Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T01:46:01.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ecumenicity or Orthodoxy: The Dilemma of The Protestants in the Lands of the Austrian Habsburgs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

David P. Daniel
David P. Daniel
Affiliation:
assistant professor of historical theology in Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis, Missouri.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The call for the reform of the life and teachings of the church which emanated from Wittenberg early in the sixteenth century elicited an almost immediate response in southeast central Europe. In the lands which came under the rule of Ferdinand I after the disastrous battle at Mohács, reformation doctrines and practices spread quickly. By the middle of the sixteenth century the majority of the population in the lands ruled by the Austrian Habsburgs adhered to one of the several evangelical reform movements. Hussite, Lutheran, Helvetic, Anabaptist and Anti-Trinitarian theologies all found supporters in the region.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , December 1980 , pp. 387 - 400
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Decretum Generale inclyti regni Hungariae partiumque eidem annexarum (Buda, 1844) p. 403Google Scholar, Article 6, 1548. See also Irinyi, Josef, Geschichte der Entstehung des 26: Gesetzartikels von 1790/1 über Religionsangelegenheiten (Pest, 1857), pp. 7–10Google Scholar and Mihály Bucsay, Der Protestantismus in Ungarns 1521–1978: Urgarns Reformationskirchen in Geschichte und Gegenwart, part 1, Im Zeitalter Reformation, Gegenreformation und katholischen Reform (Vienna, 1977), pp. 45, 140.Google Scholar

2. Schweinitz, Edmund de, The History of the Church known as the Unitas Fratrum (Bethlehem, Pa., 1901), pp. 264–279;Google ScholarStrupl, Milos, “Confessional Theology of the Unitas Fratrum,” (Ph. D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1964), p. 75.Google Scholar

3. de Schweinitz, , Unitas Fratrum, pp. 264–269.Google Scholar

4. Říčan, Rudolf, Das Reich Gottes in den Böhmischen Länder: Geschichte des tschechischen Protestantismus (Stuttgart, 1957), pp. 100–103;Google ScholarDillon, Kenneth J., King and Estates in the Bohemian Lands, 1526–1564 (Brussels, 1976), pp. 160–161.Google Scholar

5. The most detailed study of the role of the pro-Lutheran segment of the Utraquists in the preparation of the Confessio Bohemica of 1575 is Hrejsa, Ferdinand, Česk´ Konfesse, její uznik, podstata a dějiny (Prague, 1912)Google Scholar, an abridgement of which appeared in German as “Die Böhmische Konfession, ihre Entstehung, ihr Wesen und ihre Geschichte”, Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für die Geschichte des Protestantismus in Österreich 35 (1914): 81–123; 37(1916): 55–80; 38(1917): 96–174.Google Scholar

6. Molnar, Amadeo, “The Czech Confession of 1575,” Communio Viatorum 16, no. 4(1973): 241.Google Scholar

7. For Luther's relationship to Hus and the Unitas Fratrum see Pelikan, Jaroslav, Obedient Rebels (New York, 1964), pp. 106–146.Google Scholar

8. Molnar, , “Czech Confession of 1575”, pp. 243–244.Google Scholar This principle of congruity was first enunciated by the Taborites and explicitly embodied in the so-called judgment of Cheb of 1432. The Unitas Fratrum adopted the principle as normative for their theology. See also Acta Unitas Fratrum Folio XIV, Moravian Archives, Bethlehem, Pa., pp. 215–217. The fourteenth folio of this collection of manuscripts, comprising the official archive of the Unitas Fratrum, contains documents pertaining to the preparation of the Confessio Bohemica of 1575.

9. For a succinct analysis of the views of John Augusta and John Blahoslav see Odložilik, Otakar, “Two Reformation Leaders of the Unitas Fratrum,” Church History: 9 (09 1940): 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Strupl, , “Confessional Theology”, pp. 84–93;Google Scholar de Schweinitz, , Unitas Fratrum, pp. 363–366;Google ScholarŘíčan, Rudolf, Die Böhmischen Bruder (Berlin, 1958), pp. 147–150.Google Scholar

11. Říčan, , Das Reich Gottes, p. 108;Google ScholarMolnar, , “Czech Confession of 1575”, p. 244;Google ScholarHrejsa, Ferdinand, Dêjiny krestanstuι v Ĉeskoslovensku, 6 vols. (Prague, 1950), 6: 74–76.Google Scholar

12. Hrejsa, , “Böhmische Konfession”, 35 (1914): 96–97.Google Scholar Unless indicated otherwise, all translations from the original languages are the author's.

13. Ibid., pp. 97–98; Říčan, , Das Reich Gottes, p. 108.Google Scholar

14. Mecenseffy, Grete, Protestantismus in Osterreich (Graz, 1956), pp. 50–53.Google Scholar

15. Hrejsa, , “Böhmische Konfession”, 35 (1914): 106–108.Google Scholar

16. Strupl, , “Confessional Theology”, pp. 91–92.Google Scholar

17. de Schweinitz, , Unitas Fratrum, p. 369.Google Scholar

18. Blahoslav argued that rather than the Unity joining with the Lutheran-minded Utraquists in accepting the Augsburg Confession the Lutheran Utraquists should unite with the Unity and accept their confession since their Hussite reformation was older. See Hrejsa, , “Böhmische Konfession”, 35 (1914): 105.Google Scholar

19. Strupl, , “Confessional Theology”, pp. 99–100.Google Scholar

20. Říčan, Rudolf, “Die Böhmische Konfession von Jahre 1575: Ihre Entstehung und geschichtliche Bedeutung”, in Die Reformation: Ihr Geschichtlicher Ablauf und ihre Bedeutung für die Theologie der Gegenwart (Halle, 1969), p. 56;Google ScholarMolnar, , “Czech Confession of 1575”, p. 246;Google ScholarStrupl, , “Confessional Theology”, pp. 106–107.Google Scholar

21. Hrejsa, , “Böhmische Konfession”, 37 (1916): 33–37Google Scholar surveyed the source material pertaining to the Diet of 1575 and the negotiations leading to the Confession.

22. Říčan, , Das Reich Gottes, pp. 108–109;Google Scholar idem, “Die Böhmische Konfession,” p. 56.

23. Říčan, , “Die Böhmische Konfession,” p. 57;Google ScholarStrupl, , “Confessional Theology,” p. 108;Google ScholarHrejsa, ; “Böhmische Konfession,” 38 (1917): 103–108.Google Scholar For a critical edition of the text of the Confessio Bohemica see Hrejsa, , Česká Konfesse, pp. 695–717.Google Scholar The text also appears in Říčan, Rudolf, Čtyři Vyznání: Vyznání Augsburské, Bratrské, Hetvetské a Ceské (Prague, 1951), pp. 270–306.Google Scholar See also Acta Unitas Fratrum, Folio XIV, pp. 129–137; Niemeyer, Herman A., ed., Collectio Confessionum in ecclesiis reformatis publicatarum (Leipzig, 1840), pp. 819–851;Google Scholar and Böckel, Ernst G. A., Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-reformirten Kirche (Leipzig, 1847), pp. 827–849.Google Scholar

24. Říčan, , “Die Böhmische Konfession,” p. 57;Google ScholarHrejsa, , “Böhmische Konfession,” 38 (1917): 103–108.Google Scholar

25. Strupl, , “Confessional Theology,” pp. 106–108;Google ScholarHrejsa, “Böhmische Konfession,” 37 (1916): 46–54.Google Scholar

26. Molnar, , “Czech Confession of 1575,” pp. 45–46.Google Scholar

27. Říčan, , “Die Böhmische Konfession,” pp. 56–57.Google Scholar

28. Hrejsa, , “Böhmische Konfession,” 38 (1917): 114–118.Google Scholar

29. Ibid., pp. 134–136.

30. Ibid., pp. 133–144; Gindely, Anton, “Über die Verhandlungen am Landtage zu Prag im J.1575 behufs rechtlicher Anerkennung der Lutheraner und böhmisch-măhrischen Brüder in Böhmen” Sitzungsberichte der kais: Akademie der Wissenschafter 13 (Vienna, 1854): 421–422.Google Scholar

31. Říčan, , Das Reich Gottes, p. 109;Google ScholarHrejsa, , “Böhmische Konfession,” 38 (1917): 144–146, 155–157.Google Scholar

32. Zeman, Jarold K., “Responses to Calvin and Calvinism among the Czech Brethren, 1540–1605,” Occasional Papers of The American Society for Reformation Research 1 (12, 1977): 41–52.Google Scholar

33. Molnar, , “Czech Confession of 1575,” p. 246.Google Scholar

34. For a brief treatment of the Reformation in Slovakia see Daniel, David P., “Highlights of the Lutheran Reformation in Slovakia,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 42 (1978): 21–34.Google Scholar See also Kvačala, Jan, Dejiny reformácie na Slovensku (Liptovsky Svätý Mikuláš, 1935)Google Scholar.

35. Bucsay, , Protestantismus in Ungarn, p. 112;Google ScholarBorbis, Johann, Die evangelisch-lutherische Kirche Ungarns (Nördlingen, 1861), p. 21.Google Scholar

36. Kvačala, , Dejiny reformácie na Slovensku, pp. 126–128.Google Scholar

37. For a more detailed study of the establishment of Lutheran orthodoxy in Slovakia see Daniel, David, “The Acceptance of the Formula of Concord in Slovakia,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 70 (1979): 260–277.Google Scholar

38. Ibid., 267–270.

39. Kvačala, Ján, “El. Láni a lutherského smeru v evanjelickej cirkvi na Slovensku,” Viera a Veda 1 (1930): 161.Google Scholar See also Mocko, Ján, Eliáš Láni, prvy superintendent cirkve euanj. augš. vyzn. v Uhrách a jeho doba (Lipt. Sv. Mikuláš, 1902).Google Scholar

40. Bucsay, , Protestantismus in Ungarn, pp. 144–150;Google ScholarSinor, Denis, History of Hungary (London, 1959), pp. 182–183;Google ScholarSeton-Watson, Robert W., History of the Czechs and Slovaks (Hamden, Conn., 1965), pp. 100–101.Google Scholar

41. Irinyi, , Geschichte der Enstehung des 26, p. 9;Google ScholarBorbis, , Die evangelisch-lutherische Kirche Ungarns, pp. 41–42;Google ScholarMarczali, Heinrich, Ungarische Verfassungsgeschichte (Tübingen, 1910), pp. 77–80.Google Scholar

42. Kvačala, , Dejiny reformáciena Slouensku, pp. 150–156.Google Scholar See also Janoška, Juraj, O Synode Žilinskej (Lipt. Sv. Mikuláš, 1910)Google Scholar and Szeberinyi, Johannes, Corpus maxime memorabilium synodorum Evangelicarium Augustanae Confessionis in Hungaria (Pesthini, 1848) pp. 15–20.Google Scholar

43. Kvačala, , Dejiny reformácie na Slovensku, pp. 132–151.Google Scholar

44. Ibid., p. 156.