THE ARISTOCRATIC CHURCH and RESISTANCE to REFORM In
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CHAPTER THREE THE ARISTOCRATIC CHURCH AND RESISTANCE TO REFORM In Bamberg, the imperial knights—both Catholic and Protestant— governed the prince-bishopric. As steward of the prince-bishopric, the cathedral chapter resisted the incursions of any prince into Bamberg’s aff airs, even those of the emperor and the pope. Bamberg’s refusal of Rome’s 1575 request that a seminary to train priests run by Jesuits be founded in the principality illustrates how papal policy had to work through local political structures and how the parochial interests of the German aristocratic church (Adelskirche) frustrated Rome’s plans. Prince-Bishop Veit von Würtzburg (r. 1561–77) and the cathedral chapter were more interested in maintaining Bamberg’s position as a viable state than in religious reform. Th ey wanted to maintain good relations with their Protestant neighbors.1 Th ey were also dealing with a prince-bishopric damaged by the Second Margrave War.2 In this environment, the prince-bishop had to be wary of challenging the role of the imperial knights, who were Bamberg’s biggest supporters. But a few years later the resignation of Prince-Bishop Martin von Eyb in 1583 from what was normally a lifelong position created a scandal. Th e cathedral chapter acted quickly by electing Ernst von Mengersdorf (r. 1583–91), a young canon educated in the spirit of the new Tridentine Catholicism. Ernst died before reaching his fortieth birthday, and in 1591 the cathedral chapter elected Neithard von Th üngen (r. 1591–99), who later became reform-minded but initially recommended himself through his strong contacts to Würzburg and to Julius Echter von Mespelbrunn, the reformer in the neighboring prince-bishopric. Despite opposition from the cathedral chapter, Prince-Bishop Ernst von Mengersdorf wanted to hire Catholic offi cials. Prince-Bishop Neithard von Th üngen also wanted Catholic offi cials, and unlike Mengersdorf he was ready to dismiss Protestant imperial knights to get them. Th is was a radical step. Still, those favoring Catholic reforms 1 Sicken, “Herrschaft skonsolidierung,” 221–22. 2 Ibid., 223. 74 chapter three were not victorious on all fronts. Th e Jesuits did not arrive in Bamberg until 1610. Reform-minded prince-bishops such as Ernst von Mengersdorf and Neithard von Th üngen who had risen through the patronage system had a diffi cult time dealing with the cathedral chap- ter and the imperial knights, as neither group would easily agree to unpopular Counter-Reformation policies. Aft er the Peace of Augsburg, when Pius IV announced the continua- tion of the Council of Trent in 1560, the reactions of the German Imperial Church and the emperor were subdued.3 Th e imperial estates had achieved the Peace of Augsburg at the cost of recognizing an end, albeit at least arguably temporary, of the common Latin Church, but the Ecclesiastical Reservation in the religious peace, by confi rming the prince-bishoprics in their rights and possessions, had secured the con- tinual existence of the Imperial Church.4 Catholic leaders in the empire feared that any continuation of the Council of Trent would be counter- productive because it would disrupt the religious peace.5 Completed in 1563, this phase of the Council of Trent established a standard for what it meant to be Roman Catholic.6 Moreover, the papacy clearly reas- serted itself at the head of those parts of Latin Christendom that had not become Protestant.7 Aft er the conclusion of the Council of Trent, the prince-bishops in the Holy Roman Empire came under closer scrutiny from the papacy through nuncios and papal legates, who collected information, reported regularly to Rome, worked as diplomats, and intervened in the aff airs of the Imperial Church by demanding reform.8 In order to meet 3 Th e Catholic estates saw the Council of Trent as a threat to the Peace of Augsburg. Brück, “Erzstift Mainz,” 2: 217–20. Otto Truchseß von Waldburg was the only prince- bishop who opposed the Peace of Augsburg. Wolgast, Hochstift und Reformation, 153. 4 Brück, “Erzstift Mainz,” 214–15; Wolgast, Hochstift und Reformation, 255. 5 In fact, a large number of German prelates only attended the second period of the council in 1551–52. Hsia, World of Catholic Renewal, 25. 6 Historically, aft er crises, the church used a council to regroup. Th e reform work of the Council of Trent, ended in 1563, was likewise the curia’s response to the Reformation. Jedin, Ecumenical Councils. Ganzer sees the importance of Trent in its creating a new atmosphere for reform. Ganzer, “Konzil von Trient.” In fact, only fol- lowing 1563 did a Roman Catholic confession exist in the way Wolfgang Reinhard and Heinz Schilling understand the term, and only then was a Roman Catholic confessional identity possible. Reinhard, “Zwang zur Konfessionalisierung,” 263–68; Schilling, “Confessional Europe,” 641. 7 Gleason, “Catholic Reformation,” 2: 334–35, 338. 8 Westphal, “Kampf um die Freistellung,” 15; Wolgast, Hochstift und Reformation, 316–17. Th at the prince-bishops of the period did not correspond to expectations .