Council of Trent

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The nineteenthecumenical council opened atTrent on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of theChurch in answer to theheresies of theProtestants; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of theChurch by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it.

Convocation and opening

On 28 November, 1518,Luther hadappealed from thepope to ageneral council because he was convinced that he would be condemned atRome for hisheretical doctrines. The Diet held atNuremberg in 1523 demanded a "freeChristian 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 ageneral council to settle definitely the accusations againstRome, and the religious disputes. Owing to the feeling prevalent inGermany the demand was very dangerous.Rome positively rejected the German national council, but did not absolutely object to holding ageneral council.Emperor Charles V forbade the national council, but notifiedClement VII through his ambassadors that he considered the calling of ageneral council expedient and proposed the city ofTrent as the place of assembly. In the years directly succeeding this, the unfortunate dispute between emperor andpope prevented any further negotiations concerning a council. Nothing was done until 1529 when thepapal ambassador,Pico della Mirandola, declared at the Diet ofSpeyer that thepope was ready to aid theGermans in the struggle against theTurks, to urge the restoration of peace amongChristian rulers, and to convoke ageneral council to meet the following summer.Charles andClement VII met at Bologna in 1530, and thepope agreed to call a council, ifnecessary. Thecardinallegate,Lorenzo Campeggio, opposed a council, convinced that theProtestants were not honest in demanding it. Still theCatholic princes ofGermany, especially the dukes ofBavaria, favoured a council as the best means of overcoming theevils from which theChurch was suffering; Charles never wavered in his determination to have the council held as soon as there was a period of general peace inChristendom.

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 theProtestants were willing to restore earlierconditions until the decision of the council.Charles's proposition met the approval of theCatholic princes, who, however, wished the assembly to meet inGermany. The emperor's letters to his ambassadors atRome on the subject led to the discussion of the matter twice in the congregation ofcardinals appointed especially for German affairs. Although opinions differed, thepope wrote to the emperor that Charles could promise the convoking of a council with hisconsent, provided theProtestants returned to the obedience of theChurch. He proposed an Italian city, preferablyRome, as the place of assembly. The emperor, however, distrusted thepope,believing that Clement did not really desire a council. Meantime, theProtestant princes did not agree to abandon their doctrines. Clement constantly raised difficulties in regard to a council, although Charles, in accord with most of thecardinals, especiallyFarnese,del Monte, andCanisio, repeatedly urged upon him the calling of one as the sole means of composing the religious disputes. Meanwhile theProtestant 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 impossibleconditions. It was mainly his fault that the council was not held during the reign ofClement 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 thepope discussed the question of a council again and decided that it should meet as soon as the approval of allChristian princes had been obtained for the plan. SuitableBriefs addressed to the rulers were drawn up andlegates were commissioned to go toGermany,France, andEngland. The answer of the French king was unsatisfactory. Both he andHenry VIII ofEngland avoided a definitive reply, and the GermanProtestants rejected theconditions proposed by thepope.

The nextpope,Paul III (1534-49), asCardinal Alessandro Farnese, had always strongly favoured the convening of a council, and had, during theconclave, urged the calling of one. When, after his election, he first met thecardinals, 17 October, 1534, he spoke of thenecessity of ageneral council, and repeated this opinion at the first consistory (13 November). He summoned distinguishedprelates toRome to discuss the matter with them. Representatives ofCharles V and Ferdinand I also laboured to hasten the council. The majority of thecardinals, however, opposed the immediate calling of a council, and it was resolved to notify the princes of thepapal decision to hold a church assembly.Nuncios were sent for this purpose toFrance,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 withzeal, although he frequently met with reserve and distrust. The selection of the place of meeting was a source of much difficulty, asRome insisted that the council should meet in an Italian city. TheProtestant rulers, meeting at Smalkald in December, 1535, rejected the proposed council. In this they were supported by KingsHenry VIII andFrancis I. At the same time the latter sent assurances toRome that he considered the council as very serviceable for the extermination ofheresy, carrying on, as regards the holding of a council, the double intrigue he always pursued in reference to GermanProtestantism. The visit ofCharles V toRome in 1536 led to a complete agreement between him and thepope concerning the council. On 2 June,Paul III published theBull calling allpatriarchs,archbishops,bishops, andabbots to assemble atMantua on 23 May, 1537, for ageneral council.Cardinallegates were sent with an invitation to the council to the emperor, the King of the Romans, the King ofFrance, while a number of othernuncios carried the invitation to the otherChristian countries. The Netherlander Peter van der Vorst was sent toGermany to persuade the German ruling princes to take part. TheProtestant 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 thewar that had broken out between himself andCharles in 1536 to declare the journey of theFrenchbishops to the council impossible.

Meanwhile preparations were carried on withzeal atRome. The commission of reform, appointed in July, 1536, drew up a report as the basis for the correction of the abuses inecclesiastical life; thepope began preparations for the journey toMantua. The Duke of Mantua now raised objections against the holding of the assembly in his city and madeconditions which it was not possible to accept atRome. The opening of the council, therefore, was put off to 1 November; later it was decided to open it atVicenza on 1 May, 1538. The course of affairs, however, was continually obstructed byFrancis I. Nevertheless thelegates who were to preside at the council went toVicenza. Only sixbishops were present. The French king and thepope met atNice, and it was decided to prorogue untilEaster, 1539. Soon after this the emperor also desired to postpone the council, as he hoped to restorereligious unity inGermany by conferences with theProtestants. After further unsuccessful negotiations both withCharles V andFrancis I the council was indefinitely prorogued at the consistory of 21 May, 1539, to reassemble at thepope's discretion. WhenPaul III andCharles V met atLucca in September, 1541, the former again raised the question of the council. The emperor now consented that it should meet atVicenza, butVenice would not agree, whereupon the emperor proposedTrent, and laterCardinal Contarini suggestedMantua, but nothing was decided. The emperor andFrancis I were invited later to send thecardinals of their countries toRome, so that the question of the council could be discussed by thecollege of cardinals.Morone worked inGermany aslegate for the council, and thepope agreed to hold it atTrent. After further consultations atRome,Paul III convoked on 22 May, 1542, anecumenical council to meet atTrent on 1 Nov. of the same year. TheProtestants madeviolent attacks on the council, andFrancis I opposed it energetically, not even permitting theBull of convocation to be published in his kingdom.

The GermanCatholic princes and King Sigismund ofPoland consented to the convocation.Charles V, enraged at the neutral position of thepope in thewar that was threatening between himself andFrancis I, as well as with the wording of theBull, wrote a reproachful letter toPaul III. Nevertheless, preparations were made for the council atTrent, by specialpapal commissioners, and threecardinals were appointed later as conciliarylegates. The conduct, however, ofFrancis I and of the emperor again prevented the opening of the council. A few Italian and Germanbishops appeared atTrent. Thepope went to Bologna in March 1543, and to a conference withCharles V at Busseto in June, yet matters were not advanced. The strained relations which appeared anew betweenpope and emperor, and thewar betweenCharles V andFrancis I, led to another prorogation (6 July, 1543). After the Peace of Crespy (17 Sept., 1544) a reconciliation was effected betweenPaul III andCharles V.Francis I had abandoned his opposition and declared himself in favour ofTrent as the place of meeting, as did theemperor. On 19 Nov., 1544, theBull "Laetare Hierusalem" was issued, by which the council was again convoked to meet atTrent on 15 March, 1545. CardinalsGiovanni del Monte,Marcello Cervini, andReginald Pole were appointed in February, 1545, as thepapal legates to preside at the council. As in March only a fewbishops had come toTrent, the date of opening had to be deferred again. Theemperor, 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 thecathedral ofTrent after the first president of the council,Cardinal del Monte, had celebrated the Mass of theHoly Ghost. When theBull of convocation and theBull appointing the conciliarylegates were read,Cardinal del Monte declared theecumenical council opened, and appointed 7 January as the date of the second session. Besides the three presidinglegates there were present:Cardinal Madruzzi,Bishop ofTrent, fourarchbishops, twenty-onebishops, five generals of orders. The council was attended, in addition, by thelegates of the King ofGermany, Ferdinand, and by forty-twotheologians, and nine canonists, who had been summoned as consultors.

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 thecardinallegates; 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 ofprelates fordogmatic questions, and similar congregations for legal questions (congregatio proelatorum theologorum andcongregatio 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 thedecrees was settled on. These general congregations were composed of allbishops, generals of orders, andabbots who were entitled to a vote, the proxies of absent members entitled to a vote, and the representatives (oratores) of the secular rulers. Thedecrees resulting from such exhaustive debates were then brought forward in the formal sessions and votes were taken upon them. On 18 December thelegates 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 whetherdogmatic questions or the reform of church life should be discussed first. It was finally decided that both subjects should be debated simultaneously. Thus after thepromulgation in the sessions of thedecrees concerning thedogmas of theChurch followed a similarpromulgation of those ondiscipline andChurch reform. The question was also raised whether the generals of orders andabbots 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 threeBenedictineabbots sent by thepope to represent the entire order were entitled to only one vote.

Violent differences of opinion appeared during the preparatory discussion of thedecree 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 theChurch universal" (universalem ecclesiam reproesentans). According to theBishop ofFiesole, 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 thelegates and other members of the council on account of its bearing on the Councils ofConstance and Basle, as it might be taken to express the superiority of theecumenical council over thepope. Therefore instead of this formula the additional phrase "oecumenica et generalis" was proposed and accepted by nearly all thebishops. Only threebishops 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 absentbishops, namely, whether these were entitled to a vote or not. Originally the proxies were not allowed a vote;Paul III granted to those Germanbishops who could not leave theirdioceses 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 theright of the members to draw the revenues of theirdioceses 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 thetheologians 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 ofdecrees 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 betweenRome andTrent, so that thepope was kept fully informed in regard to the debates of the council.

The work and sessions

First period at Trent

Among the fathers of the council and thetheologians who had been summoned toTrent were a number of important men. Thelegates who presided at the council were equal to their difficult task; Paceco ofJaén,Campeggio of Feltre, and theBishop ofFiesole already mentioned were especially conspicuous among thebishops who were present at the early sessions.Girolamo Seripando, General of theAugustinian Hermits, was the most prominent of the heads of the orders; of thetheologians, the two learnedDominicans, Ambrogio Catarino andDomenico 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 touchingfaith ordiscipline 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. Theemperor's representative, Francisco de Toledo, did not reachTrent 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 thelegates on 8 February was theScriptures as the source ofDivine revelation. After exhaustive preliminary discussions in the various congregations, twodecrees 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 offaith andmorals thetradition of theChurch is, together with theBible, the standard ofsupernaturalrevelation; then taking up the text and the use of the sacred Books they declare theVulgate to be theauthentic text forsermons and disputations, although this did not exclude textual emendations. It was also determined that theBible should be interpreted according to the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and never misused forsuperstitious purposes. Nothing was decided in regard to the translation of theBible in the vernaculars.

In the meantime earnest discussions concerning the question of church reform had been carried on between thepope and thelegates, and a number of items had been suggested by the latter. These had special reference to theRoman Curia and its administration, to thebishops, theecclesiastical benefices andtithes, the orders, and the training of theclergy.Charles V wished the discussion of thedogmatic questions to be postponed, but the council and thepope could not agree to that, and the council debateddogmas simultaneously withdecrees concerningdiscipline. On 24 May the general congregation took up the discussion oforiginal sin, its nature, consequences, and cancellation bybaptism. At the same time the question of theImmaculate Conception of the Virgin was brought forward, but the majority of the members finally decided not to give any definitedogmatic decision on this point. The reforms debated concerned the establishment oftheological professorships, preaching, and episcopalobligation ofresidence. In reference to the latter theSpanishbishop, Paceco, raised the point whether thisobligation was of Divine origin, or whether it was merely anecclesiastical ordinance ofhuman origin, a question which led later to long and violent discussions. In the fifth session (17 June, 1546) thedecree on thedogma oforiginal sin waspromulgated with five canons (anathemas) against the corresponding erroneous doctrines; and the firstdecree on reform (de reformatione) was alsopromulgated. This treats (in two chapters) of professorships of theScriptures, and of secular learning (artes liberales), of those who preach the Divine word, and of the collectors ofalms.

For the following session, which was originally set for 29 July, the matters proposed for general debate were thedogma ofjustification as thedogmatic question and theobligation of residence as regardsbishops as the disciplinarydecree; the treatment of these questions was proposed to the general congregation by thelegates on 21 June. Thedogma ofjustification brought up for debate one of the fundamental questions which had to be discussed with reference to theheretics 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 approachingwar ofCharles V against theProtestant princes, and there was fresh dissension between theemperor and thepope. However, the debates on the question were prosecuted with the greatestzeal; 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 ofjustification and theobligation of residence, before the matters were ready for the final decision. At the sixth regular session on 13 January, 1547, waspromulgated the masterlydecree onjustification (de justificatione), which consisted of a prooemium or preface and sixteen chapters with thirty-three canons in condemnation of the opposingheresies. Thedecree on reform of this session was one in five chapters respecting theobligation of residence ofbishops and of the occupants ofecclesiastical benefices or offices. Thesedecrees make the sixth session one of the most important and decisive of the entire council.

Thelegates proposed to the general congregation as the subject-matter for the following session, thedoctrine of theChurch as to thesacraments, and for the disciplinary question a series of ordinances respecting both the appointment and official activities ofbishops, and onecclesiastical benefices. When the questions had been debated, in the seventh session (3 March, 1547), adogmaticdecree with suitable canons waspromulgated on thesacraments in general (thirteen canons), onbaptism (fourteen canons), and onconfirmation (three canons); adecree on reform (in fifteen chapters) was also enacted in regard tobishops andecclesiastical benefices, in particular as to pluralities,visitations, and exemptions, concerning the founding of infirmaries, and as to the legal affairs of theclergy. Before this session was held the question of the prorogation of the council or its transfer to another city had been discussed. The relations betweenpope andemperor had grown even more strained; the Smalkaldic War had begun inGermany; and now an infectious disease broke out inTrent, carrying off the general of theFranciscans and others. Thecardinallegates, therefore, in the eighth session (11 March, 1547) proposed the transfer of the council to another city, supporting themselves in this action by aBrief which had been given them by thepope some time before. The majority of the fathers voted to transfer the council to Bologna, and on the following day (12 March) thelegates went there. By the ninth session the number of participants had risen to fourcardinals, ninearchbishops, forty-ninebishops, two proxies, twoabbots, three generals of orders, and fiftytheologians.

Period at Bologna

The majority of the fathers of the council went with thecardinallegates fromTrent to Bologna; but fourteenbishops who belonged to the party ofCharles V remained atTrent and would not recognize the transfer. The sudden change of place without any special consultation beforehand with thepope did not pleasePaul III, who probably foresaw that this would lead to further severe difficulties between himself and theemperor. As a matter of factCharles V was very indignant at the change, and through his ambassadorVaga protested against it, vigorously urging a return toTrent. Theemperor's defeat of theSmalkaldic League increased his power. Influentialcardinals sought to mediate between theemperor and thepope, but the negotiations failed. Theemperor protested formally against the transfer to Bologna, and, refusing to permit theSpanishbishops who had remained atTrent to leave that city, began negotiations again with the GermanProtestants on his own responsibility. Consequently at the ninth session of the council held at Bologna on 21 April, 1547, the onlydecree 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 theemperor and thepope had increased despite the efforts of Cardinals Sfondrato andMadruzzo. All negotiations were fruitless. Thebishops who had remained atTrent had held no sessions, but when thepope called toRome four of thebishops at Bologna and four of those atTrent, the latter said in excuse that they could notobey the call.Paul III had now to expect extreme opposition from theemperor. Therefore, on 13 September, he proclaimed the suspension of the council and commanded thecardinallegatedel Monte to dismiss the members of the council assembled at Bologna; this was done on 17 September. Thebishops were called toRome, where they were to preparedecrees fordisciplinary reforms. This closed the first period of the council. On 10 Nov., 1549, thepope died.

Second period at Trent

The successor ofPaul III wasJulius III (1550-55), Giovanni del Monte, firstcardinallegate of the council. He at once began negotiations with theemperor to reopen the council. On 14 Nov., 1550, he issued theBull "Quum ad tollenda," in which the reassembling atTrent was arranged. As presidents he appointed Cardinal Marcellus Crescentius, Archbishop Sebastian Pighinus of Siponto, and Bishop Aloysius Lipomanni ofVerona. Thecardinallegate reachedTrent on 29 April, 1551, where, besides thebishop of the city, fourteenbishops from the countries ruled by theemperor were in attendance; severalbishops came fromRome, where they had been staying, and on 1 May, 1551, the eleventh session was held. In this the resumption of the council wasdecreed, and 1 September was appointed as thedate of the next session. TheSacrament of the Eucharist and drafts of further disciplinarydecrees were discussed in the congregations of thetheologians and also in several general congregations. Among thetheologians wereLainez andSalmeron, who had been sent by thepope, and Johannes Arza, who represented theemperor. Ambassadors of theemperor, King Ferdinand, and Henry II ofFrance were present. The King ofFrance, however, was unwilling to allow anyFrenchbishop 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 Germanbishops, besides theArchbishops ofMainz andTrier who were already in attendance. The thirteenth session was held on 11 Oct., 1551; itpromulgated a comprehensivedecree on theSacrament of the Eucharist (in eight chapters and eleven canons) and also adecree on reform (in eight chapters) in regard to the supervision to be exercised bybishops, and on episcopaljurisdiction. Anotherdecree deferred until the next session the discussion of four articles concerning the Eucharist, namely, Communion under the two species ofbread andwine and theCommunion of children; a safe-conduct was also issued forProtestants who desired to come to the council. An ambassador of Joachim II ofBrandenburg had already reachedTrent.

The presidents laid before the general congregation of 15 October drafts of definitions of theSacraments ofPenance andExtreme Unction for discussion. These subjects occupied the congregations of theologians, among whomGropper,Nausea, Tapper, andHessels were especially prominent, and also the general congregations during the months of October and November. At the fourteenth session, held on 25 November, thedogmaticdecreepromulgated contained nine chapters on thedogma of theChurch respecting theSacrament of Penance and three chapters onextreme unction. To the chapters on penance were added fifteen canons condemningheretical teachings on this point, and four canons condemningheresies to the chapters onunction. Thedecree on reform treated thediscipline of theclergy and various matters respectingecclesiastical benefices. In the meantime, ambassadors from severalProtestant princes and cities reachedTrent. 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 betweenCatholics andProtestants should be deferred; that the subordination of thepope to anecumenical council should bedefined; and other propositions which the council could not accept. Since the close of the last session both thetheologians and the general congregations had been occupied in numerous assemblies with thedogma of theHoly Sacrifice of the Mass and of theordination ofpriests, as well as with plans for new reformatorydecrees. At the fifteenth session (25 January, 1552), in order to make some advances to the ambassadors of theProtestants, 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 threepapal legates and Cardinal Madruzzo, there were present atTrent tenarchbishops and fifty-fourbishops, most of them from the countries ruled by theemperor. On account of the treacherous attack made by Maurice of Saxony onCharles V, the city ofTrent and the members of the council were placed in danger; consequently, at the sixteenth session (23 April, 1552) adecree suspending the council for two years waspromulgated. However, a considerably longer period oftime elapsed before it could resume its sessions.

Third period at Trent

Julius III did not live to call the council together again. He was followed byMarcellus II (1555), a formercardinallegate atTrent, Marcello Cervino; Marcellus died twenty-two days after his election. His successor, the austerePaul IV (1555-9), energetically carried out internal reforms both inRome and in the other parts of theChurch; but he did not seriously consider reconvening the council.Pius IV (1559-65) announced to thecardinals shortly after his election hisintention of reopening the council. Indeed, he had found the right man, his nephew, theCardinalArchbishop ofMilan,Charles Borromeo, to complete the important work and to bring its decisions into customary usage in theChurch. 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 atTrent; moreover he desired it to meet not as a continuation of the earlier assembly but as a new council. The King ofFrance also desired the assembling of a new council, but he did not wish it atTrent. TheProtestants ofGermany worked in every way against the assembling of the Council. After long negotiations Ferdinand, the Kings ofSpain andPortugal,CatholicSwitzerland, andVenice left the matter to thepope. On 29 Nov., 1560, theBull "Ad ecclesiae regimen," by which the council was ordered to meet again atTrent atEaster, 1561, was published. Notwithstanding all the efforts of thepapalnuncios, Delfino andCommendone, the GermanProtestants persisted in their opposition.Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga was appointed president of the council; he was to be assisted by thecardinallegatesStanislaus Hosius, Jacobus Puteus (du Puy),Hieronymus Seripando, Luigi Simonetta, and Marcus Siticus of Altemps. As thebishops made their appearance very slowly, the opening of the council was delayed. Finally on 18 Jan., 1562, the seventeenth session was held; it proclaimed therevocation of the suspension of the council and appointed thedate for the next session. There were present, besides the fourcardinallegates, onecardinal, threepatriarchs, elevenarchbishops, fortybishops, fourabbots, and four generals of orders; in addition thirty-fourtheologians 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. TheProtestants continued tocalumniate the assembly. Emperor Ferdinand wished to have the discussion ofdogmatic questions deferred.

At the eighteenth session (25 Feb., 1562) the only matters decided were the publication of adecree concerning the drawing up of a list of forbidden books and an agreement as to a safe-conduct forProtestants. At the next two sessions, the nineteenth on 14 May, and the twentieth on 4 June, 1562, onlydecrees proroguing the council were issued. The number of members had, it istrue, increased, and various ambassadors ofCatholic rulers had arrived atTrent, 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. Thelegates, however, continued the work of the assembly, and presented the draft of thedecree onHoly Communion, which treated especially the question of Communion under both species, as well as drafts of severaldisciplinarydecrees. These questions were subjected to the usual discussions. At the twenty-first session (16 July, 1562) thedecree on Communion under both species and on theCommunion of children waspromulgated in four chapters and four canons. Adecree upon reformation in nine chapters was alsopromulgated; it treatedordination to thepriesthood, the revenues of canons, the founding of newparishes, and the collectors ofalms. Articles on theSacrifice of the Mass were now laid before the congregations for discussion; in the following months there were long and animated debates over thedogma. At the twenty-second session, which was not held until 17 Sept., 1562, fourdecrees werepromulgated: the first contained thedogma of theChurch on theSacrifice of the Mass (in nine chapters and nine canons); the second directed the suppression of abuses in the offering of theHoly Sacrifice; a third (in eleven chapters) treated reform, especially in regard to themorals of theclergy, the requirementsnecessary beforeecclesiastical offices could be assumed, wills, the administration of religious foundations; the fourth treated the granting of the cup to thelaity at Communion, which was left to the discretion of thepope.

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 theduty of residence and the relations of thebishops to thepope. TheFrenchbishops who arrived on 13 November made several dubious propositions.CardinalsGonzaga andSeripando, who were of the number ofcardinallegates, died. The two newlegates and presidents,Morone and Navagero, gradually mastered the difficulties. The various points of thedogma concerning theordination ofpriests were discussed both in the congregations of the eighty-fourtheologians, among whomSalmeron,Soto, andLainez were the most prominent, and in the general congregations. Finally, on 15 July, 1563, the twenty-third session was held. Itpromulgated thedecree on the Sacrament of Orders and on theecclesiastical hierarchy (in four chapters and eight canons), and adecree on reform (in eighteen chapters). This disciplinarydecree treated theobligation of residence, the conferring of the different grades ofordination, and theeducation of youngclerics (seminarists). The decrees which were proclaimed to theChurch 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 thedecree on theSacrament of Matrimony, and at the twenty-fourth session (11 Nov., 1563) there werepromulgated adogmaticdecree (with twelve canons) on marriage as asacrament and a reformatorydecree (in ten chapters), which treated the variousconditions requisite for contracting of a valid marriage. A generaldecree on reform (in twenty-one chapters) was also published which treated the various questions connected with the administration ofecclesiastical 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 finaldefinition. Consequently in the twenty-fifth and final session, which occupied two days (3-4 December, 1563), the followingdecrees were approved andpromulgated: on 3 December adogmaticdecree on theveneration and invocation of thesaints, and on therelics and images of the same; adecree on reform (in twenty-two chapters) concerningmonks andnuns; adecree on reform, treating of the mode of life ofcardinals andbishops, certificates of fitness forecclesiastics,legacies for Masses, the administration ofecclesiastical benefices, the suppression ofconcubinage among theclergy, and the life of theclergy in general. On 4 December the following werepromulgated: adogmaticdecree onindulgences; adecree onfasts andfeast days; a furtherdecree on the preparation by thepope of editions of theMissal, theBreviary, and acatechism, and of a list of forbidden books. It was also declared that nosecular 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, thedecrees passed by the council during the pontificates ofPaul III andJulius III were read and proclaimed to be binding. After the fathers had agreed to lay the decisions before thepope for confirmation, the president, Cardinal Morone, declared the council to be closed. Thedecrees were subscribed by two hundred and fifteen fathers of the council, consisting of fourcardinallegates, twocardinals, threepatriarchs, twenty-fivearchbishops, one hundred and sixty-sevenbishops, sevenabbots, seven generals of orders, and also by nineteen proxies for thirty-three absentprelates. Thedecrees were confirmed on 26 Jan., 1564, byPius IV in theBull "Benedictus Deus," and were accepted byCatholic countries, by some with reservations.

TheEcumenical Council of Trent has proved to be of the greatest importance for the development of the inner life of theChurch. 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 assemblyproved to the world that notwithstanding repeatedapostasy in church life there still existed in it an abundance of religious force and of loyal championship of the unchanging principles ofChristianity. Although unfortunately the council, through no fault of the fathers assembled, was not able to heal the religious differences of westernEurope, yet theinfallible Divinetruth was clearly proclaimed in opposition to thefalse doctrines of the day, and in this way a firm foundation was laid for the overthrow ofheresy and the carrying out of genuine internal reform in theChurch.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT