Silesia; d. at Breda, 11 June, 1804. He belonged to an
ancient family devotedly attached to the House of
Hapsburg, and which remained so after the concquest of
Silesia by Frederick II (1740). Although he was the
sole male heir of his family ami assured of the protection
of the Empress Maria Theresa, he decided, when quite
young, to become a priest. He attended the Jesuit
college of his native city, went later to the University
of Breslau, and thence to the German College at
Rome, where he obtained the degrees of Doctor of
Theology, and of Canon Law, and was ordained a
priest 10 August, 1749. On his return to Austria, he
was made coadjutor to tlie Bishop of Gorz in Carniola
(1750–54), dean of the collegiate church of All
Saints at Prague (1754), later of that of Sts. Cosmas
and Damian at Alt-Bunzlau in Bohemia (1750), and
finally Archbishop of Mechlin and primate of the Aus-
trian Low Countries on 27 May, 1759. In this ex-
alted post, as in those which he had previously occu-
pied, his life was an example of every private and pvili-
lic virtue. It was not long before he was called on to
defend the dignity and independence of his office
against the Austrian Government, which, even umler
Maria Theresa, was foreshadowing the petty tyranny
of Joseph II. Despite his great devotion to Maria
Theresa, he more than once resisted the improper
exactions of her ministers, who w-ished him to grant
Lenten dispensations according to their pleasure, and
interfered in the most annoying manner in matters
that pertained exclusively to ecclesiastical jurisdic-
tion. He enjoyed, however, the personal favour of
Maria Theresa, who sought to have him made Arch-
bishop of Vienna, and in 1778 exerted herself to the
uttermost to obtain for him the cardinal's hat. The
situation changed with the accession of Joseph II, a
disciple of the "philosophers" and imbued with the
principles of an " enlightened despotism ". This em-
peror began that politico-ecclesiastical system, known
as Josephinism, which meant substantially the abso-
lute supremacy of the State. Each imperial en-
croachment on the inalienable rights of the Church
was opposed by Frankenberg with commendable
fortitude, and yet in a gentle manner and with such
respect for the civil authority that the cardinal
brought upon himself the bitter reproaches of such
unflinching zealots as the ex-Jesuits, Feller and De-
doyar. His protests, however, were met bj' the
Government in an ill-humoured and disdainful way.
It affected, indeed, to pay no attention to them. The
most serious of the conflicts was that which broke out
with regard to the General Seminary, founded at Lou-
vain in 1786 by the emperor, and to which he ordered
the bishops to send their students, closing at the same
time their diocesan seminaries. The heretical teach-
ing of the professors in this new institution, and the
avowed purpose of using it as an instrument of eccle-
siastical reform and a weapon against " ultramontan-
ism", soon provoked among the students an agitation
that ended in a general dispersion. The irritated
emperor, forthwith, summoned the cardinal to
Vienna to intimidate him by means, as he wrote to
Kaunitz, "of tho-se vigorous and unanswerable argu-
ments of which you know so well how to make use".
Ill, bereft of his advisers, threatened with indefinite
detention at a great distance from his diocese; reared,
moreover, in those principles of respect for the sov-
ereign power, which to us seem so exaggerated, the
cardinal consented to sign a rather equivocal declara-
tion, in which he stated that he was convinced of his
obligation to conform to the imperial decrees "rela-
tive to the General Seminary", but reserved to him-
self the right to appeal to the emperor in cases where
the eternal salvation of souls appeared to hira to be
imperilled.
On his return to Belgium, Frankenberg regained his former energy. He felt himself upheld by the ardent Catholic spirit of the nation, and announced to the Government that his conscience would not permit him to concur in the establishment of the General Seminary. Despite all threats, he thenceforth re- mained firm. The emperor called on him to e.xpress his opinion on the doctrines then taught at the Gen- eral Seminary, whereupon the cardinal condemned that teaching in his "Declaration" — a document which created a profound impression throughout Bel- gium. The country was already disturbed by insur- rectionary movements, and the Government was obliged to close the General Seminary. It was too late, however, to repress the rebellious agitation. The Government sought, therefore, to make the car- dinal responsible for it, and wished to place him under arrest. From his place of refuge, the cardinal pro- tested against the accusation: "I take heaven and earth to witness", said he, "that I have had no share or influence whatever in this insurrection. The entire Netherlands will bear witness to this fact and do me justice in this respect." The Government, finding it necessary to abandon the criminal process it had be- gim against the cardinal, exhibited a conciliatory temper. In the meantime, however, the revolution broke out. The new administration found him friendly, and he was henceforth officially a member of the States-General. At the same time he held aloof from purely political discussions and confined himself to recommending political union. He received with submission and respect the re-establishment of the Austrian Government, to which he had always been attached. On the arrival of the French he had to undergo new trials. He refused the pension which tlie Government wished to grant him in compensation forthe suppression of his revenue, declared his opposi- tion to the oath exacted of the clergy, and was finally brutally expelled from Belgium (1797). He retired to Emmerich in Prussia, where, aged, sick, and poor, he lived on the charity of his flock, and continued to warn them against those ecclesiastics who had taken the oath. His apostolic courage and his constancy in these trials elicited solemn eulogies from both Pius VI and Pius VII. In deference to the pope's request and to render possible the execution of the concordat, he resigned, 20 November, 1801, the Archbishopric of Meclilin. Driven from Emmerich by the King of Prussia at the instance of the French Government, which affected to regard him as a conspirator, he retired to Borken in the territory of Münster (1801), and, after the suppression of this principality, to Breda, where he died. His courage, self-abnegation, and patience in the face of persecution and adversity make him one of the noblest figures of the Catholic episcopate during the eighteenth century.
Claessens, Histoire des Archevêques de Malines (Louvain, 1881); Verhaegen, Le Cardinal de Frankenberg, archevêque de Malines (Bruges, Lille, 1890).
Godefroid Kurth.
Frankfort, Council of, convened in the summer of 794, "by the grace of God, authority of the pope, and command of Charlemagne" (can. i), and attended by the bishops of the Prankish kingdom, Italy, and the province of Aquitania, and even by ecclesiastics from England. The council was summoned prima- rily for the condemnation of Adoptionism (q. v.). According to the testimony of contemporaries two papal legates were present, Theophylaet and Stephen, representing Pope Adrian I. After an allocution by Charlemagne, the bishops drew up two memorials against the Adopt ionists, one containing argvmients from patristic writings; the other, arguments from Scripture. The fir.st was the " Libellus sacrosylla- bus , written by Paulinus, Patriarch of Aquileia, in the name of the Italian bishops; the second was the "Epistola Synodica", addressed to the bishops of Spain by those of Germany, Gaul, and Aquitania. In the first of its fifty-six canons the comiril condemned Adoptionism, and in the second re])udia1ed the Sec-
