Chapter 14: V Lateran - Trent
On the eve of All Saints' Day, 1517, Martin Luther posted on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg a printed card stating a number of questions that he would debate in public. Ever since, this has been considered the official beginning of the Protestant Revolt. The movement, however, did not arise that quickly; it was a long time coming, centuries long. The nailing of Luther's 95 theses on the door of the Castle Church is more a symbol of the movement than the actual start of it. As men now look back on that troubled period of history, they can perceive over the span of years various causes which contributed to the entire effect. Catholics and non-Catholics alike will agree today on the over-all situation. One cause was certainly the corruption in the Church, the corruption above all of the bishops and the popes. It is a striking fact to realize that the Church could survive such a period in its history, a period in which it was so often governed by men who had little interest in the lofty spiritual aims of religion. When popes and bishops become enmeshed in concerns for temporal goods, in the pleasures of sex, in the political schemes of kings, the entire Church suffers. The priests, as a result, were not well trained nor particularly pious; monasteries had fallen from their ideals; and the laity were so neglected that they scarcely ever heard a sermon.
Nevertheless, throughout that period, great saints did arise and attempt to ward off the approaching crisis, and God did show that He was able to preserve His Church even under such conditions. Christ had foretold that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Human weakness would not prevail either. The difficulty was that while some good was being accomplished, it was never enough. All the plans for reform drawn up at the Lateran Councils and afterward never achieved the full-sweeping reform demanded.
Just before Luther came on the scene the last such effort at reformation within the Church took place: the V Lateran Council (1512-1517). It is generally looked upon as a rather "weak" Council, not because of the positive steps it did take, but because of our overwhelming realization today of how insignificant those steps were.
Possibly those who took part in the proceedings failed to perceive the change in the air. A new world was in the making, but, in a way, the V Lateran seems to live out its days with an eye only to the past. The fifteenth century had been a great turning point in history. The Fall of Constantinople (1453) had brought with it a great influx of Greek scholars in the West; their influence inspired a new interest in the ancient culture of the Greeks and Romans - the Renaissance. This Humanism reached its golden age at the time of Pope Leo X. At this precise moment Luther entered the scene. The so-called "Renaissance Popes" were often the sponsors of the artistic and cultural works of Humanism, but this distracted them from their primary religious concerns.
At times, V Lateran gives one the impression of being an ecclesiastical literary society. Beautiful sermons were preached, excessive in their praise of the Renaissance popes. What was accomplished in regard to reform, however, was more or less an unsuccessful repetition of the other Lateran Councils of the twelfth century.
The immediate occasion for the Council was another schismatic movement, one associated with the so-called "Council of Pisa." This city had been an important name in the history of the Great Western Schism, and this might have been a similar threat. While the reformation movement was gradually forming itself, the Renaissance popes were once again engaged in the endless quarrels with Christian princes; this had marked the entire Middle Ages. This time Louis XII of France became irritated by the line of action followed by Pope Julius II and he summoned a "council" at Pisa in 1511. Fourteen or so bishops and four discontented cardinals attended. The meeting, a repetition of Constance and Basel, declared that the General Council was superior to the pope. It seems that Julius II had already thought of holding a General Council of his own; the act of the French King spurred him on. He convoked a Council to be held at Rome the following year. It was necessary to meet the action of the King and these bishops with a clear-cut response.
The Council at Pisa had actually never amounted to much; its threat to Rome was soon extinguished. The V Lateran Council opened on May 10, 1512, but was hindered from the start by wars, by the interference of kings, and by a general lack of interest in the Council to begin with. There were never more than one hundred or one hundred and fifty bishops who answered the summons, and these were mostly Italians. The sessions were separated at times by months. The first two were held in May, the third and fourth in December of 1512. When the next session was held in February of 1513, Julius II was dying, and the Council had to wait to be reconvened by the next pope, Leo X. Leo did this in April of that year, and a number of other sessions were held: April, June, and December, 1513; May, 1514; May, 1515; December, 1516; and lastly March of 1517.
What the Council did accomplish was the rooting out of the schism at Pisa. The most important discussions concerned the 'Tragmatic Sanction of Bourges." In 1438 the King of France had issued this edict, affirming that a General Council was superior to the Pope, and denying the Roman Pontiff the right to nominate bishops in France. A later king had abolished this decree in 1461, but Louis XII had attempted to reintroduce it. The V Lateran Council clearly rejected the teaching contained in this edict; it thus contributed another strong statement concerning the primacy of Peter in the Church. In addition, a number of decrees were issued concerning certain philosophical errors, papal charities, and another crusade against the Turks. This last caused real concern outside of Rome; it was no longer the Middle Ages, and such an appeal met with no enthusiasm at all. The turn of events was to relegate such a venture to oblivion.
The V Lateran had closed in March of 1517. In October of that year, Luther launched his attack. As with many others, Luther shared in the spirit of the age that produced the Revolt. He too was concerned about the needed reform in the Church and upset by the laxity within it. At the start, he had not intended to leave the Church. But it became increasingly clear that the positions he adopted meant only one thing: a break with Rome.
From the start, the close relationship between Luther's position and that of Wyclif and Hus was clearly recognized; Luther and John Eck had debated that very point in their discussions at Leipzig in July, 1519. It was inevitable, since the very same causes had been operating to form the mind of Hus that produced Luther and the other reformers.
The general laxity of the Church was certainly one of the contributing causes. Luther finally chose as a solution the denial of the priestly office entirely. From this flowed his errors in regard to the nature of the Church and the sacraments. Another contributing cause was the strong emphasis on mysticism - the direct and personal approach to God. The individualism which so marks Protestantism reflects an exaggeration of the mystic spirit. The visible Church is considered as no longer necessary; it is even an obstacle, hindering the soul from its direct contact with God. This approach, accompanied with the recognition of general moral laxity, can easily lead to a full rejection of the Church.
There is a third cause recognizable in this movement: the decline of philosophy. The great speculative minds of the thirteenth century were now gone, and second-rate minds had taken their place; the result was a decadent Scholasticism. The general philosophy of the sixteenth century was what we now term "Nominalism." It was concerned more with words or names than with reality, hence the term -it comes from the Latin nomen, "name." Philosophers had now become tied to the words themselves, rather than what they stood for. They juggled them back and forth in various statements; they played a game with words, as it were. This too prepared the way for the Revolt. Luther is described as a fervent disciple of Ockam - a leader of the Nominalists. It was this above all that enabled Luther to formulate his teaching that a man can be sinner and saint at one and the same time. His faulty philosophy also had much to do with the position he adopted in regard to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
On the other hand, the decay of philosophy had introduced another note into the picture. Things had now become very much codified; philosophy had taken on a legalistic spirit. This state of affairs helped kill philosophy and tired men's souls.
When the interest of the Humanists presented a new concern for Scripture, and when the invention of the printing press made more Bibles available, men gladly turned to the simplicity of Scripture. It was so little codified that it pleased them. Translations of the Bible were made in most of the modern languages, which by this time had reached a fair amount of stability. Long before Luther appeared, there were German Bibles in print. This was all the spirit of the times.
Over in Switzerland a similar movement was under way. Two months after Luther was born in 1483, Ulrich Zwingli was born in Switzerland. He studied at Vienna and at Basel; in 1506 he became a priest. Zwingli was also influenced by Humanism, and he developed an interest in Scripture above all. About 1522 he came into prominence as a reformer, but he was not following the steps of Luther in this. He had shared the same spirit but came to his own conclusions. As a result, from the very start, the Revolt was divided into two parties; this division remains in Protestantism to this day, multiplied many times over. When, at a later date, Luther and Zwingli did come together to attempt some agreement, nothing was solved. They were divided especially on the question of the Real Presence, and they remained divided. Zwingli was also greatly opposed to images in church; Luther did not share this position.
The great name of the Swiss Reformation, however, was not to appear on the scene for another decade: John Calvin. He was born a Catholic in 1509, but set aside the faith of his youth about 1534. The Protestantism that he embraced, however, was more that of Zwingli than of Luther, to which he added his own special approach.
Lutheranism and Calvinism were thus the big problems of the sixteenth century. Luther emphasized that one is saved by faith alone, but to him this meant something more like "trust." Calvin stressed the free choice of God in salvation, so that only the predestined belong to the Church (those, that is, whom God had chosen for heaven). In Calvin's system this meant that all others were predestined for hell in the same fashion. In both movements, however, there was an acceptance of Scripture as the sole rule of faith; nothing else was needed. They held the conviction that Scripture was so clear that anyone who read it would immediately grasp the message. The obvious fact that they disagreed among themselves on certain passages failed to weaken this conviction; nor did they perceive any difficulty because of their mutual rejection of the scriptural interpretation of the Anabaptists (the forefathers of present-day Baptists), who rejected infant baptism.
To this was added also the defection of the Church in England under Henry VIII in 1534. Henry was not a part either of the Protestant movement or the emphasis on Scripture alone; he rejected papal supremacy because of his quarrel with the Pope over his marriages. Later on, others in England would introduce more of a Protestant element into Anglicanism, although even to this day it has not been identified entirely with the Protestant approach developed by Luther and Calvin. Scotland did adopt a Protestant faith in the Presbyterianism introduced especially by John Knox; this was derived directly from Calvinism at a time when Knox was living in Geneva. Presbyterianism, however, appeared about 1560.
This was the world that the popes of the sixteenth century faced, and it was an overwhelming problem. The whole Christian world seemed torn asunder, and entire sections of various countries had rejected the faith of Rome. The need for a reform within the Church, now far more apparent than ever before, could no longer be side-stepped. A reform from top to bottom was needed if anything were to be saved. The Council of Trent was to accomplish this task.
Trent, however, was not concerned solely with disciplinary questions. Doctrinally it ranks with the great Councils of the first centuries. It added decrees on the nature of faith and justification that served to emphasize and clarify the primacy of grace that had been taught in the disputes with the Pelagians in the fifth century. The Council had set forth in precise terms the Catholic teaching on these matters as a response to the doctrine of Luther on faith, and of Calvin on predestination. Closely linked to these was the teaching of Trent on the theological explanation of original sin. The decrees on the sacraments, above all those on the Eucharist and on the Sacrifice of the Mass, have been directives for the theological progress of the past 400 years.
In discussing the history of Trent, we are faced with a mass of detail; it would take volumes to treat all that this Council accomplished. The Council lasted, on and off, for eighteen years: from 1545 to 1563. There were some lengthy interruptions, however. Leo X had been pope when Luther began his public preaching in 1517; he did condemn certain of Luther's teaching's in 1520, but this did not stop the movement. Adrian VI succeeded him in 1522, but he did not live long enough to do much. The first desire for the Council was expressed by Pope Clement VII, but he died in 1534 before anything was done. He reigned during eleven crucial years, but he was not the man to deal with the situation. He was possibly afraid of calling a Council; he was also by nature a man not given to making decisions. On the other hand, while he saw the need of a Council, the political situation may have been too great an obstacle. Clement is not entirely to blame for the delay.
Under Pope Paul III (1534-1549) the decisive steps were finally taken. Paul III surely ranks among the great popes of history. From the start of his reign he envisioned a General Council. He began with a reform of affairs at Rome, particularly in the Roman Curia (the papal court). From the members of the Curia considerable opposition was to arise. Even in times of crisis, when the entire world seems poised for collapse, there are always those selfish souls who think only of themselves and their own interests. This era was no exception.
In addition, the Christian emperors were to raise their usual difficulties; they continued to do so throughout the entire Council. Paul III finally did convoke a Council to be held at Mantua in 1537, but nothing came of it. There was still an interest in having the Lutherans attend, but they refused. At this time, of course, the lines between Catholic and Lutheran were still quite vague. Cities joined the Revolt only gradually, and sometimes almost imperceptibly. Thus one of the chief purposes of the Council was to seek reunion - a goal never achieved.
This stillborn Council was prorogued until the next year - that is, the Council was discontinued without being dissolved. The next attempt was to be held at Vicenza in 1538, but again nothing came of it. The Pope could not hold a Council if, after convoking it, no one showed up; but this is what was happening. The King of France kept his bishops from attending; the Duke of Mantua, where the first attempt was made, showed no real interest; and the German bishops were too harassed at home to leave. The French now also objected to Vicenza as a site for the Council. For much of this time, only the Pope seemed really interested in a Council at all.
In 1539, further attempts were made to reconcile the Emperor Charles V and the king of France, Francis I; they had continued warring, and were thus obstacles to the proposed Council. Attempts were also made to contact the Lutherans, but the many discussions proved fruitless. All of these negotiations went on and on, while from time to time equally fruitless attempts were made to convoke a Council. Not until the Peace of Crespy, in 1544, put an end to the war did the plans for a Council begin to take shape. In November of that year, Paul III issued a decree calling for a Council to be held at Trent (in northern Italy).
The Council finally opened officially on December 13, 1545. It had been hoped that the meetings would start in spring of that year, but it took all these months until a sufficient number of bishops were present. Even then the number was surprisingly small - about 30 bishops in all. The largest number at Trent was 199, the number who, along with other representatives, signed the final decrees 18 years later.
The history of this Council can be studied far better than many of the earlier Councils, thanks especially to the untiring efforts of Angelo Massarelli, secretary throughout the entire period. He is a delight to the historian because of his thoroughness, including at times such small details as a fist of the food served at the banquets. The Acts of the Council also give a close account of the discussions and the voting; further insights are gained by the day-to-day diaries kept by Massarelli and others. In addition, the correspondence of some of the bishops has also been preserved.
The Council must really be divided into three periods: (1) under Paul III (1545-1549); (2) under Julius III (1551-1552); (3) under Pius IV (1562-1563). Because of the extreme length of the Council, the names that figure prominently change from time to time. Outwardly, the sessions were far more calm and orderly than some of the earlier Councils. Massarelli recounts a few small incidents, but nothing too upsetting. The best known is perhaps the reaction of one bishop to a rather critical remark he had overheard concerning his supposed ignorance in theological matters. The insulted bishop turned to his accuser and took hold of his beard with both hands giving it a good tug and extracting a few hairs in the process. The papal legates descended on them and put them both out for the time. But considering the upheavals of others days, this hardly merits mention.
In the first period, three papal legates presided: Cardinal Cervini, Cardinal del Monte, and Cardinal Pole; actually the first two dominated the proceedings. A manner of procedure was established by which the bishops (known as the major theologians) would gather together in groups under each one of the three legates. They would then discuss the decrees that had been suggested, and the results of these separate discussions would be reported in a united session later.
If a special problem arose, a vote would be taken. If further discussion was desired, the bishops could refer the matter to the so-called minor theologians (men trained in theology, but not bishops and not able to vote). The bishops could attend these discussions of the minor theologians, and thus gain further insights into the matters treated. When the decrees were finally formulated, a solemn session would be held, at which they would be formally accepted.
The first period included four solemn sessions in which decrees on doctrine and discipline were issued. The fourth session concerned Scripture and the apostolic traditions; the fifth, original sin; the sixth, the problem of justification; and the seventh, questions about the sacraments, Baptism and Confirmation especially.
Discussions had begun concerning the Eucharist, but other difficulties arose. For one thing, the Council was transferred from Trent to Bologna in March, 1547. Trent was far from a comfortable city in those days, and it was hoped that Bologna would be a more healthful and comfortable location. This move later became the occasion of disputes, rising from those few members who had not been in favor of the change; the emperor, Charles V, was strongly opposed to it. Wars and intrigue complicated the situation once more. Charles even hinted open opposition to the papal Council, with the ever present fear of schism. Because of these various difficulties, Paul III had decided to suspend the Council temporarily; his death, in November of 1549, closed this period of the Council.
After Pope Paul died, the Council continued in session long enough to elect the next pontiff; they chose Cardinal del Monte, the papal legate, who took the name Julius III. The new Pope soon indicated his intention of continuing the Council, but he too ran into difficulties. The next period did not get under way until 1551. The question had to be debated as to whether or not the Council would continue at Trent, and whether it would be a continuation of the Council of Paul III or a completely new one. Beneath this debate was the old theme of Conciliarism; the Emperor had challenged the right of the Pope to transfer a Council. Even in the face of the Protestant upheaval, the Church had to fight this error among its more faithful members.
Julius III won out, and the Council reconvened as a continuation of the first one. Cardinal Cervini was now rather ill; he could not continue as papal legate. This role was assumed by Cardinal Crescenzi, who was designated as the only president; two others were appointed as what amounted to assistant legates. On May 1, 1551, the first session of this new period - the eleventh session of Trent -was held. This time a number of German bishops also appeared, but the total number still remained small.
In this second period, short as it was, there were further discussions on the Eucharist and the sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction; decrees were issued concerning them at the thirteenth and fourteenth sessions in October and November of that year. There was still some hope that the Protestants would attend the gathering; a number of representatives did actually arrive to attempt to make plans in January of 1552. By this time, however, not much was to be expected from such discussions; bitterness was strong on all sides. In addition, wars broke out again. The Emperor Charles had to flee to Innsbruck for safety, and because of this generally upset state of affairs the Council came to another end in April of 1552. Ten more years elapsed before it could be reconvened.
Julius III died in March of 1555, without being able to continue the Council. Cervini was elected Pope (Marcellus II), but reigned only from April 10 to May 1 when he died. Paul IV (1555-1559) then ascended the throne of Peter. This new Pontiff had no interest in a General Council; he had determined to reform things himself. His excessive measures, however, proved at least one thing: that a Council was needed to complete the work begun.
When Pius IV became pope in 1559, therefore, he began working slowly and patiently for the reopening of the Council. By April of 1561, the new papal legates were able to enter Trent. This time Cardinal Gonzaga served as the first president; Hosius, Seripando, and Simonetta were auxiliary legates. Although the Council was to have opened in April of 1561, there were not enough bishops present for many more months. Not until January 18, 1562, did the third period of the Council actually get under way. It was to prove the most difficult time of all, mostly because of the old problem of the Conciliar Theory. The discussions on the Mass and Holy Orders had been postponed time and again; now, as the work neared completion, these questions had to be faced. In doing this, the matter of the relationship of bishops to the Pope could not be avoided in the discussions on Holy Orders, which led to further difficulties. The complicated maneuvers of this period, however, cannot even be summarized here.
By the summer of 1562 the Pope was seriously considering dissolving the Council. By means of outstanding diplomacy, however, Pius IV placated all concerned, and in September it looked as though the Council would now hurry on to a peaceful end.
Such was not to be the case. The debates were renewed, and it became apparent that it was too dangerous to let things go on in such a troubled state. The Pope now sent on directions that the legates should drop all points on which no agreement could be reached, and have the bishops vote on those points which caused no trouble.
This did not hurry along the debates, however. Finally, in March of 1563, a change took place when a number of the leading figures died, including Cardinal Gonzaga, the papal legate. To replace him there came the hero of the entire session, Cardinal Morone - a man providentially prepared for this moment. Morone was the soul of diplomacy, and with the help of a few others, he was able to bring the Council to a peaceful conclusion, referring to the Pope all other matters over which they dared not delay.
The twenty-second session had taken place in September of 1562; the twenty-third now took place in July, 1563; the twenty-fourth came in November of the same year; and the twenty-fifth and final session on December 3 and 4. Throughout all of this confusion, the third period of the Council still managed to issue an amazing number of important decrees: one concerning the Eucharist; another treating of the Sacrifice of the Mass; the much-discussed question of the sacrament of Holy Orders was the topic of a separate decree. The last two sessions issued teaching on marriage, purgatory, indulgences, and the use of images.
As Cardinal Morone intoned the Te Deum of thanksgiving after the final signing, there was no question about the gratitude in the hearts of those present. In one of the most troubled periods in the history of the Church, the Council of Trent had effected the most far-reaching reforms, and this time they took effect. Pius IV solemnly confirmed the decrees of the Council, and set about completing the remaining tasks: the reform of the Missal and Breviary; the writing of a catechism based on the decrees of Trent; the appointing of a commission to issue a more exact edition of the Latin Bible (the Vulgate). This work was continued by his successor, Pope St. Pius V (1566-1572).
The Church had recovered from the crisis of the sixteenth century, but it was not able to undo the evil wrought by the Revolt. The sad remembrances are still with us today. The Western world sees the continued separation of those who rejected the Church 400 years ago. History looks back on the united Christendom that once was, and the Church of Rome looks to those separated from her with the sincere desire of reunion. As Pius XII explained, the Church waits for them with open arms to come "not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home."