Aufklärung Catholicism 1780-1850

Aufklärung Catholicism

1780-1850

Liturgical and Other Reforms in the

Catholic Aufklärung

Leonard Swidler

Scholars Press

American Academy of Religion

Studies in Religion

edited by

Stephen D. Crites

Number 17

Aufklärung Catholicism 1780-1850:

Liturgical and Other Reforms in the Catholic Aufklärung

by Leonard Swidler

American Academy of Religion

Studies in Religion

edited by

Stephen D. Crites

Number 17

Aufklärung Catholicism 1780-1850:

Liturgical and Other Reforms in the Catholic Aufklärung

by Leonard Swidler

Distributed by Scholars Press

PO Box 5207

Missoula, Montana 59806

Aufklärung Catholicism 1780-1850:

Liturgical and Other Reforms in the Catholic Aufklärung

Leonard Swidler

Temple University

Leonard Swidler

Conditions: Copyright in the underlying marked up html files which implement the hypertext features of this World Wide Web site is held by Ingrid Shafer. Distribution of this version on the Internet, does not constitute consent to any use of the underlying hypertext markup for commercial redistribution either via the Internet or using some other form of hypertext distribution.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Swidler, Leonard J

Aufklärung Catholicism, 1780-1850.

(AAR studies in religion; no. 17 ISSN 0084-6287)

Includes bibliographical references.

1. Catholic Church in Germany-History.

2. Liturgics-Catholic Church-History. 1. Title.

11. Series: American Academy of Religion. AAR

studies in religion ; no. 17.

BX1536.S93

282'.43

78-2736

ISBN 0-89130-227-1

Printed in the United States of America

1 2 3 4 5 6

Edwards Brothers, Inc.

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

The Historical Setting

II. LITURGICAL REFORM

1. Jansenist Inspired Reforms

2. The Aufklärung

3. Mechanical Ritualism

4. Morality and Liturgy

5. Instruction and Motivation

6. Preaching

7. The Vernacular in the Liturgy

8. Theologians in Favor of the Vernacular

9. Churchmen in Favor of the Vernacular

10. Reaction Against the Vernacular

11. Aufklärung Stress on Community

12. The Multiplicity of Masses

13. Eucharistic Reforms

14. Church Music

15. Church Architecture

16. Missal and Mass Reforms

17. Sacramental Reforms

A. Baptism

B. Penance

C. Confirmation

18. Reform of the Ritual

19. Extensive Breviary Reforms

20. Battle Against Superstitions

21. Pilgrimages and Processions

22. Fasting

23. Cult of Saints

24. Marian Piety

25. Conclusion

III. AUFKLÄRUNG CATHOLICISM OVERVIEW

1. Enlightenment Stress on the Bible

2. Catechetical and Educational Reforms

3. Theological Reform

4. Ecumenism

5. Mixed Marriage

6. Restructuring Papal Government

7. The “Synodal Movement

8. Clerical Celibacy

9. Secular Moral Issues

10. The Extent and Variety of Aufklärung Catholicism

11. The Demise of Aufklärung Catholicism

12. Reflection on the Anti-Aufklärung Attack

IV. CONTEMPORARY COMMENTARY

I. INTRODUCTION

The word Enlightenment in the English speaking Catholic world, or Aufklärung in the German speaking Catholic world, has since the middle of the nineteenth century almost always had a derogatory connotation. The histories of the Catholic Church in Germany in the nineteenth century have usually depicted the Aufklärung as a cesspool of vice and have either denigrated or ignored the efforts of those German Roman Catholics who worked for reforms inspired by the Aufklärung during the first half of the nineteenth century. Even such a highly reputed Catholic historian as Franz Schnabel, writing in the 1930's, tended only to grant that Aufklärung Catholicism did contribute a few things to the welfare of the Church and was not so entirely black as it had been painted; but on the whole there was clearly more mischief than good there.¹ Aufklärung Catholicism was often pictured as rationalistic in the reductionist deist sense, as if it emphasized reason to the point of eliminating revelation; it was described as if it wished to destroy the institutional church, undermine all theology, corrupt morals and strip the liturgy of all meaning.

While it may be true to say these things of some thinkers, activists and perhaps even churchmen particularly in France, they are gross distortions, in fact countersigns, of the reality of most Aufklärung Catholicism in Germany. Aufklärung Catholicism was a reform Catholicism, and a reform movement, regardless of what those in power think at the time, is not out to destroy an institution but rather to re-form it; true, it may not be in a manner that is to the liking of those in power, probably because they would lose some of their personal power. But this is radically different from a movement which sets out to destroy an institution, as, for example, Communism attempts to destroy institutional religion.

In the area of theology Aufklärung Catholicism tried to lift what it saw as the dead hand of authoritarian dogmatism by putting what it thought was a rational basis under it all-an action it felt helped to promote rather than undermine theology. That Aufklärung Catholicism advocated some positions in theology which were later modified or rejected by ecumenical councils in doubtless true; that its opposition, including the official Catholic Magisterium, as in Pope Gregory XVI’s Mirari vos, also suffered the same fate is also absolutely certain. (Compare it with the “Declaration of Religious Freedom” of Vatican II.) When the charge of the corruption of morals is pressed a little further it turns out to be via the promotion of individual freedom and responsibility in things like religious freedom and freedom of speech. As for stripping the liturgy of form and meaning, Aufklärung Catholicism strove for, and often attained, the exact opposite; they wished to reform the liturgy to make it meaningful to the people.

A brief word must be said here about the use of the terms Aufklärung Catholicism in these pages. Although English scholars are accustomed to using the term Enlightenment mainly in connection with the latter half of the eighteenth century, German scholars often find the reality of the Aufklärung running well into the first half of nineteenth century German history, and hence they frequently use the term Aufklärung to refer to pertinent persons and elements throughout that half of the nineteenth century. (Occasionally German scholars will refer to the Aufklärung in the nineteenth century as the late Enlightenment, Spätaufklärung, but more often they simply say Aufklärung.) The same is also true of the term Aufklärung Catholicism since the movement for the reform of Catholicism since the movement for the reform of Catholicism “in the light of reason,” broadly understood, did not reach its high point till the 1830's, and made one last desperate attempt to survive in 1848.² A more descriptive term for this movement for reform in late eighteenth and early nineteenth century German Catholicism might be reform Catholicism. But in fact German scholars use that term, Reformkatholizismus, for the movement for Catholic reform at the end of the nineteenth century and refer to the earlier movement simply as the Aufklärung in Catholicism.³

When one digs through the anonymity and defamation of Aufklärung Catholicism a picture emerges that is extraordinarily similar to the Catholicism that arose over a century later from Vatican II (1962-65). But this latter Catholicism developed without any overt continuity with the former, which was reviled in its day by those who eventually triumphed over it. Even the memory of Aufklärung Catholicism and the reputations of its advocates have for the most part been obliterated, or, where that was not possible or desirable, distorted beyond all recognition by Catholic historians-and they were almost the only ones to write on the subject.

Although it is the first task of the historian to attempt to describe his subject as objectively as possible, “wie es eigentlich gewesen ist,” analyzing and evaluating its various elements within its own context, such a properly executed task is by no means bereft of subjectivity. The very decision to undertake a specific task arises from within the historian as some kind of response to his contemporary context. This historical study was prompted by noticing how many of the positions approved and advocated at Vatican II seemed to resemble condemned positions attributed (albeit in very truncated fashion) to German Catholics of the first half of the nineteenth century. This observation naturally gave rise to the questions of what this earlier Catholicism really was like-as seen in the primary documents rather than through the filter of its enemies’ descriptions-and secondarily how much it really was or was not like Vatican II Catholicism.

Research in the libraries of Southwestern Germany has proved extremely revealing; it is clear a non-tendentious history of the entirety of Aufklärung Catholicism awaits writing. It is as a step on the way toward the fulfilling of that task that this monograph dealing with the liturgical reforms of Aufklärung Catholicism has been written. Liturgical reform was chosen partly because it was such an important part of Aufklärung Catholicism and partly because the similarity between it and the contemporary liturgical reforms of Vatican II and afterwards was so striking that particular attention was drawn to it. This drawing of attention was intensified by the at times almost feverish concern of modern Catholic advocates of liturgical reform to disassociate themselves from the liturgical reform efforts of the early nineteenth century, of Aufklärung Catholicism.⁴ One immediately wonders if “the gentleman doth protest too much.” Hence, this study will concentrate on describing the liturgical reforms of Aufklärung Catholicism, but also when appropriate it will briefly compare those reforms with Vatican II reforms.

If the reforms of Aufklärung and Vatican II Catholicism are found to be substantially similar-which is the hypothesis-the implications will be manifold, not only for Catholic scholarship, and life, but also for the scholarship and life of those non-Catholics who come into significant contact with the Catholic Church, the largest Christian body in the world. One implication such a result would have for Catholic scholarship would be a further discrediting of that powerful authoritarian mentality that dominated Roman Catholicism for many generations until Vatican II: The Catholic Church in its authoritative structures does at times make what it later in practice recognizes as errors; basic commitments are made which are later reversed. Having historical documentation of such relativizes the old authoritarian claims. One implication such a result would have for non-Catholic scholarship would be to force it to take a more cautious, at times even sceptical, attitude toward descriptions of the “only acceptable” Catholic positions on various issues; the Catholic Church does reverse itself officially on basic issues-despite the most emphatic protestations.

1. The Historical Setting

Perhaps one of the most basic constitutive elements of the historical setting at the beginning of the nineteenth century lies over a century back, namely, the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. The previous work of Copernicus, Kepler, Galilaeo and others found in a way a synthesis and culmination in the world-forming work of Sir Isaac Newton. As a result of Newton’s work, and that of many other scientists, though supremely his, the world was seen as something eminently rational. And because the world was rational in all of its parts all men and women needed to do to understand it was to study it diligently. They did not need to assume that they would never be able to solve the riddles of the universe; in fact, they should assume the opposite-look at Newton! Because the universe was essentially rational and because men and women were essentially rational, they had every hope and expectation of understanding the world. Then once they understood it they would be in a position to form and shape it in a manner that would most perfectly fulfill the world and, at the same time, naturally, be most beneficial to humanity-again, because both were essentially rational. Eighteenth century men and women, moreover, did not feel they came to this new, self confident, optimistic world-view by some sort of leap of faith, for the Newtonian Weltanschauung of a rational universe was constantly proved anew and extended even by dozens and scores of amateur-scientists, throughout the eighteenth century; Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are two famous examples in our own American history.

Doubtless just as basic a constitutive element of the historical setting of the beginning of the nineteenth century was the dynamic development in the economic sphere: the commercial and industrial revolutions. One does not need to be a Marxist to recognize the basic force of economics in history, although it was largely thanks to Karl Marx that the fundamental quality of this aspect of humanity’s life was somewhat more properly focused on. For a long time in Western Civilization the dominant class was the aristocracy, lay and clerical, because they were the landholders, and land was the only really major source of wealth and power. However, the long development of the middle class from the medieval growth of towns, the burgeoning of trade in the Renaissance, and fantastic trade expansion in the age of discovery and colonialism, took an even greater leap forward with the coming of the Industrial Revolution, which began in England in the middle of the eighteenth century. As a result of the commercial and industrial revolutions the middle class was called into existence and, by the latter part of the eighteenth century, was catapulted into a position of great influence, and, as in the cases of the American and French revolutions, even of dominance.

However, while the industrial revolution tended to lift the middle class into power, it also initiated the Age of Masses. More and more peasants were drawn or driven from the land into the cities, or rather into the human swamps that formed around and in the cities. As business men and women and aristocrats with a business eye turned more and more land away from communal support to making an immediate monetary profit, more and more peasants could no longer exist in their ancestral villages. At the same time the same or similar business people were setting up factories in the cities which demanded manual laborers-cheap. Where in a society based on the land each individual had his and her own proper place and function in relation to all others, in the society based on commerce and industry a growing number of individuals became a part of a mass, with no specific proper place or proper function. However, this growth of a mass proletariat took place at different times in different countries; England was first, starting in the latter part of the eighteenth century. This Age of the Masses developed in many directions, such as in the beginnings of mass education, mass communications through the spread of literacy and the cheap newspaper, ever more rapid transportation, mass involvement in politics through the rise of democracy and socialism.

In the area of politics the dominance of the aristocracy was first curtailed or at least somewhat controlled by the monarchy, which became “absolute” in the sixteenth centuries, but which by the middle of the eighteenth century tended to be an “enlightened despotism.” Here the new world-view of reason made itself felt, to some extent, through the enlightened prince, the modern version of Plato’s philosopher king. One thinks preeminently of Frederick the Great of Prussia, Catherine the Great of Russia and Joseph II of Austria; but there were also many other “enlightened despots” of lesser fame in the latter part of the eighteenth century.

If reason was one key word that characterized the historical setting of the beginning of the nineteenth century, another key word was freedom. Freedom was sought in every sphere and it was heralded as the prime promoter of humanity’s welfare, along with reason, its essential counterpart. In economics the move was away from the state’s control through the mercantilistic system; in social and political affairs it was away from the dominance of aristocratic and royal privileges; in thought and religion it was toward freedom from the tyranny of a stultifying authority and deadening tradition.

These two ideas, reason and freedom, burst into flames in 1789 with the French Revolution. Reason as an instrument of the “enlightened despot” was no longer considered a sufficient advance; reason had to become the instrument of all free men and women. But reason and freedom in many ways ran amuck during the Revolution; it ran into the tyranny of the Terror and later of the Tyrant, Napoleon. Still, even under Napoleon, and in many ways because of his genius, many economic, social, political and legal structures were “rationalized” and millions of men and women were liberated from a variety of oppressors. But the tyranny of France called forth, only very slowly at first, the resistance of an ever broader collection of men and women in the dominated lands. The form this resistance tended to take was that of nationalism.

Nationalism, as it developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, is also a product of the Age of the Masses. It is hard to see how it could have developed in anything like the manner it did without an uprooted popular base, without mass education, communication, and transportation. Only with such building blocks could something beyond a provincial structure or a loyalty to a dynasty be erected. Nevertheless it was the French Revolution that fused all those elements, and others, into modern nationalism, first in France itself, and then in reaction to France’s tyranny, in Germany, Italy and elsewhere.

One other major thing must be said about the general historical setting in Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century: rationalism did not reign unchallenged; in fact, it called forth its antithesis, romanticism. Where rationalism stressed reason, logic, clarity, and reform on those bases, romanticism tended, among other things, to stress feeling, paradox, the mystical and, in Germany at any rate, reaction. However, the rise of romanticism was not like a light switch thrown on January 1, 1800. It had antecedents, particularly in Germany in the Sturm und Drang of the latter half of the eighteenth century, and the Enlightenment, the Aufklärung, continued to be a strong, though waning, force throughout much of the first half of the nineteenth century.

It is against this general European background that the reform efforts of the Catholics of the Aufklärung in Germany must be seen. In Germany itself it must be recalled that there was no unified state since the break-up of the empire of Charlemagne in the ninth century. There were actually hundreds of states in the Germanies at the beginning of the nineteenth century, which chaotic situation was changed by Napoleon during the first decade of the last century; he reduced the number of states to a dozen or so, all subservient to him. This political change drastically affected the Catholic Church in Germany since there were many ecclesiastical principalities, that is, states with archbishops, bishops or abbots as chiefs of state. These ecclesiastical states were almost entirely eliminated as ecclesiastical states; the land was turned over to secular princes, who were then beholden to Napoleon. Also huge numbers of abbeys, convents, churches etc. were secularized, that is, turned over to the state, which then sold or distributed them. But before the secularization took place there was a strong movement among German bishops to steer a course of relative independence vis-à-vis Rome, particularly exemplified by the efforts of Bishop Johann Nicholaus von Hontheim, the auxiliary bishop of Trier, who wrote his famous book in 1763 under the pen name of “Febronius,” advocating greater episcopal power vis a vis Rome, much as the Gallicans were doing in France.

It should also be recalled that even in those German states which were not ecclesiastical principalities there was a tradition of union of church and state of one and a half millennia standing. The official church ever since the fourth century was in favor of this union, but always in the sense that the state would either be subservient to the church or at least would promote the welfare of the church as the official church understood that welfare, but certainly not in the sense that the state might undertake to reform the church. But it was exactly this latter effort that was made in the Austrian lands during the time of Maria Theresia (1740-80) and most particularly her son Joseph II (1780-90). It had a profound effect not only in the Austrian lands but also elsewhere, since it was often imitated. It is in this area of church-state relations that we will find the most glaring difference between Aufklärung Catholicism and Vatican II Catholicism.

II. LITURGICAL REFORM

On the first page of his history of the Liturgical Movement Dom Olivier Rousseau, OSB, states: “Let us understand that we are dealing with the true liturgical movement. . . . It has nothing in common, as we shall see, with a certain tendency of Jansenism and the Enlightenment, which at first sight it seems to resemble. The liturgical movement is, in fact, essentially opposed to such tendencies; for this reason, it has received the blessing of the Church. The ‘liturgical reforms’ of Jansenism and the Enlightenment were a part of the general breakdown of Christian thought and merely another expression of eighteenth-century laicism”⁵ As noted, such an attitude toward the attempts of liturgical reform undertaken in the eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century is typical not only for most twentieth-century Catholic scholars ⁶ but also for all those who opposed liturgical reform in the period of the Enlightenment and subsequently. During the latter half of the seventeenth century Roman Catholics who promoted some kind of religious reform ran the serious risk of being categorized as Jansenist, which categorization, once Jansensim was condemned by Rome,⁷ could be used as an effective weapon against them and their reforms. During the latter half of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century a different constellation of motives and principles for liturgical reform became prominent, the Enlightenment, the Aufklärung. Because the Aufklärung was a vastly broader movement than Jansenism, whose very name indicates its personal origin, it could not so clearly be condemned by Rome. Nevertheless in the period of the Restoration, after the demise of the French Revolution, the term Aufklärung more and more became a weapon to be used against reforms and those who promoted them.

1. Jansenist Inspired Reforms

When Abbot Prosper Guéranger ⁸ began his liturgical studies and activities around 1830 he vigorously attacked the previous liturgical work and reforms of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as being Jansenistic, and therefore to be condemned.⁹ However, Henri Bremond, in his famous work on religious literature in seventeenth-century France, saw much that was positive in the liturgical reform efforts of seventeenth-century French Catholics.¹⁰ He found that there was a liturgical renaissance in France at this time that included an increase in liturgical studies, reform attempts in both the Missal and Breviary, and promotional efforts to bring the liturgy closer to the simple faithful.¹¹ One example of this liturgical renaissance was the work of Nicolas Letourneaux, who, besides writing many articles, translated the Breviary into French ¹² and produced the multi-volume Année chrétienne,¹³ in which the Mass was translated into French. Because of this latter point the thirteen volumes were placed on the Index in 1695.¹⁴ There had been a number of translations of the Mass into French before that time that did not draw such a penalty,¹⁵ but the fear of Jansenism and its reform efforts changed the atmosphere drastically in the latter half of the seventeenth century, as can be seen from the fact that when in 1660 Josef de Voisin translated the Missal “according to the rules of the Council of Trent” along with an explication of the entire Mass, he was reproved by a very strong letter from Pope Alexander VII condemning such translations into the vernacular, because that would make the liturgy less holy and mysterious to the people.¹⁶

An interesting example of the sort of liturgical reforms that were promoted by Jansenists in the eighteenth century was related by Guéranger, with great disapproval, of course, for he ends the description with the statement that “such was the singular parade which the Jansenists conducted in the midst of France, by the grace of the tolerance of a lying archbishop [presumably Archbishop Noailles of Paris, d. 1729, who supported some Jansenist positions].” Guéranger’s description is of Abbé Jacques Jobs, the Curb of Asnières. “Arriving at the foot of the altar he said the opening prayers, and the people answered in a loud voice. He next went to a chair on the epistle side of the sanctuary. Here he intoned the Gloria and Credo, without, however, reciting either of them through; nor did he say the Epistle or Gospel. He only said the Collect. He did not recite anything that the choir chanted. . . . They recited the formula aloud to show that their offering was being made in the name of the people. The entire Canon, as might be expected, was likewise recited aloud. The celebrant let the choir say the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei. . . . The communion of the people was not preceded by that of any of the ordained priests, as was the current custom. The subdeacon, although clothed in the tunic, communicated with the laity. Nevertheless the church of Asnières did not think it proper yet to use the vernacular in the liturgy. All that was done was that before vespers a sort of deaconess [sic-une espèce de diaconesse] publicly read the gospel of the day in French.”¹⁷

The reform-orientation of Jansenism had a great deal of influence not only in seventeenth and eighteenth-century France, but also in the Austrian lands ¹⁸ and in northern Italy. This influence in a way reached a high point in the last two decades of the eighteenth century through the efforts of the two eldest sons of Empress Maria Theresia of Austria, Joseph and Leopold. Joseph, as the German Emperor, promoted far-reaching reforms throughout his lands north of the Alps. Leopold, as Grand Duke of Tuscany, did much the same in northern Italy, and for two years as Joseph’s successor to the imperial throne. It was as a result of Leopold’s encouragement that the diocesan synod of Pistoia in Tuscany was held in 1786, which, under the general influence of the Jansenist reform spirit, promoted a large number of religious reforms, including liturgical ones. The synod stated: that it wished to recall the liturgy “to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice”;¹⁹ “that it is fitting, in accordance with the order of divine services and ancient custom, that there be only one altar in each Temple, [presumably so as to eliminate the possibility of simultaneous Masses] and therefore, that it is pleased to restore that custom.”²⁰ These propositions, as well as many others, were condemned by Rome as being “rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it” in the first instance, and “rash, injurious to the very ancient pious custom flourishing and approved for these many centuries in the Church, especially in the Latin Church,”²¹ in the second.

2. The Aufklärung

A more immediate influence than Jansenism, and in fact the matrix for Catholic liturgical reform efforts in the first part of the nineteenth century, was the Aufklärung. The Aufklärung of course began in the eighteenth century but it still was the most dynamic, dominant cultural force during the first part of the nineteenth century. The Aufklärung, which to a large extent came to Germany from France, nevertheless did not have the anti-religion or anti-church bias that it often did in France, partly because of the existence of the ecclesiastical states in Germany, for the leaders of the Catholic Aufklärung were often prince-bishops who utilized the services of reforming theologians and pastors.²² Because the Aufklärung in Germany was relatively positive and reform-oriented it had an extraordinarily large influence on German Catholicism-vastly larger, and more beneficial, than is recognized today.

Of course not all Aufklärung Catholics took the same position on all matters; some were much more extreme than others. In fact, there was also naturally in some instances a wide variance in the positions held by the same men at different times in their lives. Johann Baptist Sailer (1751-1832), for example, was much more enthusiastic about the Aufklärung in the early part of his life than in the latter. This has been well known for quite some time and accounts for the fact that he has been highly regarded by Catholics for a similar period of time.²³ The same of course is also true of Johann Adam Möhler (1796-1838), whose later work, Symbolik has been touted and hailed as his best, most mature, work (it is much more conservative than his earlier writings), whereas his first book, Die Einheit in der Kirche (much more liberal, non-papal, non-authoritarian) is often brushed aside as a work of his youth.²⁴ Only recently, however, has a somewhat similar movement to a more conservative position in older age been discerned in the writings of one of the most hated Aufklärer, Benedikt Maria Werkmeister.²⁵ Werkmeister, however, apparently did not move far enough to the right to be accepted by pre-Vatican II Catholicism. But even among those Aufklärung Catholics who are referred to as extreme ²⁶ one does not find deist or Socinian positions held, although the charge has been made many times. At least this has been found to be the case where there has been objective research into the writings of the man, as, for example, Werkmeister.²⁷ Perhaps further evidence will come to light to show that Socinian ideas were held, for example, by some Catholic theologians at the University of Freiburg in the 1830's, as has been often claimed. But until the evidence is in hand one must be wary of the claims of the anti-Aufklärung people.²⁸ At any rate, what does seem clear is that even the so-called extreme Aufklärung Catholics were not anti-religious or anti-liturgical; they wanted very much to reform the religious life and the liturgical practice of their time.

Two other rather general misconceptions about the German Catholic Aufklärung should also be dealt with here in connection with liturgical reform. It is true that the Aufklärung placed great stress on reason, but it is not true that it did not also have an appreciation of feeling, a sense of beauty and a need to experience things. For example, Wessenberg,²⁹ doubtless the most defamed and execrated of the Aufklärung Catholics, was quite an able poet; he published scores of his poems during his lifetime. He was also deeply concerned that the ritual be reformed so that the faithful could have constant, creative religious experiences rather than the reenforcement of superstition, as was too often their usual liturgical fare. He sought a clear, simple beauty in the liturgy and worked hard to provide beautiful religious hymns for the worship services. Among Aufklärung Catholics there was not a lack of concern for feeling, beauty, and experience, but the understanding of these aspects of human life and their function in religion was doubtless different from that of the anti-Aufklärung Catholics. The same was also true in the case of the Aufklärung’s stress on freedom, that is, Aufklärung Catholics did not therefore oppose rules and authority. In the matter of the liturgy they very much wanted rules, rules of reason, of historical continuity with the early Church, of pastoral effectiveness. They also very much wanted authority, in fact, they wanted even more authority, or rather, authorities, than before; only they wanted more and more people involved in the decision-making processes of the authorities. They were not anarchists, simply anti-authoritarians.³⁰

There was a rather extraordinary interest in the liturgy and its reform on the part of Aufklärung Catholics. Waldemar Trapp lists eighteen different journals with an Aufklärung orientation, published for varying numbers of years from the 1780's to the 1850's, which ran articles on liturgical reform, a rather large number of journals for the relatively limited area of German speaking Catholicism.³¹ But Aufklärung Catholics saw the liturgy as an extremely important way to reach the lives of the masses of the Catholic faithful; they viewed the liturgy primarily in terms of a means to instruct and motivate the people. The concept that the liturgy also expresses humanity’s relationship to God, i.e., worship, thanksgiving, penance, and petition, was not absent among Aufklärung Catholics, but they felt the stress on the instructional and motivational aspects of the liturgy was essential and sorely needed then.

3. Mechanical Ritualism

When Aufklärung Catholics observed the liturgical life around them they saw first and foremost an overwhelming mechanistic and spiritless performance of ritual. One liturgical scholar ³² saw this as a result of either a lack of understanding of what was being done or the constant repetition of the selfsame actions which tended to breed an “empty, spiritless mood.”³³ Others stated, for example: “The frequent giving of blessings lessens their appreciation, as is the case with everything that comes up too often, and in the end they lose all impression on us. It is proper therefore that a blessing should be given most seldom, if it is to be an effective religious action.”³⁴ This mechanical lifelessness was seen in such things as the almost constant use of the Rosary, the singing of Latin hymns and saying of Latin prayers by the people, who did not understand them, and the recitation of the Breviary insofar as it contained superstitious stories.³⁵ But perhaps the greatest concern was for the too often mechanistic performance of and attendance at Mass; the many movements and gestures performed by the priest and his assistants were seen to be often meaningless to the priest as well as the people, as were all the prayers, since they were in a foreign tongue.³⁶ Whatever the type of religious service, whether it was the Mass, administration of sacraments or sacramentals, or other devotions, the most frequent criticism voiced by Aufklärung Catholics was of mechanical, meaningless performance, so that Catholics became like “machines driven down the path of salvation.”³⁷ So primary was this concern about a mechanical spirit in the liturgy that when the leading Aufklärung Catholic of the nineteenth century, Ignaz Heinrich von Wessenberg, became the Vicar General of the diocese of Constance he set up a series of prizes for the best books written on specified religious subjects; four of the first seven topics specified were liturgical, the first one being: “What means are most to be recommended to the pastor to overcome the mechanical spirit and luke-warmness of his congregation at religious services, especially in the hearing of holy Mass?”³⁸

It was felt by many Aufklärung Catholics that one of the serious contributing factors to the mechanical spirit in the liturgy was the overstress on the teaching that grace flows automatically from rightly performed sacraments, i.e., the sacraments operate ex opere operato. The working of the sacraments ex opere operato was denied extremely rarely;³⁹ it was the disproportionate emphasis that was criticized. Franz Giftschütz wrote: “It is highly injurious and prejudicial to true devotion that so often the entire piety is built solely on the very frequent reception of the sacraments”;⁴⁰ Dorsch and Blau complained that in the sacraments everything is “opus operatum.”⁴¹ Johann Theiner said that “all prayers are directed to having God make us good men. Everything is opus operatum.”⁴² Vitus Anton Winter counter-suggested that all prayers be eliminated which “place man’s entire hope in God and engender proportionately less self-responsibility on the part of man.”⁴³ Even the quite moderate Johann Baptist Hirscher ⁴⁴ complained bitterly about the overemphasis on ex opere operato”making the sacraments acts of magic” for the people.⁴⁵

4. Morality and Liturgy

Aufklärung Catholics most of all wanted the liturgy to affect the lives of the people; liturgy had to issue in moral action to fulfill its purpose. They took very seriously the various biblical enjoinders that to love God one had to love neighbor: “Religion, according to reason and faith, is the same as the service of God [Gottesdienst, which is also the term used to designate “worship service’] and Gottesdienst is morality performed with a respectful consciousness of God.” “The service of humanity [Menschendienst], performed with respectful consciousness of God, is worship [Gottesdienst].”⁴⁶ Though Aufklärung Catholics all stressed the overriding importance of morality in religion and liturgy, they were not all agreed on the basic philosophic orientation of this morality. One prominent orientation was that of Kantianism, which made the performance of duty the foundation of human life and viewed God as a judge who expected duty to be done for its own sake.⁴⁷ The second, and by far more prominent, orientation was what by its critics was usually called eudaemonism, i.e., what leads to true human fulfillment and welfare is the good, and therefore also authentic worship of God. The sacraments “are to be considered as means to foster the virtue and fulfillment of men, which constitutes the highest goal of the pastor.”⁴⁸ However, this principle of seeking human fulfillment as the basis of morality was most often broadened by Aufklärung Catholics to mean the fulfillment of the whole human community. Bernard Bolzano,⁴⁹ for example, wrote: “From all your possible undertakings choose that one which, all consequences being considered, best promotes the welfare of the whole, regardless in which parts.”⁵⁰

5. Instruction and Motivation

The means whereby the liturgy was to promote morality was twofold: instruction and edification, or motivation. Often instruction was made primary, as when Vitus Winter stated that “the first goal of the liturgy is the religious moral enlightenment of the understanding”;⁵¹ “the second goal of external worship is the betterment of the heart, or edification.”⁵² He thought that everything about the liturgy should be made to serve moral doctrine: “Moral doctrine sounds from the chancel! The paintings on the walls of our temples proclaim moral doctrine! The statues on our altars proclaim moral doctrine! The ceremonies and observances in the holy Mass and administration of other mysteries all proclaim moral doctrine!”⁵³ But in another place Winter strikes a balance when he complains that too often “the entire effort is directed toward enlightening the mind, but leaves the heart untouched. . . . Therefore I have endeavored to show that the location of the religious principle is not to be sought simply in the understanding, but also, and preeminently, in the heart.”⁵⁴

An even greater emphasis on the motivational aspect of the liturgy was given by Sailer. He wrote: “General edification is the ultimate end of all devotional services,”⁵⁵ but elsewhere pointed out that “Man is more than just a head. . . . the most brilliant thought is still not an act of the will,”⁵⁶ and that “for an education of the understanding worthy of man, the education of the will is essentially and unavoidably necessary.”⁵⁷ For Sailer “to make prayer merely a means to virtue and the liturgical leader merely a school teacher”⁵⁸ would destroy the liturgy, which should orient man toward God. Another example of the great number of Aufklärung Catholics who struck a balance in this central area of morality, religion and liturgy relationship, with a large variance in emphases, can be found in Bolzano. For Bolzano morality and religion are connected in the most intimate manner, but they are not identical; he strove to bring all the elements of Christianity, reason, revelation, worship and morality, into a system. In his system the sober, the useful, the welfare, not so much of the human individual, but of the human community, played a more prominent role, and the supernatural and mysterious a lesser role. He was like Sailer in balance, but unlike him in emphasis. Thus it was for the most part among Aufklärung Catholics.⁵⁹

6. Preaching

A natural consequence of the Aufklärung’s great concern for instruction and motivation in the liturgy was its envisioning preaching as an extremely important means to these ends.⁶⁰ Unfortunately, because of the Counter-reformation stress on the importance of the sacraments and the common notion that preaching was mainly a Protestant practice, and other factors, by the beginning of the nineteenth century preaching had become very infrequent among the Catholic clergy; in some areas many priests would preach no more than once a month, and then at a time when few people were likely to come.⁶¹ Some Aufklärung Catholics, as a consequence, not only emphasized the importance of the sermon in the liturgy, but even spoke of it as the main thing. Werkmeister, for example, stated that “the most important function is the preaching office . . . not the office of the sacrificial priest or the Mass reader.”⁶² He often spoke “of the duty to listen to the sermon,”⁶³ while Winter complained: “why is one commanded to hear Mass, but only given a recommendation to hear the sermon?”⁶⁴ Of course, given the serious decline preaching had suffered within Catholicism it was quite natural that at least some reform Catholics stressed hyperbolically the importance of preaching. (In fact, that stance was also supported by Vatican II, for if the ignorance of the Gospel was as rife then as was claimed by Aufklärung Catholics, and there is ample evidence to support that contention, then the Church was faced with the missionary task of evangelization: Vatican II stated that “the chief means of this . . . [evangelization] is the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”⁶⁵ Although not all Aufklärung Catholics spoke of preaching as the most important function, they all thought it essential and extremely important to the life of the Church.⁶⁶

Despite all the accusations of their contemporary opponents and of subsequent Catholic scholars, Aufklärung Catholics really did not think of or utilize the sermons the way most Protestants did, and do, that is, most often in isolation from the Eucharist. They pleaded and worked for the fusion of the sermon and the Eucharist. Of course, they did not need to urge the encompassing of the sermon by the Eucharist, as do contemporary Protestant liturgical reformers, rather they needed to stress that “the priest will never celebrate the Holy Eucharist without a sermon, which should instruct the people concerning the mystery represented.”⁶⁷ As Vicar General of the diocese of Constance Wessenberg found himself in a position to do something about what so many other Aufklärung Catholics could for the most part only write about: the uniting of the sermon with every Sunday Mass. On January 5, 1803, Wessenberg issued a circular to all the priests of his diocese requiring that at all Masses celebrated before noon on Sundays and major feast days a sermon be preached and in the afternoons Christian doctrine be taught; on the lesser feast days a choice between preaching and teaching was given.⁶⁸ Of course it was much more difficult to implement than to issue that order. Wessenberg did many long and short range things to see that it was carried out properly, including setting up regular clergy conferences, regional libraries for the clergy, a diocesan pastoral journal and constant written and personal contacts. Because the quality of the clergy was so low he felt impelled to also bring civil pressure to bear on the clergy. On February 12 of that same year he issued another order that the January 5th circular about preaching be read from the pulpit and that its reading be reported by the chief local civil official to the ecclesiastical deanery.⁶⁹ Such a technique, of course, was not at all uncommon at that time of union of church and state.

A closely connected point that might seem a little strange to present day American Catholics, but nevertheless urgently spoken of by Aufklärung Catholics very often, was that the “sermon should be preached after the gospel so that all the people might be present.”⁷⁰ Although the sermon has almost always been preached at this juncture in the American Catholic tradition, it was often given before, after, or completely separately from the Mass in the European tradition until Vatican II. Aegidius Jais wrote that the sermon “should come after the gospel in the Mass, as it used to in the beginning,”⁷¹ which Theiner supported by arguing that “the rubrics [in the Missal], the ancient church, and the nature of the case all require it.”⁷² As before, Wessenberg also acted on this issue. On March 16, 1809, he issued an order concerning worship services to the whole diocese of Constance: “The main parish worship service on all Sundays and required feast days shall consist of a Mass [Amte] in the forenoon with German Mass hymns and a sermon, which must take place during the Mass immediately after the first gospel . . . . Likewise the Rosary may no longer be recited out loud during the parish Mass or other morning Masses because, although the elements of the Rosary are good in themselves, it is not suitable for a Mass devotion.”⁷³ Resistance against this order was also persistant, for Wessenberg was working against a very comfortable custom whereby many avoided the sermon, which took place most often, when it took place, before the Mass, by appearing at the Church only at the beginning of the Mass (sometimes the end of the sermon was announced by ringing the church bell!)⁷⁴ Nevertheless progress was made.

There were two different kinds of sermons that were advocated by Aufklärung Catholics. Some, most often state officials, but not always, urged, and sometimes commanded, that matters for the civil welfare of the community be spoken of from the pulpit, things such as warnings against quack practitioners, recommendation of vaccination, the latest information on health practices, economic matters and agricultural practices.⁷⁵ At times these matters may have been discussed from the pulpit without completely absorbing the sermon time, but it is also doubtless true that there were times when such topics constituted the entire sermon.⁷⁶ However, most Aufklärung Catholics had a quite different, and more traditional, notion of what the sermon should be. They thought first of all that the Scripture lessons should be read aloud in German ⁷⁷ and that the sermon should naturally then be an explication of it, that is, the sermon should most often be a homily.⁷⁸ Wessenberg again was in a position to do more than to write about and urge the regular use of the homily; he issued many orders concerning its use to all the priests of his diocese.⁷⁹ On March 31, 1803, he issued the following ordinance: “that the priest who celebrates a morning Mass on Sunday or feast day must always, after the first gospel, read the gospel of the day to the people present and give a quarter of an hour instruction on a text from it.”⁸⁰ All of this concern about the homily, of course, sprang from the great desire on the part of most Aufklärung Catholics to spread the knowledge of the Bible among the people,⁸¹ which differentiated them quite distinctly from deists and “rationalists.”

7. The Vernacular in the Liturgy

Just like the Jansenist reformers before them, and the Protestant reformers and the medieval reformers, and the liturgical reformers of the twentieth century after them, Aufklärung Catholics came to the conclusion that if the people were to participate meaningfully in the liturgy, the liturgy would have to be celebrated in the language of the people. At the same time the Jansenist-influenced Synod of Pistoia was advocating the use of a vernacular liturgy ⁸² (1786), the German bishops gathered together at Ems moved in a similar direction by advocating the use of German hymns at Mass and Vespers.⁸³ This policy was put into action at least in the Austrian domain already in 1782,⁸⁴ and in 1786 the Austrian government decreed that the vernacular was to be used in the administration of the sacraments, particularly Baptism and Extreme Unction.⁸⁵ However, the 1782 recommendation of the commission for ecclesiastical affairs in Austria that the Mass be said in German was rejected by Emperor Joseph.⁸⁶

Many individual theologians and churchmen also advocated in varying degrees the use of the vernacular in the liturgy. Johann Josef Nepomuk Pehem was one such theologian who in 1783 thought the “common people ought not stand around in the church like wooden statues.”⁸⁷ “Would it not be most useful if the worship services were conducted and prayed in a language which the people understood and thereby fastened their attention on divine things, united their wills with the words of the priest and strengthened them with an inner anointing?”⁸⁸ Four years later Father Benedikt Peuger also recommended German hymns and worship services,⁸⁹ and two years after that Josef Anton Dorsch and Felix Anton Blau completely rejected the use of Latin in the liturgy.⁹⁰

Aufklärung Catholics used many arguments for the introduction of the vernacular into the liturgy. In 1809 Friderich Brenner wrote the “language is the most useful and natural means to communicate to another perosn. . . . Language is the bond of all community. Nations divide themselves according to language-in the same way the servant of religion [the priest] places a divisive wall between him and the congregation present.”⁹¹ Most often support was drawn from St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians where Paul pointed out that in church speaking in a language other than the commonly understood one should be done only if there was an interpreter present: “Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may also instruct others, than ten thousand words in a foreign tongue.”⁹² Likewise frequently found were the questions: “The prayers of the Church are truly full of unction and power to lift up the spirit; therefore why should they not edify the people through an understandable presentation?”⁹³ “Why does one wish to withdraw from the faithful the stirring, strengthening qualities, so full of unction, which really are present in the Latin liturgy?”⁹⁴ But unfortunately the opposite often happened and certain superstitions were fostered by the veil of ignorance the Latin language spread,⁹⁵ whereas, “what a wonderful opportunity we had to bring to our people the best teachings from Holy Scripture . . . through the daily holy sacrifice of the Mass. That would really be the true means . . . to help dispel the generally obvious boredom which can be observed in our worship services.”⁹⁶ It was also hoped that the use of the vernacular would help eliminate the spiritless celebration of the Mass all too frequent with priests, for “every priest would probably be ashamed of such an unworthy, detestable celebration if it had to be conducted in a language understandable to all the people.”⁹⁷

There were of course counter-arguments brought up against substituting the vernacular for Latin in the liturgy; these too were duly dealt with by Aufklärung Catholics. One argument for the retention of Latin was that the use of the vernacular would destroy the bond of unity with Rome; the response was that according to the will of the Apostle the bond of unity is not an incomprehensible language, but rather the same faith.⁹⁸ Another argument for Latin was that the changes in a living language could bring changes in the faith along with them-but despite this danger the Apostles did not write and preach in Sanskrit.⁹⁹ These arguments based on the advantages of a dead language were often brought up and in one instance inspired the exclamation: “Is there not an absolutely extraordinary ring to the statement: for the living presentation of religion a dead language is more suitable than a living one because the latter might in its development undergo several modifications! Through something dead, however, nothing living can be truly realized.”¹⁰⁰ A corollary argument was also brought forth, namely, that if the liturgy were no longer in Latin priests would cease to learn Latin, and this would be a great loss; one response was, “Had Christ founded his religion to be a teaching exercise in a dead language among the people?”¹⁰¹ Thus it was in general that Aufklärung Catholics dispatched the arguments against the use of the vernacular in the liturgy.

8. Theologians in Favor of the Vernacular

There were a number of theologians of major import in this period who expressed themselves more or less in favor of the use of the vernacular in the liturgy. Of these, four have enjoyed general favor with most conservative Catholic church historians subsequently. The first of these was Johann Baptist Sailer. His position, particularly later in life, was that of a moderate, but since he placed great importance on the participation of the people in the liturgy, he tended toward the use of the vernacular in the liturgy, particularly in the administration of the sacraments.¹⁰² Nevertheless, he felt that the priest with the proper attitude and proper training could do a great deal to promote the participation of the laity in the Mass even when it was in Latin. He suggested such techniques as placing a translation of the Mass in the hands of the people and explaining it to them in school or elsewhere; having prayers, read during Mass which would draw the attention of the people to what the priest was saying and doing; and he suggested a similar use of hymns during Mass.¹⁰³ Nevertheless he felt that the use of the vernacular in the Mass would be of great advantage: “If the German priests could one day celebrate worship service in the German language, oh then would the German word, enlivened by the basic mother language [for Sailer this meant the basic unspoken means of communication, that is, movement, posture, etc.] seize both the sensibility and the understanding, the reason and the emotions of the people at once, and the priest and the people would be One loving heart and One praying soul.”¹⁰⁴

The second of the four theologians, Franz Anton Staudenmaier,¹⁰⁵ also took a moderate position. Considering the use of the vernacular in liturgy he said: “We are far from wishing to draw the advantages of the Latin language into doubt. . . . All this, however, does not prevent allowing another language to take its place. . . . The employment of such a language might thereby become the means of bringing the priest and the people in the worship service into a truly inner and living unity.”¹⁰⁶

The last two theologians came from the Catholic Tübingen school. One, Johann Adam Möhler,¹⁰⁷ spoke out very early in his life and very strongly in favor of the vernacular in the liturgy. In reviewing a book he wrote: “Thus we must stand astonished how someone could arrive at the thought that an ununderstandable foreign language could serve to edify the people! Doesn’t the language given by God to every people serve them in all circumstances of life? Why, therefore, not for us in exactly that place where this divine gift could be put to its most beautiful use, namely, in the communication of religious sentiments in the solemn acts of our entire liturgy!”¹⁰⁸ Möhler then went on to give a brief history of the development of the liturgical language and the vernacular in Western Europe. At the end of this history he concluded: “Nevertheless, after the natural reasons for retaining the Latin language in the liturgy no longer had any force, other reasons were put forth, so that now, although there were really no longer solid reasons, it was made to appear that there were. Just listen to the reasons which the author puts forth: 1. In a large building, he says, one would nevertheless not be generally understood. (Therefore, because here and there a German liturgy might not be understood throughout the entire church, a language should be retained which would be understood in no place!) 2. The author points to the ancient dignity of the Latin language. (Should one not rather choose Hebrew; this is much older yet?) 3. He is in favor of the retention of Latin for the sake of uniformity, and according to page 22, because it is a becoming symbol of church unity. (But our unity consists in doctrine, in the essential acts of worship, and in the structure laid down by Christ. . . . What a wonderful unity when no congregation in the entire Catholic world understands its priest! Uniformity alone can never be a reason for the introduction of any matter . . . for could it not also be a uniformity in foolishness?)”¹⁰⁹

Two years later Möhler wrote an article on Catholic missions, and among other things, insisted that pagans not be burdened with a Latin rite, as had been the case. He felt that if any worship service in the vernacular was desirable among German Catholics (and it was), that it was even more desirable and necessary among the pagans, who did not grow up in Christianity and absorb many of its teachings through various means, such as schooling and so on. He also argued that it was a terrible waste of time and effort to have the pagan children spend so much of their time studying Latin when there were so many who needed to learn about the essentials of Christianity.¹¹⁰

The fourth German Catholic theologian of the first half of the nineteenth century who is still quite well known today and who also came out very strongly in favor of the vernacular in the liturgy is Johann Baptist von Hirscher. Father Hirscher began his university career at the University of Tübingen when it first established its Catholic theological faculty. Shortly thereafter, in 1821, Prof. Hirscher published in Latin a book on the reform of the Mass.¹¹¹ Among the many suggestions for the reform of the Mass Hirscher recommended celebrating the Mass entirely in the vernacular language.¹¹² Although Hirscher was convinced that the use of the vernacular was an absolute necessity, he did not believe that its use was sufficient to adequately reform the celebration of the Mass.¹¹³ He felt a whole series of reforms needed to be implemented so that the priest would be, among other things, placed among the people, facing them and in an effectual dialogue with them during the celebration of the Mass.¹¹⁴ Unfortunately, within two years this work of Hirscher’s was placed on the Index. As a consequence Hirscher began to be somewhat more cautious. For example, in later writings he was at pains to point out all the reasons which argued in favor of the retention of Latin, or at least the legitimation of its use, in the liturgy; he did this even up to twenty-five years after his first book on the reform of the Mass, in a multi-volume work on the religious problems of the day.¹¹⁵ However, even here Hirscher was careful to indicate “the Council of Trent has not pronounced the living language of any country inadmissable altogether, as in so doing she would convict herself in allowing the use of the Greek liturgy. The Council has merely proposed to settle the point, that it did not seem convenient ut Missa vulgari passim lingua celebratur. Its anathema, therefore, applies only to the case of those who assert, absolutely, ‘lingua tantum vulgari Missam celebrari debere.’ Canon ix, session xxii.”¹¹⁶

Two years after this last statement was written, the situation in Germany, as in most of Europe, changed drastically with the revolutions of 1848. As a consequence of the changed situation Hirscher was encouraged to strike a blow in favor of a whole series of reforms, the keystone of which was the establishment of diocesan synods which would take up and promote the other reforms. To this end he published a book in 1849, while the Revolution was still in via, which quickly went through three printings and was translated into both French and English.¹¹⁷ In this book Hirscher admitted that he had up to very recently written about the various reasons supporting the use of Latin in the liturgy, but went on to state: “But I have not denied, that the genuine idea of worship, as a public and common act for common edification, can only be fully realized by the employment of the vulgar tongue. But this too is a matter which must and will demand the attention of the Church in synod, and the laity will give a decisive voice in its favor.”¹¹⁸

Hirscher also produced other arguments for the use of the vernacular, which were quite reminiscent of his 1821 work. For example, he wrote: “Others, chiefly the common people, who are sufficiently content with their Latin services, feel themselves thus satisfied rather from the force of habit, than from the supply of their spiritual wants. How edifying, for example, are the solemnites of Holy Week! Is it not lamentable that the people cannot have a part in them? Or, is it a good sign, if they are perfectly contented to be merely lookers-on in such services? The common folk have become indifferent to worship, according to the existing service, inasmuch as they are not partakers in it.”¹¹⁹ Again, Hirscher pointed out that the use of the vernacular, essential as it was, was not sufficient by itself. “But in case the laity should evince this creditable desire for a part in divine service, for common offices, and for common prayer, and above all for a worship celebrated in the mother tongue, it will be all important to avoid mere half measures. Simply to translate the Latin liturgy, will not suffice. Much of it is indeed surpassingly good, but not all. . . . Another half measure would retain the Canon in the Latin tongue, allowing the priest to sing in the language of the worshipers such parts as the Gloria, the Collects, the Gospel, and Proper Preface. But what will this amount to? Something much more thorough must be done, or the whole should be let alone.”¹²⁰ Unfortunately, this work of Hirscher was also placed on the Index on October 25, 1849. Hirscher, shortly thereafter, submitted to Rome; the Revolution in Germany, as well as France, was defeated and all of the great hopes for reform were obliterated.

9. Churchmen in Favor of the Vernacular

Not all priests were content with merely advocating the use of the vernacular in the liturgy. It is difficult, of course, to ascertain just how many did use the vernacular and to what extent. However, there is even documentary proof that some did use the vernacular in the liturgy. One such priest for whom there is documented proof is Anton Selmar of Bavaria.¹²¹ According to his own testimony in his parish archives, Selmar conducted baptisms, marriages and funerals in German,¹²² and when he was a pastor of Berg by Landshut he “conducted with dignity in the German language Holy Communion, Baptisms, marriages, funerals, processions, prayer hoursreadings, hymns, psalms, meditations, and prayers.”¹²³

Another such activist priest was Father Beda Pracher from the upper Palatinate.¹²⁴ In 1806 Pracher published a Ritual in which it was indicated that the various parts of the Mass which the priest began out loud, such as the Gloria and the Creed, were to be spoken or sung in German by the priest. The priest was also to read the Epistle and Gospel in German after he had read it quietly in Latin, first.¹²⁵ On page 12 of this Ritual, Pracher wrote that his diocesan chancery office had already given permission to a number of pastors to celebrate several portions of the Mass in German. It was on the basis of this, apparently, that Pracher formulated his general principle that whatever was to be read or sung out loud, was to be read or sung in German.¹²⁶ In 1836 Pracher’s Ritual was still used in the town of Thalheim, and eleven years .earlier, in the town of Imnau, the pastor remarked: “The Mass (on Good Friday) was celebrated according to Pracher’s prayer book entirely in German, so that not a single Latin syllable was heard. . . . This worship service enjoyed a most enthusiastic reception.”¹²⁷

The most influential of the early Aufklärung Catholics promoting the use of the vernacular in the liturgy was doubtless Father Benedict Maria Werkmeister, who in 1784 became a court preacher at Stuttgart. There he was largely responsible for convincing the Duke to have Matins and Lauds of Holy Week translated into German.¹²⁸ In the same year, Werkmeister published a hymn and a prayer book for use in the Stuttgart court chapel.¹²⁹ He stated there: “Attempts have been made to help the people by means of prayer books, but more has been done thereby to promote silent devotion than communal and public prayer in which the priest and the people join together in one voice.”¹³⁰ Werkmeister, however, did not stop with Matins and Lauds or hymns. He proceeded to put into German parts of the Mass; first of all, the Epistle and the Gospel and the Orate Frates, and then later the Gloria, Credo, Suscipiat, Dominus Vobiscum, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei, Domine non sum dignus. The Canon however was left untouched in Latin.¹³¹ Werkmeister expressed in words his experiences in the use of the vernacular in a work on the German Mass at the court chapel in Stuttgart, published in 1787.¹³² Here he advocated the general introduction of German into the liturgy, giving both many of the reasons already recorded above and also the argument that the various national characters found the natural expression of their varying patterns of thought and feeling in their own language; therefore, each nation ought to have its liturgy in its own language.¹³³ In 1789 Werkmeister published another work promoting the use of the vernacular in the liturgy.¹³⁴ Here again he argued that, “It is a characteristic mark of every good liturgy that it unite the laity present with each other and with the priest; in houses of prayer all the gathered Christians must be only one moral person. . . . Why do we not grasp the simplest, most satisfactory, most straightforward, and only, means to obviate all the difficulties-a liturgy in the vernacular?”¹³⁵ With such a record of writing and acting in favor of the vernacular in the liturgy, it is easy to see why the conservative Catholic historian Sägmüller not only referred to Werkmeister’s efforts as the beginning of the “German Mass” but also attacked him vigorously as an Aufklärer.¹³⁶

As we have already seen, one of the most important Aufklärung Catholics was Ignaz Heinrich von Wessenberg, who was able not only to promote ideas by writing and put them into action for himself, but as administrator of the diocese of Constance was able to effectively put many liturgical reforms