Council of Trent is the nineteenth ecumenical council, held in three periods between 1545 and 1563, which answered the doctrinal errors of the Protestant Reformation, defined Catholic teaching on revelation, justification, the sacraments, and the Mass, and established a far-reaching program of ecclesiastical reform.
The Council of Trent (Latin: Concilium Tridentinum), held between 1545 and 1563 in Trent (or Trento), in Northern Italy, was the 19th ecumenical council of the Catholic Church.[14][15] Prompted by the Protestant Reformation at the time, it has been described as the "most impressive embodiment of the ideals of the Counter-Reformation."[16] It was the last time a Catholic ecumenical council was organized outside the city of Rome, and the second time a council was convened in the territory of the Holy Roman Empire (the first being the Council of Constance).
The Council issued key statements and clarifications of the Church's doctrine and teachings, including scripture, the biblical canon, sacred tradition, original sin, justification, salvation, the sacraments, the Mass, and the veneration of saints[17] and also issued condemnations of what it defined to be heresies committed by proponents of Protestantism. The consequences of the council were also significant with regard to the Church's liturgy and censorship.
The Council met for twenty-five sessions between 13 December 1545 and 4 December 1563.[18] Pope Paul III, who convoked the council, oversaw the first eight sessions (1545–1547), while the twelfth to sixteenth sessions (1551–52) were overseen by Pope Julius III and the seventeenth to twenty-fifth sessions (1562–63) by Pope Pius IV. More than three hundred years passed until the next ecumenical council, the First Vatican Council, was convened in 1869.
Convocation and three periods
The Council of Trent was both a doctrinal council and a reform council. Protestant teaching had denied or recast doctrines concerning ecclesial authority, justification, the sacramental priesthood, the Eucharistic sacrifice, and several sacraments. At the same time, abuses among Catholics—poor formation, absentee bishops, plural benefices, financial exactions, lax discipline, and inadequate preaching—made reform urgent. The council neither excused those sins nor conceded that corruption could authorize alteration of the apostolic faith. It answered error and reformed institutions in one sustained act.
Attempts to convoke a council were delayed by war between Emperor Charles V and Francis I of France, papal fears about renewed conciliarism, disagreement over location, and Protestant demands that Scripture rather than papal authority judge the proceedings. Paul III finally opened the council at Trent on 13 December 1545. Trent lay within the Empire but was accessible to Italy, a compromise intended to support broad attendance. Papal legates presided, bishops voted, theologians advised, and the pope confirmed the decrees.
First period, 1545–1547
The first period established the council's method of issuing doctrinal decrees alongside reform canons. It treated Scripture and apostolic traditions, the biblical canon and Vulgate, original sin, justification, the sacraments in general, Baptism, and Confirmation. Epidemic fears and political tension prompted the papal legates to transfer the council to Bologna in 1547. A minority remained at Trent, the emperor opposed the move, and no major decrees were issued at Bologna. Paul III suspended the proceedings in 1549.[1]
The debates on justification were especially demanding. The fathers examined Lutheran and other Protestant writings, patristic sources, scholastic distinctions, and competing proposals from Catholic theologians. The final decree avoided reducing salvation either to human achievement or to a merely external declaration. It confessed the absolute priority of grace, the real interior renewal of the justified, the necessity of faith, and the Spirit-enabled cooperation of a person whom grace frees and heals.
Second period, 1551–1552
Julius III reconvened the council at Trent in 1551. The sessions defined doctrine on the Eucharist, the sacrament of Penance, and Extreme Unction, now ordinarily called the Anointing of the Sick. Protestant envoys and theologians arrived under safe-conduct, but agreement about the council's authority and prior decrees proved impossible. The attendance of German Protestant representatives did not transform the assembly into a negotiation in which revealed doctrine could be settled by compromise.[2]
The renewed war of the German princes against Charles V made Trent unsafe. The council suspended itself in April 1552, and a decade passed before it met again. Julius III died, and Paul IV opposed reconvocation. The long interruption demonstrates that Trent was not a single uninterrupted convention. Its identity rests on lawful continuation and papal confirmation across three periods, not on permanent attendance by one body of fathers.
Third period, 1562–1563
Pius IV reopened the council in January 1562. Attendance became far larger and more international, including substantial French, Spanish, imperial, and Italian delegations. Intense disputes arose over episcopal residence, the relation of bishops to papal authority, Communion under both kinds, and reform of the Curia. Cardinal legates managed negotiations while secular ambassadors pressed national interests. The council nevertheless completed its work rather than collapsing into political blocs.
The final period treated Communion under both species, the sacrifice of the Mass, Holy Orders, Matrimony, purgatory, saints, relics, sacred images, indulgences, religious life, episcopal government, seminaries, and a broad reform decree. On 4 December 1563 the fathers acclaimed the decrees and requested papal confirmation. Pius IV confirmed the council in the bull Benedictus Deus, reserving authoritative interpretation to the Apostolic See and directing implementation throughout the Church.[3]
Revelation, Scripture, and Tradition
Trent taught that the saving truth and moral discipline proclaimed by Christ are contained in written books and unwritten traditions received by the apostles from Christ or handed on by the Holy Spirit and preserved in continuous succession. Scripture and apostolic Tradition are not rival stores from which doctrines can be selected independently. They transmit the one Gospel entrusted to the Church. The council's language rejects sola scriptura, understood as making Scripture the sole infallible rule interpreted apart from apostolic Tradition and the Church's teaching office.
The decree listed the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, including those later called deuterocanonical, and received them with all their parts as sacred and canonical. Trent did not add books to the Bible in reaction to Luther. It solemnly reaffirmed the canon long received in Catholic liturgy and teaching, in continuity with ancient regional councils and the decrees of Florence. The definition settled the matter for Catholics against reformers who placed several Old Testament books outside the canon and questioned New Testament books.
The Vulgate and biblical scholarship
Trent declared the old Latin Vulgate authentic for public readings, disputations, preaching, and exposition and ordered a corrected edition. Authentic here concerns the Church's juridical and liturgical use; it does not mean that every manuscript reading or translation choice is verbally inspired, or that Hebrew and Greek cease to matter. The council itself called for textual correction, and Catholic scholars continued to study the original languages. Later popes explicitly encouraged critical scholarship governed by faith.[4]
The decree also opposed reckless private interpretation contrary to the sense held by the Church or the unanimous consent of the Fathers. This does not make biblical study a repetition of official prooftexts. The Church's judgment protects the divine word from interpretations that contradict the deposit, while legitimate exegesis examines genre, history, languages, textual witnesses, literary structure, canonical context, and patristic reception. Vatican II's Dei Verbum developed these principles in continuity with Trent.[5][6]
Traditions and reformable customs
The council's veneration of apostolic traditions must be distinguished from treating every inherited custom as unchangeable. Constitutive Tradition transmits the apostolic faith; ecclesiastical traditions can embody, regulate, and protect that faith but may be reformed by competent authority. Liturgical rites, fasting disciplines, vesture, legal procedures, and devotional practices do not all possess the same origin or authority. Trent defended the real apostolic transmission rejected by sola scriptura without collapsing dogma into custom.
The decree does not settle a later theological debate about whether every revealed proposition is materially contained in Scripture or whether some are known only through unwritten Tradition. Catholic schools may explain the sufficiency and relation of Scripture and Tradition differently within the boundaries fixed by the Magisterium. The nonnegotiable truths are their common divine source, their ecclesial transmission, and the authority of the Church to judge authentic interpretation.
Sin, grace, and justification
The decree on original sin taught that Adam's transgression harmed his descendants and that original sin is transmitted to all by propagation, not merely imitation. Baptism remits its guilt and makes the baptized truly innocent before God, although concupiscence remains as an inclination to sin and a field of struggle. The council carefully stated that it did not intend to include the Blessed Virgin Mary in its general decree, leaving intact the developing doctrine later defined as the Immaculate Conception.
Justification is the passage from the state of sin to the state of grace and adoption through Jesus Christ. No natural work, observance of law, or unaided decision can merit the initial grace. The Father draws, Christ merits, and the Holy Spirit moves and disposes the sinner. Adults are not inert objects: grace awakens faith, fear of divine justice, hope in mercy, love of God, hatred of sin, and the desire for Baptism and a new life. Their cooperation is itself enabled by prevenient grace.
Faith, hope, charity, and interior renewal
The instrumental cause of initial justification is the sacrament of Baptism or its desire; the meritorious cause is Christ's Passion; the efficient cause is God; and the formal cause is the justice of God by which he makes persons just. The justified receive sanctifying grace and the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. God's favorable judgment is therefore not a legal fiction covering an unchanged soul. Forgiveness and sanctification are inseparable gifts of union with Christ.
Faith is the beginning, foundation, and root of justification. Trent rejected the claim that a merely fiduciary confidence, isolated from hope and charity, is the whole of justifying faith. It did not teach that human works earn salvation apart from Christ. Good works of the justified are fruits of grace and real acts of the renewed person; because believers live in Christ, God crowns his own gifts and promises a reward without becoming their debtor in the manner of a commercial exchange.
Assurance must also be stated exactly. A Christian can possess moral confidence in God's fidelity, examine the fruits of grace, and trust the sacraments. Without special revelation, however, one cannot claim infallible certainty of personal perseverance or present grace in a way that excludes humble self-examination. Trent opposed presumptuous certainty, not Christian hope. Its teaching calls the believer away from both despair and a confidence detached from conversion.[7]
Loss and restoration of grace
Sanctifying grace can be lost through mortal sin. Not every sin destroys charity, and the justified remain weak and dependent on mercy. Those who fall after Baptism are restored through the sacrament of Penance, which includes contrition, confession, absolution, and satisfaction according to the sacrament's nature. Perfect contrition reconciles a person to God when it includes the desire for the sacrament; sacramental absolution remains the ordinary ecclesial means instituted by Christ.
Trent's canons anathematize defined propositions, not every person who has ever repeated similar words. An anathema identifies an objective contradiction with Catholic doctrine within the council's juridical form. Personal culpability depends on knowledge, freedom, formation, and other factors judged by God and competent pastors. Ecumenical dialogue has shown substantial common ground on grace and faith without pretending that all sixteenth-century disagreements have disappeared.
The seven sacraments
Trent defined that the New Law contains seven sacraments instituted by Christ: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. They are not bare signs of communal profession. They contain and confer the grace they signify upon those who place no obstacle, because Christ acts through the sacramental sign. Three—Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders—imprint an indelible character and therefore cannot be repeated.
The principle ex opere operato means that sacramental efficacy rests on Christ's work and promise rather than the minister's holiness or the recipient's emotional intensity. It does not make reception mechanical. Adults must approach with the dispositions proper to each sacrament, and sacrilege can prevent fruit or add sin. Nor does the principle excuse an unworthy minister, whose acts may be valid while his conduct remains gravely blameworthy.[8]
Baptism and Confirmation
Baptism is necessary as Christ instituted it, remits all sin, communicates new birth, and incorporates the baptized into Christ. Infant Baptism is valid and fitting because grace is God's gift before personal achievement. The Church supplies Christian formation so that baptismal faith can mature. Trent rejected rebaptism and the denial that baptized children belong among the faithful. Confirmation is a true sacrament, ordinarily conferred by a bishop in the Latin Church, strengthening the baptized with the Holy Spirit for witness.
The council's sacramental canons do not reduce Eastern practice to Latin discipline. Eastern Catholic Churches lawfully administer Chrismation with Baptism, usually through a priest using chrism consecrated by the proper authority, and communicate infants. Diversity of sequence and ministerial discipline exists within the same sacramental faith.
Penance and Anointing of the Sick
Penance is a true sacrament instituted by Christ for sins committed after Baptism. Priestly absolution is a judicial sacramental act, not merely an announcement that faith has already secured forgiveness. Integral confession includes all remembered mortal sins in kind and number after diligent examination. Satisfaction does not purchase forgiveness; it expresses medicinal penance, repairs disorder, and joins the penitent's life to Christ's atoning obedience.
Extreme Unction is likewise a true sacrament, grounded in James 5 and administered to the dangerously ill by priests with blessed oil and prayer. It gives grace, strengthens against temptation, forgives sins when necessary, and can restore bodily health if conducive to salvation. Later liturgical reform recovered the broader title Anointing of the Sick and encouraged celebration before the final moments, without denying Trent's doctrine.
Holy Orders and Matrimony
Holy Orders confers a real sacramental power and character. The New Testament priesthood is not merely a delegated community function; bishops and priests act in Christ's name in preaching, shepherding, forgiving sins, and offering the Eucharistic sacrifice. The hierarchy of bishops, priests, and ministers belongs to ecclesial order. Trent defended ordination against claims that all ministerial distinction is only human appointment, while later teaching more fully described episcopal consecration and collegiality.
Matrimony is a sacrament between baptized persons, signifying Christ's union with the Church. Its bond is not dissolved by private will. To remedy clandestine unions, the decree Tametsi required marriage before the parish priest or another authorized priest and witnesses in places where the law was promulgated. This canonical form was disciplinary and developed later; it did not imply that earlier valid marriages were not sacramental or that the priest rather than the spouses is the minister in the Latin tradition.
Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass
In the Eucharist Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present—body, blood, soul, and divinity. By consecration the whole substance of bread becomes the substance of Christ's body and the whole substance of wine becomes the substance of his blood; the Church fittingly calls this change transubstantiation. The appearances of bread and wine remain. Christ is present whole and entire under either species and in every part after separation.
Eucharistic adoration follows from the identity of the sacrament. The consecrated species are not holy only during reception or because a congregation remembers Christ. The Church reserves the sacrament, carries it to the sick, exposes it for worship, and celebrates Corpus Christi because the living Lord remains present. Such worship terminates in Christ, not in created bread considered apart from consecration.
Communion and sacramental discipline
The council defended Communion under one species as reception of the whole Christ and the full sacramental grace. It did not deny that receiving both species more completely expresses the sign of the Eucharistic banquet. Christ is indivisible, and concomitance means his body and blood cannot be separated in his risen life. The Church can regulate the manner of Communion for pastoral reasons, and later law permits the chalice more widely under approved conditions.[9]
Trent encouraged frequent worthy Communion but did not make actual reception by every person necessary for the priest's valid celebration. The priest offers the sacrifice in the name of Christ and the Church even when few receive. Spiritual communion and desire can bear real fruit, but they do not make sacramental reception dispensable when a Catholic is properly disposed and able to participate.
One sacrifice sacramentally made present
The Mass is a true and proper sacrifice because the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on Calvary is sacramentally offered in an unbloody manner through the ministry of priests. The victim and principal priest are the same; the mode of offering differs. The Mass neither repeats Christ's death nor adds a second redemption. It makes the one sacrifice present and applies its fruit to the living and the dead.
The Last Supper instituted this sacramental sacrifice and commanded the apostles to do it in Christ's memory. Memorial in biblical worship is an effective liturgical making-present of God's saving deed, not bare mental recollection. The ordained priest speaks and acts in the person of Christ, while the whole Church offers through, with, and in her Head. Vatican II's account of active participation and the common priesthood develops rather than contradicts Trent's teaching.[10]
Trent defended the Roman Canon, ceremonies, sacred vestments, signs, and the legitimate use of Latin against the charge that Catholic worship was intrinsically impious. It did not define Latin as the only permissible liturgical language or forbid all vernacular use. It ordered pastors to explain the readings and mysteries frequently. The council defended inherited worship while recognizing the need for intelligible catechesis; later competent authority could and did regulate broader vernacular celebration.
Reform of bishops, clergy, and Christian life
Trent required bishops to reside in their dioceses, preach, visit parishes and institutions, hold synods, supervise clergy, and care for formation and discipline. It restricted plural benefices and absentee enjoyment of revenues. The fathers disagreed over whether the residence obligation was immediately of divine law, but they enacted stringent ecclesiastical law. The bishop was to be a shepherd present to his flock, not a courtier who treated a see as income.
The seminary decree required every diocese, or groups of dioceses where necessary, to establish institutions for the stable formation of clerics. Candidates were to receive spiritual, liturgical, intellectual, and pastoral education under ecclesial supervision. Implementation took decades and varied by region, but the seminary became one of the most consequential instruments of Catholic reform, raising educational standards and supporting a more disciplined priesthood.
Pastoral government and catechesis
Bishops were charged to ensure preaching, sacramental care, records, and correction of abuses. Cathedral chapters, parish clergy, religious exemptions, and benefice holders were brought under clearer visitation. The council regulated ordination ages and intervals, clerical dress and conduct, the appointment of pastors, and the use of ecclesiastical property. Reform was concrete because doctrine is handed on through institutions that can either serve or obstruct the salvation of souls.
After the council, the Roman Catechism supplied pastors with a systematic exposition of the Creed, sacraments, commandments, and prayer. Reformed liturgical books and the profession of faith promoted unity. These postconciliar works were authorized implementations, not additional sessions of Trent. They carry their own grades of authority and can be revised by competent authority while preserving the council's doctrine.
Religious life and popular devotion
The final reform decree addressed monasteries and religious houses, enclosure, profession, property, elections, and observance of rules. Authentic religious renewal was already visible in Capuchins, Theatines, Barnabites, Ursulines, Jesuits, Discalced Carmelites, and reforms within older orders. Trent placed this energy within a universal disciplinary program rather than inventing Catholic renewal from nothing.
The council defended invocation of saints, veneration of relics, and sacred images because honor given to an image passes to its prototype and the saints live in Christ and intercede. It ordered bishops to remove superstition, false claims, disorderly profit, and lascivious representation. Catholic reform purified devotion rather than abolishing the material and communal forms through which the Incarnation is confessed.
Purgatory, indulgences, and final decrees
Trent reaffirmed purgatory and the value of prayers and especially the Eucharistic sacrifice for the dead, while directing preachers to avoid difficult speculations that did not edify the faithful. It defended indulgences as a legitimate exercise of the Church's authority to remit temporal punishment while condemning abuses and ordering the abolition of corrupt financial gain. The sale of spiritual things is simony; an indulgence is not permission to sin, forgiveness without repentance, or the purchase of heaven.
The council entrusted completion of the Index of prohibited books, catechism, missal, and breviary to the pope. It also renewed decrees on fasting, feast days, ecclesiastical immunities, and the moral obligations of rulers. These acts mixed doctrine, discipline, and administration. Their presence in the final sessions does not give every later edition of a liturgical book or every censorship decision irreformable status.[11]
Implementation and Catholic renewal
Pius IV confirmed Trent in 1564 and issued the Tridentine profession of faith. Pius V promulgated the Roman Catechism, revised Breviary, and Roman Missal; later popes continued textual and legal work. The standardized Roman books did not abolish rites with sufficient antiquity, and Eastern Catholic liturgies were not replaced by the Roman Rite. The reform sought reliable worship and doctrine amid great variation, not the claim that one sixteenth-century edition could never be revised.
Saint Charles Borromeo embodied episcopal implementation through synods, visitation, seminary formation, catechesis, and personal discipline. Reform spread through papal nuncios, new religious institutes, universities, confraternities, missions, and renewed older orders. Its reception depended on political conditions: Spain, the Italian states, Poland, the Empire, France, and missionary territories adopted decrees through different legal paths. France did not formally register all disciplinary decrees but received Trent's doctrine.
The so-called Tridentine era
The centuries after Trent produced remarkable clarity, missionary expansion, priestly formation, sacred art, catechesis, and saints. The label Counter-Reformation captures the response to Protestantism but is incomplete. Catholic Reform had internal sources and positive goals: holiness, education, pastoral residence, disciplined worship, evangelization, and service. Trent was reactive where error required an answer and constructive where the Church's life required renewal.
Not everything characteristic of early modern Catholic culture was mandated by Trent. Architectural styles, devotional emphases, patterns of seminary life, centralized administrative habits, and particular liturgical customs developed through later law and culture. Historical writers should not use Tridentine as a catch-all adjective that turns every post-1563 practice into a conciliar decree.
Trent and Vatican II
Vatican II did not overturn Trent. Its constitutions cite and presuppose Tridentine teaching on revelation, justification, sacrifice, priesthood, sacraments, and ecclesial authority. Liturgical reform altered discipline and ritual form while retaining the one sacrificial Eucharist and real presence. Ecumenical dialogue sought clearer expression and common ground without declaring the Reformation disputes imaginary.
The two councils answered different pastoral circumstances and used different modes. Trent often defined against precise denials; Vatican II generally presented an integrated account for renewal and engagement. Continuity does not require identical vocabulary or legislation. It requires that later teaching receive rather than contradict the dogmatic substance already defined.
Council fathers, theologians, and working procedure
Trent's definitions emerged through a disciplined process rather than a single papal draft imposed on silent bishops. Papal legates presided and controlled the agenda in communion with Rome; theologians and canonists examined disputed questions in preparatory meetings; bishops debated in general congregations; drafting committees revised language; and solemn sessions promulgated the agreed decrees. The pope's confirmation completed their binding ecumenical character. This structure protected both real episcopal deliberation and the council's union with the Roman head of the college.
Attendance changed markedly across the three periods. Italians formed the largest group, but Spanish, French, Imperial, Portuguese, Polish, Hungarian, and other bishops brought distinct pastoral and political concerns. Rulers pressed instructions through ambassadors, sometimes delaying or redirecting business. Religious orders supplied major theological expertise: Dominicans, Franciscans, Augustinians, Benedictines, and the new Society of Jesus all contributed. Diego Laínez and Alfonso Salmerón were influential Jesuit theologians, while Seripando, Soto, Cano, and many less famous participants shaped debates that cannot be reduced to one school.
Debate, drafting, and anathemas
The fathers ordinarily distinguished a doctrinal decree with explanatory chapters from canons directed against specified errors. The chapters positively set out Catholic teaching; the canons establish boundaries by condemning propositions. An anathema identifies an objective contradiction of the faith under discussion. It is not a historical claim that every later person using similar words possesses full knowledge, formal culpability, or a canonical penalty automatically applicable under current law.
Drafts could change substantially as bishops objected to ambiguous terms, requested scriptural or patristic support, or sought language that excluded an error without condemning a legitimate theological opinion. On justification, for example, the council had to reject both Pelagian self-salvation and accounts that made interior renewal unreal, while preserving divine initiative, human freedom healed by grace, assurance grounded in God, and the possibility of growth in holiness. The final decree's precision was the fruit of controversy ordered to judgment.
Papal confirmation and authentic interpretation
After the final acclamations, Pope Pius IV confirmed the council by the bull Benedictus Deus in 1564 and reserved authoritative interpretation to the Apostolic See. A Roman congregation was established to oversee implementation and interpretation of the decrees. This did not prevent bishops and theologians from teaching Trent; it prevented local authorities from emptying or altering conciliar judgments under the guise of explanation.
The Tridentine Profession of Faith, Roman Catechism, revised Breviary and Missal, and corrected biblical and canonical publications formed a coordinated reception, but they are not all themselves decrees of the council. Some were expressly requested or anticipated by the fathers and then promulgated by papal authority. Distinguishing the council from its authorized implementation improves rather than weakens the account of Catholic reform, because each instrument can be cited according to its own author, date, scope, and authority.
Minority positions and legitimate schools
Trent settled revealed doctrine while leaving many questions open among Catholic schools. Thomists, Scotists, Augustinians, and other theologians continued to dispute the relation of grace and freedom, the analysis of sacramental causality, the mode of Christ's Eucharistic presence, and the conceptual account of merit within defined boundaries. A council need not canonize one complete theological system in order to rule out errors and teach the faith with finality.
Voting records and diaries reveal disagreements over wording, pastoral timing, and reform strategy. Such disagreement is not evidence that doctrine was fabricated by a bare majority. It shows bishops exercising judgment before a final collegiate act. Once the council and pope definitively proposed the teaching, earlier alternatives lost whatever freedom they had where they contradicted the definition; questions not decided remained open to disciplined theological inquiry.
Controversies and exact interpretation
Trent is frequently caricatured as teaching salvation by human works, banning the Bible, inventing seven sacraments, or creating an idolatrous sacrifice. Its decrees say otherwise. Initial justification is wholly unmerited grace; Scripture is received as divine and ordered to be taught; seven sacraments are confessed as instituted by Christ; and the Mass is the sacramental presence of the one Cross. Catholic apologetics should answer false claims from the texts, not with counter-caricatures of Protestants.
A different error treats every sixteenth-century disciplinary expression as permanent. Canonical form, fasting, liturgical language, benefice structures, censorship procedures, and seminary organization are governed by legitimate authority and can develop. Distinguishing dogma from discipline protects Trent's authority because it prevents obsolete regulations from being mistaken for the content of faith.
Ecumenical convergence and remaining division
The Catholic Church and Lutheran communities have identified a shared confession concerning the priority of grace and justification by faith, while acknowledging continuing differences in expression and doctrine. Such convergence is valuable and can correct polemical misunderstandings. It does not repeal Trent's canons or imply that every condemned proposition was merely verbal. Agreements must be read according to their stated scope and ecclesial authority.[12]
The proper Catholic posture joins confidence and repentance. The Church cannot surrender truths defined at Trent, and Catholics should acknowledge the clerical abuses, coercive politics, and failures of charity that deepened division. Unity is served by exact doctrine, honest history, and conversion rather than by pretending either that doctrine does not matter or that Catholics committed no sins.
Authority of the decrees
Trent's dogmatic decrees and canons are solemn acts of the extraordinary Magisterium. Their authority attaches to what the council intended definitively to teach or condemn. Explanatory chapters guide interpretation and often teach authoritatively; historical premises and incidental formulations must be read according to genre. Reform decrees were binding ecclesiastical law but are not irreformable dogma.
Papal confirmation belongs to the council's binding force. Authentic interpretation rests with the Church's living Magisterium, not with private selection of isolated canons against the Catechism, later councils, or current sacramental law. Trent remains permanently Catholic because the deposit it defended remains true, while its disciplinary achievement lives through lawful development rather than archaeological imitation.
Background information
Obstacles and events before the Council's problem area
On 15 March 1517, the Fifth Council of the Lateran closed its activities with a number of reform proposals (on the selection of bishops, taxation, censorship and preaching) but not on the new major problems that confronted the Church in Germany and other parts of Europe. A few months later, on 31 October 1517, Martin Luther issued his 95 Theses in Wittenberg.
A general, free council in Germany
Luther's position on ecumenical councils shifted over time,[19] but in 1520 he appealed to the German princes to oppose the papal Church at the time, if necessary with a council in Germany,[20] open and free of the Papacy. After the Pope condemned in Exsurge Domine fifty-two of Luther's theses as heresy, German opinion considered a council the best method to reconcile existing differences. German Catholics, diminished in number, hoped for a council to clarify matters.[21]
It took a generation for the council to materialise, partly due to papal fears over potentially renewing a schism over conciliarism; partly because Lutherans demanded the exclusion of the papacy from the council; partly because of ongoing political rivalries between France and the Holy Roman Empire; and partly due to the Turkish dangers in the Mediterranean.[21][22] Under Pope Clement VII (1523–34), mutinous troops, many of whom were Lutheran belonging to the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, sacked Papal Rome in 1527, "raping, killing, burning, stealing, the like had not been seen since the Vandals". Saint Peter's Basilica and the Sistine Chapel were used for stabling horses.[23] Pope Clement, fearful of the potential for more violence, delayed calling the council.[22]
Charles V strongly favored a council but needed the support of King Francis I of France, who attacked him militarily. Francis I generally opposed a general council due to partial support of the Protestant cause within France. Charles' younger brother Ferdinand of Austria, who ruled a huge swath of territory in central Europe, agreed in 1532 to the Nuremberg Religious Peace granting religious liberty to the Protestants, and in 1533 he further complicated matters when suggesting a general council to include both Catholic and Protestant rulers of Europe that would devise a compromise between the two theological systems. This proposal met the opposition of the Pope, for it gave recognition to Protestants and also elevated the secular Princes of Europe above the clergy on church matters. Faced with a Turkish attack, Charles held the support of the Protestant German rulers, all of whom delayed the opening of the Council of Trent.[24]
Occasion, sessions, and attendance
In the to-and-fro of medieval politics, Pope Pius II, in his bull Execrabilis (1460) and his reply to the University of Cologne (1463), had set aside the theory of the supremacy of general councils laid down by the Council of Constance,[25] which had also called for frequent ecumenical councils every ten years to cope with the backlog of reform and heresies.[26]
Martin Luther had appealed for a general council, in response to the Papal bull Exsurge Domine of Pope Leo X (1520). In 1522 German diets joined in the appeal, with Charles V seconding and pressing for a council as a means of reunifying the Church and settling the Reformation controversies. Pope Clement VII (1523–34) was vehemently against the idea of a council, agreeing with Francis I of France.
Sessions
The history of the council is divided into three distinct periods: 1545–1549, 1551–1552 and 1562–1563.
The number of attending members in the three periods varied considerably.[25] The council was small to begin with, opening with only about 30 bishops.[27] It increased toward the close, but never reached the number of the First Council of Nicaea (which had 318 members, in 325)[25] nor of the First Vatican Council (which numbered 744, in 1868). The decrees were signed in 1563 by 255 members, the highest attendance of the whole council,[27] including four papal legates, two cardinals, three patriarchs, twenty-five archbishops, and 168 bishops, two-thirds of whom were Italians. The Italian and Spanish prelates were vastly preponderant in power and numbers. At the passage of the most important decrees, not more than sixty prelates were present.[25] Although most Protestants did not attend, ambassadors and theologians of Brandenburg, Württemberg, and Strasbourg attended having been granted an improved safe conduct.[28]
Pre-council
Pope Paul III (1534–1549), seeing that the Protestant Reformation was no longer confined to a few preachers, but had won over various princes, especially in Germany, to its ideas, desired a council. Yet when he proposed the idea to his cardinals, it was almost unanimously opposed. Nonetheless, he sent nuncios throughout Europe to propose the idea. Paul III issued a decree for a general council to be held in Mantua, Italy, to begin on 23 May 1537.[29] Martin Luther wrote the Smalcald Articles in preparation for the general council. The Smalcald Articles were designed to sharply define where the Lutherans could and would not compromise. The council was ordered by the Emperor and Pope Paul III to convene in Mantua on 23 May 1537.
It failed to convene after another war broke out between France and Charles V, resulting in a non-attendance of French prelates. Protestants refused to attend as well. Financial difficulties in Mantua led the Pope in the autumn of 1537 to move the council to Vicenza, where participation was poor. The council was postponed indefinitely on 21 May 1539.
Pope Paul III then initiated several internal Church reforms while Emperor Charles V convened with Protestants and Cardinal Gasparo Contarini at the Diet of Regensburg, to reconcile differences. Mediating and conciliatory formulations were developed on certain topics. In particular, a two-part doctrine of justification was formulated that would later be rejected at Trent.[30] Unity failed between Catholic and Protestant representatives "because of different concepts of Church and Justification".[31]
First period
However, the council was delayed until 1545 and, as it happened, convened right before Luther's death. Unable, however, to resist the urging of Charles V, the pope, after proposing Mantua as the place of meeting, convened the council at Trent (at that time ruled by a prince-bishop under the Holy Roman Empire),[25] on 13 December 1545; the Pope's decision to transfer it to Bologna in March 1547 on the pretext of avoiding a plague[16] failed to take effect and the council was indefinitely prorogued on 17 September 1549. None of the three popes reigning over the duration of the council ever attended, which had been a condition of Charles V. Papal legates were appointed to represent the Papacy.[32]
Second period
Reopened at Trent on 1 May 1551 by the convocation of Pope Julius III (1550–1555), it was broken up by the sudden victory of Maurice, Elector of Saxony over Emperor Charles V and his march into surrounding state of Tirol on 28 April 1552.[33] There was no hope of reassembling the council while the very anti-Protestant Paul IV was Pope.[16]
During the second period, the Protestants present asked for a renewed discussion on points already defined and for bishops to be released from their oaths of allegiance to the Pope. When the last period began, all intentions of conciliating the Protestants was gone and the Jesuits had become a strong force.[16] This last period was begun especially as an attempt to prevent the formation of a general council including Protestants, as had been demanded by some in France.
Third period
The council was reconvened by Pope Pius IV (1559–1565) for the last time, meeting from 18 January 1562 at Santa Maria Maggiore, and continued until its final adjournment on 4 December 1563. It closed with a series of ritual acclamations honouring the reigning Pope, the Popes who had convoked the council, the emperor and the kings who had supported it, the papal legates, the cardinals, the ambassadors present, and the bishops, followed by acclamations of acceptance of the faith of the council and its decrees, and of anathema for all heretics.[34]
The French monarchy boycotted the entire council until the last minute when a delegation led by Charles de Guise, Cardinal of Lorraine finally arrived in November 1562. The first outbreak of the French Wars of Religion had occurred earlier in the year and the French Church, facing a significant and powerful Protestant minority in France, experienced iconoclasm violence regarding the use of sacred images. Such concerns were not primary in the Italian and Spanish Churches.[35] The last-minute inclusion of a decree on sacred images was a French initiative, and the text, never discussed on the floor of the council or referred to council theologians, was based on a French draft.[36]
Objectives and overall results
The main objectives of the council were twofold:
- To condemn the principles and doctrines of Protestantism and to clarify the doctrines of the Catholic Church on all disputed points. This had not been done formally since the 1530 Confutatio Augustana. It is true that the emperor intended it to be a strictly general or truly ecumenical council, at which the Protestants should have a fair hearing. He secured, during the council's second period, 1551–1553, an invitation, twice given, to the Protestants to be present and the council issued a letter of safe conduct (thirteenth session) and offered them the right of discussion, but denied them a vote. Melanchthon and Johannes Brenz, with some other German Lutherans, actually started in 1552 on the journey to Trent. Brenz offered a confession and Melanchthon, who got no farther than Nuremberg, took with him the Confessio Saxonica. But the refusal to give the Protestants the vote and the consternation produced by the success of Maurice in his campaign against Charles V in 1552 effectually put an end to Protestant cooperation.[25]
- To effect a reformation in discipline or administration. This object had been one of the causes calling forth the reformatory councils and had been lightly touched upon by the Fifth Council of the Lateran under Pope Julius II. The obvious corruption in the administration of the Church was one of the numerous causes of the Reformation. Twenty-five public sessions were held, but nearly half of them were spent in solemn formalities. The chief work was done in committees or congregations. The entire management was in the hands of the papal legate. The liberal elements lost out in the debates and voting. The council abolished some of the most notorious abuses and introduced or recommended disciplinary reforms affecting the sale of indulgences, the morals of convents, the education of the clergy, the non-residence of bishops (also bishops having plurality of benefices, which was fairly common), and the careless fulmination of censures, and forbade duelling. Although evangelical sentiments were uttered by some of the members in favour of the supreme authority of the Scriptures and justification by faith, no concession whatsoever was made to Protestantism, according to a Protestant source.[25]
Specific issues that were discussed included:
- The Church as the ultimate interpreter of Scripture.[37] Also, the Bible and church tradition (the tradition that composed part of the Catholic faith) were equally and independently authoritative.
- The relationship of faith and works in salvation was defined, following controversy over Martin Luther's doctrine of "justification by faith alone".
- Other Catholic practices that had drawn the ire of reformers within the Church, such as indulgences, pilgrimages, the veneration of saints and relics, and the veneration of the Virgin Mary were strongly reaffirmed, though abuses of them were forbidden.
- Decrees concerning sacred music and religious art, though inexplicit, were subsequently amplified by theologians and writers to condemn many types of Renaissance and medieval styles and iconographies, impacting heavily on the development of these art forms.
The doctrinal decisions of the council were set forth in decrees (decreta), which are divided into chapters (capita), which contain the positive statement of the conciliar dogmas, and into short canons (canones), which condemn incorrect views (often a Protestant-associated notion stated in an extreme form) with the concluding anathema sit ("let him be anathema" i.e., excluded from the society of the faithful).[25]
The consequences of the council were also significant with regard to the Church's liturgy and practices. In 1565, a year after the Council finished its work, Pius IV issued the Tridentine Creed (after Tridentum, Trent's Latin name) and his successor Pius V then issued the Roman Catechism and revisions of the Breviary and Missal in, respectively, 1566, 1568 and 1570. These, in turn, led to the codification of the Tridentine Mass, which became the Latin Church's primary form of the Mass for the next four hundred years.
The council endorsed the Latin Vulgate the official biblical text of the Roman Church for public use (without prejudice to the original texts in Hebrew and Greek, nor to other traditional translations of the Church, but favoring the traditional Latin over vernacular or unauthorized translations, such as the controversial English-language Tyndale Bible).[38] Towards that goal, they commissioned the creation of a revised and standardized Vulgate in light of textual criticism, although this was not achieved until the 1590s, and has been revised over time. The council also officially re-affirmed the traditional Catholic Canon of biblical books, which was identical to the canon of Scripture issued by the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus in 382.[39] This was in response to the increasing Protestant exclusion of the deuterocanonical books.[16] (The previous dogmatic affirmation of the Canonical books was at the Council of Florence in the 1441 bull Cantate Domino, as affirmed by Pope Leo XIII in his 1893 encyclical Providentissimus Deus (#20).)
Decrees
The doctrinal acts are as follows:
After reaffirming the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (third session), the decree was passed (fourth session) confirming that the deuterocanonical books were on a par with the other books of the canon (against Luther's placement of these books in the Apocrypha of his edition) and coordinating church tradition with the Scriptures as a rule of faith. The Vulgate translation was affirmed to be authoritative for the text of Scripture.[25]
Justification (sixth session) was declared to be offered upon the basis of human cooperation with divine grace[25] (synergism) as opposed to the typical Protestant doctrine of passive reception of grace (monergism). Understanding the Protestant "faith alone" doctrine to be one of simple human confidence in Divine Mercy, the Council rejected the "vain confidence" of the Protestants, stating that no one can know infallibly who has received the grace of final perseverance apart from receiving a special revelation. Furthermore, the Council affirmed—against some Protestants—that the grace of God can be forfeited through mortal sin.
The greatest weight in the council's decrees is given to the sacraments. The seven sacraments were reaffirmed and the Eucharist pronounced to be a true propitiatory sacrifice as well as a sacrament, in which the bread and wine were consecrated into the Eucharist (thirteenth and twenty-second sessions). The term transubstantiation was used by the council, but the specific Aristotelian explanation given by Scholasticism was not cited as dogmatic. Instead, the decree states that Christ is "really, truly, substantially present" in the consecrated forms. The sacrifice of the Mass was to be offered for dead and living alike and in giving to the apostles the command "do this in remembrance of me," Christ conferred upon them a sacerdotal power. The practice of withholding the cup from the laity was confirmed (twenty-first session) as one which the Church Fathers had commanded for good and sufficient reasons; yet in certain cases the Pope was made the supreme arbiter as to whether the rule should be strictly maintained.[25]
Ordination (twenty-third session) was defined to imprint an indelible character on the soul. The priesthood of the New Testament takes the place of the Levitical priesthood. To the performance of its functions, the consent of the people is not necessary.[25]
In the decrees on marriage (twenty-fourth session) the excellence of the celibate state was reaffirmed, concubinage condemned and the validity of marriage made dependent upon the wedding taking place before a priest and two witnesses, although the lack of a requirement for parental consent ended a debate that had proceeded from the 12th century. In the case of a divorce, the right of the innocent party to marry again was denied so long as the other party was alive,[25] even if the other party had committed adultery. However the council "refused … to assert the necessity or usefulness of clerical celibacy".[40]
In the twenty-fifth and last session,[41] the doctrines of purgatory, the invocation of saints and the veneration of relics were reaffirmed, as was also the efficacy of indulgences as dispensed by the Church according to the power given her, but with some cautionary recommendations,[25] and a ban on the sale of indulgences. Short and rather inexplicit passages concerning religious images, were to have great impact on the development of Catholic Church art. Much more than the Second Council of Nicaea (787), the Council fathers of Trent stressed the pedagogical purpose of Christian images.[42]
Baroque Art is in part a consequence of the Council of Trent more specifically its twenty-fifth session where it emphasized that sacred art should educate the faithful, inspire devotion, and accurately represent biblical narratives. All this led to a renewed focus on emotional engagement and clarity in religious paintings. Due to these new directives, the Catholic Church began to promote baroque art characterized by dramatic compositions, chiaroscuro, and theatrical gestures. The churches adoption of the art style would help to increase its spread of influence.[43][44]
Practical
On the language of the Mass, "contrary to what is often said", the council condemned the insistence that only vernacular languages must be used, while affirming on the use of Latin for the Roman rite.[40] However, elements of the Prône, the vernacular catechetical preaching service common in the medieval High Mass (and some extra-liturgical situations)[45] became mandatory for Sundays and feast days (fifth session, chapter 2).[46], p. 728
The council appointed, in 1562 (eighteenth session), a commission to prepare a list of forbidden books (Index Librorum Prohibitorum), but it later left the matter to the Pope. The preparation of a catechism and the revision of the Breviary and Missal were also left to the pope.[25] The catechism embodied the council's far-reaching results, including reforms and definitions of the sacraments, the Scriptures, church dogma, and duties of the clergy.[17]
Ratification and promulgation
On adjourning, the Council asked the supreme pontiff to ratify all its decrees and definitions. This petition was complied with by Pope Pius IV, on 26 January 1564, in the papal bull, Benedictus Deus, which enjoins strict obedience upon all Catholics and forbids, under pain of ex-communication, all unauthorised interpretation, reserving this to the Pope alone and threatens the disobedient with "the indignation of Almighty God and of his blessed apostles, Peter and Paul." Pope Pius appointed a commission of cardinals to assist him in interpreting and enforcing the decrees.[25]
The Index Librorum Prohibitorum was announced in 1564 and the following books were issued with the papal imprimatur: the Profession of the Tridentine Faith and the Tridentine Catechism (1566), the Breviary (1568), the Missal (1570) and the Vulgate (1590 and then 1592).[25]
The decrees of the council were acknowledged in Italy, Portugal, Poland and by the Catholic princes of Germany at the Diet of Augsburg in 1566. Philip II of Spain accepted them for Spain, the Netherlands and Sicily inasmuch as they did not infringe the royal prerogative. In France, they were officially recognised by the king only in their doctrinal parts. Although the disciplinary or moral reformatory decrees were never published by the throne, they received official recognition at provincial synods and were enforced by the bishops. Holy Roman Emperors Ferdinand I and Maximilian II never recognized the existence of any of the decrees.[47] No attempt was made to introduce it into England. Pius IV sent the decrees to Mary, Queen of Scots, with a letter dated 13 June 1564, requesting that she publish them in Scotland, but she dared not do it in the face of John Knox and the Reformation.[25]
These decrees were later supplemented by the First Vatican Council of 1870.
Publication of documents
A comprehensive history is found in Hubert Jedin's The History of the Council of Trent (Geschichte des Konzils von Trient) with about 2,500 pages in four volumes: The History of the Council of Trent: The fight for a Council (Vol I, 1951); The History of the Council of Trent: The first Sessions in Trent (1545–1547) (Vol II, 1957); The History of the Council of Trent: Sessions in Bologna 1547–1548 and Trento 1551–1552 (Vol III, 1970, 1998); The History of the Council of Trent: Third Period and Conclusion (Vol IV, 1976).
The canons and decrees of the council have been published very often and in many languages. The first issue was by Paulus Manutius (Rome, 1564). Commonly used Latin editions are by Judocus Le Plat (Antwerp, 1779) and by Johann Friedrich von Schulte and Aemilius Ludwig Richter (Leipzig, 1853). Other editions are in vol. vii. of the Acta et decreta conciliorum recentiorum. Collectio Lacensis (7 vols., Freiburg, 1870–90), reissued as independent volume (1892); Concilium Tridentinum: Diariorum, actorum, epistularum, … collectio, ed. Sebastianus Merkle (4 vols., Freiburg, 1901 sqq.); as well as Mansi, Concilia, xxxv. 345 sqq. Note also Carl Mirbt, Quellen, 2d ed, pp. 202–255. An English edition is by James Waterworth (London, 1848; With Essays on the External and Internal History of the Council).[25]
The original acts and debates of the council, as prepared by its general secretary, Bishop Angelo Massarelli, in six large folio volumes, are deposited in the Vatican Library and remained there unpublished for more than 300 years and were brought to light, though only in part, by Augustin Theiner, priest of the oratory (d. 1874), in Acta genuina sancti et oecumenici Concilii Tridentini nunc primum integre edita (2 vols., Leipzig, 1874).[25]
Most of the official documents and private reports, however, which bear upon the council, were made known in the 16th century and since. The most complete collection of them is that of J. Le Plat, Monumentorum ad historicam Concilii Tridentini collectio (7 vols., Leuven, 1781–87). New materials (Vienna, 1872); by JJI von Döllinger (Ungedruckte Berichte und Tagebücher zur Geschichte des Concilii von Trient, 2 parts, Nördlingen, 1876); and August von Druffel, Monumenta Tridentina (Munich, 1884–97).[25]
List of doctrinal decrees
| Decree | Session | Date | Canons | Chapters |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Holy Scriptures | 4 | 8 April 1546 | none | 1 |
| Original sin | 5 | 7 June 1546 | 5 | 4 |
| Justification | 6 | 13 January 1547 | 33 | 16 |
| Sacraments | 7 | 3 March 1547 | 13 | 1 |
| Baptism | 7 | 3 March 1547 | 14 | none |
| Confirmation | 7 | 4 March 1547 | 3 | none |
| Holy Eucharist | 13 | 11 October 1551 | 11 | 8 |
| Penance | 14 | 15 November 1551 | 15 | 15 |
| Extreme Unction | 14 | 4 November 1551 | 4 | 3 |
| Matrimony | 24 | 11 November 1563 | 12 | 10 |
| Cults; Saints; Relics; Images | 25 | 4 December 1563 | none | 3 |
| Indulgences | 25 | 4 December 1563 | none | 1 |
Protestant response
Out of 87 books written between 1546 and 1564 attacking the Council of Trent, 41 were written by Pier Paolo Vergerio, a former papal nuncio turned Protestant Reformer.[48] The 1565–73 Examen decretorum Concilii Tridentini[49] (Examination of the Council of Trent) by Martin Chemnitz was the main Lutheran response to the Council of Trent.[50] Making extensive use of scripture and patristic sources, it was presented in response to a polemical writing which Diogo de Payva de Andrada had directed against Chemnitz.[51] The Examen had four parts: Volume I examined sacred scripture,[52] free will, original sin, justification, and good works. Volume II examined the sacraments,[53] including baptism, confirmation, the sacrament of the Eucharist,[54] communion under both kinds, the Mass, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, and matrimony. Volume III examined virginity, celibacy, purgatory, and the invocation of saints.[55] Volume IV examined the relics of the saints, images, indulgences, fasting, the distinction of foods, and festivals.[56]
In response, Andrada wrote the five-part Defensio Tridentinæ fidei,[57] which was published posthumously in 1578. However, the Defensio did not circulate as extensively as the Examen, nor were full translations initially published. A French translation of the Examen by Eduard Preuss was published in 1861. German translations were published in 1861, 1884, and 1972. In English, a complete translation by Fred Kramer drawing from the original Latin and the 1861 German was published beginning in 1971.
From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia
The nineteenth ecumenical council opened at Trent on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the Protestants; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it.[13]
I. CONVOCATION AND OPENING
On 28 November, 1518, Luther had appealed from the pope to a general council because he was convinced that he would be condemned at Rome for his heretical doctrines. The Diet held at Nuremberg in 1523 demanded a "free Christian council" on German soil, and at the Diet held in the same city in 1524 a demand was made for a German national council to regulate temporarily the questions in dispute, and for a general council to settle definitely the accusations against Rome, and the religious disputes. Owing to the feeling prevalent in Germany the demand was very dangerous. Rome positively rejected the German national council, but did not absolutely object to holding a general council. Emperor Charles V forbade the national council, but notified Clement VII through his ambassadors that he considered the calling of a general council expedient and proposed the city of Trent as the place of assembly. In the years directly succeeding this, the unfortunate dispute between emperor and pope prevented any further negotiations concerning a council. Nothing was done until 1529 when the papal ambassador, Pico della Mirandola, declared at the Diet of Speyer that the pope was ready to aid the Germans in the struggle against the Turks, to urge the restoration of peace among Christian rulers, and to convoke a general council to meet the following summer. Charles and Clement VII met at Bologna in 1530, and the pope agreed to call a council, if necessary. The cardinal legate, Lorenzo Campeggio, opposed a council, convinced that the Protestants were not honest in demanding it. Still the Catholic princes of Germany, especially the dukes of Bavaria, favoured a council as the best means of overcoming the evils from which the Church was suffering; Charles never wavered in his determination to have the council held as soon as there was a period of general peace in Christendom.
The matter was also discussed at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, when Campegio again opposed a council, while the emperor declared himself in favour of one provided the Protestants were willing to restore earlier conditions until the decision of the council. Charles's proposition met the approval of the Catholic princes, who, however, wished the assembly to meet in Germany. The emperor's letters to his ambassadors at Rome on the subject led to the discussion of the matter twice in the congregation of cardinals appointed especially for German affairs. Although opinions differed, the pope wrote to the emperor that Charles could promise the convoking of a council with his consent, provided the Protestants returned to the obedience of the Church. He proposed an Italian city, preferably Rome, as the place of assembly. The emperor, however, distrusted the pope, believing that Clement did not really desire a council. Meantime, the Protestant princes did not agree to abandon their doctrines. Clement constantly raised difficulties in regard to a council, although Charles, in accord with most of the cardinals, especially Farnese, del Monte, and Canisio, repeatedly urged upon him the calling of one as the sole means of composing the religious disputes. Meanwhile the Protestant princes refused to withdraw from the position they had taken up. Francis I, of France, sought to frustrate the convoking of the council by making impossible conditions. It was mainly his fault that the council was not held during the reign of Clement VII, for on 28 Nov., 1531, it had been unanimously agreed in a consistory that a council should be called. At Bologna in 1532, the emperor and the pope discussed the question of a council again and decided that it should meet as soon as the approval of all Christian princes had been obtained for the plan. Suitable Briefs addressed to the rulers were drawn up and legates were commissioned to go to Germany, France, and England. The answer of the French king was unsatisfactory. Both he and Henry VIII of England avoided a definitive reply, and the German Protestants rejected the conditions proposed by the pope.
The next pope, Paul III (1534-49), as Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, had always strongly favoured the convening of a council, and had, during the conclave, urged the calling of one. When, after his election, he first met the Cardinals, 17 October, 1534, he spoke of the necessity of a general council, and repeated this opinion at the first consistory (13 November). He summoned distinguished prelates to Rome to discuss the matter with them. Representatives of Charles V and Ferdinand I also laboured to hasten the council. The majority of the cardinals, however, opposed the immediate calling of a council, and it was resolved to notify the princes of the papal decision to hold a church assembly. Nuncios were sent for this purpose to France, Spain, and the German king, Ferdinand. Vergerio, nuncio to Ferdinand, was also to apprise the German electors and the most distinguished of the remaining ruling princes personally of the impending proclamation of the council. He executed his commission with zeal, although he frequently met with reserve and distrust. The selection of the place of meeting was a source of much difficulty, as Rome insisted that the council should meet in an Italian city. The Protestant rulers, meeting at Smalkald in December, 1535, rejected the proposed council. In this they were supported by Kings Henry VIII and Francis I. At the same time the latter sent assurances to Rome that he considered the council as very serviceable for the extermination of heresy, carrying on, as regards the holding of a council, the double intrigue he always pursued in reference to German Protestantism. The visit of Charles V to Rome in 1536 led to a complete agreement between him and the pope concerning the council. On 2 June, Paul III published the Bull calling all patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, and abbots to assemble at Mantua on 23 May, 1537, for a general council. Cardinal legates were sent with an invitation to the council to the emperor, the King of the Romans, the King of France, while a number of other nuncios carried the invitation to the other Christian countries. The Netherlander Peter van der Vorst was sent to Germany to persuade the German ruling princes to take part. The Protestant rulers received the ambassador most ungraciously; at Smalkald they refused the invitation curtly, although in 1530 they had demanded a council. Francis I took advantage of the war that had broken out between himself and Charles in 1536 to declare the journey of the French bishops to the council impossible.
Meanwhile preparations were carried on with zeal at Rome. The commission of reform, appointed in July, 1536, drew up a report as the basis for the correction of the abuses in ecclesiastical life; the pope began preparations for the journey to Mantua. The Duke of Mantua now raised objections against the holding of the assembly in his city and made conditions which it was not possible to accept at Rome. The opening of the council, therefore, was put off to 1 November; later it was decided to open it at Vicenza on 1 May, 1538. The course of affairs, however, was continually obstructed by Francis I. Nevertheless the legates who were to preside at the council went to Vicenza. Only six bishops were present. The French king and the pope met at Nice, and it was decided to prorogue until Easter, 1539. Soon after this the emperor also desired to postpone the council, as he hoped to restore religious unity in Germany by conferences with the Protestants. After further unsuccessful negotiations both with Charles V and Francis I the council was indefinitely prorogued at the consistory of 21 May, 1539, to reassemble at the pope's discretion. When Paul III and Charles V met at Lucca in September, 1541, the former again raised the question of the council. The emperor now consented that it should meet at Vicenza, but Venice would not agree, whereupon the emperor proposed Trent, and later Cardinal Contarini suggested Mantua, but nothing was decided. The emperor and Francis I were invited later to send the cardinals of their countries to Rome, so that the question of the council could be discussed by the college of cardinals. Morone worked in Germany as legate for the council, and the pope agreed to hold it at Trent. After further consultations at Rome, Paul III convoked on 22 May, 1542, an ecumenical council to meet at Trent on 1 Nov. of the same year. The Protestants made violent attacks on the council, and Francis I opposed it energetically, not even permitting the Bull of convocation to be published in his kingdom.
The German Catholic princes and King Sigismund of Poland consented to the convocation. Charles V, enraged at the neutral position of the pope in the war that was threatening between himself and Francis I, as well as with the wording of the Bull, wrote a reproachful letter to Paul III. Nevertheless, preparations were made for the council at Trent, by special papal commissioners, and three cardinals were appointed later as conciliary legates. The conduct, however, of Francis I and of the emperor again prevented the opening of the council. A few Italian and German bishops appeared at Trent. The pope went to Bologna in March 1543, and to a conference with Charles V at Busseto in June, yet matters were not advanced. The strained relations which appeared anew between pope and emperor, and the war between Charles V and Francis I, led to another prorogation (6 July, 1543). After the Peace of Crespy (17 Sept., 1544) a reconciliation was effected between Paul III and Charles V. Francis I had abandoned his opposition and declared himself in favour of Trent as the place of meeting, as did the emperor. On 19 Nov., 1544, the Bull "Laetare Hierusalem" was issued, by which the council was again convoked to meet at Trent on 15 March, 1545. Cardinals Giovanni del Monte, Marcello Cervini, and Reginald Pole were appointed in February, 1545, as the papal legates to preside at the council. As in March only a few bishops had come to Trent, the date of opening had to be deferred again. The emperor, however, desired a speedy opening, consequently 13 December, 1545, was appointed as the date of the first formal session. This was held in the choir of the cathedral of Trent after the first president of the council, Cardinal del Monte, had celebrated the Mass of the Holy Ghost. When the Bull of convocation and the Bull appointing the conciliary legates were read, Cardinal del Monte declared the ecumenical council opened, and appointed 7 January as the date of the second session. Besides the three presiding legates there were present: Cardinal Madruzza, Bishop of Trent, four archbishops, twenty-one bishops, five generals of orders. The council was attended, in addition, by the legates of the King of Germany, Ferdinand, and by forty-two theologians, and nine canonists, who had been summoned as consultors.
II. ORDER OF BUSINESS
In the work of accomplishing its great task the council had to contend with many difficulties. The first weeks were occupied mainly with settling the order of business of the assembly. After long discussion it was agreed that the matters to be taken into consideration by the members of the council were to be proposed by the cardinal legates; after they had been drawn up by a commission of consultors (congregatio theologorum minorum) they were to be discussed thoroughly in preparatory sessions of special congregations of prelates for dogmatic questions, and similar congregations for legal questions (congregatio proelatorum theologorum and congregatio proelatorum canonistarum). Originally the fathers of the council were divided into three congregations for discussion of subjects, but this was soon done away with as too cumbersome. After all the preliminary discussions the matter thus made ready was debated in detail in the general congregation (congregatio generalis) and the final form of the decrees was settled on. These general congregations were composed of all bishops, generals of orders, and abbots who were entitled to a vote, the proxies of absent members entitled to a vote, and the representatives (oratores) of the secular rulers. The decrees resulting from such exhaustive debates were then brought forward in the formal sessions and votes were taken upon them. On 18 December the legates laid seventeen articles before the general congregations as regards the order of procedure in the subjects to be discussed. This led to a number of difficulties. The main one was whether dogmatic questions or the reform of church life should be discussed first. It was finally decided that both subjects should be debated simultaneously. Thus after the promulgation in the sessions of the decrees concerning the dogmas of the Church followed a similar promulgation of those on discipline and Church reform. The question was also raised whether the generals of orders and abbots were members of the council entitled to a vote. Opinions varied greatly on this point. Still, after long discussion the decision was reached that one vote for the entire order belonged to each general of an order, and that the three Benedictine abbots sent by the pope to represent the entire order were entitled to only one vote.
Violent differences of opinion appeared during the preparatory discussion of the decree to be laid before the second session determining the title to be given the council; the question was whether there should be added to the title "Holy Council of Trent" (Sacrosancta tridentina synodus) the words "representing the Church universal" (universalem ecclesiam reproesentans). According to the Bishop of Fiesole, Braccio Martello, a number of the members of the council desired the latter form. However, such a title, although justified in itself, appeared dangerous to the legates and other members of the council on account of its bearing on the Councils of Constance and Basle, as it might be taken to express the superiority of the ecumenical council over the pope. Therefore instead of this formula the additional phrase "oecumenica et generalis" was proposed and accepted by nearly all the bishops. Only three bishops who raised the question unsuccessfully several times later persisted in wanting the formula "universalem ecclesiam reproesentans". A further point was in reference to the proxies of absent bishops, namely, whether these were entitled to a vote or not. Originally the proxies were not allowed a vote; Paul III granted to those German bishops who could not leave their dioceses on account of religious troubles, and to them alone, representation by proxies. In 1562, when the council met again, Pius IV withdrew this permission. Other regulations were also passed, in regard to the right of the members to draw the revenues of their dioceses during the session of the council, and concerning the mode of life of the members. At a later date, during the third period of the council, various modifications were made in these decisions. Thus the theologians of the council, who had grown in the meantime into a large body, were divided into six classes, each of which received a number of drafts of decrees for discussion. Special deputations also were often appointed for special questions. The entire regulation of the debates was a very prudent one, and offered every guarantee for an absolutely objective and exhaustive discussion in all their bearings of the questions brought up for debate. A regular courier service was maintained between Rome and Trent, so that the pope was kept fully informed in regard to the debates of the council.
III. THE WORK AND SESSIONS
A. First Period at Trent
Among the fathers of the council and the theologians who had been summoned to Trent were a number of important men. The legates who presided at the council were equal to their difficult task; Paceco of Jaen, Campeggio of Feltre, and the Bishop of Fiesole already mentioned were especially conspicuous among the bishops who were present at the early sessions. Girolamo Seripando, General of the Augustinian Hermits, was the most prominent of the heads of the orders; of the theologians, the two learned Dominicans, Ambrogio Catarino and Domenico Soto, should be mentioned. After the formal opening session (13 December, 1545), the various questions pertaining to the order of business were debated; neither in the second session (7 January, 1546) nor in the third (4 February, 1546) were any matters touching faith or discipline brought forward. It was only after the third session, when the preliminary questions and the order of business had been essentially settled, that the real work of the council began. The emperor's representative, Francisco de Toledo, did not reach Trent until 15 March, and a further personal representative, Mendoza, arrived on 25 May. The first subject of discussion which was laid before the general congregation by the legates on 8 February was the Scriptures as the source of Divine revelation. After exhaustive preliminary discussions in the various congregations, two decrees were ready for debate at the fourth session (8 April, 1546), and were adopted by the fathers. In treating the canon of Scripture they declare at the same time that in matters of faith and morals the tradition of the Church is, together with the Bible, the standard of supernatural revelation; then taking up the text and the use of the sacred Books they declare the Vulgate to be the authentic text for sermons and disputations, although this did not exclude textual emendations. It was also determined that the Bible should be interpreted according to the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and never misused for superstitious purposes. Nothing was decided in regard to the translation of the Bible in the vernaculars.
In the meantime earnest discussions concerning the question of church reform had been carried on between the pope and the legates, and a number of items had been suggested by the latter. These had special reference to the Roman Curia and its administration, to the bishops, the ecclesiastical benefices and tithes, the orders, and the training of the clergy. Charles V wished the discussion of the dogmatic questions to be postponed, but the council and the pope could not agree to that, and the council debated dogmas simultaneously with decrees concerning discipline. On 24 May the general congregation took up the discussion of original sin, its nature, consequences, and cancellation by baptism. At the same time the question of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin was brought forward, but the majority of the members finally decided not to give any definite dogmatic decision on this point. The reforms debated concerned the establishment of theological professorships, preaching, and episcopal obligation of residence. In reference to the latter the Spanish bishop, Paceco, raised the point whether this obligation was of Divine origin, or whether it was merely an ecclesiastical ordinance of human origin, a question which led later to long and violent discussions. In the fifth session (17 June, 1546) the decree on the dogma of original sin was promulgated with five canons (anathemas) against the corresponding erroneous doctrines; and the first decree on reform (de reformatione) was also promulgated. This treats (in two chapters) of professorships of the Scriptures, and of secular learning (artes liberales), of those who preach the Divine word, and of the collectors of alms.
For the following session, which was originally set for 29 July, the matters proposed for general debate were the dogma of justification as the dogmatic question and the obligation of residence as regards bishops as the disciplinary decree; the treatment of these questions was proposed to the general congregation by the legates on 21 June. The dogma of justification brought up for debate one of the fundamental questions which had to be discussed with reference to the heretics of the sixteenth century, and which in itself presented great difficulties. The imperial party sought to block the discussion of the entire matter, some of the fathers were anxious on account of the approaching war of Charles V against the Protestant princes, and there was fresh dissension between the emperor and the pope. However, the debates on the question were prosecuted with the greatest zeal; animated, at times even stormy, discussions took place; the debate of the next general session had to be postponed. No less than sixty-one general congregations and forty-four other congregations were held for the debate of the important subjects of justification and the obligation of residence, before the matters were ready for the final decision. At the sixth regular session on 13 January, 1547, was promulgated the masterly decree on justification (de justificatione), which consisted of a prooemium or preface and sixteen chapters with thirty-three canons in condemnation of the opposing heresies. The decree on reform of this session was one in five chapters respecting the obligation of residence of bishops and of the occupants of ecclesiastical benefices or offices. These decrees make the sixth session one of the most important and decisive of the entire council.
The legates proposed to the general congregation as the subject-matter for the following session, the doctrine of the Church as to the sacraments, and for the disciplinary question a series of ordinances respecting both the appointment and official activities of bishops, and on ecclesiastical benefices. When the questions had been debated, in the seventh session (3 March, 1547), a dogmatic decree with suitable canons was promulgated on the sacraments in general (thirteen canons), on baptism (fourteen canons), and on confirmation (three canons); a decree on reform (in fifteen chapters) was also enacted in regard to bishops and ecclesiastical benefices, in particular as to pluralities, visitations, and exemptions, concerning the founding of infirmaries, and as to the legal affairs of the clergy. Before this session was held the question of the prorogation of the council or its transfer to another city had been discussed. The relations between pope and emperor had grown even more strained; the Smalkaldic War had begun in Germany; and now an infectious disease broke out in Trent, carrying off the general of the Franciscans and others. The cardinal legates, therefore, in the eighth session (11 March, 1547) proposed the transfer of the council to another city, supporting themselves in this action by a Brief which had been given them by the pope some time before. The majority of the fathers voted to transfer the council to Bologna, and on the following day (12 March) the legates went there. By the ninth session the number of participants had risen to four cardinals, nine archbishops, forty-nine bishops, two proxies, two abbots, three generals of orders, and fifty theologians.
B. Period at Bologna
The majority of the fathers of the council went with the cardinal legates from Trent to Bologna; but fourteen bishops who belonged to the party of Charles V remained at Trent and would not recognize the transfer. The sudden change of place without any special consultation beforehand with the pope did not please Paul III, who probably foresaw that this would lead to further severe difficulties between himself and the emperor. As a matter of fact Charles V was very indignant at the change, and through his ambassador Vaga protested against it, vigorously urging a return to Trent. The emperor's defeat of the Smalkaldic League increased his power. Influential cardinals sought to mediate between the emperor and the pope, but the negotiations failed. The emperor protested formally against the transfer to Bologna, and, refusing to permit the Spanish bishops who had remained at Trent to leave that city, began negotiations again with the German Protestants on his own responsibility. Consequently at the ninth session of the council held at Bologna on 21 April, 1547, the only decree issued was one proroguing the session. The same action was all that was taken in the tenth session on 2 June, 1547, although there had been exhaustive debates on various subjects in congregations. The tension between the emperor and the pope had increased despite the efforts of Cardinals Sfondrato and Madruzzo. All negotiations were fruitless. The bishops who had remained at Trent had held no sessions, but when the pope called to Rome four of the bishops at Bologna and four of those at Trent, the latter said in excuse that they could not obey the call. Paul III had now to expect extreme opposition from the emperor. Therefore, on 13 September, he proclaimed the suspension of the council and commanded the cardinal legate del Monte to dismiss the members of the council assembled at Bologna; this was done on 17 September. The bishops were called to Rome, where they were to prepare decrees for disciplinary reforms. This closed the first period of the council. On 10 Nov., 1549, the pope died.
C. Second Period at Trent
The successor of Paul III was Julius III (1550-55), Giovanni del Monte, first cardinal legate of the council. He at once began negotiations with the emperor to reopen the council. On 14 Nov., 1550, he issued the Bull "Quum ad tollenda," in which the reassembling at Trent was arranged. As presidents he appointed Cardinal Marcellus Crescentius, Archbishop Sebastian Pighinus of Siponto, and Bishop Aloysius Lipomanni of Verona. The cardinal legate reached Trent on 29 April, 1551, where, besides the bishop of the city, fourteen bishops from the countries ruled by the emperor were in attendance; several bishops came from Rome, where they had been staying, and on 1 May, 1551, the eleventh session was held. In this the resumption of the council was decreed, and 1 September was appointed as the date of the next session. The Sacrament of the Eucharist and drafts of further disciplinary decrees were discussed in the congregations of the theologians and also in several general congregations. Among the theologians were Lainez and Salmeron, who had been sent by the pope, and Johannes Arza, who represented the emperor. Ambassadors of the emperor, King Ferdinand, and Henry II of France were present. The King of France, however, was unwilling to allow any French bishop to go to the council. In the twelfth session (1 Sept., 1551) the only decision was the prorogation until 11 October. This was due to the expectation of the arrival of other German bishops, besides the Archbishops of Mainz and Trier who were already in attendance. The thirteenth session was held on 11 Oct., 1551; it promulgated a comprehensive decree on the Sacrament of the Eucharist (in eight chapters and eleven canons) and also a decree on reform (in eight chapters) in regard to the supervision to be exercised by bishops, and on episcopal jurisdiction. Another decree deferred until the next session the discussion of four articles concerning the Eucharist, namely, Communion under the two species of bread and wine and the Communion of children; a safe-conduct was also issued for Protestants who desired to come to the council. An ambassador of Joachim II of Brandenburg had already reached Trent.
The presidents laid before the general congregation of 15 October drafts of definitions of the Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction for discussion. These subjects occupied the congregations of theologians, among whom Gropper, Nausea, Tapper, and Hessels were especially prominent, and also the general congregations during the months of October and November. At the fourteenth session, held on 25 November, the dogmatic decree promulgated contained nine chapters on the dogma of the Church respecting the Sacrament of Penance and three chapters on extreme unction. To the chapters on penance were added fifteen canons condemning heretical teachings on this point, and four canons condemning heresies to the chapters on unction. The decree on reform treated the discipline of the clergy and various matters respecting ecclesiastical benefices. In the meantime, ambassadors from several Protestant princes and cities reached Trent. They made various demands, as: that the earlier decisions which were contrary to the Augsburg Confession should be recalled; that debates on questions in dispute between Catholics and Protestants should be deferred; that the subordination of the pope to an ecumenical council should be defined; and other propositions which the council could not accept. Since the close of the last session both the theologians and the general congregations had been occupied in numerous assemblies with the dogma of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and of the ordination of priests, as well as with plans for new reformatory decrees. At the fifteenth session (25 January, 1552), in order to make some advances to the ambassadors of the Protestants, the decisions in regard to the subjects under consideration were postponed and a new safe-conduct, such as they had desired, was drawn up for them. Besides the three papal legates and Cardinal Madruzzo, there were present at Trent ten archbishops and fifty-four bishops, most of them from the countries ruled by the emperor. On account of the treacherous attack made by Maurice of Saxony on Charles V, the city of Trent and the members of the council were placed in danger; consequently, at the sixteenth session (23 April, 1552) a decree suspending the council for two years was promulgated. However, a considerably longer period of time elapsed before it could resume its sessions.
D. Third Period at Trent
Julius III did not live to call the council together again. He was followed by Marcellus II (1555), a former cardinal legate at Trent, Marcello Cervino; Marcellus died twenty-two days after his election. His successor, the austere Paul IV (1555-9), energetically carried out internal reforms both in Rome and in the other parts of the Church; but he did not seriously consider reconvening the council. Pius IV (1559-65) announced to the cardinals shortly after his election his intention of reopening the council. Indeed, he had found the right man, his nephew, the Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, Charles Borromeo, to complete the important work and to bring its decisions into customary usage in the Church. Great difficulties were raised once more on various sides. The Emperor Ferdinand desired the council, but wished it to be held in some German city, and not at Trent; moreover he desired it to meet not as a continuation of the earlier assembly but as a new council. The King of France also desired the assembling of a new council, but he did not wish it at Trent. The Protestants of Germany worked in every way against the assembling of the Council. After long negotiations Ferdinand, the Kings of Spain and Portugal, Catholic Switzerland, and Venice left the matter to the pope. On 29 Nov., 1560, the Bull "Ad ecclesiae regimen," by which the council was ordered to meet again at Trent at Easter, 1561, was published. Notwithstanding all the efforts of the papal nuncios, Delfino and Commendone, the German Protestants persisted in their opposition. Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga was appointed president of the council; he was to be assisted by the cardinal legates Stanislaus Hosius, Jacobus Puteus (du Puy), Hieronymus Seripando, Luigi Simonetta, and Marcus Siticus of Altemps. As the bishops made their appearance very slowly, the opening of the council was delayed. Finally on 18 Jan., 1562, the seventeenth session was held; it proclaimed the revocation of the suspension of the council and appointed the date for the next session. There were present, besides the four cardinal legates, one cardinal, three patriarchs, eleven archbishops, forty bishops, four abbots, and four generals of orders; in addition thirty-four theologians were in attendance. The ambassadors of the princes were a source of much trouble to the presidents of the council and made demands which were in part impossible. The Protestants continued to calumniate the assembly. Emperor Ferdinand wished to have the discussion of dogmatic questions deferred.
At the eighteenth session (25 Feb., 1562) the only matters decided were the publication of a decree concerning the drawing up of a list of forbidden books and an agreement as to a safe-conduct for Protestants. At the next two sessions, the nineteenth on 14 May, and the twentieth on 4 June, 1562, only decrees proroguing the council were issued. The number of members had, it is true, increased, and various ambassadors of Catholic rulers had arrived at Trent, but some princes continued to raise obstacles both as to the character of the council and the place of meeting. Emperor Ferdinand sent an exhaustive plan of church reform which contained many articles impossible to accept. The legates, however, continued the work of the assembly, and presented the draft of the decree on Holy Communion, which treated especially the question of Communion under both species, as well as drafts of several disciplinary decrees. These questions were subjected to the usual discussions. At the twenty-first session (16 July, 1562) the decree on Communion under both species and on the Communion of children was promulgated in four chapters and four canons. A decree upon reformation in nine chapters was also promulgated; it treated ordination to the priesthood, the revenues of canons, the founding of new parishes, and the collectors of alms. Articles on the Sacrifice of the Mass were now laid before the congregations for discussion; in the following months there were long and animated debates over the dogma. At the twenty-second session, which was not held until 17 Sept., 1562, four decrees were promulgated: the first contained the dogma of the Church on the Sacrifice of the Mass (in nine chapters and nine canons); the second directed the suppression of abuses in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice; a third (in eleven chapters) treated reform, especially in regard to the morals of the clergy, the requirements necessary before ecclesiastical offices could be assumed, wills, the administration of religious foundations; the fourth treated the granting of the cup to the laity at Communion, which was left to the discretion of the pope.
The council had hardly ever been in as difficult a position as that in which it now found itself. The secular rulers made contradictory and, in part, impossible demands. At the same time warm debates were held by the fathers on the questions of the duty of residence and the relations of the bishops to the pope. The French bishops who arrived on 13 November made several dubious propositions. Cardinals Gonzaga and Seripando, who were of the number of cardinal legates, died. The two new legates and presidents, Morone and Navagero, gradually mastered the difficulties. The various points of the dogma concerning the ordination of priests were discussed both in the congregations of the eighty-four theologians, among whom Salmeron, Soto, and Lainez were the most prominent, and in the general congregations. Finally, on 15 July, 1563, the twenty-third session was held. It promulgated the decree on the Sacrament of Orders and on the ecclesiastical hierarchy (in four chapters and eight canons), and a decree on reform (in eighteen chapters). This disciplinary decree treated the obligation of residence, the conferring of the different grades of ordination, and the education of young clerics (seminarists). The decrees which were proclaimed to the Church at this session were the result of long and arduous debates, in which 235 members entitled to a vote took part. Disputes now arose once more as to whether the council should be speedily terminated or should be carried on longer. In the meantime the congregations debated the draft of the decree on the Sacrament of Matrimony, and at the twenty-fourth session (11 Nov., 1563) there were promulgated a dogmatic decree (with twelve canons) on marriage as a sacrament and a reformatory decree (in ten chapters), which treated the various conditions requisite for contracting of a valid marriage. A general decree on reform (in twenty-one chapters) was also published which treated the various questions connected with the administration of ecclesiastical offices.
The desire for the closing of the council grew stronger among all connected with it, and it was decided to close it as speedily as possible. A number of questions had been discussed preliminarily and were now ready for final definition. Consequently in the twenty-fifth and final session, which occupied two days (3-4 December, 1563), the following decrees were approved and promulgated: on 3 December a dogmatic decree on the veneration and invocation of the saints, and on the relics and images of the same; a decree on reform (in twenty-two chapters) concerning monks and nuns; a decree on reform, treating of the mode of life of cardinals and bishops, certificates of fitness for ecclesiastics, legacies for Masses, the administration of ecclesiastical benefices, the suppression of concubinage among the clergy, and the life of the clergy in general. On 4 December the following were promulgated: a dogmatic decree on indulgences; a decree on fasts and feast days; a further decree on the preparation by the pope of editions of the Missal, the Breviary, and a catechism, and of a list of forbidden books. It was also declared that no secular power had been placed at a disadvantage by the rank accorded to its ambassadors, and the secular rulers were called upon to accept the decisions of the council and to execute them. Finally, the decrees passed by the council during the pontificates of Paul III and Julius III were read and proclaimed to be binding. After the fathers had agreed to lay the decisions before the pope for confirmation, the president, Cardinal Morone, declared the council to be closed. The decrees were subscribed by two hundred and fifteen fathers of the council, consisting of four cardinal legates, two cardinals, three patriarchs, twenty-five archbishops, one hundred and sixty-seven bishops, seven abbots, seven generals of orders, and also by nineteen proxies for thirty-three absent prelates. The decrees were confirmed on 26 Jan., 1564, by Pius IV in the Bull "Benedictus Deus," and were accepted by Catholic countries, by some with reservations.
The Ecumenical Council of Trent has proved to be of the greatest importance for the development of the inner life of the Church. No council has ever had to accomplish its task under more serious difficulties, none has had so many questions of the greatest importance to decide. The assembly proved to the world that notwithstanding repeated apostasy in church life there still existed in it an abundance of religious force and of loyal championship of the unchanging principles of Christianity. Although unfortunately the council, through no fault of the fathers assembled, was not able to heal the religious differences of western Europe, yet the infallible Divine truth was clearly proclaimed in opposition to the false doctrines of the day, and in this way a firm foundation was laid for the overthrow of heresy and the carrying out of genuine internal reform in the Church.
J.P. KIRSCH
References
- 1.Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent — Public index to the doctrinal and reform decrees of all twenty-five sessions of Trent
- 2.Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1422–1532 — Penance and the Anointing of the Sick
- 3.Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1533–1666 — Holy Orders and Matrimony
- 4.Preface to the Council of Trent — The critical edition's preface, chronology, and textual basis for the conciliar decrees
- 5.Catechism of the Catholic Church, 74–141 — Revelation, Tradition, Scripture, inspiration, canon, and interpretation
- 6.Dei Verbum — Vatican II's reception and development of Trent on revelation, Scripture, Tradition, and interpretation
- 7.Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1987–2029 — Grace, justification, merit, holiness, and perseverance
- 8.Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1113–1134 — The seven sacraments, their institution, efficacy, and ecclesial celebration
- 9.Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1322–1419 — The Eucharistic presence, sacrifice, Communion, and worship
- 10.Sacrosanctum Concilium — Vatican II on the liturgy, Christ's presence, sacrifice, participation, and legitimate reform
- 11.Code of Canon Law, canons 232–264 — Current universal discipline for clerical formation, seminaries, incardination, and clerical obligations
- 12.Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification — The Catholic–Lutheran statement of consensus and remaining differences concerning justification
- 13.1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: Council of Trent
- 14.Joseph Francis Kelly, The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: A History, (Liturgical Press, 2009), 126–148.
- 15.This would be the last time that an ecumenical council would be held outside of Rome and in the territory of the Holy Roman Empire.
- 16.[16.2][16.3][16.4][16.5]"Trent, Council of" in Cross, F. L. (ed.) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, 2005 (ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3).
- 17.[17.2]Wetterau, Bruce. World History. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1994.
- 18.Hubert Jedin, Konciliengeschichte, Verlag Herder, Freiburg, [p.?] 138.
- 19.Jedin 1959, p. 80.
- 20.An den Adel deutscher Nation (in German), 1520
- 21.[21.2]Jedin 1959, p. 81.
- 22.[22.2]"Clemente VII". Treccani.it (in Italian). Retrieved 12 July 2021. Ma l'ostilità del papa alla convocazione di un concilio era grandissima e già allora ben conosciuta, tanto che l'ambasciatore di Carlo V, il duca di Sessa, non ebbe il coraggio di affrontare direttamente l'argomento. Concorrevano ad alimentare tale ostilità da un lato le ombre ancora vicine del conciliarismo e l'esperienza del contrasto coi "gallicani", dall'altro il timore che il concilio potesse trovare nella sua nascita illegittima un buon pretesto per deporlo (ancora durante il conclave di Adriano VI, Soderini lo aveva trattato pubblicamente da bastardo).
- 23.Hans Kühner Papstgeschichte, Fischer, Frankfurt 1960, 118
- 24.Jedin 1959, pp. 79–82.
- 25.[25.2][25.3][25.4][25.5][25.6][25.7][25.8][25.9][25.10][25.11][25.12][25.13][25.14][25.15][25.16][25.17][25.18][25.19][25.20][25.21]One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication in the public domain: Jackson, Samuel Macauley, ed. (1914). "Trent, Council of". New Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (third ed.). London and New York: Funk and Wagnalls.
- 26.Brookes, Andrew (15 June 2013). "Councils of Faith: Constance (1414–18)". The Dominican Friars in Britain.
- 27.[27.2]O'Malley, 29
- 28.Erwin L. Lueker, Luther Poellot, Paul Jackson eds. Trent, Council of Christian Cyclopedia, Concordia Publishing House: 2000
- 29.Joseph Francis Kelly, The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: A History, 133.
- 30.Catholic OR Protestant? The Story of Contarini and the Reformation, fn. 7.
- 31.Jedin 85
- 32.O'Malley, 29–30
- 33.Trenkle, Franz Sales (3 March 2003). "Council of Trent". Retrieved 22 January 2008.
- 34."CT25". History Hanover.
- 35.Lindberg, Carter. The European Reformations, 3rd Edition (3rd ed.). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. p. 27. ISBN 9781119640745.
- 36.O'Malley, 32–36
- 37.Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 85
- 38.Lindberg, Carter (March 15, 2021). The European Reformations (3rd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. p. 305. ISBN 978-1119640813.
- 39.Cross, F. L.; Livingstone, E. A., eds. (2005-01-01). "canon of Scripture". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 282. doi:10.1093/acref/9780192802903.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3.
- 40.[40.2]O'Malley, 31
- 41.Council of Trent: Decree De invocatione, veneratione et reliquiis sanctorum, et de sacris imaginibus, 3 December 1563, Sessio 25.
- 42.Bühren 2008, p. 635-636; about the historical context of the decree on sacred images cf. Jedin 1935.
- 43."1 | Music In The Baroque Era | Social and Cultural Influences". fraryguitar.com. Retrieved 2025-03-20.
- 44."Biblical Narratives in the Baroque | Collections Online". artmuseum.indiana.edu. Retrieved 2025-03-20.
- 45."Prône | Encyclopedia.com". www.encyclopedia.com.
- 46.Lualdi, Katharine J. (2004). "Persevering in the Faith: Catholic Worship and Communal Identity in the Wake of the Edict of Nantes". The Sixteenth Century Journal. 35 (3): 717–734. doi:10.2307/20477042. ISSN 0361-0160. JSTOR 20477042.
- 47.Meyer, Herbert T. (1962). The Story of the Council of Trent. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. pp. 19–20.
- 48.Lutheran Patristic Catholicity By Quentin D. Stewart, 2015
- 49.Examen, Volumes I–II: Volume I begins on p. 46 of the pdf and Volume II begins on p. 311. Examen Volumes III–IV: Volume III begins on p. 13 of the pdf and Volume IV begins on p. 298. All volumes free on Google Books
- 50."This monumental work is to this day the classic Protestant answer to Trent." from page three of Martin Chemnitz on the Doctrine of Justification Archived 2017-04-01 at the Wayback Machine by Jacob A. O. Preus
- 51.Arthur Carl Piepkorn, 1966 Martin Chemnitz's views on Trent: the genesis and the genius of the Examen Concilii Tridentini.
- 52.Fred Kramer, Chemnitz on The Authority of The Sacred Scripture (An Examination) pp. 165–75
- 53.Charles Henrickson, 2000 Chemnitz on Rites and Ceremonies Archived 2019-01-20 at the Wayback Machine.
- 54.Roland F. Ziegler Should Lutherans Reserve the Consecrated Elements for the Communion of the Sick?, pp. 141ff.
- 55.Quentin D. Stewart, Lutheran Patristic Catholicity The Vincentian Canon and the Consensus Patrum in Lutheran Orthodoxy Series: Arbeiten zur Historischen und Systematischen Theologie, p. 82.
- 56.Mark Hanna, 2004 The Contribution of Martin Chemnitz to Our Lutheran Heritage, p. 9.
- 57.Defensio, 716 pp., free on Google Books.