Council of Trent

[a83192]

are the teachings of the Roman Catechism of Trent still the teachings of the Catholic Church? There is such a strong emphasis on Vatican II nowadays. Are they still relevant today the canons of Trent?

 

[thistle]

are the teachings of the Roman Catechism of Trent still the teachings of the Catholic Church? There is such a strong emphasis on Vatican II nowadays. Are they still relevant today the canons of Trent?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains a summary of Church teachings (both infallible and non-infallible) and there are footnotes referencing Scripture and other Church documents underpinning these teachings. I’ve seen many references in the footnotes to the Council of Trent.

 

[The_Scott]

The Council of Trent is probably THE council to look to when dealing with doctrine and dogma (especially because it was in response to the Protestant Reformation).

In my opinion, the Second Vatican Council is THE council to look for when dealing with ecumenism and relations with other faiths.

To me, it’s simply a different emphasis - Trent was dealing with the Protestant heresy, Second Vatican was dealing with ecumenism and liturgy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Council of Trent is probably THE council to look to when dealing with doctrine and dogma (especially because it was in response to the Protestant Reformation).

In my opinion, the Second Vatican Council is THE council to look for when dealing with ecumenism and relations with other faiths.

To me, it’s simply a different emphasis - Trent was dealing with the Protestant heresy, Second Vatican was dealing with ecumenism and liturgy.

Councils usually tackle serious matter that affects the entire faith. You can look to any council for anything. First Ecumenical Council for Arianism, Seventh Ecumenical Council for Iconoclasm, etc.

 

[The_Scott]

Councils usually tackle serious matter that affects the entire faith. You can look to any council for anything. First Ecumenical Council for Arianism, Seventh Ecumenical Council for Iconoclasm, etc.

You’re right. My point was that, you could summarize each council’s subject in a small phrase (say, 2 words or so), and see where the emphasis lies. That’s not to say, of course, that this emphasis is all they talked about.

For example:
First Council of Nicaea was concerned with Arianism.
Second Council of Nicaea was concerned with Iconoclasm.
The Council of Trent was concerned about the Protestant Reformation.
The First Vatican Council was concerned with Papal Infallibility.
The Second Vatican Council was concerned with liturgy and ecumenism.

 

[Daralharb]

I got all Google-eyed and found this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=216642

Catholics are still arguing over V-II because of 1) the language/phrasing 2) it’s still fresh. No one is arguing over Trent because the issues pertaining to it have been agreed on. Now the agreements are hashed out in Vatican II, and so the disagreements starts.

If the world still exists in 500 years, Catholics will be arguing over the Council of Futureville until they has that out too.

As far as Rome is concerned, as far as I can tell, there is no argument, just clarification.

 

[KCT]

I have a copy of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I got it in a used bookstore for a few dollars.

I haven’t read it, but I own it!

 

[Swiss_Guy]

are the teachings of the Roman Catechism of Trent still the teachings of the Catholic Church? There is such a strong emphasis on Vatican II nowadays. Are they still relevant today the canons of Trent?

Sure they are. I mean, why wouldn’t they be? Didn’t the Jesuits have to adopt congruism instead of molinism (in its original form) because of the Roman Catechism? I’m not sure about that though. But if it’s true, then you would think it would still have some relevance. I know for a fact that the canons of the Council of Trent are relevant.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Canons of a Council are never summarily contradicted later.

 

[PacoG]

The Second Vatican Council was concerned with liturgy and ecumenism.

That’s inaccurate. The Second Vatican Council was about engaging the modern world. Note I use the word “engaging” not “accommodating.” The Church reworded (not edited or retooled) its messages so that it better evangelize and engage modern man.

 

[Digitonomy]

Canons of a Council are never summarily contradicted later.

I think that is not true, or at the very least it’s misleading. I suppose it depends on what is meant by “summarily contradicted.”

But an example of a canon that is no longer valid would be Canon 18 of the Fourth Lateran Council, which we discussed here:
Are the ordained still restricted from performing surgical acts?

Here is part of cameron_lansing’s reply:

cameron_lansing:

The tools of surgery (cutting, burning) and the means to alleviate pain have come a long way since the Lateran Council and so has the reputation of those practicing medicine. In part the Lateran legislation reflected a desire to not bring disrepute on the clergy.

However, earlier universal disciplinary laws such as this one which were not contained explicitly or implicitly in the 1917 code were abolished when it was issued (CIC 1917 c. 6). Yet, canon 139 §2 of the 1917 code required an apostolic indult for a cleric to be a surgeon or physician.

With the 1983 code though, the 1917 code itself was abrogated, and the subject matter of the former canon was completely reordered. On the basis of canon 6 in the new code, the prohibition ceased to be universal law.

 

[1AugustSon7]

are the teachings of the Roman Catechism of Trent still the teachings of the Catholic Church? There is such a strong emphasis on Vatican II nowadays. Are they still relevant today the canons of Trent?

It can be especially relevant when dealing with Protestantism properly so called, but the Protestantism tackled by Trent barely exists anymore in practice. More and more we are dealing with sects that harp not about true or proper doctrine (if that were the case we would have no difficulty today, thanks to things like the internet, demonstrating the antiquity and superiority of the Catholic Tradition, Doctrine and Faith) but sects today tend to make emotive appeals rather than rational ones. I mean to say that if some sectarian leader draws people in by some strange doctrine or maxim that is erroneous, and you demonstrate how erroneous it is, he will simply switch gears and say the same thing under some different formula. This is especially difficult because the preacher and his follower alike are really more about making themselves or each other feel good than worried about the correctness or orthodoxy of what it is they are saying or doing.

Today we are dealing with fast-food religion that masquerades as true religion, especially in the West. You see a rise in North America especially of the non-religious and even anti-religious (or anti-religion) Christian and you find people who will say that Christ didn’t establish a religion, which is pure madness. But that is the state of things we are dealing with. The early Protestants at least felt obliged to be rational and composed a body of doctrine. Official doctrine has largely been tossed-out for subjectivism in a desperate attempt to draw people in, and keep them in, by insinuating people have a license, even a right, from God to do or believe whatever they like, which is false of course.

 

[ProVobis]

It can be especially relevant when dealing with Protestantism properly so called, but the Protestantism tackled by Trent barely exists anymore in practice.

It’s worse actually. Protestantism comes in over 30,000 denominations today. And none of them agree with the Primacy of the Pope. And unlike the time of Trent, none of them have any Apostolic Succession.

 

[The_Scott]

That’s inaccurate. The Second Vatican Council was about engaging the modern world. Note I use the word “engaging” not “accommodating.” The Church reworded (not edited or retooled) its messages so that it better evangelize and engage modern man.

Good point. Would you agree, however, that the primary subcategories in the topic of “engaging the modern world” be liturgical revisions and our relationship with other faiths (ecunenism)? Primary, not exclusive.

 

[Sirach2]

The_Scott,
Besides these two issues that you mentioned, the Council dealt with many others. After all, there were sixteen documents, and they touched on many other issues, such as the role of Bishops, laity, religious, Divine Revelation, priestly training, missions, etc. It was a pastoral application of many issues that the Church faces in our world today.

 

[PacoG]

The_Scott,
Besides these two issues that you mentioned, the Council dealt with many others. After all, there were sixteen documents, and they touched on many other issues, such as the role of Bishops, laity, religious, Divine Revelation, priestly training, missions, etc. It was a pastoral application of many issues that the Church faces in our world today.

 

[The_Scott]

The_Scott,
Besides these two issues that you mentioned, the Council dealt with many others. After all, there were sixteen documents, and they touched on many other issues, such as the role of Bishops, laity, religious, Divine Revelation, priestly training, missions, etc. It was a pastoral application of many issues that the Church faces in our world today.

Okay. I yield. :bowdown: