V. Historical Background, Call, and Scope of Council

From the very beginning of the Reformation many, both Catholics and Protestants, had wanted a general council representing all Christians, in which the disputed doctrines could be discussed and the abuses of Rome corrected. After the development of the Protestant positions the Catholic prelates felt a council to be imperative, in order that the fundamental positions of the Catholic Church relative to the controverted points could be restated. This frustrated all hope of reconciliation with the Protestants. The council convened in 1545, at Trent, a town in the Austrian Tyrol. The large majority of those in attendance were Italians. ^{18Hulme, op. cit., pp. 430-433.} The council was controlled from Rome.PFF2 473.2

The Reformation had taken the most ardent advocates of reform out of the Catholic Church, leaving the conservatives and reactionaries in the ascendant. The conflict consequently lay between the Protestants and the church, and the Protestants were told that their deadly opponent must act as judge. Every one knew how the church would interpret the questions at issue. ^{19Wylie, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 113.} Both German and British Reformers, therefore, rejected the conditions and the procedure.PFF2 474.1

Tedious negotiations sprang up between the emperor and the pope in an endeavor to effect a compromise. On the Protestant side a formula was drawn up whereby the Protestants were willing to accommodate themselves to certain points of the established Catholic doctrine, but they held fast to the basic Protestant principles. This was known as the Augsburg and Leipzig Interims of 1548. There was much opposition, especially among the free cities such as Magdeburg—but division marked the Protestant reaction.PFF2 474.2

1. DISCUSSIONS FOCUSED ON LUTHER’S POSITIONS

Luther’s basic positions were: (1) that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation, and that it is sacrilege to place tradition on a level with the Scripture; (2) that certain books, accepted as canonical in the Latin Vulgate, are apocryphal and not canonical; (3) that the meaning of Scripture is plain, and can be understood without churchly commentary, by aid of the Holy Spirit. The early discussions of the council cover these very questions, as can be seen from the decrees of the fourth session. ^{20Landon, op. cit., vol 2, pp. 184, 185.}PFF2 474.3

2. PROTESTANT POSITIONS CONDEMNED BY TRENT

Luther’s propositions were condemned by the council. Tradition and Scripture were ostensibly placed on a par, though by implication Scripture is made subservient to tradition through insistence that it be understood only in the light of the tradition of the church, specifically, the “unanimous teaching of the Fathers.” ^{21Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (trans. by Schroeder), session 4, April 8, 1546, pp. 17-19. The decision of the fourth session of the Council of Trent for the equal authority of Scripture and tradition, ruling out the Protestant standard of Scripture only, controlled the rest of the council’s dogmatic decisions, and its results were ultimately seen in the Creed of Pius IV. (Kidd, Documents, p. 355.)} The Latin Vulgate was declared the one authentic version, with the intermingled apocryphal books as canonical. The Scriptures were declared not capable of being understood in and of themselves. ^{22Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, session 4, April 8, 1546, pp. 18, 19; Theodore Alois Buckley, A History of the Council of Trent, pp. 117, 118.} Justification by faith, as it was proclaimed by Luther, was condemned; ^{23Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, session 6, Jan. 13, 1547, pp. 33-35.} and no books of religion were to be printed without examination and approval by the church. ^{24Ibid., session 4, April 8, 1546, pp. 18, 19.} Such, in brief, were the council’s decisions on these points.PFF2 474.4

The molding Jesuit influence, it should be added, was attested by the fact that the two noted Jesuits, Salmeron and Lainez, who served as the pope’s theologians, and who had been enjoined by Loyola to resist all innovation in doctrine, were invited to preach during the council. They soon ingratiated themselves into the good will of the delegates. And by their unusual knowledge of the fathers, the conclusions of scholastic philosophy, and of Catholic doctrine, they came to wield a pre-ponderant influence in the council. ^{25Hulme, op. cit., p. 435.}PFF2 475.1