The Lutherans and traditional Catholics at the time of the English Reformation used to confound their papist opponents with the cry of, “Where was your Church before Trent.” ( Bishop Hickes 's Reply. 1713. )
If this is a reference to the despicable state of conflation of temporal power with spiritual, then I guess I am following you. If not, then it is a very narrow minded conception. Although the Latins had troubles in Europe, the other 21 Rites of the Catholic Church scattered throughout the world did not suffer these difficulties. In order for one to actually be “confounded”, one would have to be able to also say that the other 21 Catholic Rites were as out of order as the Latin at that time. I have never seen this to be shown.
Code:
In fact the Council was called by the pope as an attempt to call halt to the inroads of both Lutherans and Calvinists in Europe and was classified as a,'General Council,".
But in fact it was a factional Council, being called by a section of the Catholic Church that was already embattled by dissension with the Eastern Church and the Catholic Church in England.
Trent was also lacking in representation from Eastern Catholics. This may be because the problems that existed in Europe at the time were not experienced by Eastern Churches, because there was no conflation of polity with spiritual power.
The pope supplied the organisers, the officials;it was called in a place controlled by the Emperor of Germany a servant and abetter of the popes aspirations to be dictator and no one was allowed to attend unless by permission of the pope.
I guess I can’t see how this is problematic in itself. This has been the case since the first council of Nicea in 325.
Given the climate, none of the bishops would have been willing to attend had Constantine not guaranteed their safety. Even then, some believed they were going to their martyrdom, but felt obligated to go.
He sent out the invites to a selected few and when he failed to gain enough support from the Church in Europe put pressure on the traditional followers of Rome throughout Italy.
I think we would agree that the majority of Europe was outside of Catholic faith at the time. Of course the council was to include those who clung to the Apostolic faith, however few they may be. Heretics and apostates have never been invited to Church councils. This was the major problem with Luther excommunicating himself. He lost the right to attend or address a gathering of the faithful.
He invited Anglican Bishops , but they were prevented by the State from attending even if they wanted to do so.
I think this political situaiton is also not confined to Trent, but has been an issue throughout Christian history. The political climate has always made the work of the Church challenging.
The main reason it took 300 years to hold the first ecumencal council was the threat of annihilation from political sources.
Code:
Once their they were not even able to formulate an agenda, this was produced by the pope's creatures and revealed piecemeal as necessary!
You had asked how we know that your sources are anti-catholic, and this is a good example. Here the author refers to the servants of the successor of Peter as “pope’s creatures” - a “creatures” was a term that was used to refer to evil demons.
The result was, the medieval innovations complained about by the dissidents were accepted by the papal followers
Do you know what these were?
I am not aware that there were any “medieval innovations”, so I am eager to learn about them.
Even so , it is estimated that at the early sessions, at least a third of the bishops supported Lutheran ideas by their votes.( Kidd.The Counter Reformation.)
This is because they are not “Lutheran ideas” but part of the Apostolic faith. Luther did not jettison ALL of the One Faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles. It is clear from the Joint Declaration that a significant portion of the conflict resulted from people talking past each other, as people have a tendency to do.
At the end of the Council, the results were sent to Rome for the Pope’s agreement before being affirmed by the Council. This was an innovation of enormous consequence, the hitherto free bishops, the Magisterium, abandoning their responsibilities on to the shoulders of one man, or rather what was known in those days as the ,“Court of Rome.”.+
Is this “+” a reference to the fact that this quote came from a “dictionary”? if so, which one is it?
From the first council held in Jerusalem, the decisions have never been made in separation from the successors of the Apostles. If they were not present, the conciliar results were taken to them for ratification.
How does submitting the results to the successor of Peter equate to the Magesterium “abandoning their responsibilities”? Do you think the Council of of Rome under Gelasius “invalidated” the previous councils in Hippo and Carthage the formalized the canon of the NT? Frankly, the premise seems absurd to me. The bishops fulfilled their God given duties. The Successor of Peter added his consent to the work that was done.
Speaking of that, I’m off to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy right now. I have to split.
