Trent

“Unless by this Council or by some other means we place a limit on our morals, unless we force our greedy desire for human things, the source of all evils, to yield to the love of divine things, it is all over with Christendom.”

-          Giles of Viterbo to Pope Julius II at the Fifth Lateran Council

The Reformation as Renewal: Retrieving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, by Matthew Barrett

The Fifth Lateran Council was held from 1512 – 1517, the last council before the Reformation and the last council before Trent.

Despite the attempt by Luther’s opponents to portray the church as uniform, the church had given birth to a diversity of individuals who attempted to sound an alarm and jumpstart reform.

However, the two sides saw the need for reform differently.  For Luther, reform was primarily theological; for the Roman Church, reform was considered necessary in the area of moral revitalization.  In other words, Rome did also pursue reform, but with a focus different than Luther’s.

In the years between this Fifth Lateran Council and Trent, there were attempts at and desires for a council.  But politics, war, rivalries, alliances all stood in the way.  Charles, the emperor, had issues with Henry of France; the pope did not want Charles to grow too strong, as he would become after calling a successful council; the pope recognizing corruption in the church that would hinder and effective council; Charles not wanting to upset the Germans, needing their support to fight against the Turks; the pope concerned that a council might diminish his authority.

But neither did the Roman Church stand still:

[Pope] Paul III formed the commission [to investigate “foul practices” within the church] in 1536….

The report was supposed to be kept secret, but it was leaked and used by Lutherans against the church.  The fees, or compensations, for graces granted through the papal office were deeply resented throughout Europe and a source of scandal.  Yet, these brought in about half of the total income to Rome.  Abolition of these was therefore considered unthinkable.

Paul III did take certain actions and issued reforming measures, for example in the case where scores of bishops and thousands of priests never celebrated Mass in the parishes in which they were the canonical incumbents.  Such bishops received revenue from the diocese, while substitutes fulfilled their obligations. 

The Society of Jesus and its founder Ignatius of Loyola would contribute to bringing on reform within the church – a spiritual, not theological, reform.  In 1540, Pope Paul placed his stamp of approval on Loyola’s community.  In addition to the typical vows, this order was marked by an additional vow of papal allegiance – the pope would be believed, even if he called black white.  The Jesuits would establish schools in Rome and elsewhere, eventually as far as South America. 

There were further attempts at reconciliation between Rome and the Lutherans.  Even Cajetan, Luther’s antagonist, was open to reunion.  He would propose that no formal retraction is required from the Lutherans for reunion.  He was highly criticized for such proposals.

By the mid-1540s, a lot of Lutheran water had passed under the Roman bridge.

The Council of Trent would convene on December 13, 1545.  It would not conclude for almost two decades – running in fits and starts due to several political and other intrigues.  Trent would serve two purposes: to root our heresy and to reform conduct; the first doctrinal, the second pastoral. 

Prior to Trent, many of the council’s theologians had never read Luther – much of the writing was in German, a language not available to many of the members.  They would have their chance, with documents translated to Latin.  With this, many would, in any case, read the Reformers with unsympathetic eyes. 

Several topics were addressed; I will cover one: justification.  Not to get into a debate, but to outline the nuance in the different views.

In session 6 (January 1547), Trent never mentioned Luther or the Reformers, but they were in view when Trent spurred those who had “spread an erroneous doctrine about justification,” an error that had resulted in the “loss of many souls” and done “damage to the unity of the church.”

It isn’t that Trent came to an end statement on justification easily.  There was controversy throughout the process.  Not all theologians had a polemical agenda against the Reformers, though many did.  There was those who saw Augustine clearly in Luther.  Theologians at the council would come to blows, when some expressed sympathy to Luther’s Bondage of the Will.  In any case, in the end, Trent would not accommodate Luther on this doctrine.

Trent began its treatment of justification with grace, countering any accusations of Pelagianism from the start: “Actual justification in adults takes it origin from a predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ….”

This grace, in turn, would help the sinner turn toward their own justification “by giving free assent to and cooperating with this same grace.”  It is a synergistic operation; man is helped by grace, but must cooperate for future justification to take effect.  Once this predisposing grace is granted, the sinner’s will becomes active.  This predisposing grace can be rejected.  All of this is preparation, preceding actual justification…

“…which consists not only in the forgiveness of sins but also in the sanctification and renewal of the inward being by a willing acceptance of the grace and gifts whereby someone from being unjust becomes just, from being an enemy becomes a friend, so that he is an heir in hope of eternal life.”

Trent differed from the Reformers not only with this synergism, but also in the definition of justification – which included both a legal and transformative category.  For the Reformers, justification is a forensic declaration by God, resulting in a changed status.  The renewal of the inward being, a moral transformation, is the effect and fruit of this justification – the word I am familiar with is sanctification.

Trent included both the forgiveness of sins and sanctification within its definition of justification; Protestants only included the former, seeing sanctification as an ongoing process thereafter – and only thereafter.

In Trent, justification is not only renewal, but renewal in degree – the degree determined by the human will – measured in human cooperation (infused righteousness).  Justification is not by faith alone, but faith working through love.  As James said, faith without works is dead.

Please forgive my own personal aside.  I begin with a quote from Martin Luther – I don’t think I read it in Barrett’s book…maybe early on; I think I came across it independently:

“Works are necessary to salvation, but they do not cause salvation, because faith alone gives life.”

Both sides require faith and works.  One as cause, the other as evidence.  But, as I ask with many such doctrinal controversies: what practical meaningful difference does this make in my life?  As a Christian, I am called to good works.  Here again…is St. Peter going to quiz me on my theory and even definition of justification before deciding if I can walk into the gate?

Back to Barrett: This difference in the understanding of justification had implications regarding assurance.  Trent believed Christians could not have assurance of salvation – at least not in the Protestant sense.  For Luther, a Christian can have complete assurance – because this assurance rests not on the individual Christian’s merits, but on Christ’s merit (imputed righteousness).  For Luther, this assurance was a sign of humility – not trusting in one’s self, but trusting solely on the goodness of God.  Calvin, Vermigli, and Cranmer all assumed this same posture.

This difference also helps explain the Reformer’s views on election and predestination – justification (as the Protestants framed the term) is entirely from God; it cannot be lost.  Trent concludes that the grace of justification can be lost – good works of justification can increase, hence, they can also decrease.  If lost, justification can be regained, but only through works of penance.

Another personal aside: when one whom we thought a faithful Christian falls away – even states he no longer believes – the Roman Catholic will say this is an example of one who has lost salvation while the Protestant will say that this is evidence that they never were elect.  But, does it make any practical difference – or have we just found different ways to express the same thing: the person is not saved?

I am sure that in my two personal asides, there are doctrinal nuances and ramifications.  But for me, personally, I do not find anything meaningful enough to change how I am called to live.  Perhaps just the benefit of not enough formal theological education….

The church of the Laodiceans was considered lukewarm – neither cold nor hot – not because of any gray area in doctrine, but because of their works. 

Again, back to Barrett: Many other issues signified differences between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church.  However, the divide cannot be understood as an issue-by-issue problem – as if resolving such differences was sufficient for reunion.  Several decades had passed from the time of the ninety-five theses – divisions that might have been more easily resolved in 1517 were now foundational issues and beliefs for the Protestant Reformers.

Conclusion

“They allege that we have fallen away from the holy church and set up a new church… But… we are the true ancient [catholic] church … You have fallen away from us.”

So wrote Martin Luther in 1541, in one of his most polemical pieces yet: Against Hanswurst.  Luther would propose ten reasons, or proofs, why the Reformation aligns with the creed.  He then would offer twelve doctrines of the papacy that collide with the universal (catholic) church. 

Barrett closes his book with the following:

What defines a true adherence to Protestantism?  To be Protestant is to be catholic.  But not Roman.

This also brings to a close my work on this book.  I hope it has been taken in the spirit intended: not as an attack on Roman Catholicism, but as an offer that there is another side to the caricature of Luther, Calvin, and the Reformation.

History is never simple, nor are events – especially landmark events with lasting significance – ever explained with a meme.  It took Barrett 888 pages to tell this story; it has taken me thirty-seven posts to offer an overview of it.  One need not agree with his view of it, but it cannot be denied that the story is so simply told – from either side.

Epilogue

A couple of points:

Luther and the Protestants are tagged with the rise of nominalism – seen as the error that has led, ultimately, to the horrors of the twentieth century and the nihilism since.  Barrett asks: who was closer to Thomas Aquinas – Trent or the Reformers?

An examination of the soteriology of Trent vs. the Reformers could indicate that the Reformers were closer to Thomas.  But Barrett offers a different piece of evidence.  Citing Michael Horton:

“At a time when numerous leading theologians on the Roman Catholic side were explicitly committed to nominalism, not a single reformer or refiner of Reformed orthodoxy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries attempted to incorporate the ideas of Ockham or Biel, even those purged of their Pelagianizing theses.”

Second, from the Afterword, by Timothy George, addressing one of the myths of the Reformation: That the Reformation divided the Church:

This old chestnut is the starting point for many Reformation histories published since 2017.

He then notes: the Great Schism of 1054, the Babylonian Captivity of 1309 – 1377, the Western Schism of 1378 – 1417, Lollard dissent in England, Hussite Wars in Bohemia, the Waldensians in France and Italy, the Alumbrados in Spain.

Division of the church was not the outcome of the Reformation but rather its starting point.