The Aftermath of Trent

[ARealCatholic]

CradleCath:

pnewton:

If we we are to judge the need or success by this criteria, the Trent was a disaster. The worst splintering of Christianity ever occured in its wake.

Uh…“in it’s wake”?? The council of Trent was opened about 30 yrs. AFTER Martin Luther
defected &, at least, two centuries AFTER the great schism. It’s purpose was to correct the immorality & abuse that had partially caused these defections & to define Catholic doctrine so that both Catholics & those who left the Church would know exactly what was taught & what was introduced as abuses. Even though Catholic teaching had been consistent, there had been some development of doctrine since apostolic times, and, of course, Luther had spread the altered phrase…“We are saved by faith, ALONE” all over Europe. (Amazing how the addition of that one word, “alone” damaged the true faith.) Church teaching on many subjects was not summarized anywhere in a concise and authoritative fashion, until Trent.

The time period following the council of Trent is considered to be the most glorious time that the Church has experienced, topped only by the years when the apostles & their disciples ruled the Church. And, after Trent, we weren’t persecuted & martyred as we were during the days of Pope Clement & Sixtus. The post-Trent Church suffered through 2 major wars in one century & stood erect & strong.

Hi… I wanted to respond to this tangent in another thread. I am really interested in hearing about how the Church flourished after Trent. I actually know very little about the period other than the machinations of the various Protestant sects that were springing up like daisies.

Also I find it amazing that modern Catholics could actually believe that Trent caused or contributed to the rise of Protestantism!! That is one of the most amazing things I have ever heard. Was the problem that Trent didn’t get everybody back into the Church by changing Her doctrines & dogmas to suit them? It is sad any Catholic could think like that.

Also, FWIW, the Catholic Church is not a “denomination”. To use that term in reference to the true Church carries an implicit heresy, I think.

 

[Lujack]

When we look back at Trent, we have the luxury of taking the long view. We can see that the Tridentine Mass proved very stable, and we can see that Trent’s codifications of the faith held steady. What we can’t see is how it looked to an observer on the ground; despite the Council, the Church continued to splinter. Scotland turned Protestant as the Council was still going on. Protestants held steady in France, and even grew, in the period immediately following the Council. Calvinism took hold in the Netherlands. The Pope was unable to reassert the power he had before Luther.

What they couldn’t see, and what we can’t see, but I believe are there, are the seeds planted that would hold together the soil of the Church. All we can see is a splintering and a decline; I’m sure many across Europe at the time of Trent could only see the same (especially those whose traditional rites were suppressed).

This isn’t to say Trent was failure, but rather to say that its success was long term. Just because the Church is in turmoil now doesn’t mean that Vatican II failed.

 

[ARealCatholic]

When we look back at Trent, we have the luxury of taking the long view. We can see that the Tridentine Mass proved very stable, and we can see that Trent’s codifications of the faith held steady. What we can’t see is how it looked to an observer on the ground; despite the Council, the Church continued to splinter. Scotland turned Protestant as the Council was still going on. Protestants held steady in France, and even grew, in the period immediately following the Council. Calvinism took hold in the Netherlands. The Pope was unable to reassert the power he had before Luther.

I think you might have not seen the point I was trying to make, which might have not been too explicit.

BY NO MEANS was it the fault of the Church or the Council that more souls were drawn away - the fault for this lies on those souls themselves and especially those who were drawing them away with their lies and there heresy!

What they couldn’t see, and what we can’t see, but I believe are there, are the seeds planted that would hold together the soil of the Church. All we can see is a splintering and a decline; I’m sure many across Europe at the time of Trent could only see the same (especially those whose traditional rites were suppressed).

This isn’t to say Trent was failure, but rather to say that its success was long term. Just because the Church is in turmoil now doesn’t mean that Vatican II failed.

Obviously Trent was not a ‘failure’, for it did exactly what it intended to do: it codified the Faith to a greater degree than had been done before.

I’m not sure why Vatican II was brought into the mix, but since it was: To judge whether it was or was not successful, we would have to know what its goals were. What were they?

 

[RobbyS]

I think you might have not seen the point I was trying to make, which might have not been too explicit.

BY NO MEANS was it the fault of the Church or the Council that more souls were drawn away - the fault for this lies on those souls themselves and especially those who were drawing them away with their lies and there heresy!

Obviously Trent was not a ‘failure’, for it did exactly what it intended to do: it codified the Faith to a greater degree than had been done before.

I’m not sure why Vatican II was brought into the mix, but since it was: To judge whether it was or was not successful, we would have to know what its goals were. What were they?

The untruth spread about Vatican II is that it was a kind of second Pentecost. a new beginning. The Holy Father has said, as gently as he can, that the Council was hi-jacked by radicals who set the “spirit of Vatican II” against the real intentions of the Cou/cil/

 

[ARealCatholic]

The untruth spread about Vatican II is that it was a kind of second Pentecost. a new beginning. The Holy Father has said, as gently as he can, that the Council was hi-jacked by radicals who set the “spirit of Vatican II” against the real intentions of the Cou/cil/

No doubt!.

At this point, anybody who doesn’t understand that that Council, like them all, must be interpreted in the light of Tradition just hasn’t been paying attention at all. But then again, anybody who would have thought anything other than that at any time didn’t understand the basics of the faith.

It’s just that I didn’t really intend a conversation about Vatican II - which, let’s face it, does get enough air-time already.

 

[ravenonthecross]

Considering the very words of Pope Paul IV during the First Tridentine Council, then he apparently thought that his was the worst state of the Church ever; and the most misfortunate pontificate to ever befall any pope.

“From the time of St. Peter there has not been a pontificate so unfortunate as mine. How I regret the past! Pray for me.”

Such were the sad words of Pope Paul IV to Father Laynez, as he lay dying in August, 1559 (Oliver Manare, Commentarius de rebus Soc. Jesu, Florence, 1886, 125). It never looks darker, it is said, than just before dawn; the prospects of Catholicism at that moment did indeed seem gloomy to the watchers in the Vatican. , sent thence to the seignory this report on the situation:
Luigi Mocenigo:

In many countries, obedience to the pope has almost ceased, and matters are becoming so critical that, if God does not interfere, they will soon be desperate . . . Germany . . . leaves little hope of being cured. Poland is in almost as hopeless a state. The disorders which have just lately taken place in France and Spain are too well known for me to speak of them, and the Kingdom of England . . . after returning a short time since to her old obedience, has again fallen into heresy. Thus the spiritual power of the pope is so straitened that the only remedy is a council summoned by the common consent of all princes. Unless this reduces the affairs of religion to order, a grave calamity is to be feared.

Another Venetian diplomatist (and these men were reckoned among the most acute of their day) wrote not long after, that Cardinal Morone, when leaving for the council, told him that “there was no hope” (Albéri, Relazioni degli ambasciatori Veneti, 1859, II, iv, 22, 82). Though Morone’s prophecy was soon falsified the events about to be described, his words must be considered as conclusive proof that even the bravest and best-informed in Rome regarded the situation with profound discouragement, and it will be worth while to seek an explanation by going back to Mocenigo’s words. At the same time, without attempting an account of the Reformation itself, notice may be taken of what had hitherto been done in order to stem the religious revolution.

Close of the period and retrospect of the Counter-Reformation:

It has been said before that a period of fervour and zeal comes to an end when that zeal dies down to mediocrity in many countries, or among the large majority of people. This had taken place by the year 1648. In Germany the period is generally said to close in 1618, but elsewhere, i.e. in France and in Ireland, the tide of fervour was still flowing in many places, while in Rome and Italy it was still fairly strong. But this does not prevent our regarding the broad movement as having spent itself. Though the level of education had risen, the diminution in the number of men of genius was marked. There were but few new foundations; some great missions (Japan, Abyssinia, the Congo) were given up or in full decline, though others still were growing and flourishing. And the reason was that the interior fervour, the enthusiasm had cooled down. The same thing was true also about the Protestants. An age of fair mediocrity had taken the place of the fiercely keen ardour of the previous century. In this there was no wonder. It is the ordinary course of human nature to slacken down after unusual effort, to wax cool after an effervescence of excitement. What was not ordinary, what was on the contrary one of the strangest things in the history of the world, was the display of life and vigour which had been given by the Church just when she seemed to be about to fall behind, and to be beaten out of the field by her rivals. Under such circumstances the Counter-Reformation may be regarded as one of the most striking proofs of the inherent vitality of the Church which Providence has ever vouchsafed, only to be paralleled by her triumph over the persecutions of the Roman Empire, the invasions of the Barbarians, or the subversive forces of the French Revolution.

See the Source below for the excellent data Newadvent.org has upon the Counter-Reformation.

(source: newadvent.org/cathen/04437a.htm )

 

[Marsha_Adams]

What we can’t see is how it looked to an observer on the ground; despite the Council, the Church continued to splinter . . . . All we can see is a splintering and a decline; I’m sure many across Europe at the time of Trent could only see the same (especially those whose traditional rites were suppressed).

Do not lose sight of the fact that the Protestant movement was egged on by politics. Luther’s apostasy would never have gotten off the ground if the Northern German princes hadn’t supported it because they didn’t like sending money to Rome. Protestantism would never have touched England if Henry VIII hadn’t wanted a male heir at any cost. It was politics that permitted the “reformation” more than grass roots religion. That being the case, there was nothing a council could have done to halt or even slow the mushroom cloud of sects rising up throughout Europe.

 

[CradleCath]

QUOTE=ravenonthecross;5099055]Considering the very words of Pope Paul IV during the First Tridentine Council, then he apparently thought that his was the worst state of the Church ever; and the most misfortunate pontificate to ever befall any pope.

The problem with your post is the fact that the Council of Trent was in recess during the papcy of Paul IV. He did not like it at all, so never reconvened it after the last recess. He seemed to prefer the “Spanish Inquisition” type of reform. The 18 year council was called back to order, directly following Paul IV death & much of the good Thent accomplished took place during the final years of the council.

When Paul IV died on Aug. 18, 1559, the Roman populace, which intensely disliked his stern policies, rioted and destroyed his statues and the buildings of the Inquisition.

The man’s remarks had nothing to do with the Council of Trent, nor did he.

 

[CradleCath]

QUOTE=Lujack;5096420]When we look back at Trent, we have the luxury of taking the long view. We can see that the Tridentine Mass proved very stable, and we can see that Trent’s codifications of the faith held steady. What we can’t see is how it looked to an observer on the ground;

We can see how the Church looked “on the ground” by simply studying Catholic history after the Council of Trent. Pope Pius IV inherited the council after the death of Paul IV, a strict & unbending, authoritative man. Pius was a gentle leader & an excellent diplomat, much loved by the people.

**

Pius IV faced a serious challenge to his diplomatic finesse in the problem of the Council of Trent, which had been suspended since 1552. In 1562 the council was reassembled by his mandate. With astute diplomacy he guided the council’s third period, the most stormy and difficult of all, to a successful conclusion on Dec. 4, 1563. During the remainder of his pontificate Pius IV implemented the Tridentine Decrees. In this task, as well as in the application of the Index and in supervising the work of the Inquisition, his sense of moderation and flexibility came to the fore. His sense of statesmanship and his smooth efficiency in administration also greatly aided him.

answers.com/topic/pope-pius-iv

**

despite the Council, the Church continued to splinter. Scotland turned Protestant as the Council was still going on. Protestants held steady in France, and even grew, in the period immediately following the Council. Calvinism took hold in the Netherlands.

While those who sat in the Council prayed for the re-conversion of Protestants, few actually believed that they would return to the Church. For instance, your mention of Scotland?? England & Scotland were long gone from the Church & had been since the reign of Henry VIII…:By 1536, all ecclesiastical and government officials in England & it’s colonies were required to publicly approve of the break with Rome and take an oath of loyalty. I won’t get into the whole persecution of Catholics that is part of England’s history, as that’s a “whole nother story”.

The Council of Trent achieved it’s aims & more. It gave us our first Catechism, it insisted on Seminaries to educate our priests, it announced to the Catholic world that our Pope was supreme within the Church.

It greatly improved the quality of bishops and clergy to give a proper lead to the Catholic laity. “This emphasis was one of the characteristics of the Counter-Reformation.” (Cowie)

There was a clearly defined Catholic doctrine.

There was a greater centralisation of Catholic government.

**“Trent armed the Church with the two chief weapons : doctrinal clarity and ecclesiastical discipline, with which it waged the war of the Counter-Reformation over the next two centuries.” (E.N.Williams) **

“It presented a bold intellectual front to all outside its ranks” (Cowie)

The results of Trent were quickly accepted in Italy and the Catholic German states. They were only accepted by France in 1615 though the problems of the French Wars of Religion may well have hampered a more speedy acceptance. The decrees of Trent were accepted in Spain as long as they did not conflict with the rights of the crown. France and Spain continued with their right to pick their own bishops.

“The Council of Trent did mark a turning-point in the history of the Catholic Church……it gave Catholics a certainty about their own beliefs and practices that had previously been lacking the Church’s foundations had been strengthened, to give a firm base on which the spiritual life of the Catholic world could be reconstructed.”
R Lockyer

The Pope was unable to reassert the power he had before Luther.

The Papacy is not about power & never was.

What they couldn’t see, and what we can’t see, but I believe are there, are the seeds planted that would hold together the soil of the Church. All we can see is a splintering and a decline; I’m sure many across Europe at the time of Trent could only see the same (especially those whose traditional rites were suppressed).
This isn’t to say Trent was failure, but rather to say that its success was long term. Just because the Church is in turmoil now doesn’t mean that Vatican II failed.

Vatican II has not been successful & to assert that the Council of Trent failed…in an attempt to deny the results of Vatican II…is wrong.

 

[Lujack]

Vatican II has not been successful & to assert that the Council of Trent failed…in an attempt to deny the results of Vatican II…is wrong.

I think you’ve misunderstood my statement. I’m saying that Trent succeeded brilliantly, but that it might not have been visible immediately. We can best judge the success of Trent by looking at its impact on the future of the Church, and the legacy it left for the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

My point is that just as the continued turmoil of the 1500’s did not prove Trent a failure, the turmoil of the 1900’s and early 2000’s do not prove Vatican II a failure. Trent is judged, as it should be, by what it produced for the Church in the years to come. The same should be for Vatican II; we will not know of its success or failure for generations yet to come (and, in reality, armchair quarterbacking a council is utterly pointless).

 

[ARealCatholic]

The same should be for Vatican II; we will not know of its success or failure for generations yet to come (and, in reality, armchair quarterbacking a council is utterly pointless).

That may well be true, but I’m keeping my Vatican III office pool going, thank you very much.

 

[ARealCatholic]

while those who sat in the council prayed for the re-conversion of protestants, few actually believed that they would return to the church. For instance, your mention of scotland?? England & scotland were long gone from the church & had been since the reign of henry viii…:by 1536, all ecclesiastical and government officials in england & it’s colonies were required to publicly approve of the break with rome and take an oath of loyalty. I won’t get into the whole persecution of catholics that is part of england’s history, as that’s a “whole nother story”.

The council of trent achieved it’s aims & more. It gave us our first catechism, it insisted on seminaries to educate our priests, it announced to the catholic world that our pope was supreme within the church.

It greatly improved the quality of bishops and clergy to give a proper lead to the catholic laity. “this emphasis was one of the characteristics of the counter-reformation.” (cowie)

there was a clearly defined catholic doctrine.

There was a greater centralisation of catholic government.

**“trent armed the church with the two chief weapons : Doctrinal clarity and ecclesiastical discipline, with which it waged the war of the counter-reformation over the next two centuries.” (e.n.williams) **

“it presented a bold intellectual front to all outside its ranks” (cowie)

the results of trent were quickly accepted in italy and the catholic german states. They were only accepted by france in 1615 though the problems of the french wars of religion may well have hampered a more speedy acceptance. The decrees of trent were accepted in spain as long as they did not conflict with the rights of the crown. France and spain continued with their right to pick their own bishops.

“the council of trent did mark a turning-point in the history of the catholic church……it gave catholics a certainty about their own beliefs and practices that had previously been lacking the church’s foundations had been strengthened, to give a firm base on which the spiritual life of the catholic world could be reconstructed.”
r lockyer

THIS is just the kind of information I was looking for - thanks!

 

[CradleCath]

I think you’ve misunderstood my statement. I’m saying that Trent succeeded brilliantly, but that it might not have been visible immediately. We can best judge the success of Trent by looking at its impact on the future of the Church, and the legacy it left for the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

My point is that just as the continued turmoil of the 1500’s did not prove Trent a failure, the turmoil of the 1900’s and early 2000’s do not prove Vatican II a failure. Trent is judged, as it should be, by what it produced for the Church in the years to come. The same should be for Vatican II; we will not know of its success or failure for generations yet to come (and, in reality, armchair quarterbacking a council is utterly pointless).

And my point is that the immediate result of the Council of Trent was good. Nor was anything added or changed at Trent the cause of the “continued turmoil of the 1500’s”. The council of Trent, in fact, did much to abate it…while the damage done by Vatican II has been escalating during the past 20 yrs.

Although unfortunately the council, through no fault of the fathers assembled, was not able to heal the religious differences of western Europe, the infallible Divine truth was clearly proclaimed in opposition to the false doctrines of the day, and in this way a firm foundation was laid for the overthrow of heresy and the carrying out of genuine internal reform in the Church.

BTW., I don’t consider facing the fact that the implementation of Vatican II is an abysmal failure “armchair quarterbacking”. It’s simply a matter of facing facts…facts that I don’t like anymore than you do. However, to undo the damage…one must first face it.

We have had priests guilty of pederasty & Bishops who hid this fact thus allowing more young boys to be harmed.

Our Convents are empty & the shortage of priests in some areas of our country is a serious problem.

We have endured clown Masses, Halloween Masses, Liturgical “dancers”, the Eucharist given to a group of gay activists who call themselves the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” & much more.

The most prestigious Catholic University in this country has just asked a man who voted to let babies who survived an abortion, just lay & die…with no medical help. He was not only asked to be their commencement speaker, they want to give him an honorary degree.

We have seen the blending of the ordained priesthood & the laity, until many don’t even know what the laity is allowed to do at Mass.

I find nothing to document your inference that Vatican II will somehow be judged as a success a century from now. As I said before, the implementation of the documents drawn up at the Council of Trent began immediately, had good short-term results. I haven’t seen the same post Vatican II.