APOSTOLIC RIGHTS OF A CATHOLIC MONARCH? THE HUNGARIAN ROYAL PATRONAGE AND SUPREMACY (1417–1918) I. The historiography known from secondary references and was quoted to prove the canonical origin – was only identified dur- There is hardly another question in Hungarian ing the Second World War thanks to Elemér Mályusz. historiography spanning from the time of the estab- lishment of the kingdom to the beginning of the 20th century, which would have been paid such focused II. The origin and the beginnings of the attention, mainly for reasons of current church politi- Hungarian Royal Patronage (15th–16th century) cal interests, as the question of Royal Patronage the ever increasing control of Hungarian monarchs over Let us see in short, what the real historical context ecclesiastical benefices. of the Hungarian royal patronage’s development was. The historiography of the question is diverse and In accordance with the general European tendencies, exciting. A long list of historians, canonists, church- from the second half of the 14th century secular influ- men and laymen dealt with the problem in Hungary, ence over the granting of ecclesiastical benefices was as well as in Rome from the 17th century to the 20th growing in Hungary as well, which relatively soon century. At the turn of the 1630/1640s the forgery of became manifested legally in the form of decrees. The a papal bull also took place for proving the canonical decrees stated not only that papal conferment of legal ground of the Hungarian royal patronage. Ac- benefices without the monarch’s consent were invalid cording to that, Pope Sylvester II (999–1003) granted (1394, 1397), but also placed the enactment of all the right of patronage to King Stephen I (997–1038, papal decrees, provisions etc. under the monarch’s king from 1001), the founder of the Hungarian state control (placetum regium, 1404). and church. The text of the bull was published by These developments, which in the early phases Melchior Inchoffer, who also took part in the Galilei could be likened most to those in England, went way trial, in 1644 (Annales Ecclesiastici Regni Hungariae), beyond every contemporary example already in the which was influential for some hundred years. Ádám first decades of the 1400s. What is more, at the Ferenc Kollár was the first to call attention to its Council of Constance, taking advantage of contem- falsehood; in 1762 he originated the right of patron- porary power relations, King Sigismund of Luxem- age from directly the royal right of supremacy. (There bourg (1387–1437) became the first European mon- are various answers for the question of the bull’s arch to get the Holy See to acknowledge his influence forgery; however, there is none that was satisfactory.) over the conferment of ecclesiastical benefices in his In 1885, based on the Hartvik-legend from the early country. The “bull” issued by the College of Cardi- 12nd century, Lajos Balics suspected its origin in the nals, which got lost for more than four hundred years role of a quasi apostolic legate bestowed upon Saint after the Battle of Mohács (1526), outlined the Hun- Stephen, while based on his research in the Vatican, garian king’s licenses in this way: the cardinals cove- Vilmos Fraknói did the same relating to the estab- nanted that in the future, the Apostolic See would lishment of the dioceses. Besides, Ferenc Kollányi consider the Hungarian monarchs’ personal sugges- regarded it as the extension of the royal private right tions concerning bestowal of the Hungarian episco- of advowson, while Ferenc Eckhart as the effect of pacies and other greater benefices. They would do it the German Eigenkirche-phenomena in Hungary. The due to Sigismund’s services for the whole Christianity debate became rather heated and was spread in the at the Council of Constance and Hungary’s heroic forum of publicity after the abdication (his royal countermove against the Ottoman expansion. rights were suspended from the autumn of 1918) and The document signed by twenty-one cardinals death of the last Hungarian monarch, Charles IV took unambiguous measures in the question of an- (1916–1918). Even the Hungarian Catholic canonist nates and minor benefices, the canonical institution clergy split in two groups: the determined ultramon- of which, after some temporary hesitation, was also tanists and those who were extra loyal to the state placed within the country’s borders, under the au- party, they even accepted the supremacy of the re- thority of an ordinary. The case was different with the publican government. The parties having scientific bishoprics. Sigismund’s far-reaching demands were arguments could not even agree in the fact whether only indirectly satisfied, inasmuch as the document the right of the Hungarian monarchs was based on contains an introductory part mentioning, without canon law or public law. In the 1960s, Andor Csiz- going into details, that the Hungarian kings’ right of madia originated it from the monarch’s jurisdiction as presentation (praesentare), based on ancient tradition the head of state, primarily from the legal grounds of (ex vetere consuetudine), will not be called into question the state – which could hardly be separated from the in future. At the same time, it only gives authorization ultra-statist state-socialist approach. Besides the for- to nominate the persons deemed suitable (although gery of the bull, the other sensational historiograph- instead of the Latin verb nominare, the text uses its ical excitement is served by the fact that the text of equivalent supplicare). In spite of its cautious formula- the so-called “bull of Constance” – which was only tion, the document provided a basis for considering Apostolic Rights of a Catholic Monarch? The Hungarian Royal Patronage and Supremacy (1417–1918) the Hungarian sovereign’s full-fledged influence over The concession of Constance of 1417 was a ra- the country’s ecclesiastical positions formally accept- ther early, though only a syndical promise given in the ed by Rome in Hungarian legal practice and legisla- milieu of Conciliarism despite its form of a bull; even tion (as in the laws of the years 1439, 1440, 1445, if it was not owing to the council – as it was thought 1446, 1447, 1458, 1486, 1495 and 1514). to have been by Werbőczy – but to the College of The Hungarian legal conception became crystal- Cardinals. Yet, the future was not about the Concil- lized as early as the beginning of the 16th century. In a iarism, neither about the oligarchy of the cardinals form that was to prevail for centuries, it was formu- but about the papal centralization, then about the lated by István Werbőczy (in the Tripartitum of 1514). absolutism. This latter bracketed such conciliar deci- According to this formulation, in Hungary the con- sions like that of the decree of Sacrosancta… which ferment of every ecclesiastical benefice was the king’s pronounced the conciliar superiority. It comes as no privilege, while the pope only had the right of con- surprise that the papacy did not regard the concession firmation (confirmatio). This tenet is supported by four compulsory, of which text fell into oblivion for some arguments. 1. In Hungary every church, including 500 years. Why did the popes abide by the Hungarian bishoprics, abbeys and provostships, was founded by monarchs’ right of patronage in the 16th–17th century? the kings of the country; therefore, as patron lords The country was more and more of a peripheric they are entitled to dispose of these churches. 2. The nature, and its battle against the Ottoman territorial Hungarian people adopted Christianity not because expansion became more and more emphatic (the role of apostolic teachings, but because of their monarch, already mentioned in the bull of Constance, the role King St. Stephen I. The prelates heading the churches of the Bulwark of Christianity), which war was con- that he had founded were appointed by him, and cluded in 1718 by the Treaty of Passarowitz. were approved and confirmed by the pope. 3. Even if The curial expertise of the 17th century considered the pope had had some kind of right that became the Hungarian patronage as an existing phenomenon obsolete during the 500 years while the filling of of an uncertain origin. At most, they were inclined to benefices was carried out by the kings without papal interpret it as a privilege of the prevailing Hungarian intervention. 4. This liberty of the country (libertas monarch. In the meantime, the Roman Curia did not regni) was acknowledged by the Council of Constance hinder the royal bishop appointments in the case of in a separate letter of privilege. such dioceses that were under the Hungarian mon- archs’ authority. In parallel, Werbőczy’s Tripartitum became the bi- III. The development of the Hungarian ble of the Hungarian feudal state administration, in Royal Patronage (16th–17th century) spite of the fact that it was never enacted. It is im- portant to know that until 1687 Hungary was an There is no space to survey the process of the state elective monarchy. Moreover, after the declaration of control’s development over the Hungarian church the inheritance of the House of Habsburg, and then realizing in the early modern period and late Middle of the female succession (1723, Pragmatica Sanctio) Ages. Yet, some of its characteristics can be empha- until 1848 – regarding public law – it remained to be sized. Firstly, the Hungarian royal patronage was never a feudal monarchy despite the Leopoldian, Theresian, regulated by a concordat or papal bull, as opposed, for Josephinist and post-Josephinist efforts. By 1608 the instance, to French, Spanish or Portuguese examples. administrative conditions of the so-called feudal From the beginning of the 15th century, the Hungarian dualism had been clarified: the power was mutually practice meant practically a total control over the per- wielded by the estates and the elected monarch.