Talk:Council of Trent/Archive 1

Old stuff
Concerning clerical celibacy. I would think the Council make a new dogma requiring this, since it is not required now in Eastern-rite Catholic churches. So could we have some clarification of what was dogmatic and what was not in the Council's publications? As for the validity of marriage depending on a priest, how is it that the Western church now allows deacons to officiate, and the ministers of the sacrament are considered to be the bride and groom administering it to each other, rather than a clergyman administering it? And that marriages performed in Protestant churches and otherwise outside the Catholic church are not considered invalid? Michael Hardy 01:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * With regard to marriage, The Council of Trent created the impediment of clandestinity, which prevents secret marriages. It is a diriment impediment of form, which renders the contract of marriage null and void (if the presence of the parish priest of the locality or his delegate, and of two witnesses, is lacking), but which can be dispensed by Ecclesiastical law...and it has been in the cases you wonder about. Canon Law since 1741 (the Benedictine dispensation) has explicitly recognized marriages conducted in accord with civil law, eventually including mixed marriages, marriages conducted in Protestant churchs and outside the presence of a priest or his delegate - though this acceptance was extended at different times in different countries. - Nunh-huh 01:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * With regaurd to celibacy, it is a discipline not a dogma. There is no required belief in celibacy as a matter of divinely revealed truth.  Rather it is a discipline on clerics (with some exceptions) in both the Eastern and Western Chruchs.DaveTroy 10:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You speak of the contract being null and void. But what of the validity of the sacrament? Is it dogmatically stated that it is not valid in those cases? Or is it illicit but nonetheless valid, like needless lay baptisms? Michael Hardy 02:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's null sacramentally, as if it never occurred. Unless a dispensation is given. The "substance" of the sacrament of marriage is the exchange of vows (or contract), so in terms of canon law, the contract is the sacrament... though it would have been much less confusing if I'd just written sacrament. Sorry about that.   An example of an illicit but valid marriage would be a failure to publish the marriage banns.  - Nunh-huh 03:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The council said that marriages by under-aged people, by abducters, and arranged marriages not agreed to were not valid, too. It tied up a lot of loose ends both moral (consanguinity, indissolvable nature of marriage, multiple partners) and administrative (reading of banns to prevent forced or impetuous marriages): the spectre of the troubles with English King Henry VIII can perhaps be seen.

POV?

 * "They are stated with great clearness and precision. The decree on justification betrays special ability and theological circumspection. The Protestant doctrines, however, are almost always exhibited in an exaggerated form, and sometimes mixed up with heresies that the Protestants also condemn emphatically." Is that POV? &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 20:54, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that no, it is not. Most of the bishops at Trent probably had no real understanding of the Protestant position.  Remember, while Latin was the universal language, it was no sure thing people understood it correctly, never mind the German that Luther and some of the other reformers spoke.  Another debate is how well any of them knew the Greek of the New Testament, or if they did, what codex they had access to.DaveTroy 10:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That seems pure speculation, and does not match what I have read about them. The lead theologians like Bellarmine certainly knew many of the Protestant positions well: it is no use pretending the Lutherans and Calvinists and Anabaptists all had the same opinions, let alone Anglicans. Don't forget that Luther wrote much in Latin: the 95 Theses included.  Luther used Erasmus' Latin/Greek Novum Testamentum of 1519, which notably has Preface letter by its great supporter Pope Leo X, who Erasmus dedicated the work to.  Nevertheless, the fact that 500 years later, the Catholics and Lutherans were able to figure out that neither side actually hold the positions on Justification that was decried by both sides means it is not a simple matter of treating Trent as opposing all views of all Protestants. Actually, German theologians and bishops were invited under guarantee of safe passage, but did not attend (perhaps remembering the despicable betrayal of Huess a century before!) In fact, much of the Council was about acknowledging and reforming many of the corrupt practises that Reformers (Catholic like Erasmus and Fisher, as well as Protestant like Luther and Tyndale) had identified, especially financial corruption, absentee office-holders, simony and nepotism.

Three or four periods of meeting?
The article currently states: "The history of the council is divided into Four distinct periods: 1545–49, 1551–52 and 1562–63. The last was the most important. The number of attending members in the three periods varied considerably." -- It looks to me as if the word "Four" is in error here, but not knowing the history or the sources, I am reluctant to change it. DSatz 13:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bornfeld
Mr. Bornfeld is a teacher of AP Eurpean History at Aliso Niguel High School. Some students find it humorous to put his name in articles that they have to research, please watch out for his name to keep popping up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mksail2 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Indulgences
I read that the "hawking of indulgences" was prohibited, rather then being strongly affirmed (in "Objects and general results" under 5). My source is Western Civilization by Jackson J. Spielvogel (fifth edition). Indulgences is one of the important factors that influenced Luther to write the 95-theises, I am sure that if they continued to support indulgences across Europe (even though it brought in large profits), even more people would have rejected Cathalocism. 24.27.141.96 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, though as in many areas where the Council is often claimed to have taken a strong stand, the language is actually wonderfully vague:"the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of [Page 278] by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,--whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,--be wholly abolished." - see link to decrees in the article. I take this to mean they should not be sold, but earned by pious acts, which the Catholic Encyclopedia confirms. I will amend the article. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, makes sense to me. Thanks man. 70.94.219.101 (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"justification by faith alone".
There seems to be some confusion here. Whilst Catholics believe that Justification IS by faith alone, they believe that Salvation requires Faith and Good deeds.  Gabr-  el  08:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional sourcing needed
I've added the sources needed flag; the article makes it c. 2/3 of the way through before citing anything. That's problematic, particularly when it includes so many statements that are puzzling and could benefit from directing the reader to additional sources. For instance: "The liberal elements lost out in the debates and voting." What does this mean? The statement is unsourced and utterly opaque. Who were the "liberal" elements? What were their views? What specific views did they bring and which were turned away? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories
This article doesn't necessarily fit into the category of 16th century in Italy. The territory on which the council was held wasn't even part of Italy at the time of its establishment in 1861. 79.54.108.222 (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dogmatic in "list of dogmatic decrees"
"List of decrees" contained the word "dogmatic, and I don't think the language is appropriate, so I removed the word "dogmatic." If the word is appropriate, please revert my edit and let me know here.  I just have never heard the term used that way before.  Rustyfence (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

21st Century?
I just opened this page, and it says that the Council of Trent "was the 21st-century Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church."

Surely this is a mistake and needs to be revised to read "16th Century" Mattyleg (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Trento not Trent...? Right?
Shouldn't this be the Council of Trento, to coincide with the common name Wikipedia has adopted for Trent? Shouldn't we remain in current usage, the name of the appropriate town? Otherwise, shouldn't we return Trento to Trent? This makes no sense. A consistent usage should be adopted. 128.148.5.60 (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows WP:COMMONNAME: "prevalence in reliable English-language sources", and they overwhelmingly favor the historic spelling "Trent" for this historic event. The city, on the other hand, is nowadays commonly referred to as "Trento", hence the name of that article. We also have a number of articles about historic persons, events etc. with "Constantinople" in the title, even though the city (and its Wikipedia article) are now called "Istanbul". Favonian (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

1542 Papal Bull of Convocation for Council of Trent
I could use a little help with verifying an event date on the 1540 page, please. Details are available on that article's talk page. Thanks! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Council of Trent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130813100622/http://www.vatican.va:80/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Decree about Seminaries?
In which Session of the Council was the decree passed that required every diocese to have a seminary? I would think that that would have been important enough to be included in the article. As it is, the article is cribbed from a theological encyclopedia, not from an historical or ecclesiastical-historical one, and many important decisions are not to be found. Church councils are usually as much disciplinary and political as they are theological. If there is to be one and only one article on the Council of Trent, it should cover all the matter. Again I am amazed and dismayed to see that somebody classed this article as a "B", when it is barely a "C". --Vicedomino (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Session V, Second Decree, Chapter 1  http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch5.htm

Rick Jelliffe (talk)

Confusion about Occasions, sessions, and attendence
In the second paragraph of the Occasions, Sessions, and attendence section it gives a timeline of the Council. To me However, it seems really fragmented and confusing. Could someone explain it better? Thank You in advance.


 * In 2018 we're still waiting for someone to carry out this request. It's a simple one. What were the dates during which the individual sessions of the Council met, and issued their decrees. The information, I am sure, is in Pallavicini Sforza's History of the Council of Trent. That somebody ranked this article as "B" class is shocking. It's barely a "C"  --Vicedomino (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I cannot figure out what to do with this 1929 original notarized historical document Michele c Storrie MD (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Section heading
The following section heading

Obstacles and events before the Council's problem area

has no meaning. To call it "garbled" would be a compliment.

--Vicedomino (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Stylistic problems
The following sentence occurs in the section on "Occasions...."

" Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) was vehemently against the idea of a council, agreeing with Francis I of France, after Pope Pius II, in his bull Execrabilis (1460) and his reply to the University of Cologne (1463), set aside the theory of the supremacy of general councils laid down by the Council of Constance."

That is exactly the kind of overstuffed, excessively closely written effort that our composition teachers would have blue-pencilled. The sentence needs to be unpacked and rewritten, for general readers who are not familiar with the theological controversy which is being alluded to. Clement VII was not vehemently against the idea of a council (He had attended the Fifth Lateran Council), just against the timeliness of a council, given the political situation of Europe in the 1520s. He was against the notion that anybody could appeal over the head of the pope to a general council.

--Vicedomino (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Meaning obscure
The section on publications has the statement:

"Most of the official documents and private reports, however, which bear upon the council, were made known in the 16th century and since."

What is the point of this sentence? The Council was held in the 16th century, and all of the official documents have come forth since then. "Made known" is a waffle phrase. Does it mean "published"? If so, say so. If not, say what is meant. Don't be vague and ambiguous. That is not good encyclopedic style.

--Vicedomino (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There was resistance in France, where the clergy did not accept the ecclesiastical reforms until 1615. I believe, but am not sure that they were not published until then with the synod meetings. Publishing had legal implications, the article mentions differences in publication depending on the area.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Grail?
A number of sites on the Internet assert that the Council of Trento, in 1547, declared that grail lore was an heresy. I've been looking for evidence of this, and haven't seen any so far, but was wondering whether others have, and, if they haven't, whether there should be mention of this as a common fallacy.

-- TimNelson (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No, there is absolutely nothing about the grail in Trent. You can read their comments on the subject of existing relics etc at http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch25.htm, which is specifically just one sentence: "Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished." (Plus no new relics were allowed to appear without bishops testing and approving them.) This goes to the heart of Erasmus' problem (from his Pilgrimage to Wokingham) that relics were abused and invented as a money spinner, ludicrous superstitions.


 * Why do you think it is a common fallacy? I have never heard it, but that means little.

Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

General Issue; too little reliance on actual Council documents
This article could be improved by quoting Council material more. It has a lot of material about what various people claim went on, but almost none of the direct material that the Council put out.

In particular, this:

1) The Council gave its formal objectives and scope in Session 1: http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch1.htm


 * for the increase and exaltation of the Christian faith and religion;
 * for the extirpation of heresies;
 * for the peace and union of the Church;
 * for the reformation of the Clergy and Christian people;
 * for the depression and extinction of the enemies of the Christian name

The latter, btw, is directly related to Turkish (Ottoman?) invasions at the time; the Pope Paul explicitly felt that a disunited Christendom was endangered: http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/index.htm

''Whereas we deemed it necessary that there should be one fold and one shepherd, for the Lord's flock in order to maintain the Christian religion in its integrity, and to confirm within us the hope of heavenly things; the unity of the Christian name was rent and well-nigh torn asunder by schisms, dissensions, heresies. Whereas we could have wished to see the commonwealth safe and guarded against the arms and insidious designs of the Infidels, yet, through our transgressions and the guilt of us all,--the wrath of God assuredly hanging over our sins,--Rhodes had been lost; Hungary ravaged; war both by land and sea had been contemplated and planned against Italy, Austria, and Illyria; whilst our impious and ruthless enemy the Turk was never at rest, and looked upon our mutual enmities and dissensions as his fitting opportunity for carrying out his designs with success. ''

So it is useful to point out that it mentions all three of extirpation of heresy (condemn them), *and* peace and union (toleration as far as possible), *and* self reformation (fix your own house). Characterizing Trent as being entirely about condemning Protestants mistakes that it was not merely a reaction to them, but also to the bottled up reformist impulses within Catholicism: for example, Session VI, Second Decree, Chapter IX which completely bans "Questers of alms" --the sellers (and sale) of indulgences-- whose "wicked abuses" .. "the depravity of such is, to the great scandal and complaint of all the faithful, found daily so to increase the more, as that there seems to be no longer any hope left of their amendment".

2) I would like to see the format of the Council documents described:

The council produced documents of 25 "Sessions". The substantive sessions are below. In general, they are organized each in two tracks or Decrees: I a positive statement of some aspect of doctrine, followed by specific negative statements or Canons, II some reform of Catholic practice, not necessarily connected with the first.


 * Session I - Opening of the Council (Scope)
 * Session III - On the Symbol of Faith (Creed)
 * Session IV - I Concerning Canonical Scriptures, II Concerning the Edition and Use of Sacred Books
 * Session V - I Concerning Original Sin, II On the Institution of a Lectureship of Sacred Scripture, and of the liberal arts. On Preachers of the word of God, and on Questors of alms.
 * Session VI - I On Justification, II (Various reforms against sinecures and uninvolved bishops.)
 * Session VII - I On the Sacraments, II (Various reforms against child bishops, inspection of parishes that the people are being served, benefices, no exemption from paying debts from purported religious privilege, care of hospitals and churches)
 * Session XIV - I On the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, II (Various reforms on Bishops judging Crimes)
 * Session XV - I On the Most Holy Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction, II (Various reforms on the responsibility of Bishops to admonish and demote etc bad clerics subject to them)
 * Session XVI - On the choice of books, and for inviting all men of public faith (i.e. Germanic Protestants) to the Council
 * Session XXI - I On Communion, II (Various reforms against simony, notably abolishing sellers of indulgences)
 * Session XXII - I On the Sacrifice of the Mass, II (Various reforms on decadent clergy and financial abuse by clerics)
 * Session XXIII - I Holy Orders, II Marriage Reforms
 * Session XXIV - I On the Sacrament of Matrimony, II (Various reforms about duties required of Bishops and Cardinals, canons, archdeacons, chapters, parish priests, ecclesiastial courts, penitentiaries)
 * Session XXV - Misc: Purgatory, veneration and Relics of Saints, Images, Nuns, Excommunication must not be induced by secular authorities, Negligence of hospital administration to be punished,Priests with concubines, Priestly nepotism of benefices, Dueling prohibited

It would probably be useful to also mention that this organization, the decrees on justification and the sacraments, pretty much is a direct response to Luther's Smacald Articles, which he prepared for an earlier mooted council. The reform sections, however, do not seem to derive from Luther's specific demands.

3) I think some better summary of the undercurrents would benefit the reader. For example, as the reform decrees mentioned above show, much of Trent is about reform against the power of monastaries and arcane claims to historical privileges and benefices by all sorts of strange kinds of clerics, and Trent saw the rot as being caused by love of money and a corrupted system of appointments.

Does anyone have any objection to me adding this material in? (or someone can do it for me?)

Rick Jelliffe (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There will be objections to smothering the article with quotes from the very wordy official documents, which often need a lot of reading between the lines, as you are no doubt aware. Their interpretation by modern historians is preferable.  But the article could do with expansion, better sourcing, and more citations.  Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. I see that Wikipedia's guideline on PRIMARY Sources say Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself, or base large passages on them.  So for 1) I would just make it a footnote just of the agenda items. I don't see that those agenda items are so cryptic that they require "reading between the lines". (The commentary "It is useful" above would not get put in. It is there to evidence the incompleteness/variance of the current article in this regard.)


 * For 2) above, it is drawn from headings, but I think it gives a NPOV overview of the Council decisions. The Reformation is a subject where most secondary sources are partisan. I don't think it is necessary to remove the existing material.


 * I think it is useful also to have some link or reference to the structure as with Council and Papal pronouncements, you so often get people (Catholic and non) quoting the Canons (the lists of anathemas expressed in sometimes excessively terse and indiscriminate form) in isolation and contradiction to the nuances of the prose discussion. Maybe that is better as an link or other topic, though. A link to the [Smacald Articles] would be appropriate.


 * For 3), I certainly agree that material on the undercurrents needs to be given by secondary sources, so I won't do anything about this at the moment. (As I see it, if anyone is interested, there were at least three big undercurrents: first, the Pope's anxiety on recent Turkish military wins (as he writes in the preface), second the "collegiality" anti-corruption dispute which pitted the reforming ability of Bishops against Papal privileges (i.e. to protect religious Orders, indulgence sellers, etc),  third the need to restate fundamental doctrines of justification and sacraments using the challenges of the Spirituali and the reformers.)

Rick Jelliffe (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Vernacular
Again, the O'Malley book is used to give incorrect information. In the current article it says On the language of the Mass, "contrary to what is often said", the council condemned the belief that only vernacular languages should be used, while insisting on the use of Latin.

However, what the Council actually declared (Session XXII, Chapter VIII) was that the "ancient usage" should be used (i.e. Latin for Roman Catholics, but presumably Greek for Greeks, Syrian for Syrians, etc) but that  the holy Synod charges pastors, and all who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass, and that, amongst the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord's days and festivals.   So while the liturgy itself would be in Latin, vernacular running translations and commentary of important or useful bits should be given.

Also, I cannot find the supposed quote contrary to what is often said in the decrees, and it makes no substantive point, so it should go.

I believe the sentence should read (with a reference to the council decree) On the language of the Mass, the council condemned the belief that only vernacular languages should be used, while insisting on the use of the local ancient usage language (in the West, Latin) but with instructions that pastors must to be frequent explanation in the vernacular of what is being read at Mass, during the Mass.

Rick Jelliffe (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Off topic reference
There is a reference in the See Also to "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin". This is as relevant to the topic of the Council of Trent as it is to the page on Spinach: it relates to scholasticism. It should be removed.

Rick Jelliffe (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)