bis zum Emser Kongress,’ in Katholische Aufklärung – Aufklärung im katholischen Deutschland , ed. Harm Klueting (Hamburg, 1993 ), 104 – 118 . 20) Raab, Die Concordata (see above, n. 14 ), p. 133 ; Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 61 – 62 . 21) Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), p. 61 . 22) Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), p. 75 .</p>
<p>Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 211 nius . 23 Nevertheless, the Trier auxiliary bishop publicly denied his authorship until 1776 / 77 . 24 In 1769 after the death of Pope Clement XIII the ecclesiastical climate changed. His successor, Clement XIV (Lorenzo Ganganelli), was less fervent when it came to objecting to the interference of the state in church a ff airs. Also, Trier received a new bishop in February 1768 , Clement Wenzeslaus, Prince of Saxony ( 1768 – 1802 ). Like his predecessor, Johann Philipp von Walderdorf ( 1756 – 1768 ), the new shepherd of Trier protected his auxiliary: Wenzeslaus did not answer the protest notes that two di ff erent popes wrote to him asking for strict measures against the second edition of De statu Ecclesiae . He asked Hontheim, the author of the incriminated book, to answer to Rome. Not surprisingly the latter denied that it contained any “dangerous” content. 25 3 . The life of Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim ( 1701 – 1791 ) 26 Johann Nikolaus Hontheim was born 27 January 1701 in Trier, where his family had made a career as administrators for the archdiocese. A gifted lad, he attended the Jesuit Gymnasium in his hometown, then studied law, theology, and classics at the University of Trier. He continued his studies in Louvain and Leiden. However, despite his stay at a Protestant university, he never gained a profound knowledge of Protestant theology. His time in Louvain seems to have shaped him more deeply. There he encountered a lively Jansenist culture and the Gallicanist works of Zeger van Espen. 27 After he received his doctorate in civil and canon law from the University of Trier in 1724 , he began a three-year journey through Europe, during which he stayed for almost a year ( 1726 / 27 ) 23) Cf. Heribert Raab, ‘Damian Friedrich Dumeiz und Kardinal Oddi. Zur Entdeckung des Febronius und zur Aufklärung im Erzstift Mainz und in der Reichsstadt Frankfurt,’ Archiv für mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte 10 ( 1958 ), 217 – 240 . Dumeiz was an interesting character: Hontheim delegated him to supervise the printing of De statu Ecclesiae . Even after his betrayal he continued to take care of the printing of the supplementary volumes to Hontheim’s controversial work. Heribert Raab calls him a man with “two souls in his chest” (Raab, ibid., 217 ). Cf. Schneider, Der Konziliarismus (see above, n. 4 ), p. 77 . 24) Christopher Spehr, Aufklärung und Ökumene (see above, n. 16 ), p. 35 ; Heribert Raab, ‘Georg Christoph Neller und Febronius,’ Historisches Jahrbuch 81 ( 1961 ), 202 . 25) Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 67 – 69 , 79 ; Wolfgang Seibrich, Die Weihbischöfe des Bistums Trier (Trier, 1998 ), p. 148 . 26) Seibrich, Die Weihbischöfe (see above, n. 25 ), pp. 140 – 150 (incl. list of archival files and bibliography). 27) Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), p. 13 ; Schneider, Der Konziliarismus (see above, n. 4 ), p. 70 ; Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), p. 22 .</p>
<p>212 Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 in Rome, where he handled judicial a ff airs at the Roman Curia for his bishop. After his ordination to the priesthood ( 22 May 1728 ) in the cathedral of Trier, 28 he began his career as a canon lawyer for the consistory there, and received a canonry at St. Simeon in the same city. Between 1733 and 1738 he also lectured there as a professor of Roman law and published a number of articles in the fields of diocesan history and canon law. 29 Following a promotion within the consistory, Hontheim was appointed auxiliary bishop and general vicar in 1748 . In the same year, the canons of St. Simeon also elected him dean. As auxiliary bishop he was also vice-chancellor of the University of Trier, where he tried to implement a reform of the educational system against the ferocious resistance of the Jesuits. 30 In 1753 he even suggested replacing the intransigent Jesuits with Benedictine monks, who on the whole were very open to the ideas of a moderate Enlightenment. However, this could not be achieved until 1764 . 31 Hontheim was also in charge of the French speaking parts of the diocese, where he encountered the practice of highly developed Gallicanism. 32 It is not surprising that Clement Wenzeslaus, who was doctrinally an orthodox Catholic, protected Hontheim and disappointed the Roman Curia, which had hoped for a political change when the old archbishop died in 1768 . Clement Wenzeslaus was a grandson of Emperor Joseph I and as such had good relations with the court in Vienna. Maria Theresia, however, urged him to continue to support Hontheim. 33 The archbishop changed his mind only because he was eager to obtain the rich abbey of Mettlach, which the Curia promised him in exchange for censoring the loathed author of the Febronius . 28) Raab, ‘Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim’ (see above, n. 2 ), 26 ; Seibrich, Die Weihbischöfe (see above, n. 25 ), p. 142 . 29) Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), p. 23 ; Seibrich, Die Weihbischöfe (see above, n. 25 ), p. 142 . 30) Seibrich, Die Weihbischöfe (see above, n. 25 ), p. 146 . On the history of the university of Trier and Hontheim’s involvement, see Michael Trauth, Eine Begegnung von Wissenschaft und Aufklärung: Die Universität Trier im 18 . Jahrhundert (Trier, 2000 ). 31) Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 34 – 35 , 63 . For the role of the Benedictines within the Catholic Enlightenment see Ulrich L. Lehner, ‘Theologia Kantiana ac Benedictina. Zur Kant-Rezeption der Benediktiner Ildefons Schwarz und Ulrich Peutinger,’ in Kant und der Katholizismus , ed. Norbert Fischer, (Freiburg, 2005 ), pp. 234 – 261 , and Derek Beales, Prosperity and Plunder: European Catholic Monasteries in the Age of Revolution 1650 – 1815 (New York, 2003 ). 32) Just, ‘Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Febronius’ (see above, n. 10 ), 371 ; cf. Schneider, Der Konziliarismus (see above, n. 4 ), p. 70 . 33) Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 65 – 67 and 69 – 72 .</p>
<p>Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 213 Nevertheless, it was also Hontheim himself who contributed to his fall, when he backed the Enlightenment theologian Isenbiehl. However, it was not until spring 1779 , one year after his famous retraction (see below) that the old auxiliary bishop’s resignation was accepted. Hontheim retired to his castle Montquintin in Luxemburg, where he died on 2 September 1790 . 34 4 . The Background of De statu Ecclesiae The main theses of De statu Ecclesiae probably go back to 1742 , when the electors and their delegates disputed article 14 of the election treaty that they had requested from the designated Emperor Charles VII. Since Charles V, 1519 , this article had been binding the emperors to the Vienna Concordat of 1448 , in which the head of state promised the bishops his protection against papal punishments as well as interference in their dioceses by the nuncios. Hontheim and his friend Jakob Georg von Spangenberg ( 1695 – 1779 ), a convert from Protestantism, being delegates for the elector of Trier, even suggested at this event to deny all papal jurisdiction for dioceses in the Holy Roman Empire. 35 Already at this point, Hontheim rejected the defense of a monarchical power of the papacy, such as that provided by St. Robert Bellarmine ( 1542 – 1621 ), Guiseppe Agostino Orsi ( 1692 – 1761 ), Prospero Fagnani ( 1588 – 1678 ), and Benedict XIV ( 1740 – 1758 ). Furthermore, the election treaty gave him the opportunity to study the history of Conciliarism and the so called “liberties of the German Church” in more detail. 36 Nevertheless, one must not underestimate the personal influence of Spangenberg and the elector himself, Franz Georg von Schönborn ( 1729 – 1756 ), on Hontheim’s episcopalist system. 37 34) Spehr, Aufklärung und Ökumene (see above, n. 16 ), p. 33 . Andreas Adolf von Kru ff t ( 1721 – 1793 ) collected relevant biographical material about Hontheim: Stadtbibliothek Trier: CH.M. 1570 – 1574 , cf. Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 6 – 7 . However, most of the personal papers seem to be lost due to a fire ( 1790 ) at the Montquintin castle. 35) Hontheim and Spangenberg were also election delegates when Franz I was elected Roman King in 1745 . Cf. Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), p. 29 . 36) Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), pp. 103 – 107 ; Peter Frowein and Edmund Janson, ‘Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim – Justinus Febronius. Zum Werk und seinen Geg- nern,’ Archiv für mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte 28 ( 1976 ), 129 – 153 , there 129 . However, Hontheim never gained a profound knowledge of the di ff erent streams of Conciliarism. He seems to have been familiar mainly with Gerson, Cesarini, and Andreas Escobar. Cf. Sieben, Die katholische Konzilsidee (see above, n. 9 ), pp. 433 – 434 . 37) Just, ‘Zur Enstehungsgeschichte des Febronius’ (see above, n. 10 ), 372 .</p>
<p>214 Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 Among Hontheim’s literary influences, the most important one was certainly Bossuet’s Defensio declarationis cleri Gallicani ( 1730 ), 38 which he quoted regularly and at length. However, he also used the works of Protestant scholars, e.g., historians like Marquard Freher ( 1565 – 1614 ), Hermann von der Hardts ( 1660 – 1746 ), Johann Georg Schelhorn ( 1694 – 1773 ), Hermann Conring ( 1606 – 1681 ), the philosophers Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ( 1646 – 1716 ), Samuel Pufendorf ( 1632 – 1694 ), and Christian Thomasius ( 1655 – 1728 ). Among the few German Catholics whom Hontheim regarded as important thinkers were the Augustinian canon Eusebius Amort ( 1692 – 1775 ), arguably one of the most prominent proponents of a Catholic Enlightenment, Prince Abbot Martin Gerbert ( 1720 – 1793 ), the German Mabillon, and last but not least the Wol ffi an Jesuit Benedikt Stattler ( 1728 – 1797 ). 39 Hontheim also quoted frequently two of the main advocates of the Austrian school reforms, the enlightened Abbot Stephan Rautenstrauch ( 1734 – 1785 ) and the canon lawyer Paul Joseph von Riegger ( 1705 – 1775 ). 40 5 . The main idea of De statu Ecclesiae Like so many other works of the time, De statu Ecclesiae was influenced by a number of what Jonathan Israel calls conservative Enlightenment ideals, e.g., peaceful ecumenical dialogue, decentralized church government, and relative freedom of expression. Nevertheless Hontheim’s book also stood in the tradition of Tridentine Reform Catholicism, which aimed at better pastoral care, simpler and less ostentatious piety, clear theological doctrines, etc. This could also be a description of the phenomenon of the Catholic Enlightenment. 41 However, the book also paid its tribute to the conciliarist tradition of the Middle Ages. Thus, one can truly call Hontheim’s work a “marriage” between “conservative” (J. Israel) Enlightenment thought (heavily influenced by Jansenism) and conciliarism. 38) Schneider, Der Konziliarismus (see above, n. 4 ), p. 71 ; Spehr, Aufklärung und Ökumene (see above, n. 16 ), p. 38 . Cf. Duchon, ‘De Bossuet’ (see above, n. 6 ); Sieben, Die katholische Konzilsidee (see above, n. 9 ), p. 433 . 39) Stattler wrote extensively in the following years on the primacy of the pope and was finally censored by the Roman Curia. The works of Amort and Gerbert were never suppressed. 40) Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), pp. 97 – 110 . 41) Raab, Die Concordata (see above, n. 14 ), p. 125 a ffi rms that this stream of thought, which tried to bring about reforms in the Church, was in its essence not rationalist but rather influenced by Enlightenment ideals and the spirit of Trent.</p>
<p>Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 215 Febronius idealized the first eight centuries of the church ( ecclesia primitiva ) – very much as Jansenism 42 did – as the true and normative Christendom, and the later developments, especially of the papacy, as a decline and perversion. Such a rigid view of history which excludes from the beginning any doctrinal or organizational development, was not only a common feature of eighteenth- century scholastic theology 43 but also of the Catholic Enlightenment. 44 The Josephinist university reform in particular favored the expansion of church history as a discipline, not because of a sudden interest in history, but because it could legitimize the ecclesiastical policy that was exercised by the state. The reforms of Joseph II pretended to restore the true, pope-free Catholicism of the early patristic era. 45 42) It has not yet been investigated to what extent Hontheim followed Jansenist thought. Certainly he flirted with Jansenism, but we lack primary sources to connect him firmly with this current of thought. However, one can surely call him a sympathizer with parts of Jansenist ecclesiology and theology. This is evidenced by his loathing of scholasticism: Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim, Justinus Febronius abbreviatus et emendatus, id est De statu ecclesiae tractatus ex sacra scriptura, traditione, et melioris notae catholicis scriptoribus adornatus ab auctore ipso in hoc compendium redactus (Cologne, 1777 ) (hereafter cited as Febronius abbreviatus ), ch. 1 , pp. 1 – 2 : “Antiqua & sanior Theologia, quam Positivam vocant, consistit in studio Sacrae Scripturae, Conciliorum, SS. Patrum & Historiae Ecclesiasti- cae. Ei Scholastica successit: primum quidem rariore usu, post aperto marte, & tantum non universim. Haec docuit dogmata fidei dialectis subjicere di ffi cultatibus, aptioribus ad avertendam veritatem, quam ad eam declarandam. Aristotelis Dialectica, in Theolo- giam invecta, fuit mater plurimarum questionum magis curiosarum quam utilium, subinde etiam ridicularum; peperit insipias argutias, sophisticas subtilitates, distinctiones frivolas & captiosas; denique induxit barbaram illam latinitatem, qua hodieque scholae nostrae reso- nant.” Cf. Leo Just, ‘Weihbischof Hontheim und der Ausklang des Jansenismus in Orval, 1758 – 1788 ,’ Vierteljahresblätter der Trierer Gesellschaft für nützliche Forschungen 5 ( 1959 ), 33 – 40 . 43) It had been in fact Bossuet’s main argument against the Protestants that they made changes in their theology. Owen Chadwick describes this beautifully in his classic From Bossuet to Newman (New York, 1957 ; 2 nd ed. 1987 ). 44) See Ulrich L. Lehner, ‘Enlightened Monasticism. Introduction,’ in Beda Mayr – Vertheidigung der katholischen Religion , ed. Ulrich L. Lehner (Leiden, 2008 , forthcoming). 45) Cf. Emil Clemens Scherer, Geschichte und Kirchengeschichte an den deutschen Univer- sitäten. Ihre Anfänge im Zeitalter des Humanismus und ihre Ausbildung zu selbständigen Disziplinen (Freiburg, 1927 ). Schneider, Der Konziliarismus (see above, n. 4 ), p. 79 .</p>
<p>216 Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 6 . The content of De statu Ecclesiae – an overview Hontheim was not a clever innovator. Despite the fame his book received, it did not really say anything new and did not propose a new thesis. However, it brought the century old critique of the papacy into a “coherent and pragmatic system.” 46 Moreover, it did not start out with a philosophical foundation, but by stating a fact: the influence of secular princes on ecclesiastical a ff airs. For the author of De statu Ecclesiae the state was the primary guardian of the church’s constitution, since it was – like the Church 47 – instituted by God himself. 48 Therefore, Hontheim tried to convince the secular princes to use their influence to win back lost liberties that were usurped by the Curia. 49 In the same manner, the French 50 and later also the Austrian Jansenists sought the support of the civil authorities, but finally handed over the Church to a limitless governmental influence. 51 Febronius’s concern is nevertheless a theological one: In the four prefaces (to Pope Clement XIII, the Christian kings and noblemen, the bishops, and the theologians/canonists) Hontheim elucidates that the o ffi ce of bishop was of divine law and therefore unrestrictable by a human institution like the Curia. “The bishops are the true limits of the primacy.” 52 To restore the ancient 46) Edmund Janson, Das Kirchenverständnis des Febronius (Rome, 1978 ), p. 62 . 47) Hontheim gives a clear definiton of what he means by Church in vol. 4 / 1 of his De statu Ecclesiae (Frankfurt, 1773 ), p. 23 : “Ecclesia est societas hominum per Baptismum in Christo eum in finem unitorum, ut secundum normam in Evangelio praescriptam verum Deum colant, et aternam salutem consequantur. Est societas inaequalis, in qua sunt, qui imperium sacrum exercent; alii, quorum omnis sita est in obediendo gloria, attamen simul cum illis corpus unum mysticum seu morale constituens.” 48) Seibrich, Die Weihbischöfe (see above, n. 25 ), p. 147 . 49) Wolfgang Seibrich, ‘Aufgeklärtes Kirchenrecht als restaurative Reform. Die deutschen Episkopalisten um Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim und ihre Beziehung zu Zeger-Bernard van Espen,’ in Zeger-Bernard van Espen at the Crossroads of Canon Law, History, Theology and Church-State Relations , ed. Guido Cooman et al., pp. 229 – 265 , there p. 256 . 50) Dale van Kley, The Religious Origins of the French Revolution (New Haven, 1996 ), passim. 51) Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), p. 111 ; May, Die Auseinandersetzungen (see above, n. 2 ), p. 44 ; Rechenmacher, Der Episkopalismus (see above, n. 10 ), p. 16 ; cf. Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim, Justini Febronii JCti. de statu Ecclesiae et legitima potestate Romani Pontificis liber singularis: ad reuniendos dissidentes in religione christianos compositus (Frankfurt, 1763 ) (hereafter cited as Febronius ), ch. 9 , § 10 ; Engelbert Plassmann, Staatskirchenrechtliche Grundgedanken der deutschen Kanonisten an der Wende vom 18 . zum 19 . Jahrhundert (Freiburg, 1968 ), passim. 52) Schneider, Der Konziliarismus (see above, 4 ), p. 72 .</p>
<p>Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 217 church order, the episcopal authority had to be reinstituted and the Curia had to be confronted with reports about her abuse of power as well as with the fact that her legitimization was based on forgeries. 53 The papacy could only keep what it entailed in the first centuries of Christianity. Everything else had to be regarded as redundant or harmful historical ballast. 54 Hontheim even went so far as to claim that a “reformed” Catholicism has to avoid the “extremes” of Protestantism, which includes the complete abandonment of a papal o ffi ce, and Ultramontanism, an exaggeration of papal authority. Such a proposition was a declaration of war: The auxiliary bishop had charged the defenders of curialism as extremists and had dared to compare them with Protestant heretics. Consequently, canonists who were loyal to Rome declared the ecclesiology of De statu Ecclesiae as no longer within the boundaries of legitimate dissent. It was labeled heretical. 55 Hontheim, however, did not understand himself as an “innovator,” but as a “restorer” or “reformer.” The first edition with its nine chapters 56 was soon expanded to four volumes and only in 1777 was an abridged version, the Febronius abbreviatus , published. 57 The first part of De statu Ecclesiae (chapters 1 and 2 ) lays out Hontheim’s considerations about the external way of governing the church and its 53) Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), p. 87 . 54) Rechenmacher, Der Episkopalismus (see above, n. 10 ), p. 3 . 55) Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), pp. 33 , 149 , n. 30 . 56) De statu Ecclesiae (Frankfurt, 1763 ) [“ch.” indicates the chapter]: ch. 1 : De exteriore forma regiminis, quam in sua Ecclesia Christus Dominus instituit (pp. 1 – 68 ); ch. 2 : De Primatu in Ecclesia, et genuinis ejus juribus (pp. 69 – 127 ); ch. 3 : De incrementis jurium Primatus Romani, illorumque ansis, tum fortuitis et innocuis, tum sontibus (pp. 128 – 184 ); ch. 4 : De causis, quae vulgo majores vocantur (pp. 185 – 220 ); ch. 5 : De Legibus Ecclesiasticis, earum pro Universali Ecclesia ferendi jure; et de Appellationibus ad Romanum Pontificem (pp. 221 – 280 ); ch. 6 : De Conciliis Generalibus (pp. 281 – 440 ); ch. 7 : De authoritate Episcoporum ex Jure divino (pp. 441 – 514 ); ch. 8 : De libertate Ecclesiae, eijusque restaurandae jure et causis; ch. 9 : De mediis recuperandae Libertatis Ecclesiasticae (pp. 559 – 623 ). Febronius abbreviatus (Frankfurt, 1777 ): Epistula ad Thomam Mamachium (cf. Leo Just, ‘Iustini Febronii Epistola ad Thomam Mamachium,’ Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 22 ( 1930 / 31 ), 256 – 288 ); Discursus praevius: De subsidiis & methodo in tractandis Ecclesiasticis Disciplinis (pp. 1 – 6 ); ch. 1 : De Ecclesia & ejus Statu (pp. 7 – 34 ); ch. 2 : De Concilibus generalibus (pp. 35 – 100 ); ch. 3 : De Primatus in Ecclesia (pp. 101 – 148 ); ch. 4 : De Episcopatu (pp. 149 – 180 ); ch. 5 : De Praebendis & Dignitatibus (pp. 181 – 209 ); ch. 6 : De Legibus & Judiciis Ecclesiasticis (pp. 210 – 250 ); ch. 7 : De Libertate Ecclesiae (pp. 251 – 295 ). Cf. Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), p. 31 . 57) Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), p. 101 ; Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek , 1780 , Anh. 25 – 36 . Bd., 1 . Abt. 333 – 335 .</p>
<p>218 Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 foundation in Scripture and tradition. Christ is thus the true head of the church ( caput et perpetuus rector ) 58 and the pope is subordinate to the council of bishops. Furthermore, the papal o ffi ce is not preserved from error (infallibility); only the teaching of the universal church is so preserved. 59 The legitimization of the papal o ffi ce lies in the unifying function of the papacy. Therefore the papacy is entitled only to the rights and privileges it needs to fulfill its purpose – all other liberties are not essential and can be abandoned. 60 To be centrum unitatis , 61 the pope has the right to be informed by all local churches ( jus relationis ) – at least regarding more general issues. If he decides to answer an informing letter, however, the pope’s lines must not be understood as commands, but as advice. A second right of the pope consists in sending legates. Originally, Hontheim points out, legates were without jurisdiction and only during the course of the Middle Ages did they illegitimately acquire this authority. 62 This 58) Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 1 , § 8 (“Capitalis haec quaestio de forma Ecclesiae Monarchia in Concilio Tridentino agitata, nec tamen favore Romanis Pontificis decisa fuit”), pp. 40 – 41 ; ibid., § 9 : “Ecclesia hodieque regitur exteriore Christi institutoris assistentia.” Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), ch. 1 , § 2 . 59) Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 1 , § 9 , pp. 46 – 64 ; cf. ibid., § 10 , p. 64 : “Ultramontanorum doctrina de Romani Pontificis infallibilitate neque ab aliis Catholicis Ecclesiis agnoscetur […] Neque practicam habet utilitatem.” Infallibility is for Hontheim the Church’s participation in the Divine, cf. Janson, Das Kirchenverständnis (see above, n. 46 ), p. 168 . 60) Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 2 , § 4 (“In quo consistat natura Primatus, & quae sint genuina eijus jura?”), pp. 83 – 88 ; cf. ibid., ch. 2 , § 2 , pp. 74 – 76 (“Fundamentum huius Primatus est bonum Unitatis in Ecclesia.”) 61) Already in the first sentence of the dedication to Pope Clement XIII the term centrum unitatis is used: “Junctus Cathedrae Petri, tanquam Centro Catholicae unionis, a quo separari nunquam permissum est […] plenus sincera veneratione erga eum, quem divina Providentia locavit in Apostolico throno […] qui Primatum in universa Ecclesia divinitus institutum, legitime tenet: de huius Primatus jure tractare praesumens, ejusdem veros terminos delineare agredior […].” Neller seems to have the term from the Febronius . In 1786 we can also find it in the files of “Punctuation of Ems” and the Synod of Pistoia. Although the words were used in Gallicanism since around 1681 , they were not restricted to it: even Thomassin and Duperron use centrum unitatis . However, at the end of the eighteenth century the term becomes somewhat identified with Febronianism. Theologians of the nineteenth century avoid it, while the Second Vatican Council used it again. Cf. Peter Frowein, ‘Primat und Episkopat,’ Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 69 ( 1974 ), 227 – 229 ; Franz Stümper, Die kirchenrechtlichen Ideen des Febronius (Ascha ff enburg, 1908 ), pp. 38 – 42 . 62) Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 2 , § 10 : “Romanus Pontifex habet jus mittendi Legatus ad opus o ffi cii sui Primatialis,” pp. 113 – 116 ; Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 2 , § 5 / 6 , pp. 88 – 91 (“Ecclesia, cui Primatus annectitur, per hoc sit Centrum Unitatis”; § 6 : “Ea, quae ad Ecclesiae statum attinent, ubivis gerantur, ad Romanum Pontificem, tanquam Primatem,</p>
<p>Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 219 view of the nuncios as troublemakers is only a consequence of Hontheim’s view of the episcopal o ffi ce: every bishop has immediate jurisdiction over his local church, which is not derived from the Holy See but from his apostolic succession. 63 Although the preservation of ecclesiastical unity is the central task of the papacy, Hontheim’s choice of words is very reserved. He tries to avoid a causal connection between the Church’s unity and the necessity of the papal o ffi ce, since for him the unity of the Church is the foundation of the primacy and not its consequence: “The Primacy [of the pope] has functional, but not constitutive importance for the Church.” 64 Another papal responsibility is to be vindex canonum , securer of the deposit of faith. 65 However, this task also has to be considered subsidiary ( jus supplendi ). The pope also has the authority to decree provisional law, since it is impossible to convene a council often enough. Such law acquires universal validity only if all bishops, or at least a majority, agree with it. 66 Hontheim’s emphasis on conceding to the papacy more than an honorary primacy is irreconcilable with his assertion that the pope is not summus episcopus , but only episcopus primae sedis . Thus, the bishops as successors of the apostles have an authority equal to that of the Bishop of Rome ( omnes episcopi in episcopatu pares sunt ). 67 In the college of bishops all are coimperantes, coregnantes ac conjudices . 68 referenda sunt.”). Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), ch. 3 , § 2 ; ibid., ch. 4 , § 3 , p. 165 : “Facultates Legatorum Sedis Apostolicae & immoderata eorum auctoritas […]” Cf. Stümper, Die kirchenrechtlichen Ideen (see above, n. 61 ), p. 39 . 63) Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 2 , § 11 , p. 120 : “Graviter sane peccant, qui sensu Romanum Pontificem Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopum dici existimant, quasi Catholica Ecclesia ejus dioecesis sit, in qu ipse proprio jure Episcopum agat, reliqui Epicopi, prater nomen, vicariam illius unius praefecturam tantum administrent.” Cf. Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), ch. 4 , § 1 – 4 . Even the title “Bishop of Rome” was nothing extraordinary in the eyes of Hontheim: “Episcopus Urbis Romae contentus est, nihil aliud extraordinaria illa inscriptione designat, quam Catholicae communis Episcopus […]”; Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 2 , § 11 , p. 122 . 64) Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), p. 32 . Cf. Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), ch. 1 , § 1 – 6 . 65) Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 2 , § 7 , pp. 98 – 103 : “Romanus Pontifex est tutor et vindex Canonum per universam Ecclesiam.” Cf. Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), ch. 3 , § 5 : “Custos & Executor Canonum.” 66) Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 2 , § 9 , p. 112 . Neller taught the same, see Raab, ‘Georg Christoph Neller und Febronius’ (see above, n. 24 ), 195 . 67) Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 2 , § 11 , p. 119 . 68) Frowein, ‘Primat und Episkopat’ (see above, 61 ), 219 . Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 7 , § 1 – 3 ; Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), ch. 1 , § 4 .</p>
<p>220 Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 This is, however, not enough for the reformer of Trier: For him the succession of St. Peter is divine law, instituted by Christ; the content and mode (location and rights) of this succession, though, are human law. 69 Consequently, papal primacy is bound only by human law to the see of Rome and could be transferred to any other diocese. 70 This is the application of the Gallican axiom that the keys to the kingdom of God were not given to St. Peter, but to the whole Church (Matt. 16 , 18 ). 71 The lengthy second part (chapters 3 – 7 ) analyzes the historical development of papal rights and privileges. In Hontheim’s view, the early medieval Pseu- doisidorian Decretals established a new ecclesiology that saw the pope as the Bishop of the Catholic Church and the diocesan bishops as his subordinated chaplains. This “perverted” system is, in the eyes of the Trier auxiliary bishop, one of the main reasons for the church division created by the Reformation. 72 Consequently, Febronius distinguishes between the Apostolic See as the bearer of the primacy and the Roman Curia as the institution that had usurped the liberties of the local churches. 73 This also makes the di ff erence between 69) Stümper, Die kirchenrechtlichen Ideen (see above, n. 61 ), p. 22 . Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 2 , § 3 , pp. 76 – 77 : “Personas, quae post futurum Petri decessum primarium hoc in Ecclesia munus gesturae essent, salvator non designavit: Fecit id vel Petrus ipse, & solus; vel cum eo Ecclesia. Perinde est, qua ratione & quo tempore, id factum fuerit; su ffi cit Primatum a Christo institutum esse; provisione eatenus a Deo non facta. […] Cum itaque firmum maneat, quoad personam & locum successoris in Primatu, a Deo nihil provisum statutumque [sic!] esse, reliquum est, ut penes Ecclesiam (cui, uti dictum, potestas clavium, & omnis Ecclesiastica authoritas tradita fuit) steterit, & etiamnun perduret jus determinandi, per quem unam alteramve partem clavium administrari, adeoque, per quem primum in Ecclesia o ffi cium, per quem inferiora munia, conformiter ad institutionem Christi, geri velit. Hinc, sicut per rationes convenientiae humana auctoritate Romanae urbis Antistiti sacer Primatus creditus fuit; sic & ex rationabilibus motivis auctoritate Ecclesiae eundem ad alium Epicopum, eg. Mediolanensem, Parisiensen & ch. Transferri posse, recte statuunt.” Hontheim refers on this page mostly to Scotus and Cusanus. 70) Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 2 , § 3 , pp. 76 – 77 . Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), ch. 3 , § 1 , p. 105 : “ Successio ipsa & Ratio successionis : illa est ex ordinatione Christi, haec ex instituto hominum.” Cf. Rechenmacher, Der Episkopalismus (see above, n. 10 ), p. 5 ; Stümper, Die kirchenrechtlichen Ideen (see above, n. 61 ), pp. 24 – 25 . 71) Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 1 , § 2 – 3 ; Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), ch. 1 , § 3 ; Stümper, Die kirchenrechtlichen Ideen (see above, n. 61 ), p. 29 ; Janson, Das Kirchenverständnis (see above, n. 46 ), pp. 114 – 135 (cf. ibid., pp. 139 – 140 , where Janson makes clear that the governance of the church cannot be executed by the faithful alone). 72) Cf. Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 3 ; Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), ch. 3 . 73) May, Die Auseinandersetzungen (see above, n. 2 ), p. 43 . “Primatus authoritatis et potestatis: primatus curae ac sollicitudinis, primatus quoque in ferendis una cum Corpore</p>
<p>Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 221 Hontheim’s view and both Gallicanism and episcopalism. He does not propose a diminution of papal rights but a restoration of a primordial ecclesiology. Moreover, this explains why he never participated in the discussion regarding the German concordates ( Concordata Germaniae ). For Hontheim every treaty would have been a compromise and an implicit acceptance of wrongful Roman claims. 74 Especially important is chapter 6 , in which the author again explains his concept of the papal o ffi ce as service for the union of the church. Furthermore, he gives practical reasons along with historical ones as to why the college of bishops, when it is convened in a council, bears supreme jurisdiction over the church. 75 The main rationale for such a necessity is that the Curia has proved itself to be remarkably resistant to all attempted reforms for the good of the church. 76 A good example is that the decrees of Trent were not implemented until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, for which, not the bishops, but the popes, are to be blamed. 77 Moreover, in order to retrieve the liberties of the local church, it is not enough that the bishops claim their rights, but that the laity be educated, and that they ask, together with their shepherds, for a universal council to resolve the problem. 78 Only councils and regular Episcoporum legibus et dijudicandis causis.” Febronius , vol. 2 (Frankfurt, 1770 ), p. 321 quoted from Seibrich, ‘Aufgeklärtes Kirchenrecht’ (see above, n. 49 ), 249 . Cf. Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), ch. 3 , § 5 , p. 125 . 74) Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), XXX; Seibrich, ‘Aufgeklärtes Kirchenrecht’ (see above, n. 49 ), 249 – 250 . 75) Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), Dedication to Pope Clemens XIII; ch. 6 , § 2 , pp. 296 – 298 : “Nulla lege divina aut humana convocatio Universalium Conciliorum summo Pontifico reservatur.” Cf. ibid., ch. 6 , § 3 , pp. 299 – 301 ; ch. 6 , § 11 , pp. 216 , 219 ; ch. 1 , § 5 , p. 18 . Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), ch. 2 , § 7 ; ch. 3 , § 2 – 3 ; Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, 16 ), p. 33 . For Hontheim the writings of the Council of Constance ( 1414 – 1418 ), of Jean Gerson, and of a number of Gallican authors were especially important. Nevertheless, he distances himself from Edmund Richer. See Schneider, Der Konziliarismus (see above, n. 4 ), p. 75 ; see Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), ch. 2 , § 7 . 76) See Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 9 , § 11 , p. 623 . 77) Schneider, Der Konziliarismus (see above, n. 4 ), p. 77 ; Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 16 . May, Die Auseinandersetzungen (see above, n. 2 ), p. 43 : “Das Konzil sei berechtigt, Appellationen gegen päpstliche Entscheidungen entgegenzunehmen, und der Papst könne sie nicht hindern. […] Mit derartigen Forderungen rannte Hontheim in Mainz o ff ene Türen ein. Denn die Appellation gegen den Papst an ein künftiges Konzil hatte in Mainz Tradition.” 78) Schneider, Der Konziliarismus (see above, n. 4 ), p. 77 ; Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 9 ; Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), ch. 7 .</p>
<p>222 Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 synods of all bishops could stop the abuses of the Curia and prevent scandals. 79 Moreover, Hontheim goes so far as to say that whoever defends the grievances brought about by Roman ultramontanists departs from the real will of Christ and therefore risks losing his eternal salvation! 80 Part 3 (chapters 7 – 9 ) can be regarded as a conclusion. It focuses on the liberty of the church ( libertas ecclesiae ). To regain it and to achieve a reunion between Catholics and Protestants, papal primacy has to be reduced to its Christ-given size. 81 Unfortunately, Hontheim does not explain how the reunion should come about. He seems to imply that Protestant Christians should revert to a reformed Catholic Church that is purged of the primacy ballast. Nevertheless, they would have to leave behind their theological axioms ( sola gratia, sola fides, sola scriptura , etc.). This oversimplification of ecumenism shows – according to Harm Klueting – that Hontheim did not really envision a reunion. 82 On the contrary, he used the disguise of ecumenism for his own episcopalist agenda. How else could one explain the complete absence of any discussion of justification or sacramental theology? 83 7 . Reaction and Retraction ( 1778 ) The mass of pamphlets and books directed against De statu Ecclesiae challenged the author to respond. Already the second edition (Frankfurt, 1765 ) contained four appendixes. 84 Four volumes followed until 1774 (vols. 2 – 4 ). 85 However, not until 1778 did the influence of the nuncios Carprara, Bellisomi, Garampi, 79) Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), p. 36 ; Sieben, Die katholische Konzilsidee (see above, n. 9 ), pp. 426 – 436 . Cf. Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 6 , § 7 , p. 329 ; § 8 , p. 331 ; § 10 , pp. 359 – 361 , and § 15 , p. 398 : “Adversus modernos abusus Ecclesia semper in Generalibus Concilibus reclamavit, & eorum reformationem studiose quaesivit. Sed per Romanam Curiam ab optimo proposito nunquam non impedimenta fuit.” Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), ch. 2 , § 2 . 80) Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), p. 37 ; Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 6 , § 14 : “Illos quisquis sponte tolerat, summa injuria in Ecclesiam agit, nec potest salvare animam suam.” 81) Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 8 , § 7 ; Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), ch. 7 . 82) Cf. Klueting, ‘Wiedervereinigung’ (see above, n. 1 ). 83) Spehr, Aufklärung und Ökumene (see above, n. 16 ), pp. 42 – 43 . 84) Printed separately as Vindiciae Febronianae seu refutationes nonullorum opusculorum quae adversus Justini Febronii Jcti tractatum de statu Ecclesiae et potestate Romani Pontificis nuper prodierunt (Zurich, 1765 ). 85) Justinus Febronius – De statu Ecclesiae …, 4 vols. (Frankfurt, 1770 – 1774 ).</p>
<p>Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 223 and the confessor Franz Beck bring Hontheim to “recant” his Febronius . 86 However, it was Guispee Garampi ( 1725 – 1791 ) who became the key figure of an anti-Febronian network between 1764 and 1776 . 87 Since 1771 it had become more and more problematic for the aging auxiliary bishop to deny his authorship. When Franz Heinrich Beck was called as confessor to the court of Prince-bishop Clement Wenzeslaus ( 1768 – 1797 ), he immediately started to conspire against Hontheim. 88 He was successful in alienating the two bishops from each other. Nevertheless, Clement Wenzeslaus still maintained a certain appreciation for the old man. Also, the suppression of the Jesuits ( 1773 ) delayed actions against the author of the Febronius . The newly elected Pope Pius VI ( 1775 ), however, was not willing to continue the more lenient policy of his predecessor. At the ordination ceremony of the new nuncio for Cologne on 24 September 1775 , the pope was hard on German episcopalism. He complained about the “self-indulgent” innovators who wanted to overthrow the Apostolic foundation of the church, the papacy. He called this school of thought a contagious disease ( contagio ) which originated in Germany. 89 However, it was not only a case of the pope and the Archbishop of Trier increasing the pressure on Hontheim. A worldly motive also contributed to Hontheim’s fall: the Curia promised Clement Wenzeslaus the abbey of Mettlach if he would silence Hontheim by appointing a coadjutor for him. On 2 March 1777 Johann Maria Herbain was in fact made coadjutor auxiliary bishop with the right to succeed Hontheim. 90 Any remaining sympathy for the old man was lost when Hontheim recommended on 6 November 1777 the contested book Neuer Versuch über die Weissagung von Emmanuel by Johann Lorenz Isenbiehl ( 1744 – 1818 ), a professor of exegesis and oriental languages. 91 Isenbiehl explained Isaiah 7 : 14 not as a foretelling of Christ’s virginal conception but as a verse connected historically 86) Raab, ‘Johann Nikolaus Hontheim’ (see above, n. 2 ), 40 – 41 ; Dries Vanysacker, ‘Der Widerruf des Febronius und Kardinal Guiseppe Garampi in Rom. Eine aufklärerische ultramontane Bekämpfung des Febronianismus, 1764 – 1792 ,’ Kurtrierisches Jahrbuch 43 ( 2003 ), 131 – 133 . 87) Vanysacker, ‘Der Widerruf ’ (see above, n. 86 ), 125 – 141 . 88) Franz-Josef Heyen, Das Erzbistum Trier. Das Stift St. Paulin vor Trier [Germania Sacra – Neue Folge 6 / 1 ] (New York, 1966 ), p. 766 ; Vanysacker, ‘Der Widerruf ’ (see above, n. 86 ). 89) Zitiert nach Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 97 – 98 . 90) Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 105 – 109 ; on Herbain, see Seibrich, Die Weihbischöfe (see above, n. 25 ), pp. 150 – 157 . 91) Partially reprinted in Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 112 – 113 ; cf. Vanysacker, ‘Der Widerruf ’ (see above, n. 86 ), 132 .</p>
<p>224 Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 to Isaiah’s time. 92 Since the exegete was already under suspicion (and was later censored), 93 Hontheim’s support – let us not forget, he was a bishop – caused a scandal: Wenzeslaus urged him to make a clarification. He acceded in a document dated 9 April 1778 . In it Hontheim declares that he embraces and supports every ecclesiastical judgment over Isenbiehl. However, he still charged the Curia with abuse of power and distinguished it from the “true” Apostolic See. 94 This was a fatal diplomatic mistake. Now the auxiliary bishop was even more vulnerable. The Trier elector Clement Wenzeslaus requested in a lengthy letter dated 21 April 1778 that Hontheim not only embrace all possible outcomes of the Isenbiehl trial but also retract his De statu Ecclesiae . The archbishop suggested that he should follow the example of Bishop Fenelon, who had recanted. Surprisingly, Hontheim immediately obeyed. Clement now sent him a list of sixteen curialist sentences, which a French theologian (perhaps Nicolas Bergier) had collected. These should be the basis for the retraction. Had Hontheim really changed his mind? Not at all; he had only obeyed his superior. If one reads the manuscript Hontheim was working on during this year, this much becomes obvious: He planned a refutation of Thomas Maria Mamachi’s ( 1713 – 1792 ) Epistula Justinum Febronium Ictum de ratione regendae Christianae Reipublicae deque legitima Romani Pontifics potestate (Rome, 1776 ). Only the proscription of the prince-elector stopped the project. 95 During the summer of 1778 the retraction was sent to Rome. Yet, in a letter from 22 August 1778 , the papal court criticized some passages of Hontheim’s text. He was asked to change them according to the attached annotations. 96 92) On Isenbiehl, see Norbert Jung, Der Speyerer Weihbischof Andreas Seelmann ( 1732 – 1789 ) im Spannungsfeld von ‘nachgeholter’ Aufklärung und ‘vorgezogener’ Restauration (Mainz, 2002 ), pp. 624 – 662 as well as Dominik Burkard, Exegese zwischen Aufklärung und Inquisition. Johann Lorenz Isenbiehls ‘Neuer Versuch über die Weissagung vom Emmanuel’ ( 1778 ) als Testfall historisch-kritischer Schriftauslegung (forthcoming 2008 ). 93) On the process of censoring Catholic theologians in the eighteenth century, see Hans Paarhammer, ‘Sollicita ac provida. Neuordnung von Lehrbeanstandung und Bücherzensur in der katholischen Kirche im 18 . Jahrhundert,’ in Ministerium iustitiae. Festschrift für Heribert Heinemann zur Vollendung des 60 . Lebensjahres , ed. Andre Gabriels and Heinrich J.F. Reinhardt (Essen, 1985 ), pp. 349 – 361 . 94) Partially reprinted in Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 113 – 114 . Cf. Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 9 , § 7 , p. 588 : “Verum ab hac Prima Sede apprime distinguenda Curialistarum cohors […].” 95) The manuscript was probably given to Pope Pius VI as a personal “trophy” when he met the Archbishop of Trier in 1782 . Just, ‘Iustini Febronii Epistola ad Thomam Mamachium’ (see above, n. 56 ), 256 – 259 . 96) Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 116 – 125 ; see also pp. 135 – 136 .</p>
<p>Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 225 Moreover, he was to weave these changes into the text in such a way that every reader would assume that they were written by Hontheim himself. “It was the perfect instruction for play-acting. If the auxiliary would not accept everything from Rome and perhaps even more corrections he would not receive forgiveness.” 97 The old auxiliary bishop only refused to implement the sentence that the papal government was rightly called monarchical ( ut proinde merito monarchium Ecclesiae regimen a catholicis Doctoribus appelletur ). 98 At least in one point he remained truthful. 99 The a ff air took the whole summer: First the prince-elector was dissatisfied with the text, then the Curia and so on. In November 1778 Hontheim’s text was finally endorsed both by the Archbishop of Trier and the Curia. The final draft was in the form of a letter to the pope, dated 15 November 1778 . 100 In it Hontheim admitted to and repented of his mistakes as well as surrendered himself to the Holy See. 101 However, the penitent had severe misgivings about the publication of his letter. Pius VI answered on 19 December, already delighted. The author of the Febronius seemed surprised when journals and newspapers all over Europe reported that Pope Pius VI had presented his letter to the college of cardinals at their Christmas meeting in 1778 . The Curia now “invited” the German bishops to congratulate the pope on his victory and thus indirectly to accept his jurisdictional claims. Hontheim’s retraction was also considered politically valuable since the Curia thought it could be used against Josephinist canonists (e.g. Valentin Eybel, Paul Joseph von Riegger, and Stephan Rautenstrauch). 102 On 15 January 1779 Clement Wenzeslaus required Hontheim to prepare the publication of the Roman files regarding his retraction as well as the text of 97) Ibid., p. 127 ; cf. ibid., p. 131 . 98) Ibid., p. 128 . 99) Rechenmacher, Der Episkopalismus (see above, n. 10 ), p. 4 . Hontheim rejected this term not because he denied an “imperium” within the Church but because for him “monarchia” was connected to the dangers of arbitrariness and despotism, cf. Janson, Das Kirchenverständnis (see above, n. 46 ), p. 200 . 100) Manfred Brandl, ‘Bemühungen der Wiener Nuntiatur um die Verbreitung von Hontheims (Febronius’) Widerruf ( 1779 ),’ Römische Historische Mitteilungen 20 ( 1978 ), 77 – 108 . 101) Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), p. 130 : “Monumentum revocationis omnium, quae adversum ea et si quae fortasse alia verae doctrinae capita seu universalis Ecclesiae jura, licet praeter intentionem, a me quavis via aut modo dicta scriptaque fuere vel scripta videri possent.” 102) Brandl, ‘Bemühungen der Wiener Nuntiatur’ (see above, n. 100 ), 79 .</p>
<p>226 Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 his letter. Hontheim was shocked, since he believed that his submission would remain private; much later he told his biographer that he had made strict privacy a condition of his retraction. Hontheim’s archbishop even pretended that he had not imagined that the pope would publicly announce the retraction letter. One cannot but feel sympathy for the old auxiliary bishop who tried to appease his superiors and was, as it seems, betrayed. 103 He played his part in the publication of the files and of his letter on 4 February 1779 , probably too exhausted to fight his immediate superior in Trier and the Curia at the same time. 104 Nevertheless, Rome insisted that the deceived Hontheim stay in his o ffi ce in order to keep the appearance of a completely settled strife. 105 For all supporters of the Josephinist ecclesiastical policy, e.g., Ignaz de Luca, the retraction was one of the most dangerous writings, “against the worldly regents.” 106 The papal victory, however, was a small one, first of all because a number of German bishops and secular governments refused to allow the printing of the book (Austria, Spain, Milan, and Venice), 107 and secondly, because Hontheim’s friends publicized the truth about the retraction, which the “penitent” had only signed and not – as the Curia claimed – authored. 108 8 . The Commentary on Hontheim’s Retraction ( 1781 ) 109 In 1780 a choir of papers spread the news that the text of Hontheim’s retraction had been forced. Hontheim was fully aware of this revelation and encouraged it. Archbishop Clement Wenzeslaus, however, requested a public statement in which Hontheim should tell the public the “truth.” On 2 April 1780 he indeed published a letter that asserted that his retraction was voluntary. Yet, in his private correspondence, he admitted that he was moved by the immense pressure put on him to take this step. Even his close friend Kru ff t was 103) Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 143 – 144 . 104) Ibid., pp. 148 – 151 . 105) Brandl, ‘Bemühungen der Wiener Nuntiatur’ (see above, n. 100 ), 92 – 94 . 106) Ibid., 86 . 107) Ibid., 89 – 90 ; Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 159 – 161 . On the editions of the acta consult Brandl, ibid., 100 – 105 . In the Holy Roman Empire there was no universal censoring of books like in France, cf. Papenheim, ‘Die katholische kirchliche Zensur im Reich’ (see above, n. 15 ), 91 – 92 ; Ulrich Eisenhardt, Die kaiserliche Aufsicht über Buchdruck, Buchhandel und Presse im Heiligen Römischen Reich Deutscher Nation ( 1496 – 1806 ) (Karlsruhe, 1970 ), passim. 108) Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 163 – 166 . 109) The only detailed study is still Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 177 – 201 .</p>
<p>Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 227 disappointed – he thought the brave author of De statu Ecclesiae had become a frail geriatric. 110 At this point, Hontheim decided to comment on his retraction. The idea for this went back to the year 1778 , when he had to implement the sixteen curialist theses in his letter to the pope. 111 At that time he did not have the energy for resistance. The legitimization for Hontheim’s new work was the pope’s reaction himself: he had asked the ailing auxiliary bishop to write an academic work that would defend the rights of the Holy See. That Hontheim’s book, Commentarius in Suam Retractationem , which was published under the pseudonym Febronius in Frankfurt 1781 , was quite the opposite is surprising. Finally, it seems, he had the courage to say what he thought. In sentence seven Hontheim explains how the papal o ffi ce unifies the church. However, he also remarks on the illegal papal “interferences” with diocesan jurisdiction, since he describes the bishops not only as successors of the Apostles but also as vicars of Christ – the latter being a title reserved for the Papacy alone! Even if Hontheim refused to acknowledge it, what jurisdiction he left to the Holy See gave him only the power of an honorary Primacy, which again is restricted by the General Council. 112 The State is given great influence ( 37 th proposition): First, it can justly revoke all ecclesiastical privileges, second, every church authority needs the approval of the state to make proclamations regarding faith, sacraments, or discipline that could have an e ff ect on the public life; thirdly, the state placeat implies the publication of dogmatic decisions and censorships. 113 What Hontheim embraces here is pure Gallicanism, thereby showing that he had never changed his mind. Febronius was still Febronius! 114 What then did he retract according to his “commentary”? Only the public call for resistance against Rome and the acrimony of his critique, not the basic ideas of his work. Simultaneously however, Hontheim assured the pope that his commentary was a defense of papal rights and that he never engaged in spreading rumors about the nature of his retraction. This was certainly the culmination of dishonesty. 115 110) Ibid., pp. 80 – 185 . 111) Reprint of Hontheim’s “Promemoria” in Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 303 – 316 . 112) Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), p. 188 . 113) Ibid., pp. 189 – 190 ; Rechenmacher, Der Episkopalismus (see above, n. 10 ), p. 40 . 114) Cf. Brandl, ‘Bemühungen der Wiener Nuntiatur’ (see above, n. 100 ), 82 ; Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 153 – 154 . 115) Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 190 – 192 .</p>
<p>228 Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 Thus, another book by Hontheim caused a scandal. Clement Wenzeslaus tried to stop the delivery of it, but failed. The Curia was outraged – especially because Hontheim had not submitted his manuscript to the censors. Cardinal Hyacinth Gerdil ( 1718 – 1802 ), the prefect of the Congregation of the Index, received the order to analyze the disturbing new book from Germany: to what extent was it really a defense of papal rights? Gerdil did not need much time to realize that the commentary practically revoked the retraction. The pope, however, hesitated to publish Gerdil’s findings so as to prevent an escalation of trouble with Austrian Emperor Joseph II, who since 1780 had implemented Febronian policies. 116 Only after Joseph’s ( 20 February 1790 ) and Hontheim’s deaths ( 2 September 1790 ), was Gerdils book published ( 1792 ). 117 9 . A Milestone of Ecumenical and Ecclesiological Theology? There is an established consensus that Georg Christoph Neller ( 1709 – 1783 ), 118 professor of canon law in Trier and a student of Johann Caspar Barthel ( 1697 – 1771 ), 119 as well as the convert and state minister Jakob Georg Freiherr von Spangenberg ( 1695 – 1779 ) contributed to the text of De statu Ecclesiae . Spangenberg seems to have been responsible for the ecumenical tendencies of the book. 120 De statu Ecclesiae shows a remarkable stance toward Protestantism, 116) Pope Pius VI travelled to Vienna in 1782 in order to convince Joseph II to stop his ecclesiastical politics. 117) Hyacinth Gerdil, In commentarium a J. Febronio in suam retractationem editum animadversiones (Rome, 1792 ); Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 194 – 199 , 216 . 118) Raab, ‘Georg Christoph Neller und Febronius’ (see above, n. 24 ). Raab thinks it possible that Hontheim arranged Neller’s move to the university of Trier (ibid., 193 ). He also observes that whole sections of De statu Ecclesiae are in fact borrowed from Neller’s works (ibid., 201 ). Cf. Raab, Die Concordata (see above, n. 14 ), pp. 96 – 115 ; Peter Frowein, ‘Analogia Ecclesiae cum Imperio Germanico. Zum Kirchenbild des Trierer Kanonisten Georg Christian Neller (d. 1783 ),’ Annalen des Historischen Vereins für den Niederrhein insbesondere das alte Erzbistum Köln 177 ( 1975 ), 103 – 116 . 119) Barthel was a student of Prospero Lambertini, the future Pope Benedict XIV ( 1740 – 1758 ), and created through his transformation of Gallican principles the theoretical foundation of German episcopalism. Raab, Die Concordata (see above, n. 14 ), pp. 79 – 96 . 120) Gunther Franz, ‘Neller-Hontheim und der Episkopalismus-Febronianismus,’ in Aufk- lärung und Tradition. Kurfürstentum und Stadt Trier im 18 . Jahrhundert: Ausstellungskata- log und Dokumentation , ed. Gunther Franz (Trier, 1988 ), 101 – 127 ; Spehr, Aufklärung und Ökumene (see above, n. 16 ), p. 37 . Raab, ‘Johann Nikolaus Hontheim’ (see above, n. 2 ), 32 ; idem, Die Concordata (see above, n. 14 ), pp. 116 – 122 . It is possible that Gregor Zallwein OSB ( 1712 – 1766 ) also helped Hontheim with the text of the Febronius . On Zallwein, one of the</p>
<p>Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 229 and is free of polemics, but is shaped by irenicism. This was still unusual – one only has to read the works of Johann Nikolaus Weisslinger ( 1691 – 1755 ) to encounter one of the most strident polemicists of the time. 121 Moreover, Hontheim even agrees with the Protestant critique of religious orders and monasticism, since they diminish (and often ridicule) episcopal jurisdiction. 122 When the Jesuits initiated the Antifebronio by Francesco Zaccaria ( 1767 ), 123 16 refutations had already been printed. Among them is also one by St. Alphonsus Liguori. 124 Nevertheless, Zaccarias’s book gained wide appreciation and was reprinted until 1859 . 125 Even the main propagator of the Catholic Enlightenment in Germany, the Augustinian Canon Eusebius Amort, criticized Hontheim’s Febronius in his Epistola Justiniani Frobenii ad Cl. V. Justinum … de legitima potestate summi pontificis . 126 Most contemporary reviewers thought that Hontheim’s proposal for a reunion of the churches, which used ideas of most important canonists of the eighteenth century, see Stephan Haering, ‘Der Salzburger Kirchenrechtler Gregor Zallwein OSB ( 1712 – 1766 ). Ein Beitrag zur Gelehrtengeschichte des kanonischen Rechts im Zeitalter der Aufklärung,’ Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktinerordens und seiner Zweige 103 ( 1992 ), 269 – 312 . 121) Mentioned in Hugo Hurter, Nomenclator Literarius Recentioris Theologiae Catholicae , 2 vols. (Innsbruck, 1881 ), 2 : 1271 – 1272 . Cf. Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), pp. 112 – 113 . 122) Febronius (see above, n. 51 ), ch. 7 , § 8 , p. 498 . 123) Mejer, Febronius (see above, n. 2 ), p. 87 . Franciscus Antonius Zaccaria, Antifebronio o sia apologia polemico-storica del primato del Papa … (Pisauri, 1767 ; 2 nd ed., 4 vols., Cesena, 1768 – 1770 ). Latin Translation under the title Antifebronius , 5 vols. (Augsburg, 1783 – 1785 ). Idem, In tertium Justini Febronii tomum animadversiones Romano-catholicæ (Rome, 1774 ); Antifebronius vindicatus seu suprema romani pontificis potestas adversus J. Febronium eijusque vindicem Theolodorum a Palude iterum asserta et confirmata ( 4 vols., Cesena, 1771 – 1772 ; 2 vols., Frankfurt, 1771 ). Cf. Hugo Hurter, Nomenclator Literarius Recentioris Theologiae Catholicae , vol. 3 / 1 and 2 (Innsbruck, 1883 ), p. 432 . 124) St. Alphonsus of Liguori, ‘Vindiciae pro suprema Rom. Pontificis auctoritate contra Iustinum Febronium,’ in Opere di S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori , 10 vols. (Torino, 1880 ), 7 : 991 – 1066 . 125) Frowein and Janson, ‘Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim’ (see above, n. 36 ), 139 – 143 . Sieben shows that Zaccaria was not only more innovative than Hontheim when it came to arguing, but also that his Latin was by far superior; Sieben, Die katholische Konzilsidee (see above, n. 9 ), pp. 434 – 449 . May, Die Auseinandersetzungen (see above, n. 2 ), p. 49 : “Es erging den Widerlegern [des Febronius, U.L.] wie allen Bemühungen, die eine herrschende Ideologie zu bekämpfen unternehmen: Ihre Wirksamkeit blieb eng begrenzt, der Strom des Zeitgeistes war stärker als jedes Argument. Fast alle katholischen Zeitschriften befanden sich in den Händen der Episkopalisten.” 126) (Augsburg, 1764 ); (Bullonii [i.e. Ulm], 1764 ).</p>
<p>230 Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 Johann Gerhard and Georg Calixt, but asked for a conversio abberrantium , and a conversion of the Protestants to a Catholic Church purified from all medieval exaggerations of Papal Primacy, 127 was ridiculously naïve: 128 To the extent to which Febronianism reduced papal powers, it increased the power of the bishops, which was no less problematic for Protestants. 129 A reunion was only possible, stated Hontheim’s opponents, Zaccaria as well as the Heidelberg professor Georg Sigismund Kleiner ( 1725 – 1786 ), 130 if the Protestant churches surrendered fully to the papal see. One can indeed speak of a “war of ecclesiologies”: For Hontheim, all authority derives from service, which in itself is shaped by humility, exemplary charity, pastoral care, and great tolerance. For Zaccaria and Kleiner the church was a hierarchical society, built on the absolute, unquestionable power and authority of the pope. Unfortunately, nobody really engaged Hontheim’s idea. The reaction was rather polemic and defamatory: The author of the Febronius could only be an apostate since his proposed reforms would cause the downfall of the Catholic Church. 131 Among Protestant academics, De statu Ecclesiae was reviewed positively, especially at the leading reform university in Göttingen, Germany. Friedrich Nicolai ( 1733 – 1811 ) 132 called the book a monument of “freedom of the mind” and as a Catholic approximation to the Reformation. The potential for ecu- menical talks o ff ered by Febronius, however, was viewed rather negatively: Carl Friedrich Bahrdt ( 1740 – 1792 ) 133 renounced it since Hontheim had taken nei- ther the sola scriptura principle nor freedom of conscience into consideration. Christian Wilhelm Franz Walch ( 1726 – 1784 ) 134 and Johann Friedrich Wilhelm Jerusalem ( 1709 – 1789 ) thought similarly. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing ( 1729 – 1781 ) went so far as to call it a “sassy flattery” of secular princes. 135 None of them had the impression that Hontheim understood the essentials of Protestant 127) Klueting, ‘Wiedervereinigung’ (see above, n. 1 ), 271 – 272 . 128) Seibrich, ‘Aufgeklärtes Kirchenrecht’ (see above, n. 49 ), 250 . 129) Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek ( 1780 ), 333 – 335 . 130) On Kleiner’s critique of Febronius , see Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), pp. 68 – 71 . 131) Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), pp. 63 – 65 . 132) Spehr, Aufklärung und Ökumene (see above, n. 16 ), pp. 44 – 47 ; Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), pp. 72 – 74 ; Just, ‘Zur Enstehungsgeschichte des Febronius’ (see above, n. 10 ), 376 – 378 . 133) Carl Friedrich Bahrdt, De eo, an fieri possit, ut sublato pontificis imperio reconcilientur dissidentes in religione Christiani contra Justinum Febronianum dissertatio (Leipzig, 1763 ). 134) Cf. Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), pp. 72 – 74 ; cf. ibid., pp. 78 – 80 . 135) Rechenmacher, Der Episkopalismus (see above, n. 10 ), p. 10 .</p>
<p>Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 231 theology. In their eyes he downplayed the doctrinal di ff erences and assessed them too much from the standpoint of governmental church politics. 136 Nevertheless, De statu Ecclesiae suggested a national church reform, rec- ognized the necessity of ecumenism, rediscovered the sovereignty and liberty of the church as the people of God, and thus paved the way to the modern ecclesiologies of the twentieth century. 137 10 . How the Febronius a ff ected the German Church The immediate e ff ect of De statu Ecclesiae was an increase in the self-confidence of bishops. This led the Rhenish archbishops to the decrees of Koblenz ( 1769 ) and later to the decrees of the congress at Ems ( 1786 ) as well as to the synod of Pistoia ( 1786 ). Simultaneously Hontheim’s ideas influenced the reforms of Joseph II in Austria. However, the Febronius did not accomplish its goals – because the book advocated a politically strong position for the Emperor which would equal that of the French king. After the Seven Years War ( 1763 ), however, the position of the Habsburg emperors was so weak that one could not expect from them the reconstruction of a German national church. Moreover, when Joseph II adopted Febronian ideas, he did this not to strengthen the position of the diocesan bishops but only to contribute to the centralization of the state. Strong and independent bishops were not part of his agenda. 138 It has not yet been investigated in depth what immediate influence the book had on the European movement of Febronianism, which taught the basic theses of Hontheim in combination with Jansenist or Enlightenment ideas and produced a radical episcopalism. 139 Pope Clement XIII ( 1758 – 1769 ) of course called the book a danger for all Catholics since it would make them insecure about the foundation of the church. 140 136) Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), p. 74 . 137) Cf. Spehr, Aufklärung und Ökumene (see above, n. 16 ), p. 47 . Febronius abbreviatus (see above, n. 42 ), ch. 7 , § 1 : “Ecclesia usque ad Constantinum M. gemebat sub gravi servituti ethnicorum principum. Eadem post aliquot saeculorum decursum novam servitutem subiit ab iis, a quibus omne praesidium ex quo circa saeculum X. obstetricante ignorantia parta fuit, tantum non in dies incrementa cepit usque ad Constantiensem et Basiliensem synodum, a quibus aliquot lenimen accipere visa est.” Klueting also thinks that the main goal of De statu Ecclesiae was not ecumenism but the strengthening of episcopalism, see Klueting, ‘Wiedervereinigung’ (see above, n. 1 ), 276 – 277 . 138) Schneider, Der Konziliarismus (see above, n. 4 ), p. 78 . 139) Pitzer, Justinus Febronius (see above, n. 16 ), p. 114 . 140) Briefwechsel zwischen weiland Ihrer Durchlaucht Dem Herrn Kurfürsten von Trier Clemens</p>
<p>232 Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 In the German church one can detect a reserved stance toward papal claims of jurisdiction up to the eve of Vatican I ( 1870 ). Episcopalism and Josephinism were also still very much alive at the Frankfurt Conferences of 1818 . 141 Nevertheless, the basis for the movement of Febronianism disappeared gradually in the nineteenth century since the papacy knew how to make use of the su ff erings it had endured during Napoleon’s reign. After the end of the Reichskirche , the popes became the unchallenged moral leaders of Catholicism. From here it was only a small step to the uniform common identity within Catholicism ( 1846 – 1958 ), which hardly ever challenged the infallibility of the popes. 142 11 . Critical Résumé The eminent German canon law historian Georg May has recently pointed out the weaknesses of De statu Ecclesiae : It is a work ignorant of historical devel- opments which sees the papal monarchy solely based on the Pseudoisidorian Decretals, a ninth-century forgery. However, these originated not in Rome, but in France. May rightly argues that the Decretals do not directly strengthen the primacy of the pope but are rather ambiguous. They can be used either for an episcopalist or a papalist argument. “The idea of an ecclesiastical constitution, which adjudged the Roman Church a normative position, came into existence independent from the Pseudoisidorian Decretals.” 143 The Decretals were thus not the basis for the primacy but a symptom for its increase in authority. Even though, as May correctly remarks, Hontheim never combined the democratic and the aristocratic part of his ecclesiology, and also committed other sins of inconsistency, 144 one cannot but admit that De statu Ecclesiae brought up an Wenzeslaus und dem Herrn Weihbischof Niklas von Hontheim über das Buch: Justini Febronii de statu ecclesiae et Legitima Romani Pontificis Potestate (Frankfurt, 1813 ), p. 7 , quoted in May, Die Auseinandersetzungen (see above, n. 2 ), p. 47 . 141) May, Die Auseinandersetzungen (see above, n. 2 ), p. 266 ; idem, Mit Katholiken zu beset- zende Professuren von 1817 bis 1945 . Ein Beitrag zur Ausbildung der Studierenden katholischer Theologie, zur Verwirklichung der Parität an der württembergischen Landesuniversität und zur katholischen Bewegung (Amsterdam, 1975 ), pp. 143 – 146 ; idem, Das Recht des Gottesdi- enstes in der Diözese Mainz zur Zeit von Bischof Joseph Ludwig Colmar ( 1802 – 1818 ) , 2 vols. (Amsterdam, 1987 ), 1 : 478 – 480 . 142) Cf. Peter Hersche, Muße und Verschwendung. Europäische Gesellschaft und Kultur im Barockzeitalter , 2 vols. (Freiburg, 2006 ), 2 : passim. 143) May, Die Auseinandersetzungen (see above, n. 2 ), pp. 45 – 46 . 144) Ibid., p. 46 .</p>
<p>Ulrich L. Lehner / CHRC 88 . 2 ( 2008 ) 205 – 233 233 important question, which found its answer for Catholics exactly 200 years later, during the Second Vatican Council ( 1962 – 1965 ). Dr. Ulrich L. Lehner, Marquette University, Theology, 100 Coughlin Hall, PO Box 1881 , USA – Milwaukee, WI 53208 ; ulrich.lehner@marquette.edu</p>
</body></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo><title>Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim's Febronius: A Censored Bishop and His Ecclesiology</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA"><title>Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim's Febronius: A Censored Bishop and His Ecclesiology</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ulrich</namePart><namePart type="family">Lehner</namePart></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>BRILL</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">The Netherlands</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2008</dateIssued><dateCreated encoding="w3cdtf">2008</dateCreated><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2008</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>ENLIGHTENMENT</topic><topic>FEBRONIUS</topic><topic>CHURCH AND STATE</topic><topic>ULTRAMONTANISM</topic><topic>GALLICANISM</topic><topic>FEBRONIANISM</topic><topic>NIKOLAUS HONTHEIM</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Church History and Religious Culture</title><subTitle>Formerly: Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>CHRC</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1871-241X</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1871-2428</identifier><part><date>2008</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>88</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>205</start><end>233</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">B4152EEAE207189995C8AC9E5CB86FC538FF3160</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1163/187124108X354321</identifier><identifier type="href">18712428_088_02_s005_text.pdf</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2008 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>BRILL Journals</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Rhénanie/explor/UnivTrevesV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000F14 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000F14 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Rhénanie
|area= UnivTrevesV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:B4152EEAE207189995C8AC9E5CB86FC538FF3160
|texte= Johann Nikolaus von Hontheim's Febronius: A Censored Bishop and His Ecclesiology
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |