THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
The next crisis between papal and episcopal theories of authority is
reached in the _Council of Trent_. The primary purpose of that Assembly
was to reply to those without, rather than to determine opinions within
the Roman Communion. But the effort to formulate their own convictions
disclosed sharply contested theories within. The conflict of opposing
schools became particularly conspicuous when the Sacrament of Orders
came up for consideration in November 1562. The century and a half
between Constance and Trent had somewhat diminished the impression of
the Schism. Teaching on the supremacy of the Council over the Pope was
naturally less emphatic now than in those disastrous days. Yet the
school which considered the Pope supreme, and that which considered the
Collective Episcopate to hold that high position, coexisted within the
Roman Body; just as the entire previous development would lead us to
expect. In the Council Chamber of Trent, from the lips of Bishops, both
theories are sharply stated.
On the papal side it was claimed that consecration to the Episcopate
confers orders but not jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the authority to
govern the Christian flock. And it was argued that a Bishop does not
necessarily possess jurisdiction. He possesses jurisdiction when the
flock has been assigned to him. But, said the papal advocates, it is
the Pope who gives to the Bishop his flock. Consequently, it is the
Pope who confers the jurisdiction.
The real basis of this theory is the opinion that all jurisdiction
was originally conferred by Christ upon St Peter; that it belongs
exclusively to him and his successors; that the plenary jurisdiction
of St Peter was transmitted, but not that of the other Apostles. The
papal advocates in the Council of Trent frankly stated their anxiety
to protect the papal power. If the Pope in conveying jurisdiction was
only instrumental, then the plenitude of power was not really his. But
whatever the Bishops are, the Pope must be the source of all authority.
It was even asserted that Bishops are superior to priests not by divine
right, but by papal permission. The Pope, it was declared, had power
to deprive, transfer, or depose the Bishops at will, as might seem to
him expedient for the Universal or the local Church. So, at least, a
Bishop said. We shall see this theory bearing fruits in France in the
days of Napoleon. Another Bishop even proclaimed that our Lord baptized
St Peter only among the Apostles, while Peter baptized the rest, and
created them Bishops of the Church.
On the other side, the theory of supreme episcopal right, commission,
and authority was firmly and widely maintained. Consecration, it was
affirmed, conferred jurisdiction as well as orders. Indeed jurisdiction
is essential to the episcopal function; and consecration cannot confer
an inadequate mutilated power. In jurisdiction we should distinguish
the capacity and its exercise. The capacity is bestowed direct by
Christ in consecration; the particular sphere of its exercise is
accidental and subordinate. Appeal was made to the Council of Constance
in support of this. Accordingly, Bishops are Vicars of Christ. They are
also successors of the Apostles. All the Apostles received jurisdiction
direct from Christ. The Bishops are their true successors, therefore
their right is divine. The divine right of the Pope can be rested on no
other ground than on his succession to St Peter. By an equal reason the
Bishops are successors of the Apostles. Christ did not only institute
Peter and his successors, but also the Apostles and theirs. In the
primitive Church, so Bishops argued at Trent, the papal theory did not
exist. For Titus and Timothy were appointed by St Paul, and others by
the other Apostles, without any authority from or reference to the
Supreme Pontiff. Indeed the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to
St Peter, but not to him alone.
Between these conflicting schools others endeavoured to mediate. A
member of the Council thought it almost sacrilege to go on discussing
the Pope’s authority when they had no mandate so to do. Another
pleaded that no discussion should be held on episcopal jurisdiction.
The condemnation of either opinion would be the repudiation of many
accredited teachers. Another deprecated controverted points. What,
he exclaimed, will the heretics say when they hear that we, after
fifteen hundred years, are enquiring by what right Bishops exist? These
questions should be avoided as encouraging heretics and scandalising
Catholics. The proper theme for the Council’s consideration was rather,
How is the episcopal office to be rightly discharged? This is what the
world expects the Council to decide. Thus he recalled them to practical
reform. Vainly did the presiding Legate remind them that the Council
was called to condemn heretics, not to discuss matters controverted
among Catholics.
But party feeling was very strong. A Spanish Bishop ventured to
observe that the Canon of Nicaea (4) on Episcopal consecration made no
reference whatever to the Pope. This created an uproar. The Italian
Bishops shouted, “Anathema, burn him, he is a heretic.”
The meeting closed in indescribable confusion. When the subject was
resumed, on the following day, the Legates expressed themselves firmly
resolved to maintain the dignity of the Council, even if necessary by
dissolving the Assembly. The Cardinal de Lorraine, head of the Bishops
from France, supported the Legates. He is said to have observed that
if such an insult had been offered to a French Bishop, he would have
left the Council with all the French contingent and returned to France.
Cardinal de Lorraine made no secret of his adherence to the principles
of the French Church.
“I am a Gallican,” he said in a letter to Rome, “brought up in the
University of Paris, in which the authority of a General Council is
esteemed superior to that of a Pope, and they who hold the contrary
are condemned as heretics. In France the Council of Constance is
throughout considered Ecumenical.”[93]
[93] Richerius, _Vindiciæ Gall._ p. 13.
It is said that if the question had been pressed by the presiding
Legates to a division, they could have obtained a majority. But they
could not have obtained, on the disputed points, anything approaching
unanimity. Accordingly, the controversy on the source of episcopal
jurisdiction was left finally undetermined. So far as the Decisions
of Trent are concerned there was nothing on this matter to prohibit
retention of the ancient view.
There was an anxiety in Rome not to push things to antagonism and
division. An historian of the Council says that the Pope advised the
Legates that nothing should be defined without the Bishops’ unanimous
consent:[94] a maxim to which constant appeal was made from the Age
of Trent to that of the Vatican.[95] The appeal was natural, for this
maxim harmonised with the principle that the ultimate decision in faith
rested with the Collective Episcopate.
[94] _Pallavicini_, XIX. ii.
[95] Cf. Bossuet, xxi. p. 24.
Since Spanish and French opposition in the Council of Trent frustrated
any endorsement of Italian theories of jurisdiction, it is clear what
would have been the result of any attempt to make decrees on papal
authority. No further addition was made in this direction. Belief in
the supreme authority of the Council in matters of faith was left, so
far as Trent was concerned, exactly where it was before. It remained
the conviction of the Church in France.
The correspondence between Rome and the Legates at Trent has never been
published yet. Members of the Council of the Vatican asked permission
to see it, but Theiner, librarian of the Vatican, was not allowed
to show the documents. Lord Acton[96] says that Theiner deemed the
concealment prudent.
[96] _Hist. Freedom_, p. 431.
Whether that opinion is correct or not, and it has been disputed, what
is certain is that if a comparison be made between the relation of
Pope and Council at Trent and at the Vatican, a vast development of
papal authority will be found in the later period, and a corresponding
diminution of the independent action of the Collective Episcopate. It
will be sufficient here to note that at Trent the claims of minorities
were respected; that nothing was passed without moral unanimity;
that the Bishops framed the regulations by which they were to be
controlled; that no methods of procedure were imposed upon them from
without; that the Roman Pontiff of that day made no attempt to force
new dogmas on large and reluctant minorities. These comparisons were
made within the Roman Church, when the later Assembly had shown its
character.