|
For more than a century and a half reform of the Church "in its head
and members" was the watchword both of the friends and the enemies of
religion. Earnest men looked forward to this as the sole means of
stemming the tide of neo-paganism that threatened to engulf the
Christian world, while wicked men hoped to find in the movement for
reform an opportunity of wrecking the divine constitution that Christ
had given to His Church. Popes and Councils had failed hitherto to
accomplish this work. The bishops had met at Constance and Basle,
at Florence and at Rome (5th Lateran Council), and had parted
leaving the root of the evil untouched. Notwithstanding all these
failures the feeling was practically universal that in a General
Council lay the only hope of reform, and that for one reason or
another the Roman Curia looked with an unfavourable eye on the
convocation of such an assembly. Whether the charge was true or false
it was highly prejudicial to the authority of the Holy See, and as a
consequence of it, when Luther and his followers appealed from the
verdict of Leo X to the verdict of a General Council, they evoked
the open or secret sympathy of many, who had nothing but contempt for
their religious innovations. Charles V, believing in the sincerity
of their offer to submit themselves to the judgment of such a body,
supported strongly the idea of a council, as did also the Diets held
at Nurnberg in 1523 and 1524.
The hesitation of Adrian VI (1522-3) and of Clement
VII (1523-34) to yield to these demands was due neither to
their inability to appreciate the magnitude of the abuses nor of their
desire to oppose any and every proposal of reform. The disturbed
condition of the times, when so many individuals had fallen away from
the faith and when whole nations formerly noted for their loyalty to the
Pope threatened to follow in their footsteps, made it difficult to
decide whether the suggested remedy might not prove worse than the
disease. The memory, too, of the scenes that took place at
Constance and Basle and of the revolutionary proposals put forward in
these assemblies, made the Popes less anxious to try a similar
experiment with the possibility of even worse results, particularly at
a time when the unfriendly relations existing between the Empire,
France, and England held out but little hope for the success of a
General Council. As events showed the delay was providential. It
afforded an opportunity for excitement and passion to die away; it
helped to secure moderation in the views both of the radical and
conservative elements in the Church; and it allowed the issues in
dispute to shape themselves more clearly and to be narrowed down to
their true proportions, thereby enabling the Catholic theologians to
formulate precisely the doctrines of the Church in opposition to the
opinions of the Lutherans.
Clement VII (1523-34), one of the de' Medici family,
succeeded to the Papacy at a most critical period in the civil and
religious history of Europe. The time that he spent at the court of
his cousin, Leo X, and the traditions of his family and of his
native city of Florence made it almost impossible for him to throw
himself into the work of reform or to adopt the stern measures that the
situation demanded. Instead of allying himself closely with Charles
V or Francis I of France, or better still of preserving an
attitude of strict neutrality towards both, he adopted a policy of
vacillation joining now one side now the other, until the terrible sack
of Rome by the infuriated and half- savage soldiery of Germany forced
him to conclude an agreement with the Emperor. During the earlier
years of Clement VII's reign the German people, Catholic as
well as Lutheran, demanded the convocation of a general or at least a
national council, and their demands met with the approval of Charles
V. The naturally indolent temperament of the Pope, the fear that
the eagerness for reform might develop into a violent revolution, and
the danger that a council dominated by the Emperor might be as
distasteful to France and England as dangerous to the rights and
prerogatives of the Holy See, made him more willing to accept the
counsels of those who suggested delay. When peace was at last
concluded between the Pope and the Emperor (1529) Charles V
had changed his mind about the advisability of a General Council,
having convinced himself in the meantime that more could be done for the
cause of peace in his territories by private negotiations between the
different parties.
It was only on the accession of Paul III (1534-49) that
a really vigorous effort was made to undertake the work of reform. The
new Pope, a member of the Farnese family, was himself a brilliant
Humanist, a patron of literature and art, well known for his strict
and exemplary life as a priest, and deservedly popular both with the
clergy and people of Rome. His one outstanding weakness was his
partiality towards his own relatives, on many of whom he conferred high
positions both in church and state. In justice to him it should be
said, however, that the position of affairs in Rome and in Italy
made such action less reprehensible than it might seem at first sight,
and that he dealt severely with some of them, as for example, the
Duke of Parma and Piacenza, once he discovered that they were
unworthy of the confidence that had been reposed in them. He
signalised his pontificate by the stern measures he took for the reform
of the Roman Curia, by the appointment of learned and progressive
ecclesiastics like Reginald Pole, Sadoleto, Caraffa, and
Contarini to the college of cardinals, and by the establishment of
special tribunals to combat heresy.
After a preliminary agreement with the Emperor, Paul III
convoked the General Council to meet at Mantua in 1537; but the
refusal of the Lutheran princes to send representatives, the
prohibition issued by Francis I against the attendance of French
bishops, and the unwillingness of the Duke of Mantua to make the
necessary arrangements for such an assembly in his territory unless
under impossible conditions, made it necessary to prorogue the council
to Vicenza in 1538. As hardly any bishops had arrived at the time
appointed it was adjourned at first, and later on prorogued
indefinitely. Negotiations were, however, continued regarding the
place of assembly. The Pope was anxious that the council should be
held in an Italian city, while Charles V, believing that the
Lutherans would never consent to go to Italy or to accept the decrees
of an Italian assembly, insisted that a German city should be
selected. In the end as a compromise Trent was agreed upon by both
parties, and the council was convoked once more to meet there in
1542. The refusal of the Lutherans to take part in the proposed
council, the unwillingness of Francis I to permit any of his
subjects to be present, and the threatened war between France and the
Empire, made it impossible for the council to meet. Finally, on the
conclusion of the Peace of Crepy (1544), which put an end to
the war with France, the council was convoked to meet at Trent in
March 1545, and Cardinals del Monte, Reginald Pole, and
Marcello Cervini were appointed to represent the Pope. When the day
fixed for the opening ceremony arrived, a further adjournment was
rendered imperative owing to the very sparse attendance of bishops.
The First Session was held on the 13th December 1545, and the
second in January 1546. There were then present in addition to
the legates and theologians only four archbishops, twenty-one
bishops, and five generals of religious orders.
These two preliminary sessions were given over almost entirely to a
discussion of the procedure that should be followed. In the end it was
agreed that the legates should propose to the council the questions on
which a decision should be given, that these questions should be
examined by committees of bishops aided by theologians and jurists,
that the results of these discussions should be brought before a full
congregation of the bishops, and that when a decision had been agreed
to the formal decrees should be promulgated in a public session. The
novel method of voting by nations, introduced for the first time at
Constance and Basle, was rejected in favour of individual voting, a
definitive vote being allowed only to bishops, generals of religious
orders and abbots (one vote to every three abbots). Procurators of
absent bishops were not allowed to vote, though later on a special
concession was made in favour of some German bishops detained at home
by the serious religious condition of their dioceses. The legates were
anxious that the dogmatic issues raised by the Lutherans should be
dealt with at once, while the Emperor was strongly in favour of
beginning with a comprehensive scheme of reform. By this time he had
made up his mind to put down his opponents in Germany by force of
arms, and he believed that if nothing were done in the meantime to
widen the breach the defeat of the Lutheran princes might make them
more willing to take part in the council. As a compromise it was
agreed that doctrine and discipline should be discussed simultaneously,
and, hence, at most of the public sessions two decrees were
published, one on matters of faith, the other on reform ("De
Reformatione").
It was only at the 4th public session (8th April 1546) that
the first doctrinal decree could be issued. Since the Lutherans had
called in question the value of Tradition as a source of divine
revelation, and had denied the canonicity of several books accepted
hitherto as inspired, it was fitting that the council should begin its
work by defining that revelation has been handed down by Tradition as
well as by the Scriptures, of which latter God is the author both as
regards the Old Testament and the New. In accordance with the
decrees of previous councils a list of the canonical books of the
Scriptures was drawn up. Furthermore, it was defined that the sacred
writings should not be interpreted against the meaning attached to them
by the Church, nor against the unanimous consent of the Fathers,
that the Vulgate Version, a revised edition of which should be
published immediately, is authentic, that is to say, accurate as
regards faith and morals, and that for the future no one was to print,
publish, or retain an edition of the Scriptures unless it had been
approved by the local bishop.
The next subject proposed for examination was Original Sin. The
Emperor showed the greatest anxiety to secure a delay, and at a hint
from him several of the Spanish bishops tried to postpone a decision by
prolonging the discussions and by raising the question of the
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. That the Fathers of
Trent were not opposed to this doctrine is clear enough from the
decrees they formulated, but the majority of them were of opinion that
purely domestic controversies among Catholic theologians should be left
untouched. In the fifth general session (17th June 1546) it
was defined that by his transgression of the commandment of God the
head of the human race had forfeited the sanctity and justice in which
he had been created, and had suffered thereby in both soul and body,
that in doing so he had injured not merely himself but all his
descendants, to whom Original Sin is transmitted not by imitation
merely but by propagation, that the effects of this sin are removed by
the sacrament of Baptism, necessary alike for adults and infants, and
that the concupiscence, which still remains in a man even after baptism
has produced its effects, is not in itself sinful. It was declared,
furthermore, that in the decrees regarding the universality of
Original Sin it was not intended to include the Blessed Virgin or to
weaken the binding force of the decrees issued by Sixtus IV
regarding her Immaculate Conception.
The way was now cleared for the question of Justification.[98]
This was the doctrine on which Luther first found himself in
disagreement with the Church, and which he put forward in his sermons
as the foundation of his new gospel. The importance of the subject
both in itself and in the circumstances of the time cannot be
exaggerated, nor can it be contended that the Fathers at Trent failed
to realise their responsibilities or to give it the attention it
deserved. Had they done nothing else except to give to the world such
a complete and luminous exposition of the Catholic teaching on
Justification their meeting would not have been held in vain. In the
6th public session (13th January 1547), at which there were
present besides the legates, ten archbishops, forty-two bishops, two
procurators, five generals of religious orders, two abbots and
forty-three theologians, it was defined that, though by the sin of
Adam man had lost original justice and had suffered much, he still
retained free-will, that God had been pleased to promise redemption
through the merits of Jesus Christ, and that baptism or the desire
for baptism is necessary for salvation. The decrees dealt also with
the method of preparing for Justification, with its nature, causes,
and conditions, with the kind of faith required in opposition to the
confidence spoken of by the Reformers, with the necessity and
possibility of observing the commandments, with the certainty of
Justification, perseverance, loss of Grace by mortal sin, and with
merit. The 7th public session (3rd March) was given to decrees
regarding the Sacraments in general and Baptism and Confirmation in
particular.
Meanwhile the long-expected civil war had begun in Germany, and
Europe awaited with anxiety the result of a struggle upon which such
momentous interests might depend. Charles, supported by most of the
Catholic and not a few of the Protestant princes, overthrew the
forces of the Elector of Saxony and of Philip of Hesse (1547)
and by his victory found himself for the first time master in his own
territories. Coupled with rejoicing at the success of the imperial
arms there was also the fear in many minds that the Emperor might use
his power to overawe the Council, and force it to agree to
compromises, which, however useful for the promotion of unity in
Germany, might be subversive of the doctrine and discipline of the
Church and dangerous to the prerogatives of the Holy See. The
selection of Trent as the place of assembly for the council was never
very satisfactory to the Pope, but now in the changed circumstances of
the Empire it was looked upon as positively dangerous. An epidemic
that made its appearance in the city afforded an excellent pretext for
securing a change of venue, and at the 8th public session (11th
March 1547) a majority of the members present voted in favour of
retiring to Bologna. The legates accompanied by most of the bishops
departed immediately, while the bishops who supported the Emperor
remained at Trent. For a time the situation was critical in the
extreme, but under the influence of the Holy Ghost moderate counsels
prevailed with both parties, and after a couple of practically abortive
sessions at Bologna the council was prorogued in September 1549.
A few months later, November 1549, Paul III passed to his
reward.
In the conclave that followed the cardinals were divided into three
parties, namely, the Imperial, the French, and the followers of
the Farnese family. By an agreement between the two latter Cardinal
del Monte was elected against the express prohibition of Charles
V, and took as his title Julius III[99] (1550-5).
He was a man of good education, of sufficiently liberal views, and
with a rather large experience acquired as a prominent official in Rome
and as one of the legates at the Council of Trent. While acting in
the latter capacity he had come into sharp conflict with the Emperor,
but as Pope he found himself forced by the conduct of the Farnese
family to cultivate friendly relations with his former opponent. The
alliance concluded with the Emperor turned out disastrously enough
owing to the French victories in Italy during the campaign of
1552, and in consequence of this Julius III ceased to take an
active part in the struggle between these two countries. During the
earlier years of his reign the Pope took earnest measures to push
forward the work of reform, patronised the Jesuits, established the
"Collegium Germanicum" at Rome for the use of ecclesiastical
students from Germany, and succeeded in restoring England to
communion with the Holy See, but as time passed, discouraged by the
failure of his cherished projects, he adopted a policy of
"laissez-faire", and like many of his predecessors laid himself open
to damaging though to a great extent unfounded charges of nepotism.
Julius III was anxious to continue the work of reform that had
been begun in Trent. In 1550 he issued a Bull convoking the
council to meet once more in Trent on the 1st May 1551. When
the papal legates attended at the time fixed for the opening of the
council they found it necessary owing to the small numbers present to
adjourn it at first till the 1st September, and later till the 11th
October. On account of the unfriendly relations existing between
France and the Empire regarding the Duchy of Parma, and to the
alliance of the Pope and the Emperor, the King of France would not
permit the French bishops to attend. The majority of the bishops
present were from Italy, Germany, and Spain. In the 13th public
session (11th Oct. 1551), at which there were present in
addition to the legates, ten archbishops and fifty- four bishops,
decrees were passed regarding the Real Presence of Christ in the
Eucharist, Transubstantiation, the institution, excellence and
worship of the Eucharist, its reservation and the conditions necessary
for its worthy reception. In the 14th public session (25th Nov.
1551) the council dealt with the sacraments of Penance and
Extreme Unction. In the meantime the Emperor was negotiating with
the Lutherans with the object of inducing them to send representatives
to Trent. Some of their procurators had arrived already, amongst
them being the well-known theologian and historian John Sleidanus of
Strassburg, but their demands, including the withdrawal of the
decrees contravening the articles of the Augsburg Confession and the
submission of the Pope to the authority of a General Council, were
of such an extravagant character that they could not be entertained.
While the subject was under consideration news arrived that Maurice of
Saxony had gone over to the side of the Lutherans, that there was no
army in the field to hold him in check, that the passes of the Tyrol
were occupied by his troops, and that an advance upon Trent was not
impossible. Many of the bishops took their departure immediately, and
in April 1552 against the wishes of a few Spanish bishops the
council was suspended for two years. As a matter of fact close on ten
years were to elapse before the work that had been interrupted could be
resumed.
On the death of Julius III (1555) Marcellus II
succeeded, but his reign was cut short by death (22 days). In the
conclave that followed Cardinal Pietro Caraffa, the first general
and in a certain sense the founder of the Theatines, received the
required majority of votes notwithstanding the express veto of the
Emperor. He was proclaimed Pope under the title of Paul
IV[100] (1555-9). During his life as an ecclesiastic the
new Pope had been remarkable for his rigid views, his ascetic life,
and his adherence to Scholastic as opposed to Humanist views. As
nuncio in Spain he had acquired a complete distrust of the Spanish
rulers, nor was this bad impression likely to be removed by the
treatment he received from the Austro-Spanish party when appointed
Archbishop of Naples. The conclusion of the religious peace of
Augsburg (1555) and the proclamation of Ferdinand I were not
calculated to win the sympathy of Paul IV for the House of
Habsburg. Hence, he put himself in communication with the Italian
opponents of Philip II of Spain, and concluded an alliance with
France. The French army despatched to Naples under the leadership
of the Duke of Guise was out-manoeuvred completely by the Spanish
Viceroy, the Duke of Alva, who followed up his success by invading
the Papal States and compelling the Pope to sue for peace
(1556). The unfriendly relations existing between Paul IV
and Philip II of Spain, the husband of Queen Mary I,
rendered difficult the work of effecting a complete reconciliation
between England and the Holy See. Owing to the disturbed condition
of Europe and the attitude of the Emperor and the King of Spain, it
would have been impossible for the Pope even had he been anxious to do
so to re-convoke the council. He would not so much as consider the
idea of selecting Trent or any German city as a fit place for such an
assembly, while the Austro-Spanish rulers were equally strong
against Rome or any other place in Italy. But of his own initiative
Paul IV took strong measures to reform the Roman Curia,
established a special commission in Rome to assist him in this work,
stamped out by vigorous action heretical opinions that began to manifest
themselves in Italy, and presided frequently himself at meetings of
the Inquisition. He even went so far as to arrest Cardinal Morone
on a suspicion of heresy, and to summon Cardinal Pole to appear
before the tribunal of the Inquisition. By the Romans he had been
beloved at first on account of his economic administration whereby the
taxes were reduced considerably, but the disastrous results of the war
against Philip II in Naples effaced the memory of the benefits he
had conferred, and he died detested by the people. After his death
the city was at the mercy of the mob, who plundered and robbed
wholesale for close on a fortnight before order could be restored.
In the conclave that followed the two great parties among the cardinals
were the French and the Austro-Spanish, neither of which,
however, was strong enough to procure the election of its nominee.
After a struggle lasting three months Cardinal Giovanni Angelo de'
Medici, who was more or less neutral, was elected by acclamation.
He was proclaimed under the title of Pius IV (1559-65).
The new Pope had nothing of the stern morose temperament of his
predecessor. He was of a mild disposition, something of a scholar
himself, inclined to act as a patron towards literature and art, and
anxious to forward the interests of religion by kindness rather than by
severity. He was determined to proceed with the work of the council at
all costs, and as a first step in that direction he devoted all his
energies to the establishment of friendly relations with the Emperor
Ferdinand I and with Spain. In all his schemes for reform he was
supported loyally by his nephew, Charles Borromeo, whom he created
cardinal, and to whom he entrusted the work of preparing the measures
that should be submitted to the future council.
When all arrangements had been made the Bull of re-convocation,
summoning the bishops to meet at Trent at Easter 1561, was
published in November 1560. Though not expressly stated in the
document, yet it was implied clearly enough that the assembly was not
to be a new council but only the continuation of the Council of
Trent. This was not satisfactory to France, which demanded a
revision of some of the decrees passed at Trent, and which objected
strongly to the selection of Trent as the meeting-place. The
Emperor Ferdinand I and Philip II expressed their anxiety to
further the project of the Pope. Delegates were sent from Rome to
interview the Lutheran princes and theologians, but only to meet
everywhere with sharp rebuffs. In an assembly held at Naumburg in
1561 the Lutherans refused to attend the council, unless they were
admitted on their own terms, while many of the Catholic princes and
bishops showed no enthusiasm to respond to the papal convocation. When
the legates arrived to open the council they found so few bishops in
attendance that nothing could be done except to prepare the subjects
that should be submitted for discussion.
It was only on the 15th January 1562 the first (17th) public
session could be held. There were present in addition to the legates,
three patriarchs, eleven archbishops, forty bishops, four generals of
religious orders, and four abbots. From the very beginning the
legates found themselves in a very difficult position owing to the
spirit of hostility against the Holy See manifested by some of the
bishops and representatives of the civil powers. At this session very
little was accomplished except to announce the formal opening of the
council, to fix the date for the next public session, and to prepare
safe conducts for the delegates of the Protestant princes. Similarly
in the 18th public session (25th February) no decrees of any
importance could be passed. Despite the earnest efforts of the
presidents it was found impossible to make any progress. Grave
differences of opinion manifested themselves both within and without the
council. The question whether bishops are bound to reside in their
dioceses by divine or ecclesiastical law gave rise to prolonged and
angry debates. Spain demanded that it should be stated definitely that
the council was only a prolongation of the council held previously at
Trent, while France insisted that it should be regarded as a distinct
and independent assembly. The Emperor put forward a far-reaching
scheme of reform parts of which it was entirely impossible for the
legates to accept.[101] At length after many adjournments the 21st
public session was held (16th July 1562), in which decrees
regarding the Blessed Eucharist were passed. It was defined that
there was no divine law obliging the laity to receive Holy Communion
under both kinds, that the Church has power to make arrangements about
Communion so long as it does not change the substance of the
sacrament, that Christ is really present whole and entire both under
the appearance of bread and under the appearance of wine, that
infants, who have not come to the use of reason, are not bound to
receive Holy Communion because they have been regenerated already by
baptism. At this session there were present six cardinals, three
patriarchs, nineteen archbishops, and one hundred and forty-eight
bishops.
In the 22nd public session (17th Sept. 1562) decrees were
published concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It was laid
down that in place of the sacrifices and the priesthood of the Old Law
Christ set up a new sacrifice, namely the Mass, the clean oblation
foretold by the prophet Malachy (Mal. I., 11) and a new
priesthood, to whom the celebration of the Mass was committed, that
the sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross
having the same high priest and the same victim, that the Mass may be
offered up for the dead as well as for the living, that it may be
offered up in honour of the Saints, that though the faithful should be
advised to receive Holy Communion whenever they assist at Mass, yet
private Masses at which nobody is present for Communion are not
unlawful, and that, though it was not deemed prudent to allow the
sacrifice to be offered up in the vulgar tongue, it was the earnest
wish of the council that priests should explain the ceremonies of the
Mass to the people especially on Sundays and holidays. The question
of allowing the laity to receive the chalice was discussed at length,
and it was decided finally to submit it to the decision of the Pope.
Pius IV did, indeed, make a concession on this point in favour of
several districts in Austria; but as the Catholics did not desire
such a concession and the Lutherans refused to accept it as
insufficient the indult remained practically a dead-letter, and later
on was withdrawn.
The next session was fixed for November 1562 but on account of
very grave difficulties that arose a much more prolonged adjournment was
rendered necessary. During this interval the old controversies broke
out with greater violence and bitterness, and more than once it
appeared as if the council would break up in disorder; but the
perseverance, tact, and energy of the new legates, Cardinals Morone
and Navagero, strengthened by the prudent concessions made by the
Pope, averted the threatened rupture, and made it possible for the
Fathers to accomplish the work for which they had been convoked.
Cardinal Guise[102] (de Lorraine) accompanied by a number of
French bishops and theologians arrived at Trent in November
1562. His arrival strengthened the hands of those Spanish bishops
who were insisting on having it defined that the obligation of episcopal
residence was "de jure divino". The question had been adjourned
previously at the request of the legates, but with the advent of the
discussion on the sacrament of Orders further adjournment was
impossible. Several of the bishops maintained that the obligation must
be "jure divino", because the episcopate itself was "de jure
divino". From this they concluded that the bishops had their
jurisdiction immediately from Christ, not mediately through the Pope
as some of the papal theologians maintained. Consequently they
asserted that the subordination of the bishops to the Pope was not,
therefore of divine origin, thereby raising at once the whole question
of the relations of a general council to a Pope and the binding force
of the decrees regarding the superiority of a council passed at
Constance and Basle.
At the same time danger threatened the council from another quarter.
The Emperor, Ferdinand I had put forward a very comprehensive
scheme of reform. Some portions of this were considered by the legates
to be prejudicial to the rights of the Holy See, and were therefore
rejected by them after consultation with the Pope. Ferdinand annoyed
by their action asserted that there was no liberty at the council, that
it was being controlled entirely from Rome, and that the assembly at
Trent had become merely a machine for confirming what had been decreed
already on the other side of the Alps. At his request several of his
supporters left Trent and joined him at Innsbruck, where a kind of
opposition assembly was begun. Cardinal Morone, realising fully the
seriousness of the situation, betook himself to Innsbruck (April
1563) for a personal interview with the Emperor. The meeting had
the result of clearing away many of the misunderstandings that had
arisen, and of bringing about a compromise. At the same time the
Pope wrote a letter pointing out that it was only reasonable that the
Head of the Church, not being present at the council, should be
consulted by his legates in all important matters that might arise.
Meanwhile the council was still engaged in discussing the authority of
the bishops. On the ground that the Fathers should define at one and
the same time both the rights of the bishops and the rights of the Holy
See Cardinal Guise, who represented the Gallican school of
thought, brought forward certain proposals highly derogatory to the
prerogatives of the Pope. In face of this counter-move the legates
were firm but conciliatory. They pointed out that the whole question
of the jurisdiction of the Holy See had been decided already by the
Council of Florence and that the decrees of Florence could not be
watered down at Trent. On this question the Italian bishops found
themselves supported by the vast majority of the Spanish, Austro-
German and Portuguese representatives; but in deference to the
request of the Pope, who wished that nothing should be defined unless
with the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and to the feelings of the
French, whose secession from the council was anticipated, it was
agreed to issue no decree on the subject. As the supreme authority of
the Pope had been recognised implicitly by the council[103] no
definition was required.
As a result of the negotiations inside and outside the council it was
possible to hold the 23rd public session on the 15th July
1563. In this it was defined that the priesthood of the New Law
was instituted by Christ, that there were seven orders in the Church
about two of which, the priesthood ("de sacerdotibus") and the
diaconate ("de diaconis") express mention is made in the
Scriptures, that the bishops who have succeeded to the place of the
Apostles pertain especially to the hierarchy and are superior to
priests, that neither the consent of the people nor of the civil power
is necessary for the valid reception of orders, and that bishops who
are appointed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff are true
bishops.[104] The question whether the duty of episcopal residence is
"de jure divino", about which such a protracted and heated
controversy had been waged, was settled amicably by deciding that the
bishops as pastors are bound by divine command to know their flocks,
and that they cannot do this unless they reside in their dioceses. At
this session there were present four cardinals, three patriarchs,
twenty-five archbishops and one hundred and ninety- three bishops.
Many of the bishops were anxious to return to their dioceses, and
nearly all of them hoped for a speedy conclusion of the council. The
Pope, the Emperor, and the King of France were in agreement,
though for different reasons, in endeavouring to dissolve the assembly
as soon as possible. The sacrament of Matrimony was next proposed for
discussion. The French party wished that marriages contracted without
the consent of the parents as well as clandestine marriages should be
declared invalid, but the council refused to make the validity of
marriage dependent upon parental consent. In deference to the wishes
of Venice, which stood in close relation to the Greeks, it was
agreed to define merely that the Church does not err when she states in
accordance with the apostolic and evangelic teaching that the bond of
marriage is not broken by adultery. In the 24th public session
(11th Nov. 1563) the decrees on Matrimony were proclaimed.
The greatest anxiety was displayed on all sides to bring the work to a
conclusion. The action of the papal legates in proposing that the
interference of Catholic rulers in ecclesiastical affairs should be
considered and if necessary reformed did not tend to delay the
dissolution. The princes were most anxious to reform the Pope and
clergy, but they were determined not to allow any weakening of their
own so-called prerogatives. In accordance with the general desire the
addresses were cut short, and so rapid was the progress made that the
last public session was held on the 3rd and 4th December 1563.
The decrees on Purgatory, on the honour to be paid to relics and
images of Saints and on Indulgences were passed. It was agreed,
furthermore, that in regard to fast days and holidays the usage of the
Roman Church should be followed, and that the Holy See should
undertake the preparation of a new edition of the missal and breviary.
The decrees that had been passed under Paul III and Julius
III were read and approved. The legates were requested to obtain
the approval of the Holy Father for the decisions of the council, and
Cardinal Guise in the name of the bishops returned thanks to the
Pope, the Emperor, the ambassadors of the Catholic nations, and to
the legates. Finally the Fathers subscribed their names to the acts
of the council. There were then present six cardinals, three
patriarchs, twenty-five archbishops, one hundred and sixty-seven
bishops, and nineteen procurators.
The Council of Trent met in peculiarly difficult circumstances, and
it carried on its work in face of great opposition and disappointments.
More than once it was interrupted for a long period, and more than
once, too, it was feared by many that it would result in promoting
schism rather than unity. But under the Providence of God the
dangers were averted, the counsels of despair were rejected, the arms
of its enemies were weakened, and the hearts of the faithful children
of the Church throughout the world filled with joy and gratitude. It
found itself face to face with a strong and daily increasing party, who
rejected the authority that had been accepted hitherto without
difficulty, and who called in question many of the most cherished
doctrines and practices of the Catholic world. Without allowing
themselves to be involved in purely domestic disputes among Catholic
theologians or to be guided by the advice of those who sought to secure
peace by means of dishonourable compromises, the Fathers of Trent set
themselves calmly but resolutely to sift the chaff from the wheat, to
examine the theories of Luther in the light of the teaching of the
Scriptures and the tradition of the Church as contained in the
writings of the Fathers, and to give to the world a clear-cut
exposition of the dogmas that had been attacked by the heretics. Never
had a council in the Church met under more alarming conditions; never
had a council been confronted with more serious obstacles, and never
did a council confer a greater service on the Christian world than did
the 19th ecumenical council held at Trent (1545-63).
It was of essential importance that the council should determine the
matters of faith that had been raised, but it was almost equally
important that it should formulate a satisfactory scheme of reform.
Reform of the Church in its Head and members was on the lips of many
whose orthodoxy could not be suspected long before Luther had made this
cry peculiarly his own, the better thereby to weaken the loyalty of the
faithful to the Holy See. As in matters of doctrine so also in
matters of discipline the Council of Trent showed a thorough
appreciation of the needs of the Church, and if in some things it
failed to go as far as one might be inclined to desire the fault is not
to be attributed to the Popes or the bishops, but rather to the
secular rulers, whose jealousies and recriminations were one of the
greatest impediments to the progress of the council, and who, while
calling out loudly for the reform of others, offered a stubborn
resistance to any change that might lessen their own power over the
Church, or prevent the realisation of that absolute royalty, towards
which both the Catholic and Protestant rulers of the sixteenth century
were already turning as the ultimate goal of their ambitions.
The council struck at the root of many of the abuses that afflicted the
Christian world by suppressing plurality of benefices, provisions,
and expectancies, as well as by insisting that, except in case of
presentation by a university, nobody could be appointed to a benefice
unless he had shown that he possessed the knowledge necessary for the
proper discharge of his duty. It determined the method of electing
bishops, commanded them to reside in their dioceses unless exempted for
a time on account of very special reasons, to preach to their people,
to hold regular visitations of their parishes, to celebrate diocesan
synods yearly, to attend provincial synods at least once in three
years, and to safeguard conscientiously the ecclesiastical property
committed to their charge.
It put an end to abuses in connexion with the use of ecclesiastical
censures, indulgences, and dispensations, and ordained that all
causes of complaint should be brought before the episcopal court before
being carried to a higher tribunal. It made useful regulations
concerning those who should be admitted into diocesan chapters, defined
the relations between the bishop and his canons, and arranged for the
administration of the dioceses by the appointment of vicars-capitular
to act during the interregnum. It ordered the secular clergy to be
mindful always of the spiritual dignity to which they had been called,
not to indulge in any business unworthy of their sacred office,
condemned concubinage in the strongest terms, and commanded priests to
look after the religious education of the young, to preach to their
flocks on Sundays and holidays, and to attend zealously to the
spiritual wants of the souls committed to their charge.
The council recognised, furthermore, that the best method of securing
a high standard of priestly life was the careful training of
ecclesiastical students. Hence it ordained that in the individual
dioceses seminaries should be established, where those who were
desirous of entering the clerical state should live apart from the
world, and where they should receive the education and discipline
necessary for the successful discharge of their future obligations. It
put an end to many abuses of monastic life, suppressed questing for
alms, drew up rules for the reception of novices, gave the bishop
power to deal with irregularities committed outside the monasteries,
and subjected all priests both regular and secular to episcopal
authority by insisting on the necessity of Approbation for all who
wished to act as confessors. Finally, in order to apply a remedy
against the many scandals and crimes that resulted from secret
marriages, the Council of Trent laid it down that those marriages
only should be regarded as valid which should be contracted in the
presence of the parish priest of one of the contracting parties and two
witnesses.
On the conclusion of the Council of Trent Cardinal Morone hastened
to Rome with the decrees to seek the approval of the Pope. Some of
the Roman officials, who felt themselves aggrieved by the reforms,
advised the Pope to withhold his approval of certain decrees, but
Pius IV rejected this advice. On the 26th January 1564 he
issued the Bull of confirmation, and set himself to work immediately
to put the reforms into execution. To assist him in this design he
appointed a commission, one of the ablest members of which was his own
nephew, Charles Borromeo, and he despatched representatives to the
princes and bishops to ensure their acceptance of the decrees. As an
example to others he established the Roman Seminary for the education
of priests for the city. All the princes of Italy received the
decrees in a friendly spirit and allowed their publication in their
territories, as did also the King of Portugal. Philip II acted
similarly except that he insisted upon the addition of a saving clause
"without prejudice to royal authority." The Emperor Ferdinand I
hesitated for some time, but at last he accepted them in 1566. In
France very little opposition was raised to the dogmatic decrees, but
as several of the practical reforms, notably those relating to
marriages, benefices, ecclesiastical punishments, etc., were
opposed to civil law, permission to publish them was refused.
A profession of faith based on the decrees of the Council of Trent
and of previous councils was drawn up by Pius IV (13th Nov.
1564), and its recitation made obligatory on those who were
appointed to ecclesiastical benefices or who received an academic degree
as well as on converts from Protestantism. The Catechism of the
Council of Trent ("Catechismus Romanus")[105] was prepared at
the command of Pius V and published in 1566. It is a valuable
work of instruction, approved by the highest authority in the Church,
and should be in the hands of all those who have care of souls.
|
|