The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545-1700): Vol. 1: Between Trent, Rome and Wittenberg [1 ed.] 9783666551079, 9783525551073

Citation preview

Wim François / Violet Soen (eds.)

The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545–1700) Vol. 1: Between Trent, Rome and Wittenberg Academic Studies

35,1

Refo500 Academic Studies Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis

In Co-operation with Christopher Brown (Boston), Günter Frank (Bretten), Bruce Gordon (New Haven), Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (Bern), Tarald Rasmussen (Oslo), Violet Soen (Leuven), Zsombor Tóth (Budapest), Günther Wassilowsky (Linz), Siegrid Westphal (Osnabrück).

Volume 35,1

Wim François/Violet Soen (eds.)

The Council of Trent: Reform and Controversy in Europe and Beyond (1545–1700) Volume 1 Between Trent, Rome and Wittenberg With 3 Figures

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

This publication has been peer reviewed. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.de.

© 2018, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting: 3w+p, Rimpar Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2197-0165 ISBN 978-3-666-55107-9

Contents

Wim François/Violet Soen 450 Years Later. Louvain’s Contribution to the Ongoing Historiography on the Council of Trent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Setting the Stage Robert Bireley (†) The Religious Movements of the Sixteenth Century as Responses to a Changing World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

John W. O’Malley What Happened and Did Not Happen at the Council of Trent . . . . . . .

49

Günther Wassilowsky The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69

Trent, the Bible, and Liturgy Els Agten/Wim François The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bible Reading: What Happened in the Build-Up to and during the Fourth Session (1546)? . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Wim François/Antonio Gerace Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Joris Geldhof Trent and the Production of Liturgical Books in its Aftermath . . . . . . . 175

6

Contents

Vasyl Popelyastyy The Post-Tridentine Theology of the Sacrament of Penance on the Basis of the Rituale Romanum (1614) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Antoine Mazurek Réforme tridentine et culte des saints en Espagne: liturgie romaine et saints ibériques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Trent, Evangelism and Protestantism Camilla Russell Dangerous Friendships: Girolamo Seripando, Giulia Gonzaga, and the Spirituali in Tridentine Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Emidio Campi The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Günter Frank Melanchthon und das Konzil von Trient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 Gerald MacDonald Martin Chemnitz’ Examen Decretorum Concilii Tridentini (1566–1573): A Cornerstone in the Construction of Confessional Europe . . . . . . . . 325

The Roman Centre and the Implementation of the Council of Trent Paolo Sachet Privilege of Rome: The Catholic Church’s Attempt to Control the Printed Legacy of the Council of Trent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Federica Meloni Le rôle de la Sacrée Congrégation du Concile dans l’interprétation de la réforme tridentine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371

Epilogue John W. O’Malley The Council of Trent and Vatican II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 About the Authors . . . . . . Contents of Volumes 2 and 3 Index of Names . . . . . . . Index of Places . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

407 411 415 421

Wim François/Violet Soen

450 Years Later. Louvain’s Contribution to the Ongoing Historiography on the Council of Trent

On 4 December, 1563, a solemn Mass at the Cathedral, and a subsequent jubilant procession, marked the closure of the Council of Trent. According to contemporary observers, attendees uttered cries of joy and shed tears of relief. Two days later, ambassadors signed all protocols and put an end to eighteen years of deliberations, spread over three separate assembly periods that began in 1545. This Council would prove to have an enormous impact on early modern developments in religion, politics and culture, both in Europe and beyond. The last major conference devoted to the Council dates back to its quadricentenary in 1963, when a symposium was organized in Trent and presided over by the distinguished Church historian Hubert Jedin (1900–80), who had made the study of this famous Church gathering his lifelong scholarly passion.1 Since then, the Council of Trent has repeatedly appeared on the research agenda in a variety of academic disciplines that include history, Church history, theology, art history and musicology.2 Thus, Trent’s 450 year anniversary caused the Council to once again attract an impressive share of scholarly attention, as several academic conferences were organized, not only in Trent and Louvain (Leuven), but also in Freiburg im Breisgau, Lille and Braga.3 1 Il Concilio di Trento e la riforma tridentina: Atti del Convegno storico internazionale, Trento, 2–6 Settembre 1963 (2 vol.; Rome: Herder, 1965), a volume to read combined with La Sacra Congregazione del Concilio: Quarto Centenario dalla Fondazione (1564–1964) (Vatican City: Ed. Vaticana, 1964). 2 H. Jedin/P. Prodi (ed.), Il Concilio di Trento come crocevia della politica europea (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979); P. Prodi/W. Reinhard (ed.), Il Concilio di Trento e il moderno (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996); C. Mozzarelli/D. Zardin (ed.), I tempi del concilio. Religione, cultura e società nell’Europa tridentina (Rome: Bulzoni, 1997); A. Tallon, La France et le Concile de Trente (1518–1563) (Rome: École française de Rome, 1997); M. Viallon (ed.), Autour du Concile de Trente: actes de la table ronde de Lyon, 28 février 2003 (Saint-Étienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne, 2006). 3 M. Catto/A. Prosperi (ed.), Trent and Beyond. The Council, Other Powers, Other Cultures (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018); P. Walter/G. Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563–2013) (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 163; Münster: Aschendorff, 2016), see conference report by V. Soen, “‘Das Konzil von Trient

8

Wim François/Violet Soen

In Louvain, more than one hundred fifty scholars, from nearly twenty countries, convened from 4 to 6 December, 2013, exactly 450 years after its closing ceremonies, to study the Council of Trent from an interdisciplinary, interconfessional and multilingual perspective. Located at the crossroads of several European cultures and linguistic areas, as well as scholarly traditions, the University of Leuven provided an excellent forum in which researchers from Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Latin-Romanic, and East-European backgrounds joined together to concentrate on the Council’s stimuli for reform, as well as the controversy it provoked within the early modern world on a local, regional, and global level. Certainly, the scholarly meeting was not meant as a (re-)affirmation of the rightness of confessional viewpoints, be it Catholic or Protestant, and did not constitute a moment for either the glorification of a particular faith or the settlement of old scores, positions to which references to the Council of Trent have been subject to in the past few decades. Rather, the conference aspired to boost a historical interpretation that held the Council as a sixteenth-century Catholic solution to the challenges raised by the necessities of its own time. Thus, both the conference and its subsequent volumes represent a scholarly attempt to offer a contemporary examination of the topic and to set a research agenda that might inspire new interpretations for the ongoing and future historiography on religion in the Early Modern Era. For a long time, the historiography on the Council of Trent was limited by Pope Paul V’s closure of the major repository of archives. The Council’s documents remained sealed away in the Vatican for almost three centuries, until Leo XIII finally reopened the Council archives, which gave an important stimulus to the Görres-Gesellschaft to engage in the publication of the long-secret documents. Afterwards, the historiography became almost dependent on the work of one man, the aforementioned Hubert Jedin, who pointed to the aspects of Selbstbesinnung and Selbstbehauptung within the Council, better-known today as the intertwined developments of Catholic Reform and CounterReform[ation].4 Later on, in the 1970s and 1980s, as the theory of confessionalisation (Konfessionalisierung) forced scholars to reconsider and compare the Lutheran, Calvinist and Catholic Churches, the Council of Trent became und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563–2013)’, Freiburg, 18–21 September 2013”, Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 108 (2013) 1431–34. Symposium international, La dramatique conciliaire, coups de théâtre, tactique et sincérité des convictions dans les débats conciliaires de l’Antiquité à Vatican II, 15–17 May 2013 in Lille 3, to be published by Charles Mériaux et al. (ed.), Dramatiques conciliaires (Lille: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, forthcoming). Also: J.E. Franco et al. (ed.), Concilio de Trento: Innovar en la tradición: Historia, teología y proyección (Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, 2017). 4 H. Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient (4 vol. in 5; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1949–75); H. Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, E. Graf (trans.) (2 vol.; London et al.: T. Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1961) 2.52–98.

Louvain’s Contribution to the Ongoing Historiography on the Council of Trent

9

the moment in which the Catholic Church tried to outline its confession, just as the Protestant churches had done before and would do afterwards.5 The late Paolo Prodi (1936–2016), compagnon de route de Jedin, repeatedly asked attention for the wide-reaching implications of the Council of Trent.6 At the turning of the millennium, John O’Malley attempted to put an end to the neverending debate over whether mid-sixteenth century Catholicism leaned more towards ‘Reform’ or ‘Counter-Reform[ation]’. His new idea was simple, but farreaching, as he proposed to describe Catholicism in this era as ‘Early Modern Catholicism’ and to research it within its historical context.7 Building upon three generations of scholarship, the Louvain conference volumes have the ambition to be included amongst the reference works regarding the Council of Trent. They contextualize the Council within the political and social events of the time, and consider it as an open-ended and ambiguous process, even after the conciliar decrees were put into effect. Three lines of investigation structure the conference proceedings. The first volume situates the Council within the triangle Between Trent, Rome and Wittenberg and looks at how the decisions taken in Trent regarding biblical, theological, and pastoral care were further elaborated and implemented by the Pope and the Curia, while remaining liable to contestation by all strands of Protestantism and innerCatholic struggles. The second volume, Between Bishops and Princes, analyzes the changes in local ecclesiastical and religious life, as initiated by bishops, orders and congregations, while also paying due attention to their inter-woven nature within politics and the confessionalisation that accompanied the reform process. The third and final volume, entitled Between Artists and Adventurers, deals with the cultural and missionary entrepreneurs who felt challenged to translate the conciliar decrees within the fascinating worlds of art and music, and in the Church’s overseas missions to America, Asia and Africa. Each volume opens with widely framed contributions from the keynote speakers, while concrete case studies are subsequently offered. Most interestingly, the source material in5 H. Schilling, “Die Konfessionalisierung von Kirche, Staat und Gesellschaft – Profil, Leistung, Defizite und Perspektiven eines geschichtswissenschaftlichen Paradigmas”, in W. Reinhard/H. Schilling (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung. Wissenschaftliches Symposion der Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus Catholicorum und des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 1993 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1995) 1–49 and W. Reinhard, “Was ist katholische Konfessionalisierung?”, in Ibidem, 419–52. Also: W. Reinhard, “Zwang zur Konfessionalisierung? Prolegomena zu einer Theorie des konfessionellen Zeitalters”, Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 10 (1983) 257–77. 6 Alongside the earlier mentioned publications, we refer to P. Prodi, Il paradigma tridentino: un’epoca della storia della chiesa (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2010). 7 J.W. O’Malley, Trent and All That: Renaming Catholicism in the Early Modern Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), and now his Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013).

10

Wim François/Violet Soen

forming these chapters stems not only from the Vatican Archives, but also from collections preserved in archives that range from Japan and Ethiopia to Latin America and Europe.

I.

Between Trent, Rome and Wittenberg

Setting the stage for a historical-theological analysis of the Council of Trent, the first volume begins by positioning it as a response to the profound societal and religious alterations that occurred during the Early Modern Era. Robert Bireley – who sadly passed away in the final stage of the completion of this volume – identifies these primary changes as a desire for a deeper religious life among the self-confident urban laity, the concomitant birth of individualism and the interest in education, new political developments, such as state building, the discovery of the ‘New World’, and the long-standing desire to rectify abuses within the Church. Subsequently, John O’Malley gives a critical assessment about what did, and did not, happen at the Council of Trent, clarifying and correcting some misperceptions and misunderstandings that have since either become academic orthodoxy or have been retained in collective memories. O’Malley emphasizes that Trent succeeded in reforming the office of the bishop, bringing him back to his essential duties of preaching to and living amongst the flock. In addition, the establishment of seminaries helped to improve comparable educational and pastoral standards for the parish clergy. As regards the sacraments, O’Malley explains that the decree Tametsi, which required a marriage to be conducted before the parish priest and a number of witnesses in order to be declared valid, proved to be an especially successful instrument at a pastoral level. However, the Council failed in its attempts to reform the Roman Curia, paying no attention to the missions and new developments of the religious orders, and it put forward a statement on justification that proved to be a bone of contention in post-Tridentine Catholicism, despite the Council’s best efforts. O’Malley maintains a sharp distinction between the Council itself, and what happened in its wake: the now generally accepted distinction between ‘Trent’ and ‘Tridentinism’. The complex relationship between the ‘openness’ of Trent and the attempts for centralization in post-Tridentine papal Rome is also one of the leading themes of Günther Wassilowsky’s contribution. Roman centralizing policies met with resistance from the peripheries, resulting in an internal plurality of Catholicisms. Thus, Wassilowsky proposes that future historiography must refer rather to a “Catholic confessional culture”, taking for granted that Trent was an important marker in the identity-formation of Catholics in the Early Modern Era, but that it enabled a variety of confessional ways of life.

Louvain’s Contribution to the Ongoing Historiography on the Council of Trent

11

The subsequent chapters deal with more concrete aspects regarding the Bible and liturgy. This begins by considering Bible reading in the vernacular. In the late medieval and early modern Church, there were only regionally diversified positions on the matter, as no uniform legislation regarding Bible reading in the vernacular yet existed. This variety of interpretations was reflected in the long and often hot-tempered debates that proponents (represented by Cardinal Cristoforo Madruzzo) and adversaries (such as Cardinal Pedro Pacheco) of vernacular Bible reading held in the build-up to Session 4. Since both factions held each other in balance, the Council was not able to arrive at a common conciliar standpoint, leaving any decision to the local (civil and religious) authorities. The implication is that Trent did not promulgate a prohibition on Bible reading in the vernacular, although this is one of the myths regarding the Council that still regularly emerges, even in scholarly milieus (Agten & François). In a second contribution regarding Trent’s Session 4, it is argued that the Council’s Vulgate decree was largely a Louvain project. The work De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus, by the Louvain theologian John Driedo, demonstrably (co-)inspired the discussion leading to the elaboration of the Vulgate decree. Moreover, Trent’s request for the publication of an emended version of the Vulgate was immediately executed in Louvain, where John Henten (1547) and, later, Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’ (1574) edited the Vulgata Lovaniensis, which was one of – if not the – most important Vulgate edition until the publication of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate (1592) (François & Gerace). Three additional contributions focus on the liturgical reforms in the wake of Trent. Joris Geldhof ’s work looks at the production of liturgical books after Trent, the most important of which were the Breviarium Romanum (1568), the Missale Romanum (1570), and the Rituale Romanum (1614). Studying the prefaces of these liturgical books, Geldhof argues that, notwithstanding the manifold references to the Council, there is a difference between what Trent promulgated in regard to the sacraments and how future Popes conceived the liturgical books published in the last part of the sixteenth and the beginnings of the seventeenth century. Moreover, thanks to the printing press, the ‘Roman’ liturgy became widespread within the Catholic world. Geldhof also questions categorizations such as ‘Tridentine liturgy’ or ‘Tridentine Mass’. A second case study, by Vasyl Popelyastyy, specifically considers the theology of the sacrament of penance as it is exposed within the Rituale Romanum of 1614. He identifies the main sources of the Rituale, viz. the Sacerdotales of Albert Castellano and Francesco Samarino, as well as the Rituale of Cardinal Julius Santori. More importantly, he highlights the doctrine of the sacrament of penance as contained in the Rituale Romanum, which represents the official doctrinal position of the Latin Church, as elaborated by the Fourth Lateran Council, the Councils of Florence and Trent, and which also includes post-Tridentine

12

Wim François/Violet Soen

developments as expressed in the Catechismus Romanus and the réveil of Thomist studies. Popelyastyy also argues that emphasis was placed on private sacramental confession, on the value of the absolution, as well as on the judicial function of the priest (at the expense of the therapeutic function). Antoine Mazurek, for his part, reminds his readers that the liturgical books promulgated by the Holy See in the wake of Trent represented one example of Rome’s centralization policy, but that the Roman ‘center’ also continued to recognize local liturgical traditions. Importantly for Spain, Pope Gregory XIII issued a privilege in 1573 that gave papal consecration to the “natural saints” of Spain and that also allowed for the establishment of a proprium sanctorum in these lands. The Spanish King, Philip II, although a defender of Rome’s claim as the center of Catholic Europe, evidently promoted this ‘national’ cult, since the monarchy based its legitimacy and sacred mission upon these ancient Spanish patron saints. Mazurek’s essay is a perfect illustration of these dynamics, further in our volumes described by Simon Ditchfield as a post-Tridentine Catholicism with universal or even global aspirations, whereas, at the same time, several local, regional and national ‘Catholicisms’ – in this case a Hispanic Catholicism – developed, collaborated, and interacted. Just as important are a third cluster of contributions that discuss Trent in the context of Evangelism and Protestantism. Camilla Russell, in her essay, considers the epistolary exchange between several members of the spirituali movement in Italy, which strove for a reform of the Church based upon the Bible, a doctrine of justification emphasizing faith above works, and residency of all bishops, amongst others. Notwithstanding the imputations of error and heresy, sympathizers of the movement, such as Giulia Gonzaga and Girolamo Seripando, continued to exchange letters, especially during the Council of Trent, where Seripando was a papal legate since 1562. Russell’s essay shows how, through this letter exchange, the convent-based Gonzaga was influential in keeping the aspirations of the spirituali movement on the agenda of the college of cardinals. Seripando consciously maintained the epistolary contacts with Gonzaga, not only to keep the spirituali within the fold of the Church, but also to use them as a leverage to facilitate reform. Evidently, much attention was given to the reactions that the Council aroused among the Protestant Christians, who neither accepted its decrees and the theological choices they contained, nor recognized the authority of those who promulgated them. Emidio Campi highlights the position of the magisterial reformers, viz. the ‘two Martins’ of Lutheranism, Martin Luther and Martin Chemnitz, as well as the two Fathers of Reformed Protestantism, Heinrich Bullinger – Huldrych Zwingli’s successor – and John Calvin. They had striven for a “free, general, and Christian Council” and, as most Protestant reformers, they remained absent from the meetings of the Church gathering in

Louvain’s Contribution to the Ongoing Historiography on the Council of Trent

13

Trent, which they viewed as being overly dominated by the Pope and the Emperor. Only representatives of some German Lutheran princes showed up at Trent for the last sessions of the second period (1551–52), but found that they were unable to exert any real influence on the Council’s proceedings. The magisterial reformers disagreed with the doctrinal choices that the Council fathers had made, especially those that dealt with issues between Rome and the Reformation, viz. Scripture and tradition(s), Justification, and the sacraments. This overview of the magisterial reformers’ positions is supplemented with two shorter essays, both of which offer more detail on the position of two other reformers. First, Günter Frank addresses the position of Philipp Melanchthon, including his juridical and canonical reservations regarding the Church gathering in Trent, and his remarks concerning Trent’s Justification decree, which was his most fundamental observation. Secondly, Gerald MacDonald offers a short analysis of Martin Chemnitz’ Examen Decretorum Concilii Tridentini that focuses on its significance within the Protestant world, and the reactions it evoked among Catholics. His essay strongly recommends a thorough investigation of Chemnitz’ very rich and important work. Although the ‘Roman’ post-Tridentine perspective is included throughout all of the contributions, two additional essays address the papacy’s specific attempts to get a grip on the implementation and interpretation of the Council of Trent. Paolo Sachet describes how the papacy attempted to control the printed legacy of the Council by granting the printing rights of the Tridentine decrees to its official printer, Paolo Manuzio, in 1564. This meant that all other editions had to offer a text that conformed to Manuzio’s edition. Furthermore, the text had to be produced without interpolations or marginal (or other) commentaries. At the end of the day, this privilege quickly proved to be unworkable. The Pope and the Roman Curia took care to reserve the official interpretation to an organ specifically established for that aim, viz. the Congregation of the Council. Federica Meloni’s essay, which builds on her doctoral work on the topic, examines the role of this congregation in interpreting the Council’s reformatory decrees. The congregation had to approve the decisions of the provincial councils and deal with the important question of residency of bishops – until Pope Urban VIII established a separate body to pronounce upon the latter question. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, however, it also took upon itself the controversies regarding the validity of marriages that laypeople submitted to its discretion (marriage also being one of the Council’s important issues), and supplications to annul religious vows. Through this, the congregation ventured into canon law, even establishing an alternative circuit of norm-making. In short, it is well-known by all Church historians that the authority of the Pope and the Curia increased remarkably after the Council, especially through the rights they reserved for themselves to interpret Trent’s events and decrees. John O’Malley, in

14

Wim François/Violet Soen

an essay that serves as the epilogue to this first volume and was pronounced as the concluding address of the conference, compares the Council of Trent and the most recent ecumenical council, Vatican II.

II.

Between Bishops and Princes

The second volume analyzes the profound modifications in ecclesiastical and religious life after 1563, as well as the accompanying political strife that these changes caused. Moreover, this volume aims to contextualize the ‘Tridentine era’ from the actor-perspective of both bishops and princes. It is generally accepted that the Council of Trent, along with its disciplinary decrees, took great pains in bringing the bishops back to their pastoral role, especially in regard to the duties of preaching, teaching and administrating the sacraments to their flock, as John O’Malley emphasizes in his essays. Yet, even if this Tridentine reconfiguration of episcopal and pastoral duties had been the main achievement of the Council, Nicole Lemaitre shows that these changes originated among reformed-minded prelates in the (late) Middle Ages, and were already being implemented by an array of bishops, some of whom also convoked local provincial councils and diocesan synods in regions throughout Europe. Despite the fact that not all attempts at reform were equally successful at this initial stage, Lemaitre’s longterm perspective on Catholic Reform helps to identify the Council as just another step in an already active process of reform instead of a (late) reaction to Protestantism: the vocation of the pastor as a Good Shepherd haunted Church debates since at least the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The discussions during the first and last period of the Council regarding the duties of prelates, as well as the decrees that issued from these fierce debates, took into account earlier experiences in Europe (without taking into consideration overseas missionary experiences). More importantly, a significant portion of post-Tridentine European bishops could build upon the work that some of their predecessors had already carried out. The crucial debate on episcopal residency, prescribed since the fourth century, almost led to a deadlock at the Council, but was finally imposed upon both bishops and priests through decrees promulgated at Session 6 (1–2) and especially Session 23 (1). As Christian Wiesner and Federica Meloni both argue, residency remained prone to negotiation in the post-Tridentine Church through the mediation of the Sacred Congregation of the Council. In 1635, Pope Urban VIII even installed a kind of sub-congregation for settling the requests for the dispensation of a bishop’s residency, thus implementing stricter control of this rule and superimposing itself on the decision-making of local bishops and

Louvain’s Contribution to the Ongoing Historiography on the Council of Trent

15

metropolites. In fact, bishops and priests often claimed study, illness and local disputes (inimicitia) as reasons for seeking dispensation. Heinz Finger shows that within episcopal reform the establishment of the diocesan seminaries became a powerful instrument through the famous seminar decree promulgated at Session 23 (18) of 15 July, 1563. Rather than trying to keep clerics away from universities, this decree represented a pragmatic and practical solution for enabling a better education for future priests. In this sense, it was a Tridentine ‘invention’, though it relied upon earlier plans from the circles of Cardinal Reginald Pole and others. The implementation of this decree was likely most successful in Latin American territories, where old sensibilities were not able to delay the establishment of these seminaries in the spirit of Trent. In continental Europe, the spread and implementation of diocesan seminaries depended on either the financial means of the bishoprics concerned or on the availability of training alternatives. By the eighteenth century, however, Tridentine seminaries under strict episcopal control underwent an existential crisis due to the increasing impetus for Staatskirchentum. Following this introductory overview, case studies from different regions of continental Europe – largely the result of recent research presented here for the first time – analyze the concrete shape that Tridentine diocesan reform took when implemented at the local level. These studies cover the diocese of Carthagena in Spain (García Hourcade), Namur in the Habsburg Netherlands (Belin), Ragusa on the Dalmatian Coast in present-day Croatia (Trsˇka), and Olomouc in Moravia in the Kingdom of Bohemia (Parma). Each of these case studies highlights the interaction of the conciliar decrees with given local circumstances, stressing Lemaitre’s point that the pre-1563 period mattered, sometimes for the better, but, as is the case for most of the studies presented in this volume, often for the worst. Simon Ditchfield underlines in the third volume that also the experiences of bishops overseas, especially of those in Latin America, played a crucial role in appropriating Trent. As José García Hourcade demonstrates, reform-minded bishops in the Spanish diocese of Carthagena seemed eager to successfully implement Trent, at least before 1600, frequently convoking synods and prescribing that visitations be organized once every three years. Yet, it seems that the Carthagenan bishops often continued to delegate this intensive work to one or more of their representatives, only showing up in the parishes to administer the sacrament of confirmation. Bishops in the Spanish Habsburg Low Countries equally seized upon the Tridentine moment to implement reform. Morgane Belin documents their willingness to reform through the numerous diocesan synods, prescriptions, and episcopal visitations that occurred within the diocese of Namur, part of the ecclesiastical province of Cambrai, though the implementation of Trent ended up being a century-long project in this region.

16

Wim François/Violet Soen

The subsequent case studies reporting on Ragusa and Olomouc, however, shed a different light on the impact of Trent in local dioceses. Tanja Trsˇka, for example, neatly illustrates how Lodovico Beccadelli, who arrived as appointed Archbishop in Ragusa (present-day Dubrovnik) in 1555, had to deal with the fact that his predecessors in the archiepiscopal see had been mostly absent. He tried to implement the decrees of the Council of Trent, in which he had been an important secretary in its preparatory phase, by reforming parish structures and instituting regular episcopal visitations; yet, his successors and the town authorities did not share his Tridentine élan and did not attempt to counter the obstructions posed by the local clergy. Furthermore, as Tomásˇ Parma argues, the Council of Trent came at the exact moment when religious co-existence seemed to have been generally accepted in the Margrave of Moravia, which formed a part of the Bohemian lands, and when the relation between Church and State was at its most troublesome. These conflicts lasted until 1621, when Franz von Dietrichstein, the Cardinal and Archbishop of Olomouc, took over as Governor-General of Moravian lands and promptly implemented the Tridentine decrees. The next section deals with the interactions between the bishops and some of the religious congregations in regard to Catholic Reform before and after Trent, especially in the ever-fragmented early modern Italian Peninsula. The order of the Theatines, for example, is contextualized here, as it refashioned itself from an inquisitorial group to one that worked towards episcopal reform. This refashioning, as Andrea Vanni argues, seemed to represent a counter response to the ideological shifts in the career and thinking of its founder, Gian Pietro Carafa, who later became Paul IV. Of particular interest is the moment in which two subsequent bishops of Piacenza were recruited from the Theatine Order and came to slowly subscribe to the Tridentine Church model of their Milanese Archbishop, Carlo Borromeo. Finally, Querciolo Mazzonis stresses that bishops also played a significant role in fostering and controlling active women’s congregations. The Italian example presented here highlights the fact that the Church was not seeking to repress female devotion, but instead tried to channel it through active congregations, leading to a myriad of forms, rules, and prescriptions within even neighboring regions. Importantly, this second volume considers the intense controversies between bishops and princes, and the heightened political strife that surrounded the legal reception and the implementation of these conciliar decrees. These decrees not only had to be proclaimed by the Pope, but they had to be endorsed by the various princes in Catholic territories, as well. Ignasi Fernández Terricabras demonstrates how the promulgation and implementation of Trent became a tug-of-war in the relationship between the Church and State. Monarchs who aimed at consolidating their rule in the first half of the sixteenth century

Louvain’s Contribution to the Ongoing Historiography on the Council of Trent

17

had managed to avoid the much-feared “reform of the princes” intended by the Council, while not achieving the “reform of the Curia” that they had actually wanted. Kings feared that the decrees’ implementation might establish the superiority of ecclesiastical jurisdiction over civil rule within their borders, or might permit the Holy See to interfere with internal political matters. Though many monarchs shared these anxieties, they still adopted various measures proposed by Trent in the decades after 1564, although these were often modelled along the specific legal traditions of each of their territories. Yet, there was a distinct difference between the regions where implementation might ignite controversies, such as in the Holy Roman Empire, the emerging Dutch Republic, France, Poland, Bohemia, and Moravia on the one hand, and countries with an exclusive Catholic regime on the other. Even in the latter regions, though, much juridical contention still occurred between ecclesiastical and royal institutions. Fernández Terricabras shows that the Tridentine bishops remained the weakest link within this triangle of power that existed between the Pope, princes, and bishops, despite the fact that the Council had significantly empowered them. This volume also situates several aspects of the growing conflict between the ecclesiastical and political realm within their regional and local contexts. First, attention is directed to the Spanish Habsburg territories, where Tridentine reform did not occur as easily or as straightforward as scholars often depict. This was especially true in the Low Countries, where the Council of Trent sparked immediate contestation by local elites who feared the exclusive implementation of Catholicism in a moment when Protestantism was quickly spreading throughout their territories. For dissidents and insurgents striving for cohabitation between the confessions, the Council of Trent was easily discredited as just another form of inquisition. Thus, the promulgation of the Council’s decrees, stirring fear and unrest, quickly became one of the preconditions of the Dutch Revolt (Soen). Gustaaf Janssens further demonstrates that the Duke of Alba, as the new Governor-General of the Low Countries since 1567, implemented a variety of measures from and inspired by Trent – ranging from razzias in search of forbidden books to the resolute installation of new bishops in the wake of the reorganization of the dioceses in 1559 – that added additional support to the reasons for revolt. D’Avenia’s work highlights the contemporary situation in the diocese of Palermo in Spanish Habsburg Sicily, where the Cardinal Archbishop Gianettino Doria, although the product of an outspoken and politically-inspired appointment, showed himself to be one of the most zealous propagators of the Tridentine decrees, while also attempting to increase his jurisdiction through a specially established Tribunale della Visita. These examples should guard us against over-simplified conclusions that assume that bishops who were either

18

Wim François/Violet Soen

appointed by the political authorities or taken from the highest ranks of the nobility would inevitably become bad pastors or obstructers of Tridentine reform. Rather, one should pay attention to the sensibilities of Church-State collaboration and confessionalisation in the Early Modern Era. The second set of examples, which Fernández Terricabras labelled as the “extreme case”, stems from France, where the monarchy openly rejected the disciplinary conciliar decrees regarding Church reform, while some of its closely related prelates accepted the doctrinal decrees already during the Assembly of Melun in 1579, and the first Estate unilaterally did the same in its Assembly of the Clergy in 1615. Irène Plasman-Labrune analyzes the long struggle for Trent’s acceptance in France and points out that the demand for excluding ‘foreign’ clerics from pastoral care in France became an important point of discussion, merging Gallican claims with Tridentine prescriptions of residence. Moreover, the reception of the Council of Trent was multifaceted and ambiguous throughout the early seventeenth century. On the one hand, as Philippe Denis shows, Gallican authors, like Edmond Richer in 1605, vigilantly defended conciliarism – including its concomitant chauvinist reflexes – that were still vivid at the Faculty of Theology of Paris, in the spirit of its fifteenth-century foreman Jean Gerson. Remarkably, Richer remained silent about the Council of Trent, not wanting to offer reasons to refute the importance of the Council. On the other hand, Thomas Hamilton observes that two years later Jacques Gillot, a Gallican thinker, used the Council of Trent to combat ‘Tridentinism’ and its tendency towards papal centralization, which he considered to be harmful to the muchcherished liberties of the French Church. Gillot corresponded with Paolo Sarpi throughout the controversy of the Interdict and was skillfully able to circumvent censorship, despite the initiatives of the nuncio. Still, he saw the final unilateral acceptance of the Tridentine decrees by the Assembly of the Clergy as a defeat. This should remind us that the controversy sparked by Trent was not only a confessional one between the Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist (and other Protestant) churches, but also an intra-Catholic one, leading to politico-religious polarization throughout Europe in the late-sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

III.

Between Artists and Adventurers

The third volume, with the somewhat prickly title Between Artists and Adventurers, deals with the outcomes of the Council of Trent within the cultural spheres of both art and music, as well as in the missionary enterprises occurring throughout the New World. In this volume, the afterlife of Trent and the new sensibilities that it created are studied through an examination of Europe’s visual

Louvain’s Contribution to the Ongoing Historiography on the Council of Trent

19

and musical culture. Moreover, this volume focusses on the global impact of Trent through missions in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The Council of Trent had a clear, though concise, view about the use of the arts in Catholic religious life. Pierre-Antoine Fabre investigates Diego Lainez, the second Superior General of the Jesuits, and his series of preparatory notes written in Paris in 1561–62 for his appearance at the conference of Saint-Germain-enLaye. There, he had to defend the veneration of the sacred image in the Catholic tradition, rebuke any abuses in this regard, and search for a common ground with Theodore Beza and the French Reformed party. Thus, Lainez’s position, as described by his preparatory notes, should always be viewed within the religiouspolitical context of sixteenth-century France, which was very different from the situation in Trent. Soetkin Vanhauwaert examines the impact of Trent on the existing sculptural tradition of the so-called Johannesschüssel – a traditional sculpture that depicts the decapitated head of Saint John the Baptist on a platter – in the Low Countries. Although she does not find an immediate impact on the production of these sculpted Saint John’s Heads – as has been suggested in earlier research –, she accepts that stricter supervision of the bishop and his staff members in local parishes, as imposed by the Council, indirectly led to restrictions on more questionable practices. In the case of the sculpted Johannesschüssel, it may have been required that a genuine relic be inserted into the head in order to more closely connect the sculpture with Saint John the Baptist, whereas before Trent the sculpted head was often considered a relic by itself – a practice that may have become increasingly problematic. Ellénita de Mol investigates the degree to which the image of the Virgin Mary, as it appears in three Flemish triptychs of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, was in accordance with the spirit of Trent. The triptych in SaintMartin’s church in Wezemaal (by Frans I Pourbus), which at first sight appears to be fully concentrated upon Mary, actually points to the reaffirmed Eucharistic doctrines of transubstantiation and the sacrifice of Mass. The triptych in the Saint-Peter’s church in Lo (by Jeremias Mittendorf), however, sees Mary as an ‘cooperator’ in Christ’s redemptory work. Whereas both triptychs fit within Trent’s Christocentrism, the triptych in the church of Our Lady in Aarschot (by Pieter van Avont) is old-fashioned in the sense that it strongly focuses on Mary, without paying much attention to the major work of redemption that Christ also did in her. Walter S. Melion examines Jerónimo Nadal’s Adnotationes et meditationes in Evangelia (1595). He specifically focuses upon key changes made by Antoon Wierix, Maarten de Vos, and Bernardino Passeri to three of the original modelli: imagines 3 (Night Nativity of the Lord), 4 (Dawn of the Lord’s Nativity, with Adoration of the Shepherds) and 39 (The Parable of the Tares). Melion argues that

20

Wim François/Violet Soen

these emendations offer an insight into the mechanics of scriptural imagemaking as sponsored by the Jesuits and other proponents for the reform of sacred art in the wake of Trent. Sanja Cvetnic´ adds that at the time of Trent, as well as for a century and a half afterwards, the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia was divided between the Habsburg Monarchy (as a part of its multinational mosaic), the Republic of Venice, and the Ottoman Empire (the Sanjak of Bosnia), with Catholic Croats living in both the Habsburg Kingdom and the Sanjak. Cvetnic´ further shows how this particular politico-ecclesiastical situation left an imprint on post-conciliar sacred imagery, which she illustrates with several examples, ranging from a triumphalist Saint Michael the Archangel Intervening on the Side of the Imperial Troops for the Victory over the Ottomans in Osijek (1770) and the Prophet Muhammed’s contribution to the Dispute on the Immaculate Conception (Split, 1518, 1727) to several masterpieces from Franciscan monasteries in the Sanjak of Bosnia. All of these essays demonstrate how Catholicism became the most ‘sensuous’ religious culture of the time. Two subsequent contributions deal with the musical prescriptions of the Council and the Post-Tridentine Church. Xavier Bisaro argues that Trent actually had not that much to say about music, as it resulted in no declaration concerning the (required) intelligibility of the texts in polyphonic music (let alone prohibiting polyphony in its entirety). The Council only forbade music in which anything “impure” or “lascivious” is mixed, while requiring that the holders of benefices sing their psalms with respect, clarity and devotion. Furthermore, Bisaro traces even these prescriptions back to earlier councils, especially the Council of Basel. Marianne C.E. Gillion argues that while polyphony has received the most attention in the scholarly debates on church music after Trent, plain chant also underwent transformations. She compares graduals that had been printed in Italy both before and after Trent, and specifically focuses on chants that had been added as a consequence of the liturgical reforms (such as two eighth-mode tracts, Veni sponsa and Adoramus). Gillion demonstrates how compositors and editors of chant books were inspired by changes in the liturgy, but that they were also influenced by ongoing revision techniques, as well as the Post-Tridentine predilection for brevity and comprehensibility. Significantly, Gillion’s contribution also relates to the articles from our first volume regarding the liturgy after Trent. The third volume concludes by scrutinizing the impact of the Council of Trent on a global level, although – as has been stressed in much recent scholarship – the Council itself was remarkably silent on the missionary enterprise of the Church. Simon Ditchfield not only underlines how Tridentine reforms made their way from Trent, via Rome and Catholic Europe, to overseas territories, but also how reforms in these territories made ‘their way back’. With overlapping centers of

Louvain’s Contribution to the Ongoing Historiography on the Council of Trent

21

power and influence, this process was never unidirectional and was always confusing, which makes it difficult to properly identify as Tridentine Catholicism or even Roman Catholicism. Whatever the ideal phrase might be, Ditchfield examines how Catholicism developed after Trent into the major global religion, where Lusitan, Hispanic and Borromean Catholicisms encountered local ‘microCatholicisms’ and flourished. As such, the Council of Trent can no longer be identified as an authoritarian and monolithic Church Council that was able to impose uniform procedures upon local churches. Instead, as this volume’s case studies demonstrate, the developments of post-Tridentine Catholicism, in varied countries that ranged from Japan (Vu Thanh, Nawata Ward) to Ethopia (Cohen) and Peru (Penry), were quite different. Each of these cases supports the European examples from the second volume and suggests that the implementation and impact of Trent largely depended upon local circumstances, the broader context, and the specific and ever-contingent agency of bishops and religious orders. All contributions within this section highlight how the seven sacraments – especially the Eucharist, confession, and marriage – became pivotal in these reform schemes, as well as how missionaries engaged in prudent pragmatism and local accommodation in instituting Tridentine reform. The role of the Jesuits is predominant in all of these case studies, yet each also underlines the fact that great debates and conflicts occurred within the Order during the implementation of conciliar decrees in America, Asia and Africa. There are some remarkable conclusions to be obtained from the case studies included at the end of this third volume. During the early modern Japanese mission, which was, in many ways, a terre d’exception, the Jesuits sincerely doubted whether a bishop was needed in the land of the Rising Sun; instead, they preferred to maintain their monopoly rather than introducing this key figure of Tridentine Catholicism. In this regard Hélène Vu Thanh introduces the mediating figure of Luís Cerqueira, who was a Jesuit as well as the first (and last) Bishop of Japan in the early seventeenth century. The author describes Cerqueira’s enthusiastic program that proposed the appropriate observance of the sacraments of the Eucharist and confession. He was also challenged to refashion the sacrament of marriage among the small minority of Catholic converts along Tridentine lines. Yet, in accordance with the Jesuit acculturation politics in South-East Asia, especially those set by the founder of the Japanese mission, Alessandro Valignano, Cerqueira was willing to concede on some points in order to accommodate for local Buddhist practices. Regardless, neither his, nor Catholicism’s, influence extended much beyond Nagasaki, which, as the only Catholic city, became the episcopal residence. Valignano died in 1613, shortly before the persecution of Christians began and the practice of Catholicism forbidden. Haruko Nawata Ward further shows that within this short period of the Japanese Catholic mission, the Jesuits displayed a remarkable will-

22

Wim François/Violet Soen

ingness to translate saint and martyr stories into Japanese and to adapt them to local narrative tastes. The hagiography of Saint Catherine of Alexandria, for example, was rewritten in Kirishitanban, influencing women’s and lay apostolate in general, in a way that extended well-beyond the end of Japan’s Christian century. In opposition to Ignatius of Loyola’s initial goals, the seventeenth-century Jesuit mission to Ethiopia failed. During the decade after Emperor Susənyos’ conversion in 1622, Catholicism became Ethiopia’s official religion, though it still competed against the previously established Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Three Jesuits amply commented on this troublesome ten-year period, which ended with the Emperor granting a return to a freedom of religion. Remarkably, the reports of the short-lived Jesuit mission, which Leonardo Cohen discusses in his contribution, placed most of the blame on the local population and their moral and sexual behavior, especially in their alleged tendency towards idolatry and polygamy. These reports consequently provide us with much information on Jesuit views of Ethiopian Africans, as well as of their own self-perception. Finally, in those locations where Catholic missions had their greatest impact, the outcome could have unanticipated effects. S. Elizabeth Penry, for example, unravels how the inhabitants of the Andes in seventeenth-century Peru took an active role in appropriating the Tridentine prescriptions on the veneration of saints and images, especially within the context of local confradías. The example of two brothers using Tridentine discourse and vocabulary to pursue a local veneration of Saint Barbara against the will of their bishops and inquisitors – pointing at the need for sacramental practice in local communities, as prescribed by their locally adapted catechisms – shows that the inhabitants of the Andes and indigenous people in general were to some extent co–creators of Early Modern Catholicism. Moreover, it demonstrates the tangibility of a globalizing/localizing Early Modern Catholicism, and the multiplicity of Catholicisms as advanced by Simon Ditchfield.

Acknowledgements To conclude, we hope to have contributed to the scholarly adventure of ‘revisiting Trent’.8 The editors want to express their gratitude to the many different scholars who contributed to the conference and the volumes that issued from it. Their warmest thanks go to the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of KU Leuven, and the respective research groups of Early Modern History and History of Church and Theology, as well as the Maurits 8 S. Ditchfield, “Trent Revisited”, in G. Dall’Olio/A. Malena/P. Scaramella (ed.), Per Adriano Prosperi, vol. 1: La fede degli Italiani (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2011) 357–70.

Louvain’s Contribution to the Ongoing Historiography on the Council of Trent

23

Sabbe Library. This conference would not have been possible without our esteemed partners, the Université Catholique de Louvain, the Europäische Melanchthon Akademie in Bretten, and the Fondazione per le Scienze Religiose

24

Wim François/Violet Soen

Giovanni XXIII (Fscire) in Bologna. The Reformation Research Consortium (RefoRC) contributed by bringing together so many different partners. The Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS), and the Doctoral School Humanities and Social Sciences of KU Leuven provided indispensable financial support. We would also like to thank both Museum M and the polyphonic ensemble Encantar for their fruitful collaborations and their much appreciated cultural events and concerts during the conference. Our collaborators at KU Leuven, many of whom have since obtained their doctoral degree, did a tremendous job providing logistical support and so much more. These include Els Agten, Bram De Ridder, Antonio Gerace, Matthew W. Knotts, Alexander Soetaert, Bart Van Egmond, and Sophie Verreyken. Alexander Soetaert and Andrey Romanov facilitated the editorial work for this publication. Antonio Gerace helped in compiling the index of both names and places. We thank the publishing house Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen and the general editor of the Refo500 Academic Series, prof. dr. Herman Selderhuis, for having accepted our volumes. Our thanks also go out to the referees for their valuable comments and suggestions. Compiling three volumes with contributions in three different languages from contributors based all over the world has been an (at times too) ambitious task. We wish our readers an enjoyable and fruitful experience and look forward to follow-up conferences bringing together scholars with a continued interest in the history of the Council of Trent.

Bibliography Frequently cited editions and studies, not listed separately in the essays Concilium Tridentinum: Diariorum, actorum, epistularum, tractatuum nova collectio (13 vol.; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1901–2001) = CT. Corpus Christianorum. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta. Editio critica: The Oecumenical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church, K. Ganzer/G. Alberigo/A. Melloni (ed.) (3 vol. in 4 published; Turnhout: Brepols, 2006–13) = CC COGD. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, N.P. Tanner/G. Alberigo (ed.) (2 vol.; London: Sheed & Ward/Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1990). H. Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, E. Graf (trans.) (2 vol.; London et al.: T. Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1961). H. Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient (4 vol. in 5; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1949– 75). J.W. O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013).

Louvain’s Contribution to the Ongoing Historiography on the Council of Trent

25

Other reference literature Catto M./Prosperi, A. (ed.), Trent and Beyond. The Council, Other Powers, Other Cultures (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018). Ditchfield, S., “Trent Revisited”, in G. Dall’Olio/A. Malena/P. Scaramella (ed.), Per Adriano Prosperi, vol. 1: La fede degli Italiani (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2011) 357–70. Franco, J.E. et al. (ed.), Concilio de Trento: Innovar en la tradición: Historia, teología y proyección (Alcalá de Henares: Universidad Alcalá de Henares, 2017). Il Concilio di Trento e la riforma tridentina: Atti del Convegno storico internazionale, Trento, 2–6 Settembre 1963 (2 vol.; Rome: Herder, 1965). Jedin, H./Prodi, P. (ed.), Il Concilio di Trento come crocevia della politica europea (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979). La Sacra Congregazione del Concilio: Quarto Centenario dalla Fondazione (1564–1964) (Vatican City: Ed. Vaticana, 1964). Mériaux, Ch. et al. (ed.), Dramatiques conciliaires (Lille: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, forthcoming). Mozzarelli, C./Zardin, D. (ed.), I tempi del concilio. Religione, cultura e società nell’Europa tridentina (Rome: Bulzoni, 1997). O’Malley, J.W., Trent and All That: Renaming Catholicism in the Early Modern Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000). Prodi, P., Il paradigma tridentino: un’epoca della storia della chiesa (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2010). Prodi, P./Reinhard,W. (ed.), Il Concilio di Trento e il moderno (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996). Reinhard, W., “Was ist katholische Konfessionalisierung?”, in W. Reinhard/H. Schilling (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung. Wissenschaftliches Symposion der Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus Catholicorum und des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 1993 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1995) 419–52. Reinhard, W., “Zwang zur Konfessionalisierung? Prolegomena zu einer Theorie des konfessionellen Zeitalters”, Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 10 (1983) 257–77. Schilling, H., “Die Konfessionalisierung von Kirche, Staat und Gesellschaft – Profil, Leistung, Defizite und Perspektiven eines geschichtswissenschaftlichen Paradigmas”, in W. Reinhard/H. Schilling (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung. Wissenschaftliches Symposion der Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus Catholicorum und des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 1993 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1995) 1–49. Tallon, A., La France et le Concile de Trente (1518–1563) (Rome: École française de Rome, 1997). Viallon, M. (ed.), Autour du Concile de Trente: actes de la table ronde de Lyon, 28 février 2003 (Saint-Étienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne, 2006). Walter, P./Wassilowsky G. (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563–2013) (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 163; Münster: Aschendorff, 2016).

Setting the Stage

Robert Bireley (†)

The Religious Movements of the Sixteenth Century as Responses to a Changing World

Introduction Way back in 1951 in his seminal work The Spirit of the Counter Reformation the Cambridge don H. Outram Evennett contended that we can best understand the Counter-Reformation or, as I would say now, Early Modern Catholicism, as the Catholic Church’s attempt to adapt to the changing world of the long sixteenth century, and he went on to suggest that we consider the various Protestant Reformations as competing responses to those changes.1 This adaptation was both active and passive with the Church acting upon contemporary society and culture as well as being acted upon, nor was its activity consciously understood as adaptation. By the Church here I understand not only Popes, bishops, and councils but also simple priests, religious, and lay people, often charismatic figures such as Ignatius Loyola or Angela Merici. Such a perspective, indeed, provides a viewpoint from which to contemplate the whole history of the Church into which the history of Early Modern Catholicism, and our own times today too, nicely fit. In order to survive and to grow, Catholicism has always had to accommodate to changing times and places. Often enough this accommodation has generated strife within the Catholic Church itself over what is and what is not a legitimate accommodation as well as among the Christian churches. The issue surfaces already in the Acts of the Apostles; indeed it constitutes one of the main themes of the story of Acts that begins with the Christian community as a Jewish sect in Jerusalem and ends with it as a universal religion in Rome. Were the Gentiles who began to stream into the Church to be held to the observance of the Jewish Law? Gradually and not without conflict it was determined that they were not to be so obligated. As Christianity spread there arose the issue of its relationship to the prevailing Graeco-Roman culture. What has Athens to 1 H.O. Evennett, The Spirit of the Counter Reformation, J. Bossy (ed. and intr.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 3, 7, 9, 20, and 124. These lectures were given in 1951 but were only published in 1968.

30

Robert Bireley

do with Jerusalem, it was queried. With the collapse of the Roman Empire and the invasion of the Germanic barbarians there came another challenge to the Church to adapt, and so there resulted the ideal of the Christian knight as warrior in God’s service who embarked on crusade to liberate the Holy Land. Expansion across the seas then in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries into virtually unknown lands brought European Christians into contact with primitive and advanced cultures, thus raising further questions about accommodation. We are all familiar with the long, drawn-out Chinese and Indian Rites controversies. Though some medievalists would undoubtedly disagree, I would suggest that around 1500 a new epoch was dawning in Europe, Early Modern Times. Five changes marked this transition from the Middle Ages, and they overlapped to a degree.2 The first was demographic growth especially in the towns and cities where one can observe along with economic expansion the development of a literate middle class for want of a better designation. Among them we can discern a widespread desire for a deeper and more relevant Christian life. Both the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Reform were urban movements. Secondly, and closely related to this, was the cultural movement of the Renaissance with its individualism and humanism to which we must add the invention of printing in the 1450’s. The Renaissance had begun in Italy in the fourteenth century but it only crossed the Alps in a meaningful fashion in the 1490’s. Thirdly, there was the growth of what came to be known as the modern state. To be sure, the state had its origins in the high Middle Ages and would continue to evolve into the nineteenth century, but it reached a critical stage in its development in the first half of the sixteenth century with the three outsized monarchs, Charles V in Spain, Francis I in France, and Henry VIII in England along with Italian princes including the Pope. European expansion across the seas into the Americas, Asia, and to lesser extent into Africa constituted the fourth major change of the period. Finally there was a movement toward reform within the Church that had found expression in the call for “reform in head and members” that had been building up since the Council of Constance from 1415 to 1418; it proposed to deal with the abuses within the Church, widespread ignorance, misbehavior, and superstition, and it aimed at a more profound evangelization and Christianization of society. It coalesced to a degree with the aforementioned desire for a spirituality for life in the world. As Scott Hendrix has recently reminded us, Protestant and Catholic reformers shared this common goal but the Protestants argued that significant doctrinal change was a necessary prerequisite to achieve it.3 The Protestant 2 See Th.K. Rabb, The Struggle for Stability in Early Modern Europe (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975) and E.F. Rice, Jr./A. Grafton, The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460–1559 (New York: Norton, ²1994). 3 S. Hendrix, Recultivating the Vineyard: The Reformation Agenda of Christianization (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004).

The Religious Movements of the Sixteenth Century as Responses to a Changing World

31

Reformation, then or reformations, confronted Catholicism with new, competing forms of Christianity. This resulted in a period of upheaval, disorder, and warfare that generated a widespread desire for order. The theory of confessionalization, first enunciated in the 1950’s by Ernst Walter Zeeden, elaborated by Wolfgang Reinhard and Heinz Schilling, and more recently modified in many ways, called attention to the common elements in the Protestant Reformations and the Catholic Reform as well as to the desire for order, religious, political, and social, that soon set in after the upheavals of the first half of the sixteenth century.4 It is in this context that the Council of Trent belongs.

Urban Growth and a Desire for a Deeper Religious Life among the Urban Laity Let us look more carefully at these changes and at the responses to them in order to understand Early Modern Catholicism. Long ago Lucien Febvre contended that one could not explain the Reformation principally as a reaction to abuses within the Catholic Church. Rather it arose as “the outward sign and effect of a profound revolution in religious sensibility”5 and this especially in the towns and cities. Recent research has shown the vitality of religious life on the eve of the Reformation without denying the undoubted abuses, ignorance and superstition. Luther, Loyola, and the Catholicism of Trent all drew from the rich legacy of the later Middle Ages.6 One historian has written that “there had never been in France so much preaching and with such success”.7 Religious books dominated the market starting with vernacular Bibles, apart from English, and works of devotion such as Thomas a Kempis’s Imitation of Christ. It has been argued that one reason for the popularity of the return to the Bible in the late Middle Ages, in addition to the invention of printing, was that it narrowed the gap between a theology which had become highly professionalized in the late Middle Ages and the experience of 4 T. Brockmann/D.Weiss (ed.), Das Konfessionalisierungsparadigma – Leistungen, Probleme, Grenzen (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2013); J.M Headley/H.J. Hillerbrand/A.J. Papalas (ed.), Confessionalization in Europe, 1550–1700: Essays in Honor and Memory of Bodo Nischan (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004). 5 L. Febvre, “The Origins of the French Reformation: A Badly-Put Question”, in P. Burke (ed.), A New Kind of History: From the Writings of Febvre (New York: Harper and Row, 1973) 44–107, on p. 59. 6 J. Van Engen, “Multiple Options: The World of the Fifteenth Century Church”, Church History 77 (2008) 257–84; F. Rapp, L’E˙glise et la vie religieuse en Occident à la fin du Moyen Âge (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1971). 7 L. Taylor, Soldiers of Christ: Preaching in Late Medieval and Reformation France (Oxford: University Press, 1992; repr. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 2002), 10.

32

Robert Bireley

ordinary urban people. Confraternities have been called “the primary organized expression of Catholic lay religious life from the thirteenth to the eighteenth centuries”,8 and they abounded on the eve of the Reformation. Toward the end of the century Rouen in France, a city of about 40.000, numbered 131 confraternities.9 Many lay people desired a spirituality that spoke more to their situation as they lived in the world. The Catholic Reform responded to this as did both Luther and Calvin. The Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius Loyola pointed the way for a layperson to live a full Christian life in the world; to it we will return.10 Greatly significant was the Introduction to a Devout Life of Francis de Sales first published in 1609; it has remained a classic up to the present day. “My purpose”, Francis wrote, “is to instruct [in the way of holiness] those who live in towns, within families, or at court, and by their state of life are obliged to live an ordinary life as to outward appearances.”11 Devotion or holiness could be lived in every state of life. Francis later added when discussing dress that “I would have devout people, whether men or women, always the best dressed in a group but the least pompous and affected”.12 De Sales built on a tradition and then had many epigones.13 Long before him writing in the Prince in 1513 Machiavelli had asserted that a ruler who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good.14 So he contradicted the Renaissance tradition of civic humanism that drew upon the De Officiis of Cicero. His position would make it impossible for a faithful Christian to participate in politics, and it stimulated a wave of ‘Antimachiavellian’ literature that attempted to demonstrate how one could be Christian and achieve political success and that continued to proliferate well into the seventeenth century.15 One of the most prominent was the Reason of State (Ragione di stato) of Giovanni Botero published in 1589, which laid out the basis for a Christian reason of state. Many of the dramas staged by the Jesuits in 8 N. Terpstra, “Confraternities”, Encyclopedia of the Renaissance 1 (1999) 65–72. 9 F. Rapp, “Les caractères communs de la vie religieuse”, in M. Venard (ed.), De la Réforme à la Réformation (1450–1530) (Histoire du Christianisme 7; Paris: Desclée, 1994) 215–308, on p. 256. 10 M. Sluhovsky, “St. Ignatius Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises and Their Contribution to Modern Introspective Subjectivity”, CHR 99 (2013) 649–74. 11 Francis de Sales, Introduction to a Devout Life, J.K. Ryan (ed.) (New York: Image Books, 1989), 12. 12 De Sales, Introduction to a Devout Life, 180. 13 F. Charmot, Ignatius Loyola and Francis de Sales: Two Masters, One Spirituality (Saint Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Company, 1966). 14 Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Q. Skinner/R. Price (ed.) (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 54–5; Q. Skinner, Machiavelli (Past Masters; New York: Hill and Wang, 1981), 35–9, 40, and 54. 15 R. Bireley, The Counter-Reformation Prince: Anti-Machiavellianism or Catholic Statecraft in Early Modern Europe (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1990).

The Religious Movements of the Sixteenth Century as Responses to a Changing World

33

the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries pointed up the values of civic life.16 From the pen of Peter Canisius in 1596 came the Mirror of Soldiers, that is, the True Description of a Christian Soldier (Kriegsleu˝t Spiegel: das ist warhaffte Beschreibung eines Christlichen Kriegsmanns), one of the many works that put forward an image of the Christian soldier. Catholic moral theologians building on a tradition dating back to Aquinas become first tolerant and then supportive of business activity as they saw how it advanced prosperity. The theologian John Eck, Luther’s first opponent, approved of interest up to five per cent, and the ‘Belgian’ Jesuit Leonard Lessius, after prolonged study of the stock market in Antwerp, advanced this position in his treatise On Law and Justice (De lege et justitia of 1605).17 The German Jesuit Joannes Busaeus published his On the States of Life (De statibus hominum) in 1613 in which he also discussed the Christian role of the peasant, and in 1624 another Jesuit, Nicholas Caussin, a Frenchman and later confessor of Louis XIII, published his The Holy Court (La cour sainte) in which he attempted to demonstrate the possibility of a holy life even in the atmosphere of the court. His volume went through numerous editions and translations. Confraternities came to play an even greater role in the Catholic world of the sixteenth century, engaging now more in social outreach to the poor and marginalized. According to Christopher Black, in 1600 from one-fourth to onethird of all the males in the larger Italian urban areas were attached to a confraternity at one point in their lives.18 For women and adolescents the percentage was somewhat less. Of special significance were the Jesuits’ Marian Congregations first founded at the Roman College by John Leunis in 1563. They demanded more from their members than did most confraternities. Usually based in a Jesuit college, they came to include many groups in a town. Lille and Cologne, both cities of about 45.000, each counted at one point two thousand members in the local Marian congregations.19 In addition, in most of the towns of Europe and Latin America Catholics enjoyed a variety of spiritualties from which to choose. One found in many of these towns a Jesuit and a Dominican church, a Franciscan and Carmelite church, and others too plus the regular parish

16 J.-M. Valentin, “Gegenreformation und Literatur. Das Jesuiten Drama im Dienste der religiösen und moralischen Erziehung”, Historisches Jahrbuch 100 (1980) 240–56. 17 J.T. Noonan, The Scholastic Analysis of Usury (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957), 208–11, 262–4; T. Van Houdt, “‘Lack of Money’: A Reappraisal of Lessius’ Contribution to the Scholastic Analysis of Money-Lending and Interest-Taking”, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 5 (1998) 1–35. 18 C. Black, Italian Confraternities in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 54 and 270. 19 L. Châtellier, The Europe of the Devout: The Catholic Reformation and the Formation of a New Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 50–1.

34

Robert Bireley

churches. Indeed, one might, with many qualifications, compare these spiritualties to the various forms of the Protestant Reformation.

Renaissance Individualism and Humanism Closely related to this spirituality for life in the world was an increasingly individualist spirituality that corresponded to the individualism of the Renaissance. John Bossy contrasted the individualism of the Catholic Reform and the Protestant Reformation with the more communal spirituality of the medieval period.20 This individualism originated out of medieval Carthusian and Franciscan traditions of meditative prayer and with the Modern Devotion that originated in the Netherlands. The Exercise of the Spiritual Life (Ejercitatorio de la Vida Espiritual) of the Benedictine abbot of Montserrat, García de Cisneros, can stand here for many works that proposed methods of private prayer.21 The Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola were meant to be made by an individual, to help him develop a life of prayer but above all to find God’s particular will for that person. They called for intense private prayer and incorporated many methods of this private prayer. In the long run this type of prayer through the Spiritual Exercises and through the Theatine Lorenzo Scupoli and Francis de Sales was taken up by a lay elite.22 This individualism found further expression in regular confession. By the start of the seventeenth century the devout in Bavaria approached confession once a month or four times a year,23 and one confessed now in the privacy of the confessional that had been introduced by Carlo Borromeo in Milan. This privacy made possible a conversation between the penitent and the priest, and so it encouraged the use of the sacrament for individual spiritual direction and for the application of moral norms to particular cases, so the exercise of casuistry, the application of moral principles to individual cases. “For the first time in the history of theology moral theology became autonomous; it would no longer depend upon the other disciplines.”24 At the same time the use of the general confession came into use; it too seems to have originated with García de Cisneros. In this form of the sacrament the penitent looked back over the course of her whole life in order to uncover sinful habits and inclinations. This 20 J. Bossy, Christianity in the West, 1400–1700 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985). 21 Evennett, The Spirit of the Counter Reformation, 32–42. 22 L. Cognet, La Spiritualité Moderne, vol. 1: L’essor, 1500–1650 (Histoire de la Spiritualité Chrétienne 3; Paris: Aubier, 1966), 163, 223, and 274–309. 23 W.D. Myers, ‘Poor Sinning Folk’: Confession and Conscience in Counter Reformation Germany (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996), 158 and 187. 24 L. Vereecke, Da Guglielmo d’Ockham a sant’Alfonso Liguori. Saggi di storia della teologia morale moderna (1300–1787) (Milan: Cinisello Balsamo, 1990), 31–2.

The Religious Movements of the Sixteenth Century as Responses to a Changing World

35

fostered a higher degree of self-knowledge as well as a deeper contrition. Ignatius Loyola made the general confession a feature of the Spiritual Exercises, and he required it of all novices entering the Society of Jesus. In the long run the general confession spread through the Catholic world through the Marian Congregations and the preaching of the Jesuits.25 The humanism of the Renaissance also helped to stimulate aspects of the Catholic Reform, specifically a return to the Christian sources and the character of collegiate education. One thinks of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible of Cardinal Ximenez in Alcalá as well as Erasmus’s edition of the New Testament and of many Fathers of Late Antiquity. The discovery of new catacombs in Rome in 1578 confirmed the bonds with the early Church and emphasized the centrality of Rome itself. The classical heritage of ancient Greece and Rome with its emphasis on language and rhetoric left its stamp on both Catholic, especially Jesuit, and Protestant collegiate education. Robert Markys has recently argued to the influence of the classical rhetorical tradition on the development of casuistry and then of probabilism (2008).26

Papacy, State, and Church Long before the Early Modern Period, conflicts had regularly broken out between the papacy and the growing states, usually over ecclesiastical appointments, taxation, and legal jurisdiction. As states gradually extended their authority and attempted to centralize they elicited papal and Church opposition. Starting in the mid-fifteenth century after the upheaval of the Great Schism, the papacy aimed to consolidate its authority in the Papal State and to strengthen its position in the universal Church. So the papacy marched in step with the other European states. In 1450 Pope Nicholas V established the papal residence once again in Rome, and he initiated a program to consolidate the Papal State and to make Rome a center of European culture that lasted well into the seventeenth century.27 According to Jean Delumeau, until 1600 the Popes governed the Papal State with an administration the equal at least of any other state.28 But in the seventeenth century the 25 M. Maher, “Confession and Consolation: The Society of Jesus and its Promotion of the General Confession”, in K.J. Lualdi/A.Y. Thayer (ed.), Penitence in the Age of Reformation (Burlington, VY: Ashgate, 2000) 184–200. 26 R.A. Markys, Saint Cicero and the Jesuits: The Influence of the Liberal Arts on the Adoption of Moral Probabilism (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008). 27 P. Prodi, The Papal Prince: One Body and Two Souls. The Papal Monarchy in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 41–58 and 159–60. 28 J. Delumeau, “Political and Administrative Centralization in the Papal State in the Sixteenth Century”, in E. Cochrane (ed.), The Late Italian Renaissance, 1525–1630 (Stratum Series; New York: Harper and Row, 1970) 287–304, on p. 302.

36

Robert Bireley

papacy could no longer keep up, largely because of the failure adequately to promote economic development and of the insistence on filling administrative posts with clerics and so excluding lay persons.29 The papacy did succeed in overcoming the challenge of conciliarism. It expanded its authority in the universal Church and in this sense followed the path of the emerging states. In 1542 Paul III reestablished the Roman Inquisition. As the Holy Office it assumed the responsibility for establishing the norms for orthodoxy and for adjudicating many matters for the whole Church although it often could not enforce its decrees beyond Italy.30 The Council of Trent avoided taking a position on the delicate issue of the relationship between the Pope and the college of bishops, but on its last day through its request to the Pope that he confirm its decrees, recognized his authority. Pius IV in the bull Benedictus Deus confirmed the decrees of the Council while at the same time reserving the interpretation of the Council to the papacy and establishing a congregation for this purpose. Gregory XIII (r. 1572–85) expanded the system of papal nuncios including new ones posted to Graz, Cologne, and Lucerne. Sixtus V then (r. 1585– 90) reorganized papal government into fifteen congregations, six for the Papal State and nine for the universal Church, and he insisted that bishops make their regular ad limina visits to Rome.31 But if the papacy did succeed in extending its authority in the universal Church, and at least for a time, in strengthening the Papal State, it lost its contest with the new states. The Popes realized their need for the support of the states in matters of the Church, first against conciliarism and then against the Reformation, and rulers had often enough taken over responsibility for Church reform when in their opinion bishops were slow to do so. For France the Pragmatic Sanction of 1438 prepared the foundation for the Gallican Church; the Concordat of Bologna of 1516 modified its provisions but still conceded to the French King the right to nominate the candidates for all the major benefices in France.32 Many Popes granted generous prerogatives to persistent Spanish rulers during the long period from well before the Reformation to the end of the sixteenth century.33 At the Council of Trent the Fathers failed to pass a decree on the reform of princes because they thought that this would cost them princely support for the 29 Prodi, The Papal Prince, 49, 104. 30 T.F. Mayer, The Roman Inquisition: A Papal Bureaucracy and its Laws in the Age of Galileo (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 9–14. 31 F.X. Seppelt, Geschichte der Päpste von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts, vol. 5: Das Papsttum im Kampf mit Staatsabsolutismus und Aufklärung. Von Paul III. bis zur Französischen Revolution, G. Schwaiger (ed.) (Munich: Kösel Verlag, 1959), 187. 32 H.E. Feine, Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 1: Die Katholische Kirche (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 51972), 481, 486, 493, and 496. 33 W.A. Christian, “Review of R. Garcia Villoslada, Historia de la Iglesia en España”, The Catholic Historical Review 68 (1982) 488–90.

The Religious Movements of the Sixteenth Century as Responses to a Changing World

37

Counter-Reformation.34 When Carlo Borromeo of Milan was locked in a conflict with Philip II of Spain over ecclesiastical jurisdiction, Pope Gregory XIII inclined to the side of the king.35 In the Concordat of Munich of 1583 Pope Gregory granted to Duke William of Bavaria widespread rights to nominate candidates for Church positions, to tax Church property, and to oversee the administration of Church property.36 Church and government often cooperated to exercise pressure or force to discipline or evangelize their populations. This was certainly true in Spain with the Inquisition where, to be sure, it enjoyed a measure of grudging popular support.37 The Austrian Habsburg rulers in the late sixteenth and seventeenth century made use of reformation commissions composed of Church and government officials to recatholicize their territories. This was a systematic, sometimes brutal, and eventually successful method. Though it was clearly a significant factor, one must be careful not to exaggerate the influence of compulsion. That would be to overlook the attractiveness of the methods of evangelization, the role of popular religious devotion, and widespread desire for a more profound religious life. So was the way prepared for the Josephinism and Staatskirchentum of the eighteenth century.38 Similar developments took place in Protestant countries and in the German Protestant territories. Meanwhile, Catholic thinkers, especially the Dominican Francisco Vittoria and the Jesuits Francisco Suarez and Robert Bellarmine had laid the foundations for an international society of sovereign states that took in the territories across the seas recently brought into the European orbit and that was greatly to influence the development of international law. Their theory of the indirect power of the Pope in temporal affairs aimed to preserve a place for him on the world scene.39 34 J.W. O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, MA/London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013), 230–1 and 236–7. 35 J.B. Tomaro, “San Carlo Borromeo and the Implementation of the Council of Trent”, in J.M. Headley/J.B. Tomaro (ed.), San Carlo Borromeo: Catholic Reform and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Second Half of the Sixteenth Century (London: Associated University Presses, 1988) 67–84, on pp. 74–7. 36 D. Albrecht, “Staat und Kirche” and “Gegenreformation und Katholische Reform”, in M. Spindler/A. Kraus (ed.), Handbuch der Bayerischen Geschichte, vol. 2: Das alte Bayern (Munich: Beck, 21988) 702–8 and 714–30, on pp. 705–6 and 719. 37 H. Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997), 80–2. 38 R. Bireley, “Confessional Absolutism in the Habsburg Lands in the Seventeenth Century”, in C. Ingrao (ed.), State and Society in Early Modern Austria (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1994) 36–53. 39 Q. Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought (2 vol.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 2.169–71, 175–6, and 179–81; P. Mesnard, L’essor de la philosophie politique au XVIe siècle (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 31969), 463–72 and 639–60; S. Tutino, Empire of Souls: Robert Bellarmine and the Christian Commonwealth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).

38

Robert Bireley

The Expansion of Europe and the Missions Perhaps the most expansive campaign of evangelization after the early Church served as a response to the European outreach into the Americas, Asia, and Africa starting in the late fifteenth century, the fourth change characterizing the transition to Early Modern Times. The Church started to become a world Church. By 1550 as many as ten million people in the Americas had received baptism.40 Many Catholics saw in this harvest a divine compensation for the losses to the Church in the north of Europe to the Protestants and in the southeast to the Turks.41 The letters of Francis Xavier from the East were read across Catholic Europe, and his well-known letter about Japan from Cochin, India of 29 January 1552 brought to Europe the first information about this mysterious land.42 In general, Protestants considered the missionary commission at the end of the Gospel of Matthew to be directed only to the apostolic generation. They began serious evangelization overseas only at the end of the eighteenth century.43 The arrival of a group of Franciscans in the Antilles in 1500 signaled the proper beginning of a missionary campaign in the Americas. Shortly after the conquest of the Aztec Empire by Cortes twelve Franciscans came ashore in Mexico, their number recalling the memory of the Twelve Apostles. They began the systematic evangelization of the inhabitants. The Dominicans followed in 1528 and the Augustinians three years later. Issues arose regarding the treatment of the natives by the Spanish settlers, and the missionaries often served as advocates for the natives.44 In 1537 Pope Paul III published the bull Sublimis Deus in which he vigorously condemned the treatment of the natives by Spaniards as without understanding and asserted that they were truly human beings and capable of receiving the Catholic faith. Even when they did not become Christians, there was no justification for depriving them of the freedom or their property.45 Whether natives ought to be ordained to the priesthood became a contentious issue, and after some experimentation the Provincial Council of Mexico City of 1555 40 A. Milhou, “L’Amérique”, in M. Venard (ed.), Le temps des confessions (1530–1620/30) (Histoire du Christianisme 8; Paris: Desclée, 1992) 693–785, on p. 694. 41 C. Nebgen, “Canisius und Indien-Kompensation und Erbauung”, in R. Decot (ed.), Konfessionskonflikt, Kirchenstruktur und Kulturwandel, Die Jesuiten im Reich nach 1556 (Mainz: P. Von Zabern, 2007) 99–111. 42 Francis Xavier, The Letters and Instructions of Francis Xavier, M.J. Costelloe (ed.) (Saint Louis, MO: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1992), 326–43. 43 A. McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution, A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First (New York: HarperOne, 2007), 175–7 and 203–4. 44 A. Milhou, “La Péninsule Ibérique”, in Venard (ed.), Le temps des confessions, 595–663, on pp. 606–14. 45 L. Hanke, Aristotle and the American Indians: A Study in Race Prejudice in the Modern World (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1959), 19.

The Religious Movements of the Sixteenth Century as Responses to a Changing World

39

prohibited the ordination of either Indians or Blacks. This was a decision of great consequence for the Church in Latin America.46 To what degree did the Indians in Latin America become genuine Christians? Up to the present day, the issue stirs controversy. A chief reason for denying ordination to the Indians was doubt about the genuineness of their conversion. But at times they showed real heroism in the confession of the faith, and it is difficult to believe that they were any less Christian than the inhabitants of remote areas of Europe. Missionary activity began in India among the Portuguese as well as among the Indians with the arrival of Franciscans in Goa in 1518. Then more than any other individual the Jesuit missionary Francis Xavier spread the Gospel in India, the Malay Archipelago, and Japan. He arrived in Goa on May 6, 1542. Contact with the advanced civilizations of Asia raised many questions about the relationship between Christianity and these civilizations. Missionaries themselves and their respective orders often differed in their views. The Italian Jesuit Alexander Valignano following his arrival in Goa in 1574 as delegate of the superior general of the Jesuits fostered enthusiastically accommodation with the Asian cultures, and he exercised a powerful influence on the Jesuit missions in Asia.47 But questions remained unresolved, and in the eighteenth century the papacy prohibited many types of accommodation regarding the Chinese and the Indian rites. But the Church was established in Asia.48 The missions in America and Asia as well as to lesser extent in Africa grew under the protection of the Spanish and Portuguese colonial regimes. But the necessary involvement of the colonial powers brought with it disadvantages as well as advantages. In 1622 after long preparation the papacy created the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, with the goal of the oversight of all the Church’s missionary activity.49 It arose out of a new Catholic universalism. At the end of the sixteenth century the Jesuit Antonio Possevino as well as Giovanni Botero proposed plans for worldwide evangelization.50 The Congregation never 46 R. Ricard, The Spiritual Conquest of Mexico (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press 1966), 217–35. 47 F.J. Schütte, Valignano’s Mission Principles for Japan (2 vol.; Saint Louis, MO: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1980). 48 N. Standaert, “Christianity Shaped by the Chinese”, in R. Po-Chia Hsia (ed.), Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 6: Reform and Expansion 1500–1650 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 558–76; L. Brockey, The Jesuit Mission to China, 1579–1724 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007). 49 J. Metzler (ed.), Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Memoria Rerum 1622–1972: 350 Years in the Service of the Missions (3 vol.; Rome: Herder, 1971–1972), 1.79–111. 50 J.P. Donnelly, “Antonio Possevino’s Plan for World Evangelization”, The Catholic Historical Review 74 (1988) 179–98; J.M. Headley, “‘The Extended Hand of Europe’: Expansionist and Imperialist Motifs in the Political Geography of Giovanni Botero”, in R. Dürr/G. Engle/J. Süssman (ed.), Expansionen in der Frühen Neuzeit (Zeitschrift für historische Forschung – Beiheft 34; Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2005) 153–71.

40

Robert Bireley

had significant influence in the Spanish or Portuguese colonies because of the state’s control over the missions, established in the fifteenth century through the Patronato and Padroado-systems, respectively. But the congregation did oversee missions in the Middle East, in Vietnam, and eventually in China. In addition, it promoted the better preparation of missionaries and the ordination of natives to the priesthood.51

Reform and Reformation The growing desire prevalent in the later Middle Ages to eliminate abuses and to evangelize more effectively led within the Catholic Church to new forms of ministry in the world, for religious women as well as for religious men and to farreaching efforts at the Council of Trent toward reform among the diocesan clergy, priests and bishops. John O’Malley has written in this regard: Although not without its debit side, ministry in the Catholic Church in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was perhaps the most innovative and exciting in history … There took place a reform of pastoral practice and an immense expansion of its scope.52

In this the new religious orders and congregations played the major role. The new demands of the sixteenth century elicited a creative adaptation of religious life, that is, life in religious orders and congregations, that consisted in two principal developments: a renewed commitment to new types of pastoral ministry as well as to traditional ones, and secondly, the creation of forms of religious life that supported this commitment allowing for ministries that took the religious beyond convent walls out into the world. Members of orders and congregations came to serve as preachers and confessors, missionaries, writers, hospitalers and social workers. But above all they took up education: catechetical instruction, seminaries for clergy, but especially primary and secondary education; they became schoolmasters and school mistresses. The conduct of schools by religious was not completely new; what was new now was its scope. This new direction grew out of the conviction that no matter how effective preaching was, it was not adequate for the formation of the Christian people as the Catholic Reform envisioned. So the Catholic Reform became in a sense a ‘youth movement’.53 Chief 51 K. Müller, “Propaganda-Kongregation und einheimischer Klerus”, in Metzler (ed.), Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, 1.538–60. 52 J.W. O’Malley, Tradition and Transition: Historical Perspectives on Vatican II (Wilmington, DE: M. Glazier, 1989), 146; This chapter is a reprint of J.W. O’Malley, “Priesthood, Ministry, and Religious Life: Some Historical and Historiographical Considerations”, Theological Studies 49 (1988) 223–57. 53 R. Po-Chia Hsia, Society and Religion in Münster, 1535–1618 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984), 67.

The Religious Movements of the Sixteenth Century as Responses to a Changing World

41

among the new orders and congregations were the Capuchins, the Jesuits, and among the women, the Ursulines, but there were many more. Most of the new foundations originated in Southern Europe, especially in Italy, with little attention at their origins paid to the Reformation in the North.54 The Capuchins originated as a revived form of the Franciscan spirit that received papal approval in 1528 and then spread across Catholic Europe; in their ‘Golden Age’ in the seventeenth century they counted over 30.000 members.55 The first Capuchins lived as hermits but they soon gave up this way of life for convents. They were well-known for their straightforward preaching of the Gospel, for their popular missions, and for their service of the plague-stricken. Their strict poverty prevented them from investing in large institutions as did the Jesuits. They often flourished where the personal element dominated. One thinks of Fra Cristoforo in Alessandro Manzoni’s The Betrothed. A breakthrough to a new form of religious life took place with the foundation in 1524 of the Theatines, the first order of clerks regular, and then in 1540 of the Jesuits, the most populous and most influential of the orders in this category. At the death of their founder, Ignatius Loyola, in 1556, the Jesuits counted about one thousand members and about 33 colleges. The number of Jesuits peaked in the eighteenth century at 22.589 and the number of colleges at 669 scattered through Europe, the Americas, and Asia.56 In order to facilitate their ministries the Jesuits did not practice regular times for common prayer, nor did they have fasts or other ascetical exercises that were incumbent on all. In addition they took a special vow to the Pope for mission, which confirmed a bond between the Society and the papacy. Originally the Jesuits had not foreseen education as a principal focus of their apostolic ministry. But they made the turn in this direction already in the late 1540’s, and it fit well with their early commitment to catechetical instruction and their optimism stemming from humanism.57 But their colleges were not only educational institutions; churches were attached to the colleges, and they also served as ‘pastoral centers’. In 1574, for example, in the province of Milan the five colleges counted 23 Jesuit priests who served as house officials or as operarii, that is, pastoral workers, and eleven priests and fourteen seminarians as teachers in the colleges.58 After the foundation of the Marian Congregations in 1563, these 54 O’Malley, “Priesthood, Ministry, and Religious Life”. 55 M. De Pobladura, “Capuccini”, Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione 2 (1975) 203–51, on pp. 210–15. 56 W.V. Bangert, A History of the Society of Jesus (Saint Louis, MO: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1972), 25, 28; Synopsis Historiae Societatis Jesu (Leuven: Typis ad Sancti Alphonsi, 1950), 314. 57 J.W. O’Malley, The First Jesuits (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 208–16, 241–2, and 253–64. 58 L. Lukacs, “De origine collegiorum externorum deque controversis circa eorum paupertatem obortis. Pars altera: 1557–1608”, Archivum Historicum Societatis Jesu 30 (1961) 3–89, on p. 49.

42

Robert Bireley

congregations as well as other forms of confraternities not only for students but for other groups of laity were connected with the colleges.59 Especially with their regular presentation of plays by the students, the Jesuit colleges also served as cultural centers particularly in smaller cities. One can speak of a ‘feminization’ of religious life in France and in the Habsburg Low Countries in the seventeenth century. For the first time in France the number of women religious surpassed that of the men.60 Women of the middle and lower classes were able to enter the new congregations that exhibited an apostolic spirituality influenced by the Jesuit example; they cared for the sick and the poor, and they stood out as catechists and soon as teachers in schools for girls. They greatly advanced the Christianization of Catholic Europe with their formation of Catholic mothers who would introduce their children to the faith. All of this took place despite provisions of the Council of Trent and of subsequent papal directives that aimed to impose a stricter cloister on women religious. But it was difficult to enforce such regulations especially in the face of support for the sisters from bishops who realized the value of their contributions to evangelization. So the Vatican came to tolerate these new developments.61 Founder of the Ursulines was Angela Merici, an unmarried laywoman from Brescia, who in 1535 organized a congregation of lay women and girls with the initial goal of service in the female section of the Ospedale degli Incurabili in Brescia. Gradually they expanded the activity to include care for orphans – it was the time of the Italian Wars – visits for needy families, and other care-giving works. Most of the women continued to live with their families. In 1539 the company counted 150. But the following years were difficult ones. Archbishop Carlo Borromeo of Milan, subsequently named the “second founder” of the Ursulines62 brought them to Milan in 1567 in order to spearhead his program of catechetical instruction for girls. So he pointed them in the direction of in59 Châtellier, The Europe of the Devout. 60 E. Rapley, The Dévotes: Women and Church in Seventeenth-Century France (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1990), 20–1, 193. 61 R. Creytens, “La riforma dei monasteri femminili dopo I decreti tridentini”, in Il Concilio di Trento e la riforma tridentina: Atti del Convegno storico internazionale, Trento, 2–6 settembre 1963 (2 vol.; Rome: Herder, 1965) 1.45–84, on pp. 50–3, 63–5, 73–4, and 77–8; E. Boaga, “Aspetti e problemi degli Ordini e Congregazioni religiose nei secoli XVII–XVIII”, in Problemi di storia della Chiesa nei secoli XVII–XVIII: Atti del V Convegno di aggiornamento, Bologna 3–7 settembre 1979 (Naples: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1982) 91–135, on pp. 108–9 and 119–23. The tension, however, brought the sisters to creative solutions as regards the architecture of their monasteries, in order to combine encloistered religious life and the education of girls. See Ch. Aravaca, “Enseignantes et cloîtrées: Les ursulines de la congrégation de Bordeaux en Bretagne au XVIIe siècle. A la recherche d’un modèle conventuel”, Journal of Early Modern Christianity 2 (2015) 87–115. 62 P. Annaert, Les Collèges au féminin. Les Ursulines: Enseignement et vie consacrée aux XVIIe et XVIIIe Siècles (Namur: Vie Consacrée, 1992), 21.

The Religious Movements of the Sixteenth Century as Responses to a Changing World

43

struction and education. From Milan then they spread into other northern Italian dioceses. Papal Avignon served as their springboard into France in 1598. By 1607 they had a house in Paris, and they spread to other French cities and across the border into Liège and Cologne, often with the support of the Jesuits.63 In France they increasingly came to lead a common life. But here they were seen to be in conflict with the provisions of Trent. In 1612 the community in Paris agreed to cloister, and many others followed.64 But they received permission from Rome to continue the educational activity and to take a special vow committing them to this ministry.65 So with the Ursulines there developed a new form of women’s religious life that combined an intensive life of prayer with the ministry of education. In France they became the teaching congregation for young women par excellence; there were about 1750 roughly 10.000 Ursulines in comparison to roughly 3.500 Jesuits, and about 350 houses with instruction compared to 150 Jesuit colleges or novitiates.66 Other women’s congregations came into existence in France and the Rhineland similar to the Ursulines but with their own identity. As many as seventeen new teaching congregations of women appeared in France between 1660 and 1715, apart from those founded to care for the sick and poor.67 Nearly all were subject to the local bishop. The Council of Trent certainly stands out as a crucial event in the story of Early Modern Catholicism; it was a response to the long-standing call for reform in the Church and to the challenge of the Protestant Reformation. Along with its attention to doctrine and pastoral reform the Council must also be seen as aiming to create order, in doctrine and in Church government, at a time when there existed a widespread desire for order also among the Protestant denominations following the upheavals of the first half of the sixteenth century and the subsequent wars. They too drew up professions of faith and Church orders. The pursuit of order would characterize the later sixteenth and most of the seventeenth century as most governments moved in the direction of consolidation and absolutism as was the case with the Church. The Council marked the point when most Catholics gave up hope of reconciliation with the Protestants, and it aimed to draw a clear line between them and the Catholics. The Council’s principal achievements were the issuance of a number of doctrinal decrees aimed at clarifying the theological differences between Catholics and Protestants and the 63 Annaert, Les collèges, 24–5 and 29–30. 64 Annaert, Les collèges, 36; T. Ledochowska, “Orsoline”, Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione 6 (1980) 834–57. 65 Annaert, Les collèges, 36, 44–7, and 49; T. Ledochowska, Angèle Merici et la Compagnie de Sainte Ursule à la lumière des documents (2 vol.; Milan: Ancora, 1967), 2.846–7. 66 Annaert, Les collèges, 26–7; Rapley, The Dévotes, 48. 67 Rapley, The Dévotes, 114.

44

Robert Bireley

promulgation of disciplinary decrees aimed at reviving its pastoral mission and eliminating abuses within the Church. In the case of the former, it avoided taking positions on intra-Catholic disputes, and it made widespread use of Scripture in making its case as a way of appealing to the Protestants. Early in its first period the Council passed two crucial decrees responding to the two fundamental Protestant positions, sola scriptura and sola fide. In the former decree of April 8, 1546, the Council affirmed that there existed two channels, Scripture and apostolic traditions, which handed on the Truth of the Gospel as a source, without delineating clearly the precise relationship between the two. Subsequently theologians interpreted the Council as naming two distinct sources of revelation.68 The decree also insisted on Church authority when it decreed that no one, relying on personal judgment in matters of faith and customs, shall dare to interpret the Sacred Scriptures either by twisting its text to his individual meaning in opposition to that which has been and is held by holy mother Church, whose function is to pass judgment on the true meaning and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures.69

After long debate a second decree was approved on June 17 regarding the contentious question of Justification. Many have called it a classical theological document. It steered a middle course between Pelagianism on the one hand and on a determinist form of predestination on the other affirming the absolute initiative of God as well as the part of man’s free will.70 So it took a fundamentally humanist position on the issue pointing up the necessity of works. Many other decrees followed clarifying and ordering the life of the Church. Many will be touched upon in these conference volumes. Many of the reforms, of course, would be implemented only gradually and some scarcely at all. In the wake of Trent there followed further measures with a view to clarification and consolidation, such as the Tridentine Profession of Faith, which all priests and teachers were required to swear to uphold, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and revised versions of the liturgical books. The Council of Trent constituted the high water mark of confessionalization within the Catholic Church, a development that also characterized the Protestant churches.

68 O’Malley, Trent, 97. 69 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, N.P. Tanner/G. Alberigo (ed.) (2 vol.; London: Sheed & Ward/Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 2.664. 70 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.671–81; H. Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, E. Graf (trans.) (2 vol.; London et al.: T. Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1957–61), 2.51– 92.

The Religious Movements of the Sixteenth Century as Responses to a Changing World

45

Conclusion Was the attempt of the Catholic Church to accommodate to the changing world of the sixteenth century successful? In many ways I think it was but there were certainly failures too, as in the case of the Galileo affair on which I have not touched. But I have not attempted to answer the question here. There has been much discussion of it at the conference as well as a diversity of opinions. My purpose has been more modest: to contend that Early Modern Catholicism can best be understood as an attempt, implicit to be sure, to accommodate the Church to changing times and so to fit it into a recurring pattern of the history of the Church, and to suggest that the Protestant Reformations were competing efforts at this accommodation. From this study we can learn lessons for our own times.

Bibliography Printed and edited sources Sales de, Francis, Introduction to the Devout Life, J.K. Ryan (ed.) (New York: Image Books, 1989). Xavier, Francis, The Letters and Instructions of Francis Xavier, M.J. Costelloe (ed.) (Saint Louis, MO: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1992).

Secondary sources Albrecht, D., “Gegenreformation und katholische Reform”, in M. Spindler/A. Kraus (ed.), Handbuch der Bayerischen Geschichte, vol. 2: Das alte Bayern (Munich: Beck, 21988) 714–30. Albrecht, D., “Staat und Kirche”, in M. Spindler/A. Kraus (ed.), Handbuch der Bayerischen Geschichte, vol. 2: Das alte Bayern (Munich: Beck, 21988) 702–8. Annaert, P., Les collèges au féminin. Les Ursulines: Enseignment et vie consacrée aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (Namur: Vie Consacrée, 1992). Aravaca, Ch., “Enseignantes et cloîtrées: Les ursulines de la congrégation de Bordeaux en Bretagne au XVIIe siècle. À la recherche d’un modèle conventuel”, Journal of Early Modern Christianity 2 (2015) 87–115. Bangert, W.V., A History of the Society of Jesus (Saint Louis, MO: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1972). Bireley, R., “Confessional Absolutism in the Habsburg Lands in the Seventeenth Century”, in C. Ingrao (ed.), State and Society in Early Modern Austria (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1994) 36–53. Bireley, R., The Counter-Reformation Prince: Anti-Machiavellianism or Catholic Statecraft in Early Modern Europe (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1990).

46

Robert Bireley

Black, C., Italian Confraternities in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). Boaga, E., “Aspetti e problemi degli Ordini e Congregazioni religiose nei secoli XVII– XVIII”, in Problemi di storia della Chiesa nei secoli XVII–XVIII: Atti del Convegno di aggiornamento, Bologna 3–7 settembre 1979 (Naples: Edizioni Dehoniane, 1982) 91– 135. Bossy, J., Christianity in the West, 1400–1700 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985). Brockey, L., The Jesuit Mission to China, 1579–1724 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007). Brockmann, T./Dieter, W. (ed.), Das Konfessionalisierungsparadigma – Leistungen, Problem Grenzen (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2013). Charmot, F., Ignatius Loyola and Francis de Sales: Two Masters, One Spirituality (Saint Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Company, 1966). Châtellier, L., The Europe of the Devout: The Catholic Reformation and the Formation of a New Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). Christian, W.A., “Review of R. Garcia Villoslada, Historia de la Iglesia en España”, The Catholic Historical Review 68 (1982) 488–90. Cognet, L., La Spiritualité Moderne, vol. 1: L’essor, 1500–1650 (Histoire de la Spiritualité Chrétienne 3; Paris: Aubier, 1966). Creytens, R., “La riforma dei monasteri femminili dopo I decreti tridentini”, in Il Concilio di Trento e la riforma tridentina: Atti del Convegno storico internazionale, Trento, 2–6 settembre 1963 (2 vol.; Rome: Herder, 1965) 1.45–84. Delumeau, J., “Political and Administrative Centralization in the Papal State in the Sixteenth Century”, in E. Cochrane (ed.), The Late Italian Renaissance, 1525–1630 (Stratum Series; New York: Harper and Row, 1970) 287–304. De Pobladura, M., “Capuccini”, Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione 2 (1975) 203–51. Donnelly, J.P., “Antonio Possevino’s Plan for World Evangelization”, The Catholic Historical Review 74 (1988) 179–98. Evennett, H.O., The Spirit of the Counter Reformation, J. Bossy (ed. and intr.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968). Febvre, L., “The Origins of the French Reformation: A Badly-Put Question”, in P. Burke (ed.), A New Kind of History: From the Writings of Febvre (New York: Harper and Row, 1973) 44–107. Feine, H.E., Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 1: Die Katholische Kirche (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 51972). Hanke, L., Aristotle and the American Indians: A Study in Race Prejudice in the Modern World (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1959). Headley, J.M./Hillerbrand, H.J./Papalas, A.J. (ed.), Confessionalization in Europe, 1550– 1700: Essays in Honor and Memory of Bodo Nischan (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004). Headley, J.M., “‘The Extended Hand of Europe’: Expansionist and Imperialist Motifs in the Political Geography of Giovanni Botero”, in R. Dürr/G. Engle/J. Süssman (ed.), Expansionen in der Frühen Neuzeit (Zeitschrift für historische Forschung – Beiheft 34; Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 2005) 153–71. Hendrix, S., Recultivating the Vineyard: The Reformation Agenda of Christianization (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004).

The Religious Movements of the Sixteenth Century as Responses to a Changing World

47

Kamen, H., The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997). Ledochowska, T., Angèle Merici et la Compagnie de Sainte Ursule à la lumière des documents (2 vol.; Milan: Ancora, 1967). Ledochowska, T., “Orsoline”, Dizionario degli Istituti di Perfezione 6 (1980) 834–57. Lukacs, L., “De origine collegiorum externorum deque controversis circa eorum paupertatem obortis. Pars altera: 1557–1608”, Archivum Historicum Societatis Jesu 30 (1961) 3– 89. Maher, M., “Confession and Consolation: The Society of Jesus and its Promotion of the General Confession”, in K.J. Lualdi/A.Y. Thayer (ed.), Penitence in the Age of Reformation (Burlington, VY: Ashgate, 2000) 184–200. Mayer, T.F., The Roman Inquisition: A Papal Bureaucracy and its Laws in the Age of Galileo (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013). McGrath, A., Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution, A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First (New York: HarperOne, 2007). Mesnard, P., L’essor de la philosophie politique au XVIe siècle (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 31969). Metzler, J. (ed.), Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Memoria Rerum 1622–1972: 350 Years in the Service of the Missions (3 vol.; Rome: Herder, 1971–1972). Milhou, A., “L’Amérique”, in M. Venard (ed.), Le temps des confessions (1530–1620/30) (Histoire du Christianisme 8; Paris: Desclée, 1992) 693–785. Milhou, A., “La Péninsule Ibérique”, in M. Venard (ed.), Le temps des confessions (1530– 1620/30) (Histoire du Christianisme 8; Paris: Desclée, 1992) 595–663. Müller, K., “Propaganda-Kongregation und einheimischer Klerus”, in J. Metzler (ed.), Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Memoria Rerum 1622–1992: 350 Years in the Service of the Missions (3 vol.; Rome: Herder, 1972) 1.538–60. Myers, W.D., ‘Poor Sinning Folk’: Confession and Conscience in Counter Reformation Germany (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996). Nebgen, C., “Canisius und Indien-Kompensation und Erbauung”, in R. Decot (ed.), Konfessionskonflikt, Kirchenstruktur und Kulturwandel (Mainz: P. Von Zabern, 2007) 99–111. Noonan, J.T., The Scholastic Analysis of Usury (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957). O’Malley, J.W., “Priesthood, Ministry, and Religious Life: Some Historical and Historiographical Consideration”, Theological Studies 49 (1988) 223–57 (repr. as a chapter in J.W. O’Malley, Tradition and Transition: Historical Perspectives on Vatican II [Wilmington, DE: M. Glazier, 1989]). O’Malley, J.W., The First Jesuits (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993). Po-Chia Hsia, R., Society and Religion in Münster 1535–1618 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984). Prodi, P., The Papal Prince: One Body and Two Souls. The Papal Monarchy in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Rapley, E., The Dévotes: Women and Church in Seventeenth-Century France (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1990). Rapp, F., L’Église et la vie religieuse en Occident à la fin du Moyen Âge (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1971).

48

Robert Bireley

Rapp, F., “Les caractères communs de la vie religieuse”, in M. Venard (ed.), De la Réforme à la Réformation (1450–1530) (Histoire du Christianisme 7; Paris: Desclée, 1994) 215–308. Ricard, R., The Spiritual Conquest of Mexico (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1966). Rice, E.F. Jr./Grafton, A., The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460–1559 (New York: Norton, 21994). Schütte, F.J., Valignano’s Mission Principles for Japan (2 vol.; Saint Louis, MO: The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1980). Seppelt, F.X., Geschichte der Päpste von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts, vol. 5: Das Papsttum im Kampf mit Staatsabsolutismus und Aufklärung. Von Paul III. bis zur Französischen Revolution (Munich: Kösel Verlag, 1959). Skinner, Q., Machiavelli (Past Masters; New York: Hill and Wang, 1981). Skinner, Q., The Foundations of Modern Political Thought: The Age of Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978). Sluhovsky, M., “St. Ignatius Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises and Their Contribution to Modern Introspective Subjectivity”, The Catholic Historical Review 99 (2013) 649–74. Standaert, N., “Christianity Shaped by the Chinese”, in R. Po-Chia Hsia (ed.), Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 6: Reform and Expansion 1500–1650 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 558–76. Synopsis Historiae Societatis Jesu (Leuven: Typis ad Sancti Alphonsi, 1950). Taylor, L., Soldiers of Christ: Preaching in Late Medieval and Reformation France (Oxford: University Press, 1992; repr. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 2002). Terpstra, N., “Confraternities”, Encyclopedia of the Renaissance 1 (1999) 65–72. Tomaro, J.B., “San Carlo Borromeo and the Implementation of the Council of Trent”, in J.M. Headley/J.B. Tomaro (ed.), San Carlo Borromeo: Catholic Reform and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Second Half of the Sixteenth Century (London: Associated University Presses, 1988) 67–84. Tutino, S., Empire of Souls: Robert Bellarmine and the Christian Commonwealth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Valentin, J.-M., “Gegenreformation und Literatur. Das Jesuiten Drama im Dienste der religiösen und moralischen Erziehung”, Historisches Jahrbuch 100 (1980) 240–56. Van Engen, J., “Multiple Options: The World of the Fifteenth Century Church”, Church History 77 (2008) 257–84. Van Houdt, T., “‘Lack of Money’: A Reappraisal of Lessius’ Contribution to the Scholastic Analysis of Money-Lending and Interest-Taking”, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 5 (1998) 1–35. Vereecke, L., Da Guglielmo d’Ockham a sant’Alfonso Liguori. Saggi di storia della teologia morale moderna (1300–1787) (Milan: Cinisello Balsamo, 1990).

John W. O’Malley

What Happened and Did Not Happen at the Council of Trent

Introduction In the course of the past 450 years, the Council of Trent has suffered from myths and misunderstandings greater in number and magnitude than common for historical events of similar importance. The reasons are manifold. The Council was an object of vicious controversy and polemic by both Catholics and Protestants even before it opened. Much was at stake not only for the Church but also for the great rulers such as Emperor Charles V and King Francis I, who were not prone to sit idly by. No wonder that the Council lurched from major crisis to major crisis, during each of which it seemed headed inexorably for disaster. The fact that the Council dragged on for eighteen years invited derision and contempt. The final documents the Council produced are dense with theological and canonical technicalities, which has made them extraordinarily susceptible to misunderstanding except by specialists skilled in the subtleties of canon law and medieval scholasticism. Moreover, from the sixteenth century until 1880 the richest sources pertinent to the Council diaries, especially those of Angelo Massarelli, the secretary of the Council, the correspondence between the Holy See and the papal legates, the financial records, and so forth were sequestered in the Archivio Segreto Vaticano. The Görres Gesellschaft did not publish the final volume of its critical edition of them until just over a decade ago, 2001.1 We are all indebted to that edition and especially indebted to the magnificent use Hubert Jedin made of it in his many articles and his four-volume synthesis, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, completed in 1975.2 But the myths and misunderstandings have to a large extent successfully defied Jedin’s scholarship.

1 Concilium Tridentinum: Diariorum, actorum, epistularum, tractatuum nova collectio (13 vol.; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1901–2001). 2 H. Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient (4 vol. in 5; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1949–1975).

50

John W. O’Malley

In the meantime scholars have been hard at work. They have in some regards significantly changed our perspectives on Early Modern Catholicism, and, although Jedin has stood the test of time remarkably well, we are ready for a comprehensive reexamination of the Council of Trent and its aftermath. I tried to begin that reexamination with my book Trent: What Happened at the Council.3 As I tried to make clear in my book, the first step in such a reexamination must be to keep in mind a few basic facts. Although the Council was the best attended ecclesiastical gathering of either Catholics or Protestants in the whole of the sixteenth century, it was poorly attended in proportion to the number of prelates qualified to participate, which was probably over 600. More troubling, Northern, Central, and Eastern Europe were virtually absent. In the last period over 2/3rds of the prelates came from Italy, followed at great distance by Spain and at even greater distance by Portugal. Even the tardy arrival of the French delegation under the powerful leadership of Charles de Guise in November, 1562, did not substantially modify the proportions. It is not an exaggeration to designate the Council as a Council of the Western Mediterranean.

What the Council Said and Did Not Say The sheer verbosity of the final documents obscures the fact that the Council had a narrow agenda, which it pursued under the standard headings of doctrine and discipline, that is, doctrine and reform or fides et mores. Under doctrine the Council dealt only with major teachings, as the Council saw them, that were rejected by the Protestant reformers. In essence the Council reduced these to the question of Scripture and (non written) traditions, Justification and the sacraments. This focus meant that the Council sidelined pastoral or even doctrinal issues that did not obviously fit that agenda. Such issues as indulgences, Purgatory, rules for fasting, clerical celibacy, the veneration of saints and their images – issues that more deeply troubled the minds and hearts of the general populace and that caused more social upheaval than traditions, Justification and the sacraments – had a difficult time making it to the floor of the Council. The Council either did not deal with them until the very last moment and in great haste or dodged them altogether. For reform the Council appropriated the standard ecclesiastical preoccupation to mean reform of three offices in the Church – the papacy, the episcopate, and the pastorate. Even the Council’s long document on the religious orders derived principally from concern over how the orders related to the au3 J.W. O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, MA/London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013).

What Happened and Did Not Happen at the Council of Trent

51

thority of the bishops. This narrow focus meant that the Council had not a word to say about some of the most vibrant and important aspects of Catholicism in the sixteenth century. As we look back on that century, we see the great missionary undertakings especially in Spanish and Portuguese America as having incalculable impact on the future of the Catholic Church. The Council said not a word about them. Nor did it say a word about the schools for young laymen the Jesuits were founding, which, as soon pursued by other orders of both men and women, would become a hallmark of Catholicism in the Early Modern Era. The Council mentioned only in passing confraternities, surely the most vibrant institution in Catholic lands for religious devotion and practice, probably more important than the parishes, about which the Council was so concerned. Trent was silent on inquisitions, neither commending nor condemning them. Because Pius IV thrust upon the Council the task of revising and mitigating the draconian Index of Forbidden Books of Pope Paul IV, the Council was forced to deal with it. But it never completed its work, nor did members of the Council ever see the report handed onto Pius IVas the Council drew to a close, the report that as further revised after the Council would bear the Council’s name, Tridentine Index of Forbidden Books. By far the most stunning silence of the Council is the absence of a decree on the papacy. No matter what their differences among themselves, every Protestant Church and reformer utterly and categorically rejected the papacy. No pope! – that was their battle cry. Yet the Council never directly responded to the cry. Of course, all the prelates at Trent accepted papal primacy. Otherwise, they would not have been there. But just how the primacy functioned and what its legitimate limits might be was too hot an issue for the Council to touch. The prelates were bitterly divided over it. Moreover, the three Popes who convoked the three periods insisted with their legates that the one issue they should under no circumstance ever allow to be raised was the relationship between Pope and Council. They were still terrorized by the conciliarist ghosts from the Council of Constance and the Council of Basel. The legates for the most part succeeded in deflecting efforts to bring the issue to the floor, but only by paying the price of the great crises that again and again gripped the Council, almost always because that issue was the issue-under-theissue that set off the crisis.

What the Council Accomplished Which of the decisions of the Council actually accomplished what the Council intended? In other words, what worked? What did not work, either by remaining a dead letter or by creating new problems? Any answer to such questions is rightly

52

John W. O’Malley

doomed to die the death of a thousand qualifications, but it is too important not to attempt an answer, if only to provoke debate and discussion. First, the doctrinal decisions. The decrees on the sacraments, which were basically an affirmation of the sacramental theology developed by the medieval scholastic theologians, seem to have been resoundingly successful, even if not surprisingly so.4 They firmly established the legitimacy of all seven, and they confirmed and furthered them as living and vital realities in the life of the ordinary Catholic. They provided support and stimulus to the heightened importance of the Eucharist in Catholic devotion.5 By affirming in its thirteenth session the legitimacy of adoration of the Eucharist, the Council gave impetus to the traditional Corpus Christi celebrations and to the evolving Eucharistic emphasis of the Quarant’ore, both of which would become identity marks in postTrent Catholicism.6 By commending frequent reception of the Eucharist, the Council not only threw its support behind a movement already well under way, even if somewhat controversial, but thereby promoted frequent use of the sacrament of penance.7 After the Council the interiors of Catholic churches around the world began almost to blossom with confessionals, where in some churches confessors were in place every hour the church was open to the public. Even though the Council never mentioned the confessional, a piece of ecclesiastical furniture relatively unknown before being promoted after the Council by Carlo Borromeo, its rapid adoption suggests the new prominence the sacrament now enjoyed. The abuses and social ramifications of the new emphasis on Penance has attracted the interest of scholars.8 With the decree Tametsi requiring a priest witness for the validity of the sacrament of matrimony, the Council hoped to solve the nagging problem of 4 On the sacraments at the Council of Trent, see, amongst others, M. Seybold, “Die Siebenzahl der Sakramente (Conc. Trid., sessio VII, Can. ii)”, Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 27 (1976) 113–41; J. Wicks, “Fides sacramenti–fides specialis: Luther’s Development in 1518”, Gregorianum 65 (1984) 53–87; E.V. Ottolini, “L’istituzione dei sacramenti nella VII sessione del Concilio di Trento”, Rivista Liturgica 81 (1994) 60–117; H. Bourgeois/B. Sesboüé, “La doctrine sacramentaire du Concile de Trente”, in Bourgeois et al. (ed.), Signes du salut (Paris: Desclée, 1995) 144–57. 5 J.A. Jungmann, “Die Andacht der vierzig Stunden und das heilige Grab”, Liturgische Jahrbuch 2 (1952) 184–98; M. Rubin, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late-Medieval Culture (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991); B.R. Walters et al. (ed.), The Feast of Corpus Christi (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006). 6 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, N.P. Tanner/G. Alberigo (ed.) (2 vol.; London: Sheed & Ward/Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 2.698. 7 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.697. 8 A. Prosperi, Tribunali della coscienze: Inquisitori, confessori, missionari (Turin: Einaudi, 1996); W. de Boer, The Conquest of the Soul: Confession, Discipline, and Public Order in CounterReformation Milan (Leiden: Brill, 2001).

What Happened and Did Not Happen at the Council of Trent

53

clandestine marriages.9 It at the same time dramatically reconfigured how the sacrament was henceforth to be celebrated and to some extent even how it was to be understood, making it ecclesiastical in a way and to a degree unknown before.10 We know of course that, despite the Council’s legislation requiring immediate and full implementation, the decree remained a dead letter for a long time in some areas. Surprisingly and ironically, the post-Council Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was intended for pastors, makes only the briefest and most generic mention of the stipulations laid down in Tametsi. Nonetheless, the sacrament as it is celebrated today is a result of Tametsi and conforms to what it stipulated. What about the reform decrees? As the Council evolved, the obligation of bishops to reside in their dioceses and, correlatively, of pastors to reside in their parishes became the lynchpin of the Council’s ‘reform of the Church’. For many decades Church reformers and councils had decried absenteeism and plurality of incompatible benefices as abuses and in vain sought to eliminate them. By the third period of the Council of Trent, reforming prelates were determined to find a remedy that would be efficacious and seal off the loopholes that had made previous efforts unavailing. Although they ultimately failed in their efforts to make residency an obligation required by divine law, jus divinum, which meant utterly impervious even to papal dispensations, they succeeded in making clear the intrinsic relationship between the office of bishop or pastor and the performance of the office’s traditional pastoral duties: All to whom care of souls has been entrusted are subject to the divine command [divinum mandatum] to know their sheep, to offer sacrifice for them, to nourish them by preaching God’s word, by administering the sacraments and by the example of good works of every kind, to have fatherly care of the poor and of all others who are wretched, and to be devoted to other pastoral duties. As none of these roles can be fulfilled by those who do not stay with and watch their flock, but desert them like hirelings, the holy synod charges and exhorts them to remember the divine commands [divinorum praeceptorum] … the holy synod declares that all … are bound to reside personally in their church or diocese, and there to fulfill the duties of their office.11

The decree, passed in Session 23, 15 July, 1563, broke the deadlock over the issue that had brought the Council to a virtual standstill for ten months.12 Because of 9 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.755. 10 J. Bernhard, “Le décret Tametsi du Concile de Trente: Triomphe du consensualisme matrimonial ou institution de la forme solennelle du mariage”, Revue du droit canonique 30 (1980) 209–14; G. Zarri, “Die tridentinische Ehe”, in P. Prodi/W. Reinhard (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die Moderne (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot) 341–79. 11 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.744. 12 H. Jedin, Der Abschluss des Trienter Konzils 1562/63. Ein Rückblick nach vier Jahrhunderten (Münster: Aschendorff, 1962); Jedin, “Der Kampf um die bischöfliche Residenzpflicht 1562/

54

John W. O’Malley

the length, quality, and intensity of the debate on the issue, as well as the strong wording of the decree, no prelate, no matter how ardently he may have opposed the jus divinum, could possibly leave the Council still believing that residency was merely a traffic regulation of canon law, which would be a legitimate interpretation of the earlier decree on residence, passed in Session 6 of the first period, 13 January, 1547. By substituting divinum mandatum for jus divinum and by emphasizing pastoral responsibilities rather than residence itself, reformers to a large extent got their way. Rather than an obligation of law, the decree made residence an obligation of conscience. After Trent, therefore, the situation began gradually to improve, due to many factors, especially the example of reforming bishops such as Carlo Borromeo in Milan. However, without the Council’s debates on the matter and its decree, it is almost inconceivable that the change would have happened. Both in the decree on residence and elsewhere, the Council supplied the bishops with a job-description once they took up their ministry, which included regular visitation of the institutions of the diocese to see they were functioning properly and also to make sure the physical fabric of the institutions was being attended to. Over these institutions the bishops had supervisory rights. Although those rights continued to be challenged by different entities, bishops after Trent certainly had a clearer idea of what was ideally expected of them. Three provisions of the job-description require special mention. The first is the stipulation that a bishop’s primary or special responsibility was to preach to his flock – praecipuum episcoporum munus. If a bishop was personally incapable of fulfilling this obligation, he was to provide preachers to ensure that the flock be nourished on the Word of God. The same provisions applied to pastors of parishes. For well over a century after the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church experienced a golden age of preaching. The phenomenon was due to a convergence of factors, which included at least for certain parts of Europe rivalry with Biblebased Protestant preaching. More generally important were other factors such as the revival of the mendicant orders, whose principal ministry was the ministry of the Word of God. When Ignatius of Loyola and his companions drew up a plan of life, formula vivendi, seeking papal approval of their new religious order, they listed “ministry of the Word” in first place among the services they would undertake “for the good of souls”. The revival of classical rhetoric in the Renaissance and its application to the pulpit also acted as a powerful catalyst for the

63”, in R. Baumer (ed.), Concilium Tridentinum (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1979) 408–31.

What Happened and Did Not Happen at the Council of Trent

55

phenomenon. Nonetheless, the decrees of the Council were certainly among important factors contributing to it.13 As has often been remarked, the part of the bishops’ job-description requiring them to establish seminaries in their dioceses for the training of local clergy had such a powerful impact on the future of Catholicism that it is sometimes described as the Council’s most important action.14 It certainly filled a gap in the organization of church life and was part of the ‘war on ignorance and superstition’ waged by both Catholics and Protestants in the sixteenth century. The religious orders like the Dominicans and Augustinians had sophisticated programs for the training of their clerical members in place for centuries, but the training of the diocesan clergy ranged from advanced university degrees to haphazard apprenticeship under a clergyman perhaps hardly better educated than his student. The intent of the decree was to provide for the latter category, that is, to provide basic training for boys or young men who could not do better. As time passed, however, these institutions grew in sophistication. They became a hallmark of Catholic culture, even though attendance at them was not required for ordination until the twentieth century. Even then exceptions were made. Whatever the limitations of the institution and the socialization problems it entailed, it assured at least a minimal level of professional training for the diocesan clergy. The third feature of the job-description requiring special mention is the stipulation that bishops hold annual synods in their dioceses and that metropolitans hold provincial synods at least every three years.15 By these provisions the Council sought to revive and strengthen the institution that had been the traditional instrument of Church governance from the earliest centuries. Even in the early sixteenth century it continued to function, as instanced by the Councils of Lyons, 1527, of Bourges in 1528, of Cologne in 1536, and especially of the Council of Sens (really Paris) in 1528. After the Council of Trent such councils or

13 For an overview of Trent’s emphasis on preaching, see amongst others F.J. McGinness, “An Erasmian Legacy: Ecclesiastes and the Reform of Preaching at Trent”, in R.K. Delph/M.M. Fontaine/J.J. Martin (ed.), Heresy, Culture and Religion in Early Modern Italy: Contexts and Contestations (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2006) 93–113; A. Byrne, El ministerio de la palabra en el concilio de Trento (Pamplona: Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, 1975), 58–92; A. Larios, “La reforma de la predicación en Trento (Historia y contenido de un decreto)”, Communio 6 (1973) 223–83. 14 See, amongst others, J.A. O’Donohoe, Tridentine Seminary Legislation: Its Sources and Its Formation (Leuven: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1957) and H. Finger, “Das Konzil von Trient und die Ausbildung der Säkularkleriker in Priesterseminaren während der Frühen Neuzeit”, in these conference proceedings. 15 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.761.

56

John W. O’Malley

synods, some of which were more than locally important, continued to be held, though with ever decreasing frequency, until the eve of Vatican II. The institution faltered, for a variety of reasons. The requirement that these meetings be held annually or triennially was badly unrealistic. The papacy began to claim ever more areas of competence. Ironically, the very success of Borromeo’s synods contributed to the relative failure of others: the Acta Ecclesiae mediolanensis so minutely provided for a reformed diocese that no further effort seemed required. Nonetheless, the Council’s legislation in this regard underlines a big truth about the Council of Trent: it was an episcopal council, a council intent on emphasizing the dignity of the episcopacy and on strengthening bishops’ authority and supervisory duties. Although the decree on synods does not explicitly make the point, it intended synods to be the locus where the Council’s decrees would be interpreted, adapted to local needs, and made effective. Even after the Council the bishops were to be the masters of the Council.16

What the Council Failed to Accomplish The ambivalent success of the synods leads into the question of what the Council, despite its intentions, did not accomplish. In that category, the reform of the Roman Curia leaps to mind because of its intrinsic importance but also because in the past few years it has once again become such a lively and heatedly discussed issue. Even so, exhibit number one for the Council’s failure to accomplish what it intended is the decree on Justification. That decree, the most considered of all the Council’s decrees, was seven months in the making. It was labored over and debated more than any other.17 The decree asserted the absolute primacy of grace, which was meant to rebuff the Lutheran charge that the Catholic Church taught Pelagianism. Yet, it also 16 G. Alberigo, “L’ecclesiologia del Concilio di Trento”, Rivista di storia de la Chiesa in Italia 18 (1964) 227–42; W.V. Hudon, “The Local Nature of Episcopal Reform in the Age of the Council of Trent”, in J.M. DeSilva (ed.), Episcopal Reforms and Politics in Early Modern Europe (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2012) ix–xv. Also: I. Fernández Terricabras, Felipe II y el clero secular. La aplicación del concilio de Trento (Madrid: Sociedad Estatal para la Commemoración de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V, 2000). 17 On Trent’s Justification doctrine, an abundant literature is available. A good introduction remains A.E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ³2005), 86–97. An overview of the, mainly Germanlanguage, literature in K. Lehman, “Das Dekret des Konzils von Trient über die Rechtfertigung: Historisches Verständnis und theologische Bedeutung in ökumenischer Sicht. Bibliographie”, in K. Lehman (ed.), Lehrverurteilungen-kirchentrennend?, vol. 2: Materialen zu den Lehrverurteilungen und zur Theologie der Rechtfertigung (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1989) 368– 72.

What Happened and Did Not Happen at the Council of Trent

57

affirmed that human beings contribute something to the process of their justification, howsoever small that contribution might be. According to the Council, even that small contribution operated always and everywhere under the influence of grace. The decree insisted that grace effected an inner change for the better and raised the Christian to a new dignity. The result was a balanced, coherent, and intellectually satisfying statement that also incorporated a considerably more positive understanding of the human condition than did its Lutheran counterpart. For these reasons the decree on Justification has deservedly been praised and admired. But, intellectually satisfying though the decree might be, what did it further accomplish? It certainly did not satisfy ‘the Lutherans’. In fact, it could not satisfy them because it instantiated the Catholic side of such a wide divergence of cultural horizons that compatibility was beforehand precluded. What did the decree accomplish for Catholics themselves? On the high level of theological speculation, it became the locus classicus for the bitter disputes first of all between the Spanish Jesuits and the Spanish Dominicans in the late sixteenth century and then for the even more fiercely bitter disputes between the Jesuits and the Jansenists that began in the middle of the next century and continued until the worldwide suppression of the Jesuits in 1773, an event for which Jansenist vitriol was partly responsible. On the pastoral level, the decree’s length, subtle distinctions, and attempt to speak to every aspect of the mystery of Justification made it difficult to summarize and to translate into pastorally effective forms. Proof of the difficulty is the vacuous statement in the Tridentine Profession of Faith: “I embrace and accept each and all the articles defined and declared by the most holy Synod of Trent concerning original sin and justification.” That statement is a faith-claim without content. Sad to say, thus was the ground cleared for the emergence of the deplorable but often repeated cliché, whose justification is supposedly the Council of Trent: “Protestants believe in faith. Catholics believe in good works.” Insofar as the cliché is true, the decree is a failure.

Myths about the Council of Trent The cliché is only one of the myths and misunderstandings about the Council that sprang into life almost before the ink was dry on the Council’s decrees.18 Some myths, such as this one, are traceable to the Council itself, but others to

18 J.W. O’Malley, The Council of Trent: Myths, Misunderstandings, and Unintended Consequences (Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2013), 3–19; O’Malley, “The Council of Trent:

58

John W. O’Malley

actions taken after the Council, sometimes in the Council’s name, that exacerbated the confusion about what the Council decided and what it did not decide. Important among those post-Council actions are the Tridentine Profession of Faith, the Tridentine Index of Forbidden Books, and the Acts of the diocesan and provincial councils convoked by Carlo Borromeo, the famous and widely influential Acta Ecclesiae mediolanensis. Here is a partial list of myths that no amount of scholarship has up to this point been able fully to dispel: • The Council forbade the printing, selling and reading of the Bible in the vernacular. • It forbade all Latin versions of the Bible except the Vulgate. • It created something now called ‘the Tridentine liturgy’. • It denied the Eucharistic cup to the laity. • It reaffirmed the discipline of clerical celibacy. • At the beginning of every working session of the Council the Summa of Saint Thomas Aquinas was enthroned on the altar along with the book of Gospels. The Council decreed that the genitals be painted over in Michelangelo’s Last • Judgment in the Sistine Chapel. • At one point the Council was poised to condemn the use of polyphony in the liturgy. Besides these rather specific myths, there are at least four of wider import. The first is the myth that the Council decreed that the Christian faith is based on or derived from Scripture and Tradition. This myth became enshrined in theological texts where it remains to this day. However, the Council did not say Tradition – singular with capital T. It spoke of traditions – plural, small t. What it had in mind, as did late-medieval theologians, were certain particulars of belief and practice that could not be found easily or at all in Scripture. Classic instances were: for belief, the lasting virginity of Mary and Christ’s descent into hell, articles of the Creed but not easily found in the New Testament; for practice, infant baptism. The Council did not specify these or any other instances; in fact, it deliberately refrained from listing any examples. Moreover, it did not speak of Tradition, that is, some great, abstract, overarching reality.19 Myths, Misunderstandings, and Misinformation”, in T.M. Lucas (ed.), Spirit, Style, Story: Essays honoring John W. Padberg S.J. (Chicago, IL: Loyola Press, 2002) 205–26. 19 From the abundant literature on the topic, we refer to following publications: H. Barth, “Die katholische Lehre von den zwei Quellen der Offenbarung: Philologische und theologische Überlegungen zu einem umstrittenen Text des Konzils von Trient, seiner Vorgeschichte und seiner Rezeption”, Una Voce Korrespondenz 40 (2010) 9–125; J.W. Barbeau, “Scripture and Tradition at the Council of Trent: Reapplying the ‘Conciliar Hermeneutic’”, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 33 (2001) 12–146; B. Sesboüé, “Écritures, traditions et dogmes au

What Happened and Did Not Happen at the Council of Trent

59

Moreover, it is clear that the Council did not speak of ‘two sources’ of Revelation, as theological textbooks also insisted for generations. On the contrary, the Council was clear that the source was the preaching of Christ and the apostles. The “written books and unwritten traditions” were, rather, channels or conduits that handed on “the truth or rule” of that preaching: Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, proclaimed with his own lips the gospel … then he bade it be preached to every creature through his apostles as the source [tamquam fontem] of the whole truth of salvation and rule of conduct. The Council clearly perceives that this truth and rule are contained in written books and in unwritten traditions, which were received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or else have come down to us, handed on as it were from the apostles themselves at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.20

A second myth is that the Council was a monochromatic, well disciplined, and single-minded gathering that legislated on every important aspect of Catholicism. Jedin’s writings showed how contrary to fact this myth is, but, despite his efforts, it persists. From the Council’s opening days the bishops showed their independence, and they continued to challenge every effort to make them conform to some preconceived program. They and the theologians participating in the Council reflected the wide and diverse range of positions on almost every aspect of Catholic teaching and practice that characterized European Catholicism at the time.21 Moreover, the ‘orators’ to the Council, that is, the ambassadors of the secular rulers, especially those of the great monarchs, made their authority felt and were at times able to prevail even with the papal legates. The Council was, therefore, a contentious and extraordinarily difficult undertaking often in danger of foundering, a far cry for the image the myth projects. The next myth, sacrosanct and unquestionable today in many quarters of the academy, is that the Council aimed at imposing a rigid program of social discipline upon every aspect of Catholic life and practice – to such an extent that social disciplining is almost a synonym for what the Council was about. No doubt, the Council was concerned with social disciplining. What is peculiar about Trent regarding discipline and seldom commented upon is that the bishops Concile de Trente”, in Bourgeois et al. (ed.), Signes du salut, 133–51. Still very valuable are the studies by J.R. Geiselmann and especially “Das Konzil von Trient über das Verhältnis der Heiligen Schrift und der nicht geschriebenen Traditionen”, in M. Schmaus (ed.), Die mündliche Überlieferung: Beiträge zum Begriff der Tradition (Munich: Max Hueber, 1957) 123–206, also Y.-M. Congar, La tradition et les traditions (2 vol.; Paris: Fayard, 1960), 1.207– 33. 20 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.663. 21 On the position of the theologians at the Council, see G. Wassilowsky, “Teilnehmer ohne Stimme? Zur Rolle der Theologen auf dem Konzil von Trient”, in H.A. Mooney/K. Ruhstorfer/ V. Tenge-Wolf (ed.), Theologie aus dem Geist des Humanismus (FS P. Walter; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2010) 416–31.

60

John W. O’Malley

aimed their disciplining zeal principally at themselves. The great reform struggle at the Council, which by the third period had become for some bishops almost an obsession was to persuade, cajole, and, if necessary, force bishops to reside in their dioceses and then to perform the traditional duties of their office. The Council aimed at imposing the same strict discipline upon pastors of parishes and on all whose office entailed the ‘cure of souls’. In the legislation of Trent one finds precious little about disciplining the laity. As I mentioned, the Council said not a word about inquisitions, and it almost surely would not have undertaken a review of the Index of Forbidden Books had the task not been handed to it by Pius IV. The little that the Council legislated that directly pertains to the laity tends to be a repetition of long-standing legislation, which is true even of the ordinance prohibiting dueling passed in Session 25.22 The decree Tametsi requiring a priest-witness for a valid marriage can be seen as social discipline. However, the intent of the decree was to protect the spouses, especially the woman, from the abuses of clandestine marriages. By definition a clandestine marriage was a marriage in which the two partners exchanged their vows without a single witness. The absence of witnesses allowed one of the partners, usually the male, to walk away after a few years or a few babies and to deny that a marriage had ever taken place. Tametsi may have been discipline, but it was a discipline especially meant to protect the innocent. It is undeniable that a wave of social disciplining swept over Catholicism after the Council, but the phenomenon was due much more to the rigid morality developing in parts of Europe long before the Council, a morality for which the humanists were partly responsible.23 It was due even more to post-Council phenomena, among which Borromeo’s Acts of the Church of Milan stand out prominently, with its stipulations covering almost every detail of public behavior and decorum. The final myth is that the Council was anti-Protestant. This myth contains many, many grains of truth. In fact, it holds almost a granary full of them. With very few exceptions the theologians and bishops at Trent arrived at the Council deeply prejudiced against ‘the Lutherans’, that is, the Protestants. They considered them heretics as well as destroyers of public order. In its very first decree of Session 1, on the very first day of the Council, 13 December, 1545, the Council declared that one of its purposes was “the uprooting of heresy”. But we must never forget that the Council was meant to be a council of reconciliation with the reformers. That is the reason, after all, that it met in the city of 22 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.795. 23 J.W. O’Malley, “Trent, Sacred Images, and Catholics’ Senses of the Sensuous”, in M.B. Hall/ T.E. Cooper (ed.), The Sensuous in the Counter-Reformation Church (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013) 28–48.

What Happened and Did Not Happen at the Council of Trent

61

Trent, not in Rome or Bologna. Although the Popes, their legates, and probably the vast majority of bishops and theologians at the Council were highly skeptical that reconciliation was possible, they nonetheless subscribed to it as a goal. As a gesture of good will at the very beginning of the Council, Pope Paul III directed that no one was to be condemned by name. This was contrary to the practice of every Council beginning with Nicaea and continuing up to that time, as the fate Jan Hus received at the Council of Constance makes dramatically clear. Moreover, Paul III and his successors made strenuous efforts to have representative Lutherans and others come to the Council. Those efforts were briefly successful when at the second period, 1551–52, a handful of Lutheran envoys and theologians appeared. Even though their appearance resulted in an impasse, ten years later Pope Pius IV continued to pursue the goal as he convoked the third period. On 1 December 1560, he sent a letter asking the Lutheran princes to send envoys to the Council. In early February two papal legates to Germany, Giovanni Francesco Commendone and Zaccaria Delfino, appeared before a gathering of the princes at Naumburg to ask their support for the Council. They received a firm negative, based especially on the premise that the Pope had no authority to convene such a gathering. When later that year the legates approached individual princes, they received the same response. Nonetheless, the goal of engaging the Lutherans was not fully abandoned until the third period had actually got under way. Who was to blame for the failure? For better or for worse, responsibility must be distributed over a range of personalities, contingencies, and systems. Although the Council must bear part of the blame, the full blame cannot be laid at the Council’s door. When in the early 1530s, the Lutherans constructed the Augsburg Confession of Faith and formed the Schmalkaldic League they transformed what had previously been a powerful but somewhat diffuse movement into a system. To use the technical term, Lutheranism crystallized into a confession, into a phenomenon with political, economic, social, and cultural dimensions as well as religious. An implicit logic coordinated those dimensions to produce an internally coherent system. A radical change in the state of the question had thus occurred. No longer was it sufficient for the two parties to arrive at agreement on a particular teaching such as Scripture and traditions, Justification or the number of the sacraments. Now it was necessary to accommodate one ecclesiastical system to another. By the time the Council opened, such an accommodation was far beyond what either party could allow because it in essence required one of them to forgo its identity, as the impasse between the Council and the Lutherans at the second period made clear. A great religious and cultural divide had taken place that would henceforth defy efforts to bridge it. The great irony: the Council convoked to heal the religious division ended up exacerbating it.

62

John W. O’Malley

Unintended Consequences of the Council We arrive now at the final topic: the decrees and other actions of the Council were liable to the law of unintended consequences that is, the law that says actions have consequences, good or bad, that were neither foreseen nor intended when a decision was made. It is a law that seems to allow no exceptions. The Council of Trent was therefore subject to it and experienced it, for example, in the following four ways. The first was just described: the Council, intended as a council of reconciliation, ended up a council of further alienation. The second is the Council’s part in promoting a distinctively Catholic mind-set about the history and tradition of the Church, the Catholic penchant, especially in official ecclesiastical documents, of so emphasizing continuity with the Christian past as virtually to dismiss or minimize any discontinuity. The Church sails through the sea of history without being affected by the turbulent waters. The Council of Trent unwittingly gave impetus to the bias. Beginning with Luther, Protestant reformers accused the Catholic Church of long ago completely breaking with the teaching of the Gospel. Catholic apologists such as John Eck, John Fisher and John Driedo immediately rushed to counter the charge, insisting upon the Church’s unbroken continuity with the Apostolic Era. Trent almost perforce subscribed to that position, which appeared most notably in the way it spoke about the sacraments. When the Council in Canon 6 on Penance, Session 14, in effect decreed that from the beginning the Church had stipulated the necessity of private confession to a priest, it was only making fully explicit for one aspect of its teaching an assumption that more generally underlay its other pronouncements.24 No previous council ever insisted so often and so explicitly on its teaching’s continuity with the authentic Christian past. In so doing the Council helped promote a bias and a mind-set that after the Council was virtually codified in Cesare Baronio’s Annales ecclesiastici, published between 1588 and 1607. The bias and mind-set has persisted until the present and affected both scholars and the ordinary faithful. The third unintended consequence: partially as a result of Trent, Catholicism emerged as the most sensuous of the post-Reformation churches.25 Long before the Reformation, devout Christians reacted against the crass superstition, even the carnal character, of many religious practices of the day. They sought a more spiritual religion, which often meant, as the first chapter of The Imitation of Christ admonished: “Withdraw your heart from the love of visible things and 24 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.712. 25 J.C. Smith, Sensuous Worship: Jesuits and the Art of the Early Catholic Reformation in Germany (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002); Hall/Cooper (ed.), The Sensuous.

What Happened and Did Not Happen at the Council of Trent

63

turn it to the love of things invisible.” Erasmus, the most widely read and highly esteemed writer of his day, became a major spokesman for a more spiritual religion. He did so in positive ways, but he is best known for his satires about phony relics, credulous pilgrims, and caerimoniae, by which he meant trivial little rituals loaded with outlandish material accouterments. Only with the Reformation, however, did this trend take a destructive turn. After Zwingli, it was the Calvinists who undertook comprehensively destructive programs of iconoclasm. They pursued those programs with special thoroughness in some cities of Switzerland, in large parts of the Netherlands, and in the whole of Scotland. By the third quarter of the sixteenth century they undertook them in France. The Mediterranean world of Italy, Spain, and Portugal was virtually untouched by this movement, which explains why the veneration of sacred images was a non-issue at Trent until the arrival of the French delegation during the Council’s last period. The French brought with them a demand for a decree affirming that sacred images were not only legitimate but also helpful for doctrine and devotion. At the very last moment of the Council, they were able, under the leadership of Charles de Guise, to obtain their goal. We must remember, despite the decree’s warning about lasciviousness and other possible abuses, which are in fact only a few lines in a long document, the overall message of the decree is positive. That message, certainly not surprising, fell sweetly on the ears of artists and their patrons and helped insulate Catholic lands from a threat that had won out in others. The decree was in keeping with the sacramental principle distinctive of Catholicism that the spiritual is mediated by the physical – no Eucharist without bread and wine. Moreover, as the political, military, and religious scene had begun to settle by the end of the century, the two most important centers of art production – Italy and Flanders – were securely in Catholic hands. The decree on images and the Council’s explicit affirmation of the utility in the celebration of Mass of such things as candles, incense, vestments, and ritual gestures promoted the material enhancement of divine worship in Catholic churches.26 Most profoundly, they promoted the development of a distinctively Catholic profile of cultural appreciation that has persisted until our day – at least in vestige. Catholic material culture is notably different from Protestant material culture.

26 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.734.

64

John W. O’Malley

Unintended Enhancement of Papal Authority The final unintended consequence that I will mention is the enhancement of the prestige and authority of the papacy. If we look at the entire corpus of the Council’s reform legislation, it becomes clear that a fundamental aim of the Council was to enhance the authority not of the papacy but of the local bishop. Yet, the successful conclusion of the Council redounded, not altogether deservedly, to the credit of the papacy, which then began to exert its authority in new areas of Church life. It often did so in the name of the Council. This development is remarkable in that before and during the Council the Popes were often blamed and heavily criticized for obstructing the Council’s progress and, indeed, for being the chief obstacle to the reforms the Council wanted to establish. Once the Council ended, however, Catholics for a variety of reasons rallied around the papacy. Moreover, in their haste to end the Council, the bishops confided certain tasks to the papacy that it had not had time to complete, or even undertake. Inadvertently, the Council handed the papacy the justification for an enlarged job-description. It was the papacy therefore that constructed and promulgated the Catechism of the Council of Trent, an action on the part of the papacy for which there was no precedent and that gently and silently but nonetheless effectively expanded the papacy’s role as doctrinal arbiter. Pius IV further expanded that role when he issued the Tridentine Profession of Faith, which purported to summarize the Council’s most important doctrinal pronouncements. No pope had ever before issued such a document. The Council formally confided to the papacy the completion of the new Index of Forbidden Books. When Pius IV saw to its completion and promulgated it, he not only issued a new document, as today a pope might issue a new encyclical, but did something of much more lasting import. Following in the footsteps of Paul IV, he took over a function formerly performed by theological faculties and by secular states, such as the Republic of Venice. But more than that, he in effect established a new institution, formalized a few years later by Pius V. The publication of the Tridentine Index of Forbidden Books turned out to be the occasion leading to Pius V’s establishment of the Congregation of the Index, an institution not only not foreseen or intended by the Council but destined to enjoy an uninterrupted life in the Church until the middle of the twentieth century. Even more so than the Catechism and the Profession of Faith, the Index resulted in a major enhancement of the papacy’s doctrinal control because of the ongoing institution that eventuated from it.27 27 H.H. Schwedt, “Kommunikationskontrolle durch den römischen ‘Index der verbotenen Bücher’: Facetten eines viel diskutierten Phänomens”, in T. Lagatz/S. Schratz (ed.), Censor

What Happened and Did Not Happen at the Council of Trent

65

The Council also confided to the papacy the revision of the missal and breviary to rid them of scribal and typographical errors and of unwarranted interpolations. The Popes expanded this mandate to include other liturgical books, whose revision took years to accomplish. Not surprisingly, therefore, in 1588 Pope Sixtus V took the highly significant step of founding the Congregation of Rites, an action that implicitly but unmistakably redefined the papacy’s role regarding Catholic worship and gave it an indefinite life-span. The Congregation for the first time in history provided the papacy with an instrument for ongoing oversight of every possible issue concerning the Mass and the sacraments.28 Today with a new name, the Congregation of Rites continues to exercise that function. The year after the Council ended, Pius IV established the Congregation of the Council and confided to it the interpretation and application of the disciplinary decrees of Trent. In1588 Sixtus V expanded its remit to include all the decrees, making it one of the most influential institutions in the Church. The Congregation functioned until the middle of the last century when Pope Paul VI renamed it Congregation of the Clergy and redefined its role. Through these three congregations – Index, Rites, and Council – the papacy in the wake of the Council of Trent created instruments for exercising its authority in new, ongoing, and highly influential ways in the whole Catholic world. When the Council ended, it was unclear who had the primary responsibility for implementing its decrees. Was it the secular rulers, the local bishops, or the papacy? In the Council’s documents, justification can be found for all three, and in fact all three not only claimed that authority but actively and effectively pursued it. No mere bishop or Pope, for instance, told Philip II how to deal with the Church in his realms. Carlo Borromeo provided the bishops with their model and inspiration as interpreters and implementers of the Council. But in claiming Censorum (FS Herman H. Schwedt; Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 2006) 1–14; V. Frajese, “La politica dell’Indice dal Tridentino al Clementino (1571–1596)”, Archivio italiano per la storia della pietà 11 (1998) 269–345; J. Martínez De Bujanda/R. Davignon/É. Stanek, Index de Rome 1557, 1559, 1564: Les premiers index romains et l’index du Concile de Trente (Index des livres interdits 8; Sherbrooke: Centre d’études de la Renaissance/Geneva: Droz, 1990) and Martínez De Bujanda/U. Rozzo/P.G. Bietenholz, Index de Rome 1590, 1593, 1596: Avec étude des index de Parme 1580 et Munich 1582 (Index des livres interdits 9; Sherbrooke: Centre d’études de la Renaissance/Geneva: Droz, 1994). 28 J. Geldhof, “Did the Council of Trent Produce a Liturgical Reform? The Case of the Roman Missal”, Questions Liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy 93 (2012) 171–95; M. Klöckener, “Die Bulle ‘Quo primum’ Papst Pius’ V. vom 14. Juli 1570 zur Promulgation des nachtridentinischen Missale Romanum”, Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 48 (2006) 41–51; A. Zerfass/A. A. Häussling, “Die Bulle ‘Quod a Nobis’ Papst Pius’ V. vom 9. Juli 1568 zur Promulgation des nachtridentinischen Breviarium Romanum”, Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 48 (2006) 334– 53; M. Sodi/J.J. Flores Arcas, “Introduzione”, in Rituale Romanum: Editio Princeps (1614) (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004).

66

John W. O’Malley

such authority, the Popes certainly did not lag behind. Besides the institutions just mentioned, they made newly effective use of their nuncios, who sometimes acted as a counterweight to the local hierarchy and at other times acted at least as a thorn in the side of the local ruler. These developments formed part and parcel of the new shot of energy the successful end of the Council injected into the papal enterprise. As with other institutions in the Early Modern World, the Catholic Church, too, moved into patterns of greater centralization of authority. The Council of Trent played a role in that centralizing process by inadvertently expanding the papal job-description. In so far as Trent played that role, the enhancement of the prestige and authority of the papacy must be described as one of the Council’s unintended consequences. We are thus brought back to the crucial distinction between the Council of Trent and developments that happened after the Council that are so often and so misleadingly ascribed to it. In interpreting the Council, this distinction must never be forgotten.

Bibliography Secondary sources Alberigo, G., “L’ecclesiologia del Concilio di Trento”, Rivista di storia de la Chiesa in Italia 18 (1964) 227–42. Barbeau, J.W., “Scripture and Tradition at the Council of Trent: Reapplying the ‘Conciliar Hermeneutic’”, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 33 (2001) 127–46. Barth, H., “Die katholische Lehre von den zwei Quellen der Offenbarung: Philologische und theologische Überlegungen zu einen umstrittenen Text des Konzils von Trient, seiner Vorgeschichte und seiner Rezeption”, Una Voce Korrespondenz 40 (2010) 9–125. Bernhard, J., “Le décret Tametsi du Concile de Trente: Triomphe du consensualisme matrimonial ou institution de la forme solennelle du mariage”, Revue du droit canonique 30 (1980) 209–14. Boer de, W., The Conquest of the Soul: Confession, Discipline, and Public Order in CounterReformation Milan (Leiden: Brill, 2001). Bourgeois, H./Sesboüé, S., “La doctrine sacramentaire du Concile de Trente”, in H. Bourgeois et al. (ed.), Signes du salut (Paris: Desclée, 1995) 144–57. Bourgeois, H. et al. (ed.), Signes du salut (Paris: Desclée, 1995). Byrne, A., El ministerio de la palabra en el concilio de Trento (Pamplona: Ediciones Universidad de Navarra, 1975). Congar, Y.-M., La tradition et les traditions (2 vol.; Paris: Fayard, 1960). De Bujanda Martínez, J./Davignon, R./Stanek, É., Index de Rome 1557, 1559, 1564: Les premiers index romains et l’index du Concile de Trente (Index des livres interdits 8; Sherbrooke: Centre d’études de la Renaissance/Geneva: Droz, 1990).

What Happened and Did Not Happen at the Council of Trent

67

De Bujanda Martínez, J./Rozzo, U./Bietenholz, P.G., Index de Rome 1590, 1593, 1596: Avec étude des index de Parme 1580 et Munich 1582 (Index des livres interdits 9; Sherbrooke: Centre d’études de la Renaissance/Geneva: Droz, 1994). Fernández Terricabras, I., Felipe II y el clero secular: La aplicación del concilio de Trento (Madrid: Sociedad Estatal para la Commemoración de los Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V, 2000). Frajese, V., “La politica dell’Indice dal Tridentino al Clementino (1571–1596)”, Archivio italiano per la storia della pietà 11 (1998) 269–345. Geiselmann, J.R., “Das Konzil von Trient über das Verhältnis der Heiligen Schrift und der nicht geschriebenen Traditionen”, in M. Schmaus (ed.), Die mündliche Überlieferung: Beiträge zum Begriff der Tradition (Munich: Max Hueber, 1957) 123–206. Geldhof, J., “Did the Council of Trent Produce a Liturgical Reform? The Case of the Roman Missal”, Questions Liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy 93 (2012) 171–95. Hall, M.B./Cooper, T.E. (ed.), The Sensuous in the Counter-Reformation Church (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013). Hudon, W.V., “The Local Nature of Episcopal Reform in the Age of the Council of Trent”, in J.M. DeSilva (ed.), Episcopal Reforms and Politics in Early Modern Europe (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2012) ix–xv. Jedin, H., Der Abschluss des Trienter Konzils 1562/63: Ein Ruckblick nach vier Jahrhunderten (Münster: Aschendorff, 1962). Jedin, H., “Der Kampf um die bischofliche Residenzpflicht 1562/63”, in R. Baumer (ed.), Concilium Tridentinum (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1979) 408–33. Jungmann, J.A., “Die Andacht der vierzig Stunden und das heilige Grab”, Liturgische Jahrbuch 2 (1952) 184–98. Klöckener, M., “Die Bulle ‘Quo primum’ Papst Pius’ V, von 14. Juli 1570 zur Promulgation des nachtridentinischen Missale Romanum”, Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 48 (2006) 41–51. Larios, A., “La reforma de la predicación en Trento (Historia y contenido de un decreto)”, Communio 6 (1973) 223–83. Lehman, K., “Des Dekret des Konzils von Trient über die Rechtfertigung: Historisches Verständnis und theologische Bedeutung in ökumenischer Sicht. Bibliographie”, in K. Lehman (ed.), Lehrverurteilungen-kirchentrennend?, vol. 2: Materialen zu den Lehrverurteilungen und zur Theologie der Rechtfertigung (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1989). McGinness, F.J., “An Erasmian Legacy: Ecclesiastes and the Reform of Preaching at Trent”, in R.K. Delph et al. (ed.), Heresy, Culture and Religion in Early Modern Italy: Contexts and Contestations (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2006) 93–113. McGrath, A.E., Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ³2005). O’Donohoe, J.A., Tridentine Seminary Legislation: Its Sources and Its Formation (Leuven: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1957). O’Malley, J.W., “Erasmus and the History of Sacred Rhetoric: The Ecclesiastes of 1535”, Erasmus of Rotterdam Society. Yearbook 5 (1985) 1–29. O’Malley, J.W., “The Council of Trent: Myths, Misunderstandings and Misinformation”, in T.M. Lucas (ed.), Spirit, Style, Story: Essays Honoring John W. Padberg, S.J. (Chicago, IL: Loyola Press, 2002) 205–26.

68

John W. O’Malley

O’Malley, J.W., “Trent, Sacred Images, and Catholics’ Senses of the Sensuous”, in M.B. Hall/T.E. Cooper (ed.), The Sensuous in the Counter-Reformation Church (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013) 28–48. Ottolini, E.V., “L’istituzione dei sacramenti nella VII sessione del Concilio di Trento”, Rivista Liturgica 81 (1994) 60–117. Prosperi, A., Tribunali della coscienze: inquisitori, confessori, missionari (Turin: Einaudi, 1996). Rubin, M., Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late-Medieval Culture (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Schwedt, H.H., “Kommunikationskontrolle durch den römischen ‘Index der verbotenen Bücher’: Facetten eines viel diskutierten Phänomens”, in T. Lagatz/S. Schratz (ed.), Censor Censorum (FS Herman H. Schwedt; Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 2006) 1–14. Sesboüé, B., “E˙criture, traditions et dogmes au Concile de Trente”, in H. Bourgeois et al. (ed.), Signes du salut (Paris: Desclée, 1995) 133–51. Seybold, M., “Die Siebenzahl der Sakramente (Conc. Trid., sessio VII, Can 10)”, Münchner Theologische Zeitschrift 27 (1976) 113–41. Smith, J.C., Sensuous Worship: Jesuits and the Art of the Early Catholic Reformation in Germany (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002). Sodi, M./Flores Arcas, J.J., “Introduzione”, in Rituale Romanum: Editio Princeps (1614) (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004). Walters, B.R. et al. (ed.), The Feast of Corpus Christi (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006). Wassilowsky, G., “Teilnehmer ohne Stimme? Zur Rolle der Theologen auf dem Konzil von Trient”, in H.A. Mooney et al. (ed.), Theologie aus dem Geist des Humanismus (FS P. Walter; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2010) 416–31. Wicks, J., “Fides sacramenti–fides specialis: Luther’s Development in 1518”, Gregorianum 65 (1984) 53–87. Zarri, G., “Die tridentinische Ehe”, in P. Prodi/W. Reinhard (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die Moderne (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 2001) 341–79. Zerfass, A./Häussling, A. A., “Die Bulle ‘Quod a Nobis’ Papst Pius’ V. von 9. Juli 1568 zur Promulgation des nachtridentinischen Breviarium Romanum”, Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 48 (2006) 334–53.

Günther Wassilowsky

The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture

I.

Images of Trent

What would the history of religion be without myths? What would it be without such symbolic narratives that reduce complex historical reality, narratives about religious heroes or events that time and again create new collective faith identities? In fact, the importance of historical myths for understanding the history of Christian confessions can hardly be overestimated. Without these symbolic ‘narratives of origin’, no Lutheran, Reformed, or Catholic Confessional Church could have evolved and assumed its eventual shape. Indeed, the early modern confessions employed the construction of pithy models that evoked emotions and intellectual interpretation – whether in the form of narratives in popular legends or learned historiography, actual pictorial representations on the front pages of pamphlets, paintings of historical scenes, or ritual performances during days of commemoration or during holidays1 – created, formed and acknowledged their own image, as well as that of the Other. In turn, these mythical interpretations of history determined the action of the various Christian denominations in every area of what has recently been termed ‘confessional culture’.2 Therefore, a cultural history of Christian confessions would largely have to consist of retracing the construction of such denomination-constituting model narratives (Mustererzählungen) in the various media of those times and in identifying them once they were deployed in within the various segments of each respective confessional culture. In the Protestant sphere, myths about individuals – especially specific reformers – generally mark the starting-point of the denomination’s formation. In Catholicism, by contrast, it is the myth of one particular event that appears to play 1 H. Münkler, Die Deutschen und ihre Mythen (Berlin: Rowohlt, 2009), 14, distinguishes three outward manifestations of political myths which, as he says, are closely interrelated: narration, image and performance. 2 More about the concept at the end of this essay.

70

Günther Wassilowsky

an all-decisive role, viz. the Council of Trent. This ecclesiastical assembly, which convened for three sessions between 1545 and 1563 in a beautiful Alpine town that is located within the valley of the River Adige, triggered a barrage of interpretations that were more highly controversial and contradictory than any other single council in modern Church history.3 Many of these interpretative battles began in the years leading up to the Tridentinum. For over two decades, for example, diverging ideas as to how the Council should be set up and where it should be held prevented its manifestation. And when the assembly did finally meet, the various groups of protagonists were constantly at odds with one another about its actual purpose and what it fundamentally signified. Furthermore, outside observers, some of whom were quite far away, seized this event and turned it into a symbolically charged object that revealed the exact essence of the traditional Creed and constitution of the papal Church. The debate about the Council’s necessity and shape, however, began much earlier, with Luther’s dispute over indulgences and his first confrontations with Church authorities in 1518 and 1519.4 Over the subsequent decades, this debate produced a flood of pamphlets raising the issue of a Council in both Protestant camps and papal loyalist ones.5 This literature produced a set of stereotyped characterisations of the Council of Trent (depending on whether the position held refuted or esteemed it) entirely independently from what was largely really happening, creating a description of events that would endure with an astonishing persistence for centuries. The image of Trent by Reformation-oriented publications generally pointed out the following: the theological content of this Council was not based on the Scriptures and was therefore firmly directed against Reformation theology. From a formal and practical procedural point of view, this Council must therefore be denounced for two main reasons. Firstly, it took place under the tyranny of the Pope and thus proceeded in an un-free and chaotic manner. Secondly, nonclerics, meaning the non-ecclesiastical princes, did not participate enough. A 3 Cf. Simon Ditchfield’s article, where he attempts to revisit the Tridentinum, to contextualise it in its actual space and time, and to exclude all obscuring images: S. Ditchfield, “Trent revisited”, in G. Dall’Olio/A. Malena/P. Scaramella (ed.), La fede degli italiani. Per Adriano Prosperi (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2011) 1.357–70. 4 Luther, already in Freiheit des Sermons päpstlicher Ablaß und Gnade belangend, which is from June/July 1518, held the opinion that a General Council would be needed in order to decide on the issue of indulgences. See D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (henceforth WA) (73 in 80 vol.; Weimar: Böhlau, 1883–2009), vol. 1. 5 Th. Brockmann, Die Konzilsfrage in den Flug- und Streitschriften des deutschen Sprachraumes 1518–1563 (Schriftenreihe der Historischen Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 57; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), could identify 562 printed materials in the German-speaking area between the years 1518 and 1563 that had statements relating to the Council including, in a stricter sense, 179 conciliary writings.

The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture 71

positive Reformation-oriented understanding of the Council developed in many respects by distinguishing itself vis-à-vis this negative depiction of Trent. In turn, Old Believers conceived a positive counter-image, of Trent in particular and of general councils fundamentally, in the literature surrounding the controversy. These myths and counter-myths of the Council of Trent were developed early in the meetings and are most vividly illustrated in the very first iconographic products of the Tridentinum. Indeed, the discursive images on the Council in contemporary publications are already clearly objectified by the earliest paintings or engravings of Trent. We find, for instance, a genuinely Catholic image of Trent in the Tridentinum’s oldest pictorial representation, produced anonymously by a Venetian printing shop during the Council’s final year in 1563 (Ill. 1). This copperplate engraving, which attempted to induce the fiction of historical authenticity by representing the event as exactly as possible, went on to formatively influence the Tridentinum’s entire imagery tradition.6 This engraving, reprinted hundreds of times and modified in multiple ways, not only provided the model and formula for almost all successive images of the Council, but also established an entirely new kind of Council iconography: for the first time – and in accordance with historical fact – a conciliar assembly is depicted without the person of the Pope.7 The engraving shows a general congregation during the third Council session in the Santa Maria Maggiore Church of Trent. The collegiate community of the episcopal Council fathers sit in a half-circle in six elevated rows. In the centre of the empty space one can recognize the Spanish ambassador. Behind him, sitting at a small table, is the Council secretary. Across from the plenum are the papal legates whom the Pope appointed to be his representatives in Trent. It is not a coincidence that the particular prevailing motive within the images is the portrayal of the sitting Council fathers as iudices fidei. Furthermore, the Pope’s representatives do not sit at a higher level than the highest row of the Council fathers. Noticeably, they do not sit “in capite loci”, as stipulated in the Curia

6 Robert Pancheri, drawing upon an archival holding of conciliar iconographic testimonials in Trent’s Diocese Museum – put together by art historian Kurt Rathe (1886–1952) (who had fled to Rome due to anti-Semitic persecution), on the occasion of the Council’s Jubilee in 1945 and inspired by Hubert Jedin – has succeeded in writing a monograph on the history of the images of the Council of Trent. See: R. Pancheri, Il concilio di Trento. Storia di un’immagine (Temi di storia dell’arte 1; Trent: Tipografia Editrice Temi, 2012). Cf. also R. Pancheri, “Il concilio di Trento: storia di un’immagine”, in R. Pancheri/D. Primerano (ed.), L’uomo del Concilio. Il cardinale Giovanni Morone tra Roma e Trento nell’età di Michelangelo (Museo Diocesano Tridentino, Trento 4 aprile – 26 luglio 2009) (Trent: Tipografia Editrice Temi, 2009) 103–49. 7 For the essentials on the iconography of the Council, see: H.J. Sieben, Konzilsdarstellungen – Konzilsvorstellungen. 1000 Jahre Konzilsikonographie aus Handschriften und Druckwerken (Würzburg: Echter, 1990).

72

Günther Wassilowsky

Ill. 1: Anonymous, The General Congregation of the Council of Trent in the Santa Maria Maggiore Church of Trent [Venice, 1563], © Trent, Castello del Buonsiglio, Momumenti e collezioni provinciali, inv. MN2821, reprinted in Pancheri/Primerano (ed.), L’uomo del Concilio, 331.

ceremonial rules of 1488.8 Rather, the entire seating arrangement is rotated 90 degrees. The papal legates sit at the same height on the left side of the main nave, opposite to the Council fathers, and thus the plenary assembly appears wholly unified. The central message of this visual construction of Trent would probably have been obvious to every viewer: the Council of Trent was not dominated by the Pope. Rather, the Council was represented as a self-realisation of the Church’s fundamentally episcopal constitution, one that did not seek to eliminate the papal element, but that clearly incorporated it into the episcopal whole. Having the Fathers and legates sitting together in a harmonious and orderly fashion within the Council’s assembly hall ought to express both a fundamental consensus among the bishops and the Pope and, the regularity of the rules of the decision-making procedures put into practice in Trent. As such, it is entirely different from the presumed earliest engraving of Trent, with a Protestant provenance, which can be found as the frontispiece on the titlepage of Martin Chemnitz’s Examen Concilii Tridentini, first printed in Frankfurt

8 M. Dykmans (ed.), L’œuvre de Patrizi Piccolomini ou le Cérémonial papal de la première Renaissance (Studi e Testi 293; Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1980), 211.

The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture 73

in 1574 (Ill. 2).9 As its title makes clear, the entire “doctrina Papistica” is rigorously examined here on the basis both of the Scriptures and of the consensus of the orthodox Church fathers, and it is categorically dismissed in favour of the Christian Truth. In this opus, which was produced after the Council had officially ended, the pivotal anti-Tridentine arguments of Reformation publications were once again taken up and summarized in an all-out assault. With its numerous editions and translations into both German and French, Chemnitz’s work probably represents the Protestant Church’s most influential interpretation of Trent, as it has hardened the reformers’ image of the events of the Council. The Protestant copperplate engraver, who illustrated Chemnitz’s Frankfurt edition, likely knew the Catholic engraving of 1563. His conception all too obviously represents its deconstructing counter-image. Moreover, certain elements such as the Council’s secretary Massarelli (here in front on the right, sitting on a stool with his back to the viewer) and the theologian on the pulpit (upper left), were taken from the older engraving and set into an obviously different visual context. Two categorical innovations, however, are constitutive for this Protestant image of Trent: firstly, the conciliar assembly is clearly shown to be taking place in the presence of a pope, in persona, who lords over everything to such an extent that the Tridentinum may be discredited as mere papist indoctrination; secondly, the entire event – when measured against the orderliness in the Catholic engraving – is disavowed as sheer excitement and hectic chaos, which renders impossible any decisions that would be pleasing in God’s eyes. Even the complaint in the Council’s publications concerning the inadequate participation of secular authorities is depicted by having representatives in the left half of the engraving appear as mere onlookers of the events. The myths and counter-myths of Trent, as narrated by these images, left a centuries-long imprint on the fundamental makeup of the perception of this Council. In the final analysis, they have even determined and influenced modern discourse. For example, the first piece of historiography on the Tridentinum, viz. Istoria del Concilio Tridentino, which the Venetian state theologian Paolo Sarpi (1552–1623) published in London in 1619 under a pseudonym, supported a structural historical thesis that turned Trent into nothing less than a puppet theatre orchestrated from Rome.10 Even the authors of the most recent Protestant 9 Cf. R. Mumm, Die Polemik des Martin Chemnitz gegen das Konzil von Trient. Erster Teil, mit einem Verzeichnis der gegen das Konzil gerichteten Schriften (Naumburg: Lippert des Rauhen Hauses, 1905); A.C. Piepkorn, “Martin Chemnitz’ Views on Trent: The Genesis and the Genius of the Examen Concilii Tridentini”, Concordia Theological Monthly 37 (1966) 5–37. 10 For an intellectual biography of Paolo Sarpi, see: J. Kainulainen, Paolo Sarpi: A Servant of God and State (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions 180; Leiden: Brill, 2014); cf. also H. Jedin, Das Konzil von Trient. Ein Überblick über die Erforschung seiner Geschichte (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1948), 62–93.

74

Günther Wassilowsky

Ill. 2: Martin Chemnitz, Examen Concilii Tridentini (Frankfurt am Main: s.n., 1574)

The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture 75

historiography consider the Tridentinum as an ‘event of the papacy’, by means of which the “Roman Catholic Church, which positioned itself decidedly against the Reformation… established the dogmatic foundation upon which the Reform Popes of the second half of the sixteenth century continued to build”.11 Moreover, the current popular image of Trent by contemporary Catholics generally follows the established Protestant interpretations. This was true for both the progressiveliberal adherents of the Second Vatican Council, who gladly celebrate a ‘Farewell to Trent’ (Abschied von Tient12), and – what an irony of history! – the Catholic traditionalists, such as those in the Lefebvrian camp. The latter ultimately view Trent as a genuinely papal and solidly anti-Protestant Council and welcome this structure and orientation of the Tridentinum wholeheartedly; in turn, they then use it to accuse the latest Council of breaking away from the true Catholic tradition. Furthermore, apart from its original Protestant elements, Trent’s image by today’s traditionalists presents yet another feature, one that was incorporated into the Council’s myth only during the nineteenth century. An image of Trent began to take shape at that time in ultramontane circles that looked to legitimise the rejection of any form of ecclesiastical renewal. Some believed that the Council of Trent established an “irrevocable norm”, which “set forever the proper limit … for those who are addicted to innovation”, now making it possible to put an end to “the modern addiction towards improvement” and to the constant “experimenting and undertaking of projects”.13 From this point , the Tridentinum no longer merely stood for an anti-Protestant phalanx, but also for a restorative bulwark against the present, which is evil, liberal and always demanding change.14

II.

Corrections to the Image of Trent: The Openness of the Tridentinum

Since Leo XIII opened the Vatican’s Secret Archive to scholars in 1883, which included all remaining manuscripts regarding Trent, several generations of researchers have participated in a gigantic editorial undertaking, entitled Con11 Th. Kaufmann, Geschichte der Reformation (Verlag der Weltreligionen; Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 2009), 670 and 674. 12 This Abschied von Trient is the title of a book published in 1969: J. Bielmaier (ed.), Abschied von Trient. Theologie am Ende des kirchlichen Mittelalters (Regensburg: Pustet, 1969). 13 “Das Consil von Trient und die Bearbeiter seiner Geschichte”, Der Katholik 80 (1841) 97–112, on p. 97. 14 For the history of the commemorating this Council in general, see G. Wassilowsky, “Trient”, in Ch. Markschies/H. Wolf (ed.), Erinnerungsorte des Christentums (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2010) 395–412.

76

Günther Wassilowsky

cilium Tridentinum,15 that has achieved much in terms of the Council’s critical reappraisal.16 Hubert Jedin’s four-volume Geschichte des Konzils von Trient (History of the Council of Trent), published between 1949 and 1975, stands out as a crowning achievement.17 In his final volume, Jedin, arguably the best informed scholar of the developments within the context of the Council of Trent, comes to the following conclusion: “The Council was not, as Sarpi reckoned, a large-scale fraud.”18 In other words, Jedin thoroughly perceived Rome’s attempt to control the assembly from afar, and in his history he meticulously reconstructs this process. However, in his opinion, the papal dirigisme was unsuccessful in entirely quashing the opposition and the freedom of assembly. Thus, in Jedin’s account, the Council of Trent appears as a complicated and structurally complex interaction between Curial-Papalist, Episcopal, and Gallican-Conciliarist forces.19 The competing claims to validity that emerged during the Council and the question of separation of powers (Gewaltenfrage), which is entirely open in a theological sense, prevented the adoption of an explicitly discursive ecclesiology during the Council. A cultural-historical perspective on councils, which analyses such ecclesiastical assemblies as performative spaces of action that symbolically point beyond themselves and are interactive, may elaborate Jedin’s structural-historical conclusions.20 The event of the Council was in its own logic equivocal, ambivalent and ambiguous. Trent was at once a papal house synod and an episcopal parliament. Alternatively put, it could be understood from a variety of different perspectives and was often discerned partly one way or partly another way. Similarly to a “picture puzzle” (Vexierbild21), one could also observe the event from various angles. From the Pope’s point of view, Trent was a papal advisory 15 Concilium Tridentinum: Diariorum, actorum, epistularum, tractatuum nova collectio (13 vol.; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1901–2001). 16 Cf. the online bibliography of the Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus Catholicorum: http://tridentinum.ub.uni-freiburg.de/pages/free/suche.php. 17 H. Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient (4 vol. in 5; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1949–1975). 18 Jedin, Konzil von Trient, 4/2.248. 19 A new anthology demonstrates, precisely in the crisis of the third period of sessions, the importance to be attributed to a person like Giovanni Morone: In balancing the forces, diplomatic skill and in crosscutting loyalties: M. Firpo/O. Niccoli (ed.), Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e l’ultima fase del concilio di Trento (Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento. Quaderni 80; Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino, 2010). 20 Cf. my respective attempt: G. Wassilowsky, “Symbolereignis Konzil. Zum Verhältnis symbolischer und diskursiver Konstituierung kirchlicher Ordnung”, in B. Schmidt/H. Wolf (ed.), Ekklesiologische Alternativen? Monarchischer Papat und Formen kollegialer Kirchenleitung (15.–20. Jahrhundert) (Symbolische Kommunikation und gesellschaftliche Wertesysteme. Schriftenreihe des Sonderforschungsbereichs 496, 42; Münster: Rhema, 2013) 37–53. 21 E. Fischer-Lichte, “Einleitung”, in E. Fischer-Lichte (ed.), Theatralität und die Krisen der Repräsentation (Germanistische Symposien. Berichtsbände 22; Stuttgart: Metzler, 2001) 1–27, on p. 7.

The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture 77

organ with himself as the dominus loci. The majority of the Council fathers, however, used this same opportunity to once again hold a true forum of discussion during the general congregations; they practiced communicative forms of encounter, deliberation, and decision-making, and in doing so, they helped to expose both the auctoritas concilii and the dignity of the episcopate, thus giving it validity. However, an explicit theme of the respective interpretations would have caused the Council of Trent to fail and was therefore (after a certain point) not in the best interest of either the Popes or the bishops. Both ecclesiologies did remain symbolically present and visible at the Council of Trent, but they did not break it up. Rather, they were integrated by means of the ritual. Diverging interpretations of ecclesiological order, which could not be resolved either by the discursive negotiation of compromises or by authoritative decision, continued to coexist in this way. Both interpretive communities could be members of the one body. The ambiguity of the symbolic event enabled the Tridentinum to be held in the first place. However, it also presupposed that one renounced to a textual rendering of the ecclesial order. Yet, what novel insights has new research brought to light regarding the content that was negotiated and adopted in Trent?22 Jedin once again examined the Trent resolutions on the reform of the Church,23 emphasising that the resulting compromises consisted of feasible and consensual resolutions on the most varied of issues. In contrast to the Council’s doctrinal decrees, and with regards to its reform decisions, one could hardly overlook the fact that the Tridentinum failed to adopt a consistent program that would have systematically encompassed all areas. For example, the Tridentine regulations that dealt with improving the education of the clerics, maintaining the residence of parish priests and bishops, enhancing general spiritual welfare, and revitalizing the institution of the synods, etc., are likewise found in reform agendas from the late Middle Ages. These ideas faced massive resistance at Trent and resulting in the emergence of a conglomeration of reform resolutions, most of which were 22 In what follows I refer time and again to results of a conference that took place from September 18 to September 21, 2013, entitled “Das Konzil von Trient und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563–2013)” and hosted by the Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus Catholicorum. This conference in Freiburg im Breisgau celebrated the 450th anniversary of the Council’s conclusion. See P. Walter/G. Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563–2013) (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 163; Münster: Aschendorff, 2016); cf. also a report on the conference by V. Soen, “Chronique: Conference Report Das Konzil von Trient und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563– 2013), Freiburg, 18–21 September 2013”, Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 108 (2013) 1431–4. 23 And after him, also K. Ganzer, “Das Konzil von Trient – Angelpunkt für eine Reform der Kirche?”, in K. Ganzer, Kirche auf dem Weg durch die Zeit. Institutionelles Werden und theologisches Ringen. Ausgewählte Aufsätze und Vorträge, H. Smolinsky/J. Meier (ed.) (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte. Supplementband 4; Münster: Aschendorff, 1997) 212–32.

78

Günther Wassilowsky

characterised by both compromise and a certain randomness; the solutions also did not infringe upon the curial beneficial system. Furthermore, the Council generally excluded discussions on the reform of the Curia and papal offices of Rome from the start. The contention that the cura or salus animarum represented a fully organising leading idea (Leitidee) in the Tridentine’s reform guidelines was, with modern hindsight, a rationalising post-conciliar abstraction. As for the doctrinal resolutions, there predominated for a long time the idea – one that had also always comprised an integral feature of the myth of Trent – that the Council adopted unanimous, internally coherent, systematic, monolithic and decidedly anti-Protestant dogmatics, which in turn gave rise to the post-Tridentine Catholic Church emerging as an anti-Protestant system that was homogenous and united.24 Even those who reckon that the systematic stringency and internal coherence of Trent’s doctrinal decrees are considerably lower, observe (and deplore) that a habitus of “distancing oneself from the reformers” and of intending “to eliminate all misleading interpretations” had led in Trent, according to Ganzer, to both “a reining in compared to the theological diversity in the Middle Ages” and to a marginalisation of humanistically inspired innovative approaches in favour of time-honoured scholasticism.25 Most recently, however, theological historical research has emphasised a new and different course that makes Tridentine doctrinal conclusions appear as a result of a new hermeneutics in an entirely novel light.26 One has discovered in Trent’s doctrinal body a much greater openness of interpretation, considerably extensive leeway, an intentionally vague terminology, and the oft-repeated motivation to meet the Protestants halfway, theologically speaking, as frequently as possible. It would appear that from its very beginning the Tridentinum presupposed that all believers in Christ still held to the principles of the NicenoConstantinopolitan Creed.27 In contrast to conventional well-worn versions – 24 Until recently, this view has been represented and acutely articulated by D. Wendebourg, “Die Ekklesiologie des Konzils von Trient”, in W. Reinhard/H. Schilling (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung. Wissenschaftliches Symposium der Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus Catholicorum und des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 1993 (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 198; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus/Münster: Aschendorff, 1995) 70–87. 25 K. Ganzer, “Das Konzil von Trient und die theologische Dimension katholischer Konfessionalisierung”, in Reinhard/Schilling (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung, 50–69. 26 Several innovative theological historical contributions may be found in G. Alberigo/I. Rogger (ed.), Il concilio di Trento nella prospettiva del terzo millenio (Istituto di Scienze Religiose di Trento. Religione e Cultura 19; Brescia: Morcelliana, 1997). For a newer and pithy account of Tridentine theology, see: F. Buzzi, Il concilio di Trento (1545–1563). Breve introduzione ad alcuni temi teologici principali (Milan: Edizioni Glossa, 1995). 27 Recently, Peter Walter has pointed out this assumedly shared foundation, which the Tridentinum formulated in Session 3 (4 February, 1546). This assumption had largely been overlooked until now and its implications, in the same vein, have been poorly appreciated: P.

The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture 79

which construed the struggle among the Thomistic, Scotist and nominalist positions on the Council, in areas such as the doctrine of Justification comprising an agonal paradigm of victory and defeat – one more readily discerns the ‘consensual-integrative endeavour’, which sought to include and tolerate as many diverse views as possible through open and consciously imprecise formulations.28 Similarly, one is today considerably more cautious regarding the judgement that strict dogmatism would have outright defeated Trent’s humanisticallyminded theologians and bishops.29 Even if many of the propositions raised by the humanists did not find their way into the final documents, they were clearly palpable throughout the work. This was particularly true during the first sessions, as the subtle influence of humanistic erudition appeared, for example, in the criticism of the Vulgate as expressed in numerous Council addresses, in the image of the bishop (and also of the priest) as the preacher of the Word of God, and especially in the decree on the establishment of Scripture lectureships in cathedrals and other institutes for training the clergy.30 In principle, the Trent fathers are credited with demonstrating a subtle sense of expediency, so that when the theologians could not find a consensus on a particular issue, they were content to not adopt a doctrinal resolution. In consideration of this intentional self-restraint, it is argued that the Council failed to address many issues, such as the question of the Immaculata Conceptio of Mary or whether the bishop’s ordination represents a sacrament. Other problems that had been introduced during the Reformation may have been handled in an extremely differentiated way and not in a particularly anti-Protestant sense.31 On the one hand, for example, the Council, in its first teaching decree, rejected the Reformation adherents’ principle of sola Scriptura and argued against an absolute separation between Scriptures and traditions. Yet, on the other hand, as Josef Rupert Geiselmann has shown,32 the Tridentinum did not see the Scriptures and

28 29 30 31 32

Walter, “Das Konzil von Trient als theologisches Ereignis”, in P. Walter, Syngrammata. Gesammelte Schriften zu Humanismus und Katholischer Reform, G. Wassilowsky (ed.) (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte. Supplementband 6; Münster: Aschendorff, 2015). Cf. V. Leppin, “Spätmittelalterliche Theologie und biblische Korrektur im Rechtfertigungsdekret von Trient”, in Walter/Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient, 167–83. Cf. U.G. Leinsle, “Humanismus und Thomismus auf dem Konzil von Trient”, in Walter/ Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient, 125–140. Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta/Dekrete der Ökumenischen Konzilien, J. Wohlmuth (ed.) (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 32002), 3.667–70 (henceforth abbreviated as COD). Cf. the contribution by Cardinal Kurt Koch, “Wahrnehmung und Bedeutung des Tridentinums in Theologie und ökumenischem Dialog der Gegenwart”, in Walter/Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient, 37–50. J.R. Geiselmann, Die Heilige Schrift und die Tradition. Zu den neueren Kontroversen über das

80

Günther Wassilowsky

traditions as two materially different, yet equivalent, sources of Revelation, as (later) neo-scholasticism did. Rather, Trent was based strictly on the Gospel, which was transmitted over time by “in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus”.33 Indeed, Trent’s decree was silent on the precise material relationship between the Scriptures and (unwritten) traditions. Similarly, there are two decrees that might well have turned out considerably more anti-Protestant: the decree on Justification, which stresses both the necessity of God’s grace and the inability of human beings to attain salvation on their own, with an obvious priority to God’s graceful initiative; and the decree on the sacrifice of the Mass, which centers on highlighting the uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross. Additional examples could also be mentioned. Yet, one should not overlook the fact that the Council fathers and theologians frequently lacked both the knowledge of and a sensitive understanding for Reformation theologies. Nor should one turn a blind eye to the fact that the Council drew up sharp dividing lines in many areas – and usually out of pure self-interest. Ultimately, against the backdrop of differentiated doctrinal statements, as has been revealed by more recent theological historical research, and of a habitus aimed to a large extent at consensus, one has become considerably more guarded in considering the Tridentinum as a decidedly anti-Protestant Council and as an all-out attempt at Counter-Reformation.

III.

Trent and Tridentine Catholicism: A Complex Interrelationship

Research in the past decade has also shown a much more differentiated view of the history of the reception of the Council of Trent than one could find even as recently as, the turn of the twenty-first century. Indeed, no serious contemporary historian would offer the old narrative of an uninterrupted Catholic reform success story in which the Church authorities immediately implemented the doctrinal and disciplinary decrees adopted at Trent to the letter and in cooperation with the Catholic sovereigns. Furthermore, scholars no longer argue for the establishment of a homogenous Tridentine confessional Church that had emerged all over Catholic Europe and the New World by the seventeenth century, and that openly incorporated Catholics who had become normalised in every respect regarding Creed and lifestyle. The concept of confessionalisation may at times have evoked the impression of paying homage to this idea, with its thesis that the techniques of social control practised by the spiritual and secular auVerhältnis der Heiligen Schrift zu den nichtgeschriebenen Traditionen (Quaestiones disputatae 18; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1962). 33 COD 3.663.

The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture 81

thorities (including those within the Catholic sphere) led to a disciplining and both a relative and absolute modernisation.34 Finally, few would continue to maintain that the Council of Trent is to be credited – both intentionally and unintentionally – for its own considerable contribution.35 Nevertheless, one of the original proponents of the concept of confessionalisation repeatedly stressed that the practical importance of the Council of Trent remained “rather limited”, that only in the “nineteenth and early twentieth centuries did it have extensive success” and that “the concrete overhaul of the Church [was] neither the Council’s nor the papacy’s work but that of numerous local cells of reform and self-reform”.36 Meanwhile, research on all fields of Church life has shown – sometimes in quite a lot of detail – that the resolutions in Trent often suffered from a massive problem of implementation. Chiefly, the long-held belief in a centrally enforced ‘iron-law uniform liturgy’37 has been shredded and replaced by an idea that presents post-Tridentine liturgical history (especially, but not exclusively, in the area of the sacraments and sacramentals described by the 1614 Rituale Romanum) as characterised by numerous locally organized liturgies and by liturgical reforms autonomously implemented within the local churches.38 Similarly, art history researchers have reached the conclusion that the Catholic iconic practice of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was not marked by a notion that the images lacked ‘divinity and force’ (divinitas vel virtus) which the decree on icons aimed to inculcate.39 By contrast, one could indeed observe an outright boom in images with miraculous powers and iconic worship after Trent.40 Similarly, blind spots often turn up in attempts to verify whether the Council’s stipulations – which were supposed to play a key role in the realisation of the entire Trent reform catalogue, such as at diocesan and provincial synods – were actually 34 Reinhard/Schilling (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung. 35 W. Reinhard, “Das Konzil von Trient und die Modernisierung der Kirche. Einführung”, in P. Prodi/W. Reinhard (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die Moderne (Schriften des ItalienischDeutschen Historischen Instituts in Trient 16; Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2001) 23–42. 36 Reinhard, “Das Konzil von Trient und die Modernisierung der Kirche”, 40. 37 For instance Th. Klauser, Kleine Abendländische Liturgiegeschichte (Bonn: Hanstein, 1944), 117. 38 Cf. B. Kranemann, “Liturgiereform nach Trient. Dynamiken eines Erneuerungsprozesses”, in Walter/Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient, 303–34. 39 COD 3.774–6. 40 Cf. Ph. Zitzlsperger, “Trient und die Kraft der Bilder. Überlegungen zur virtus der Gnadenbilder”, in Walter/Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient, 303–34; G. Henkel, Rhetorik und Inszenierung des Heiligen. Eine kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu barocken Gnadenbildern in Predigt und Festkultur des 18. Jahrhunderts (Weimar: Verlag Datenbank für Geisteswissenschaften, 2004); C. Hecht, Katholische Bildtheologie der Frühen Neuzeit. Studien zu Traktaten von Johannes Molanus, Gabriele Paleotti und anderen Autoren (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 2012).

82

Günther Wassilowsky

implemented. And what of the compliance with the ban on accumulation of benefices, the precept of residence for bishops and parish priests, and, as Jedin put it, the implementation of the “Tridentine ideal of a bishop”41, with all of the duties that are connected to the position, such as those on sermons or ministrations of the sacraments?42 Those who may have aimed at endeavouring to make a Tridentine guideline become a widespread ecclesiastical convention during the two and a half centuries following the conclusion of the Council often found themselves confronted by a variety of obstacles, which usually impeded or entirely blocked such intentions. Frequently, long-held traditions – such as the ancestral rights of the (cathedral) chapters or the century-long confirmed privileges of the exempt monasteries – prevented the enforcement of the episcopal power of jurisdiction that had been envisioned by the Tridentinum at all local church levels. Old liturgical customs, as well as other unique local rites relating to piety that were engrained as much among commoners as among the elite, were upheld (or reinforced) in spite of the homogenisation that went along with the Tridentine reforms. Lastly, there were structural conditions, such as the prince-bishopric constitution of the Church of the Holy Roman Empire, that could only work in a limited manner, regardless of any attempt at enforcing the new ideals of office.43 In any case, ordinances that concerned the entire Church had to be creatively and flexibly adapted to concrete local conditions. Occasionally, desiderata emanating from Trent were simply too expensive to put into practice: if plans to set up diocesan priest seminars, for instance, were ultimately not realized, it was often because of a lack of financial means (and not only in the small dioceses in Italy) rather than a lack of will. Rome was also to some extent responsible for the nonreception of Trent. Trent’s reform resolutions, for example, were foiled in Rome by a combination of the practice of dispensations, which were generously ex41 Cf. C. Wiesner, “‘Weide seine Lämmer’. Zu Umsetzung und Verortung der Residenzpflicht zwischen Mikropolitik und Seelenheil an der posttridentinischen Kurie”, in Walter/Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient, 221–54. 42 See H. Jedin, “Das Bischofsideal der Katholischen Reformation. Eine Studie über die Bischofsspiegel vornehmlich des 16. Jahrhunderts”, in H. Jedin, Kirche des Glaubens – Kirche der Geschichte. Ausgewählte Aufsätze und Vorträge, vol. 2: Konzil und Kirchenreform (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1966) 75–117; E. Gatz, “Das Bischofsideal des Konzils von Trient und der deutschsprachige Episkopat des 19. Jahrhunderts. Zum Quellenwert der Relationes status”, Römische Quartalschrift 77 (1982) 204–28; H. Wolf, “‘… ein Rohrstengel statt des Szepters verlorener Landesherrlichkeit …’ Die Entstehung eines neuen Rom- bzw. Papstorientierten Bischofstyps”, in R. Decot (ed.), Kontinuität und Innovation um 1803. Säkularisation als Transformationsprozess. Kirche – Theologie – Kultur – Staat (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte. Beiheft 65; Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2005) 109–34. 43 See B. Braun, Princeps et episcopus. Studien zur Funktion und zum Selbstverständnis der nordwestdeutschen Fürstbischöfe nach dem Westfälischen Frieden (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz 230; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013).

The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture 83

ercised and financially lucrative for the papacy, little interest in allowing potentially adverse powers, such as a self-confident local Church synod, to grow, and because of a general interest in shaping Trent’s reception of the newly created Roman dicasteries in the mode of a universally ecclesiastical ‘Romanisation’ and ‘papalisation’, against which the non-Roman ecclesiastical authorities defended themselves.44 As commendable as the attempt may be to deconstruct the old master narrative of Catholic reform’s continual success story, it does not mean that the Council of Trent did not play any role whatsoever in Catholic Church history, including for the society and culture of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (the post-revolutionary nineteenth century after all is generally proclaimed as the century of the belated Trent reception). Both in the older interpretations, which proceeded from the uninterrupted enforcement of the Trent decrees, and in the many newer perspectives, which almost negate any sort of reception whatsoever, there must be an insufficiently differentiated idea of how Council decisions generally evolved. Assuming that a reception did take place , the historical impact of a council event, where binding decisions are made by the entire Church, has always been marked (1) by creative appropriations, which could go as far as turning the original resolutions upside down, (2) by adaptations to regional and individual conditions, (3) by historical periods of booms and slumps regarding the way in which the event was explicitly referenced, and (4) by a discerning selection of single conciliary resolutions and statements. For instance, if some authors – in spite of the fact that seminars45 existed virtually throughout all of France in the seventeenth century and that up until the Thirty Years’ War, almost a third of all German dioceses46 and half of all Italian bishoprics47 possessed some such financially demanding institutions – similarly speak of “a failure of the priest seminars”,48 then a council can only experience a successful reception if its adopted norms and laws are literally and ubiquitously carried out forthwith in the shortest possible timeframe. 44 See: G. Wassilowsky, “Posttridentinische Reform und päpstliche Zentralisierung. Zur Rolle der Konzilskongregation”, in A. Merkt/G. Wassilowsky/G. Wurst (ed.), Reformen in der Kirche. Historische Perspektiven (Quaestiones Disputatae 260; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2014) 138–57. 45 J. Bergin, Church, Society and Religious Change in France, 1580–1730 (New Haven, CT/ London: Yale University Press, 2009). 46 E. Gatz (ed.), Priesterausbildungsstätten der deutschsprachigen Länder zwischen Aufklärung und Zweitem Vatikanischen Konzil (Römische Quartalschrift. Supplementheft 49; Rome: Herder, 1994). 47 M. Sangalli (ed.), Chiese chierici sacerdoti. Clero e seminari in Italia tra XVI e XX secolo (Rome: Herder, 2000). 48 P. Hersche, Muße und Verschwendung. Europäische Gesellschaft und Kultur im Barockzeitalter (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2006), 2.177.

84

Günther Wassilowsky

The same could be said about the assessment of the impact of other reform desiderata. On the one hand, the Church of the Early Modern Period never set up any comprehensive control apparatus, such as what might have been requested during the post-conciliary establishment of surveillance institutions, like those of the episcopal and apostolic visitations or the Apostolic Nunciature.49 On the other hand, however, can one truly assume that these new bodies would have had no effect at all on Catholics and their clerics? Might they not, for example, have at least developed elaborate strategies in order to mask their own resistant attitude or to legitimise it by posing good arguments? Furthermore, no one today would want to claim that the numerous bishops of post-Tridentine local churches would have changed overnight due to top-down actions centrally steered by Rome. This was clearly impossible if one only takes into account the quite varied local procedures of elevating those to the rank of bishop. And yet a ‘shift in emphasis’ might be ascertained in the composition of the upper clergy, which might be traced back to an incremental ‘theologisation’ or ‘Romanisation’ of their educational paths.50 In any case, there was the prospect of a profile of requirements, characterised by a reduction of functions and a concentration on pastoral duties, which the ecclesiastical officeholders of all hierarchical levels could not entirely shirk off in the long run. Thus, in this respect, the list of examples – in which subtle and gradual changes in Catholicism that followed Trent may clearly be traced back to the Council – could easily be extended. Thus, there remain two important tasks for the researchers of Early Modern Catholicism: first, to try to discover the history of the more subtle effects of the Council of Trent beyond the simplistic narratives of complete success or failure; and, secondly, to determine, at least to some extent, the role of the Tridentinum in the establishment of the Catholic confessional Church and in the formation of a specific Catholic confessional culture. Given the understanding of the history of Early Modern Catholicism as more than a mere “extension of the Middle Ages by another two hundred years”, as Benno Hubensteiner has argued,51 and that if one should desire to factor in the enormous flows of an enhanced dynamism – regardless of the extent to which they went along with forms of piety and institutions that primarily stemmed from the Middle Ages – then he or she must explain and endeavour to comprehend those factors that initiated the transformative process that led to a non-Reformation form of confessional Christianity. Is this dynamics of transformation from the medieval Church to ‘Ca49 See: H. Jedin, “Nuntiaturberichte und Durchführung des Konzils von Trient”, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 53 (1973) 180–213. 50 Cf. R. Becker, “Posttridentinische Bischofserhebungen”, in Walter/Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient, 275–300. 51 B. Hubensteiner, Vom Geist des Barock. Kultur und Frömmigkeit im alten Bayern (Munich: Süddeutscher Verlag, 1978), 21.

The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture 85

tholicism’ due at least in part to the Tridentinum? And if so, to what extent? Is it sufficient in this context, as it has previously been, to search exclusively for the implementation of individual resolutions contained within the final published documents? Or must one include in the analysis a comprehensive account of the impact of the entire Council event and of its constructed interpretations by a variety of protagonists who held diverse interests? In other words, would one not have to incorporate the mythologisation of Trent?

IV.

Trent and Baroque Catholicism

Peter Hersche, in his impressive study Muße und Verschwendung (Leisure and Waste), replied with unequivocal negativity as to the importance of Trent for Catholicism between 1600 and 1750. According to Hersche, there was only a very short and hectic period of reform directly following the Council’s conclusion, during the reign of the so-called Reform Popes. This, however, had ceased by the end of the sixteenth century at the latest. Thereafter, according to Hersche, the long Baroque era began and lasted up until the Enlightenment, with its specific feature (proprium), as Hersche – in the tradition of Hubensteiner – sees it as being the continuation of a late medieval religiosity and of a non-Protestant and non-modern mentality of conspicuous waste and preference for leisure. Hersche distinguishes Baroque outright as a contraposition to Trent and he understands it as a staunch countermovement to the discipline and stringency which he attributed to Trent. Yet, Hersche’s characterisation of Baroque Catholicism actually has nothing to do with Trent. Rather, it is the backlash to Trent, which the majority of contemporary Catholics would have also assumed. A prerequisite to such a view of the early modern history of Catholicism once again reflects a particular image of Trent, which in Hersche’s case is at odds with what has been initially identified as the typical and still popular Protestant notion. Since Trent, according to Hersche, stands for “straightening out, reviewing, limiting and regulating” and for a “rejection of traditional popular devoutness” (Volksfrömmigkeit),52 it is therefore understood as downright Reformation-oriented, and even enlightened. However, this image does not quite correspond to the abovementioned emphasis of the newer research on Trent, which doubts the unanimity and cohesion of the Reform program, as well as its doctrinal teachings. Most recent work stresses that many of Trent’s resolutions aimed at purging late medieval piety, as well as eliminating certain abuses and curtailing excesses, in order to both limit potential future targets of Protestant criticism and to take up 52 Cf. P. Hersche, “Wie modern ist der Barockkatholizismus?”, in Walter/Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient, 487–518.

86

Günther Wassilowsky

desiderata that had been expressed during the late medieval councils and synods, as well as by the late medieval reform movements, long before the Reformation. Yet, this purging and ‘self-disciplining’ feature is only one side of the coin. At the same time, Trent defended and maintained the Middle Ages: its reforms and innovations are genuinely “conservative”.53 The decree on the veneration of saints and images could perhaps be a good example of how the Tridentinum safeguarded, in principle, the right of the continued existence of old forms of piety, while it simultaneously aimed at clarifying precisely these forms of piety according to a certain theology. However, if one considers how this decree was drafted – in a last minute effort, without much debate and at the instigation of the French delegation, who were traumatised by Calvinist iconoclasm54 – one would not wish to cite this text in order to determine an all-embracing Tridentine habitus in its entirety. On principle, both the reform decrees and the doctrinal resolutions ought to be considered when probing the correlation between Trent and Baroque Catholicism. In particular, direct lines of explanation may well be drawn between the conciliary theology of the sacrament (and especially the theology of the Eucharist) and the post-Council praxis of the sacraments. It is true that all of these forms of piety stem from the Middle Ages, but they pass through a series of essential changes during and after the Tridentinum. I have endeavoured to demonstrate this transformative process by taking the concept of representation which the Council newly profiled in the debate on the theology of the sacrifice of the Mass and which subsequently, in my opinion, would become fundamentally important for Catholic confessional culture as a whole, as an example.55 In order to unequivocally differentiate the concept of ‘representation’ from that of ‘memoria’ during the Council debates, the former became ever more stringently restricted to human action. Contrary to the idea of inner mimesis, which the Protestants more or less accept as the sole locus of the presence of God, the representation of the Eucharist now became a human activity, viz. the praxis, action, or bloodless, but sensibly discernible, re-enactment of Christ’s sacrifice. Since Jesus’s sacrifice on the Cross signifies an animated action, the representation of the sacrifice must also be a visually imitative action that symbolizes His Passion. In both the public re-enactment and the physical performance, 53 W. Reinhard, “Was ist katholische Konfessionalisierung?”, in Reinhard/Schilling (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung, 419–55, on p. 450. 54 H. Jedin, “Entstehung und Tragweite des Trienter Dekrets über die Bildverehrung”, in Jedin, Kirche des Glaubens – Kirche der Geschichte, 2.460–98. 55 G. Wassilowsky, “‘Wo die Messe fellet, so ligt das Bapstum’. Zur Kultur päpstlicher Repräsentation in der Frühen Neuzeit”, in B. Emich/Ch. Wieland (ed.), Kulturgeschichte des frühneuzeitlichen Papsttums (Zeitschrift für historische Forschung. Beiheft 48; Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2013) 219–47.

The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture 87

Christ’s sacrifice becomes an objectively real presence, which the recipient may subjectively internalise a second time. With this restriction of the concept of representation to dynamic human praxis, the Tridentinum laid the basis for postTridentine Catholicism to become a genuine religion of action (Handlungsreligion). For the development of the entire Catholic culture of representation, the importance of this ‘action-theoretical’ focus of the conception of representation can hardly be overstated. On the one hand, it led to the strengthening of those who perform the representing actions, that is, to the Old Church, with office bearers who were capable of effective action. On the other hand, it led to a ‘theatricalisation’ of all religious spheres of life, which would become a defining characteristic of Catholic Baroque culture, with symbolic events ranging from church spaces to dramatic sermons, and from processions to the ceremonial enactment of canonisations and heretic abjurations. This theatricalisation represented a form of intensification, of additional dynamism, and of dramatisation of external religious actions, which in Trent were credited with being capable of rendering the signified real present and in so doing affect the internal world of the perceiving subject. With its theatrical performances, the Catholic Church of the Early Modern Period systematically erected spaces of experience in which outward transformation was shown and inner transformation was accomplished – and these spaces of experience are, after all, quite typical for post-Tridentine Baroque Catholicism. I still consider it beneficial to further explore the lines between Tridentine theology and post-Tridentine piety, which have never followed a straight course and did not continue without several interruptions.56 By doing so, one cannot return to the old contention of Baroque as a form of art – or piety – of the Counter-Reformation.57 Just as Trent had hardly been a pure act of CounterReformation, the Counter-Reformation went far beyond Baroque Catholicism!

56 Simon Ditchfield also pursues the question “How Tridentine was the early modern globalizing Roman Catholicism?” as regards the development of Catholicism becoming the “first world religion”, cf. S. Ditchfield, “Tridentine Catholicism”, in A. Bamji/G.H. Janssen/M. Laven (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to the Counter-Reformation (Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate, 2013) 15–31. Likewise, recent presentations by Prosperi and Prodi are largescale attempts to demonstrate the correlation between the Council and the post-Tridentine Church: A. Prosperi, Il Concilio di Trento: una introduzione storica (Turin: Einaudi, 2001); P. Prodi, Il paradigma tridentino. Un’epoca della storia della Chiesa (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2010). A similar concern may be found in the chapters of C. Mozzarelli/D. Zardin (ed.), I tempi del concilio. Religione, cultura e società nell’Europa tridentina (Biblioteca del Cinquecento 79; Rome: Bulzoni, 1997). 57 Cf. W. Weisbach, Der Barock als Kunst der Gegenreformation (Berlin: Cassierer, 1921).

88

V.

Günther Wassilowsky

The Historical Impact of the Myth of Trent

Another level of Trent’s impact which, though it has been addressed several times in historiography, has so far received little attention, is the history of the reference to Trent. This does not mean how one measures the importance of Trent, i. e. to what extent single resolutions written up in Trent’s decrees were in fact implemented within the post-conciliary Church. Instead, the question is to what extent this Council represented a reference point in the process of shaping modern Catholicism, regardless of whether this reference was backed up by what was literally expressed in the resolutions. Perhaps the Council’s most important contribution lies in the fact – which was on no account to be taken for granted – that it took place at all. The mere fact that the Council met at all might have reestablished a stable foundation for the Old Church, which was shaken to its very core by the Reformation. All groups of protagonists of this old Creed could then relate to it respectively in their own diverse ways. From this perspective, the importance of the Tridentinum would rest primarily on the fact that it helped the Old Church gain new self-confidence. Whereas the Protestants established their confession by cultivating the memory of either Luther or one of the other protagonists of the Reformation, the Catholics now had the Council, by which they could reassure themselves and to which they could refer to in every possible endeavour. However, since the reality of the historical Council was much too contradictory and complex, there was a need for something like a simple ‘Fundamental Trent Formula’ (Grundformel Trient), viz. a ‘Myth of Trent’ that would reduce its complexities, a story which both fulfilled the function of a basic foundation myth and could be called upon to legitimise the most varied of purposes. John W. O’Malley has frequently pointed out the myths that continue to circulate about the Tridentinum. However, this American professor of Church history has set his focus primarily on exposing these popular stereotypes as “misunderstandings” and “misinformation”.58 One task of the historian’s craft is to deconstruct historical myths and to probe their equivalences according to historical reality, while another is to engage in reconstructing exactly how these myths originated and the extent of their historical impact. Wolfgang Reinhard investigates this interpretation by considering the “invented Council of Trent” as more decisive than the “true Council of Trent” and by speaking of Trent as a “myth of self-reassurance”.59 Nevertheless we are almost entirely at the earliest

58 J.W. O’Malley, “The Council of Trent: Myths, Misunderstandings, and Misinformation”, in Th.M. Lucas (ed.), Spirit – Style – Story: Essays Honoring John W. Padberg, S.J. (Chicago, IL: Loyola Press, 2002) 205–26. Cf. also: J.W. O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, MA/London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013), 11–22. 59 Reinhard, “Das Konzil von Trient und die Modernisierung der Kirche”, 41.

The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture 89

stages of research with regards to how and for what purpose various segments and levels of Church life employed this ‘invented’ Trent. It was presumably the Roman Curia that, in its newly created dicasteries, first understood that one could not create a powerful momentum (that is, not establish a confessional Church) out of the true Tridentinum. Precisely for this reason – and contrary to the original intentions of Pius IV to publish all of the Council’s acts – it kept Trent’s documents under lock and key in the treasury for centuries and preferred to make use of its own spun-out myth of Trent in order to realise its intentional and universal ‘Romanisation project’. It was only a few months after Trent’s conclusion that the papacy, by establishing the Sacred Congregation of the Council, assumed the interpretation and realisation of the Tridentinum. The Pope intended right from the start – by confirming the decrees and simultaneously claiming an absolute monopoly on interpretations – to keep the reception of the Council under Rome’s control. Indeed, for him, the most important matter to exclude was that any demands for reform that referred to Trent would be made towards Rome from outside, something Giovanni Morone and the papalists managed to prevent during the Council. Benedictus Deus, the Papal bull of confirmation, made it clear that the Pope was not subordinate to, but stood above, Council decrees, a status of superiority institutionalized by the papacy with the foundation of the Sacred Congregation of the Council.60 The research community has finally acknowledged the importance of this dicastery for Trent’s reception.61 I would therefore at least like to outline some of the consequences of the establishment of a central office that had specific competences for the post-Tridentine reform process and the broader structure of the post-Tridentine Church. The Tridentine reform decrees, for example, were either confirmed or announced as law in the territories of the bishops of the Holy Roman Empire and of France with much hesitancy – and sometimes not at all. There are certainly different reasons for this.62 However, the question arises as to whether the papacy is not largely responsible for the refusal of the formal introduction of the Tridentinum by local churches, exactly because of the fact that the authentic interpretation was the sole responsibility of the Pope, as de60 Cf. the bull in H. Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, P. Hünermann (ed.) (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 371991), 582–4. 61 Cf. the project at the Max-Planck-Institut für Europäische Rechtsgeschichte (Frankfurt). Likewise Christian Wiesner’s chapter “Die Rezeption des Tridentinums durch die Konzilskongregation am Beispiel der Residenzpflicht”, which is also in this volume. Finally, see my own attempt: G. Wassilowsky, “Posttridentinische Reform und päpstliche Zentralisierung”. 62 See H. Molitor, “Die untridentinische Reform. Anfänge katholischer Erneuerung in der Reichskirche”, in W. Brandmüller et al. (ed.), Ecclesia militans. Studien zur Konzilien- und Reformationsgeschichte (FS R. Bäumer; Paderborn: Schöningh, 1988) 1.399–431.

90

Günther Wassilowsky

termined in the confirmation bull? Whoever accepted the disciplinary law of the Tridentinum after 1564 was simultaneously obliged to turn to Rome in cases where the application was uncertain, as well as constantly subject to Rome’s judgment. The German bishops were likely to have foreseen the danger in relinquishing their legal autonomy. However, their refusal to formally accept this law must not be interpreted in every case as hostility towards Trent or even as a fundamental unwillingness towards reform. Rather, they distanced themselves from Rome’s intended ‘monarchialisation’ of the Church and from a papal idea of reform. In future research, historians will have to more precisely differentiate between episcopal and papal programs of the reception of Trent. A similar shift towards papal centralisation occurred regarding the postTridentine synodal constitution. The Fathers of the Tridentinum had hoped that the reanimation of the synods would have an enormous impact on the realisation of Tridentine reform for the entire Church and on a new self-actualisation of the episcopal office.63 However, from 1588, no provincial synod was allowed to announce a resolution without it first being approved by the Sacred Congregation of the Council. For this reason – maintaining the control of the Synod Institute – Rome itself was partly responsible for the fact that in most local European churches, the post-Tridentine synod did not develop into the forceful and autonomous legislative and judiciary reform instrument that the Council had envisaged. A further enlightening phenomenon is the apostolic visitators appointed by Rome who, after the Tridentinum, were embedded in virtually every Italian diocese in order to ensure that the bishops’ undertakings followed Rome’s views.64 In a structural sense, this instrument also led to a weakening of episcopal power in the context of the Council’s reception: the visitators sent by Rome were stern ‘bad guys’ whose job it was to both rigorously demand adherence to Tridentine norms and to intimidate the bishops at the local level. Quite often, the bishops opposed these inflexible visitators and made written representation against them at the Congregation in Rome. The Cardinals, in turn, played the role of the ‘good guys’ by demonstrating flexibility, relaxing the constraints imposed by their visitators and conceding deviations from the Tridentine norm to the bishops en masse. What this achieved was the simple fact that the bishops made representations in Rome. This led to the paradoxical situation that the episcopal resistance, which was expressed as an appeal to Rome, eventually strengthened anew the decision-making power of the Curia, in line with the maxim: should you 63 Cf. COD 3.761. 64 See G. Romeo, “La congregazione dei vescovi e i visitatori apostolici nell’Italia post-tridentina: Un primo bilancio”, in M. Sangalli (ed.), Per il Cinquecento religioso italiano. Clero, cultura, società (Rome: Edizione dell’Ateneo, 2003) 2.607–14.

The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture 91

wish to preserve the post-Tridentine status quo ante, it first has to be approved by Rome. Distancing myself from Hubert Jedin,65 I would like to make the case that the post-Tridentine papacy massively violated the order that was in fact created by the Tridentinum. This occurred because the Tridentine ideal of a bishop was systematically eroded by the practice of the instruments that were supposed to implement the Tridentine reforms, which were newly created by the papacy after the Council. Trent did not envisage ongoing congregations, apostolic visitations, ad limina inspection visits, or permanent nunciatures. Furthermore, I would like to present the hypothesis that the post-Tridentine papacy was more interested in the permanent assertion of its own decisionmaking powers and the symbolic representation of papal sovereignty than in the realisation of Tridentine reform. Indeed, precisely by its appropriation and instrumentalisation of the Council, the papacy actively and significantly contributed to a general alienation from Trent and its inadequate reception. In any case, one history still needs to be written – of Rome’s centralisation in the wake of the ‘myth of Trent’ and the papacy’s functional self-seeking in its context (as well as a history of the simultaneous antagonistic refusal of this centralisation in the periphery). Perhaps it might be helpful in this context (in same way that we usually differentiate ‘Thomasian’ from ‘Thomist’) to distinguish terminologically in the future between ‘Trentian’ (that is, what the ‘real’ Council represented and wanted) and ‘Tridentine’ (that is, what actually ensued from it).

VI.

From Catholic Confessionalisation to Catholic Confessional Culture

Over the past thirty years, German-speaking historians have detailed the ‘necessity of clarity’ (Zwang zur Eindeutigkeit), the battle against ambiguity and irenic positions, and the elimination of doctrinal openness in the process of confessionalisation. Mostly, they have been concerned with the processes of reciprocal demarcation and internal homogenisation of the confessional churches that took place in conjunction with territorial state-building. The necessity to establish distinctions and to demand conformity is certainly an essential and crucial aspect of the confessional age. According to recent research, the Council of Trent failed to lay the foundations for this, either with a cohesive theology or with a coherent reform program. These foundations had to be created after the Council through its mytholog65 H. Jedin, “Papst und Konzil. Ihre Beziehung vor, auf und nach dem Trienter Konzil”, in H. Jedin, Kirche des Glaubens – Kirche der Geschichte, 2.429–40, on p. 440.

92

Günther Wassilowsky

isation. But orthodoxy produced heterodoxy, and the centralisation aimed for by Rome generated forces of resistance at the periphery. This is why future German research will more thoroughly play down the degree of success of confessionalisation and pay more attention to the internal pluralities of Catholicism and the osmosis between the confessions. To this end, it seems promising to pursue cultural categories to a greater extent. Confessional identity should not be regarded as a fixed category in any essentialist way, as it was likely one which was founded at a council and then became permanently fixed. Confessionality should rather be seen as a constantly swaying and unstable cultural practice. Since confessionality in a concrete situation always has to be created afresh in a performative way, it would make more sense to speak – as Barbara Stollberg-Rilinger has suggested – of “situational confessionality” (situative Konfessionalität).66 Yet, even if one’s confessional identity must always be concretised in newly changing patterns, it only makes sense to speak of confessionality if, within a plurality of human life manifestations, a series of specific identity-constituting qualities may also be identified. Without distinct fundamental characteristics (propria), the concept of confession is empty and senseless. As stark as diversities within a confession may be – in terms of regional ways of life (Lebenswelt) and theological-spiritual dimensions – there must still be a set of certain and more comprehensive characteristics that make a religious group recognizable as a confession. In order to be able to equally account for this distinct feature as regards both the confessional dimension, and the great variety of contextual and ephemeral ways of confessional life, it would be favourable to combine the narrow term ‘confession’ with the broad definition of culture into a single concept: “confessional culture”. Thomas Kaufmann first used this concept for describing the Lutheran perspective.67 Since then, others have also spoken of a “Catholic con66 B. Stollberg-Rilinger, “Einleitung”, in A. Pietsch/B. Stollberg-Rilinger (ed.), Konfessionelle Ambiguität. Uneindeutigkeit und Verstellung als religiöse Praxis in der Frühen Neuzeit (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 214; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2013) 9–26, on p. 14. 67 The most instructive reflections on the term and concept ‘confessional culture’ may be found in Th. Kaufmann, Konfession und Kultur. Lutherischer Protestantismus in der zweiten Hälfte des Reformationsjahrhunderts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 7–21; cf. also Th. Kaufmann, “Einleitung: Transkonfessionalität, Interkonfessionalität, binnenkonfessionelle Pluralität – Neue Forschungen zur Konfessionalisierungsthese”, in K. von Greyerz/M. JakubowskiTiessen/Th. Kaufmann (ed.), Interkonfessionalität – Transkonfessionalität – binnenkonfessionelle Pluralität. Neue Forschungen zur Konfessionalisierungsthese (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2003) 9–15; Th. Kaufmann/A. Schubert/K. von Greyerz (ed.), Frühneuzeitliche Konfessionskulturen (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2008); V. Leppin/U.A. Wien (ed.), Konfessionsbildung und Konfessionskultur in Siebenbürgen in der Frühen Neuzeit (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2005).

The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture 93

fessional culture”.68 The concept of ‘confessional culture’ might supplant the paradigm of confessionalisation without having to omit from consideration the fundamental and valid insights of confessionalisation research (such as the techniques of social control that aim at standardizing and homogenizing the religion, used in all confessions by ecclesiastical and secular authorities in a structurally analogous way). Within the concept of ‘confessional culture’, the Council of Trent would no longer appear as a mere factor in the process of social disciplining. Rather, in such a confessional cultural perspective, one could discern how variably the Tridentinum was appropriated, reframed and implemented in different regions and according to diverse levels of action, and, more particularly, how much the ‘myth of Trent’ represented an orientating and stabilising reference point for the formation of the distinctive practices of the thinking, interpreting and behaving of early modern Catholics. Because what would the history of religion be without myths!

Bibliography Printed and edited sources Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta/Dekrete der Ökumenischen Konzilien, J. Wohlmuth (ed.) (3 vol.; Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 32002). Denzinger, H., Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, P. Hünermann (ed.) (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 371991).

Secondary sources Alberigo, G./Rogger, I. (ed.), Il concilio di Trento nella prospettiva del terzo millenio (Istituto di Scienze Religiose di Trento. Religione e Cultura 19; Brescia: Morcelliana, 1997). Becker, R., “Posttridentinische Bischofserhebungen”, in P. Walter/G. Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563–2013) (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 163; Münster: Aschendorff , 2016) 275–300. Bergin, J., Church, Society and Religious Change in France, 1580–1730 (New Haven, CT/ London: Yale University Press, 2009).

68 The term “Catholic confessional culture” appears early, in A. Holzem, “Katholische Konfessionskultur im Westfalen der Frühen Neuzeit. Glaubenswissen und Glaubenspraxis in agrarischen Lebens- und Erfahrungsräumen”, Westfälische Forschungen: Zeitschrift des Westfälischen Instituts für Regionalgeschichte des Landschaftsverbandes Westfalen-Lippe 56 (2006) 65–87; G. Wassilowsky, “Katholizismus”, Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit 6 (2007) 467–73; Th. Maissen, “Konfessionskulturen in der frühneuzeitlichen Eidgenossenschaft. Eine Einführung”, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Religions- und Kulturgeschichte 101 (2007) 225– 46.

94

Günther Wassilowsky

Bielmaier, J. (ed.), Abschied von Trient. Theologie am Ende des kirchlichen Mittelalters (Regensburg: Pustet, 1969). Braun, B., Princeps et episcopus. Studien zur Funktion und zum Selbstverständnis der nordwestdeutschen Fürstbischöfe nach dem Westfälischen Frieden (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte Mainz 230; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013). Brockmann, Th., Die Konzilsfrage in den Flug- und Streitschriften des deutschen Sprachraumes 1518–1563 (Schriftenreihe der Historischen Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 57; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). Buzzi, F., Il concilio di Trento (1545–1563). Breve introduzione ad alcuni temi teologici principali (Milan: Edizioni Glossa, 1995). Ditchfield, S., “Trent revisited”, in G. Dall’Olio/A. Malena/P. Scaramella (ed.), La fede degli italiani. Per Adriano Prosperi (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2011) 1.357–70. Ditchfield, S., “Tridentine Catholicism”, in A. Bamji/G.H. Janssen/M. Laven (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to the Counter-Reformation (Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate, 2013) 15–31. Dykmans M. (ed.), L’œuvre de Patrizi Piccolomini ou le Cérémonial papal de la première Renaissance (Studi e Testi 293; Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1980). Firpo, M./Niccoli, O. (ed.), Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e l’ultima fase del concilio di Trento (Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento. Quaderni 80; Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino, 2010). Fischer-Lichte, E., “Einleitung”, in E. Fischer-Lichte (ed.), Theatralität und die Krisen der Repräsentation (Germanistische Symposien. Berichtsbände 22; Stuttgart: Metzler, 2001) 1–27. Ganzer, K., “Das Konzil von Trient und die theologische Dimension katholischer Konfessionalisierung”, in W. Reinhard/H. Schilling (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung. Wissenschaftliches Symposium der Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus Catholicorum und des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 1993 (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 198; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus/Münster: Aschendorff, 1995) 50–69. Ganzer, K., “Das Konzil von Trient – Angelpunkt für eine Reform der Kirche?”, in K. Ganzer, Kirche auf dem Weg durch die Zeit. Institutionelles Werden und theologisches Ringen. Ausgewählte Aufsätze und Vorträge, H. Smolinsky/J. Meier (ed.) (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte. Supplementband 4; Münster: Aschendorff, 1997) 212–32. Gatz, E., “Das Bischofsideal des Konzils von Trient und der deutschsprachige Episkopat des 19. Jahrhunderts. Zum Quellenwert der Relationes status”, Römische Quartalschrift 77 (1982) 204–28. Gatz, E. (ed.), Priesterausbildungsstätten der deutschsprachigen Länder zwischen Aufklärung und Zweitem Vatikanischen Konzil (Römische Quartalschrift. Supplementheft 49; Rome: Herder, 1994). Geiselmann, J.R., Die Heilige Schrift und die Tradition. Zu den neueren Kontroversen über das Verhältnis der Heiligen Schrift zu den nichtgeschriebenen Traditionen (Quaestiones disputatae 18; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1962).

The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture 95

Hecht, C., Katholische Bildtheologie der Frühen Neuzeit. Studien zu Traktaten von Johannes Molanus, Gabriele Paleotti und anderen Autoren (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 2012). Henkel, G., Rhetorik und Inszenierung des Heiligen. Eine kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu barocken Gnadenbildern in Predigt und Festkultur des 18. Jahrhunderts (Weimar: Verlag Datenbank für Geisteswissenschaften, 2004). Hersche, P., Muße und Verschwendung. Europäische Gesellschaft und Kultur im Barockzeitalter (2 vol.; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2006). Hersche, P., “Wie modern ist der Barockkatholizismus?”, in P. Walter/G. Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563–2013) (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 163; Münster: Aschendorff, 2016) 489–518. Hubensteiner, B., Vom Geist des Barock. Kultur und Frömmigkeit im alten Bayern (Munich: Süddeutscher Verlag, 1978). Holzem, A., “Katholische Konfessionskultur im Westfalen der Frühen Neuzeit. Glaubenswissen und Glaubenspraxis in agrarischen Lebens- und Erfahrungsräumen”, Westfälische Forschungen: Zeitschrift des Westfälischen Instituts für Regionalgeschichte des Landschaftsverbandes Westfalen-Lippe 56 (2006) 65–87. Jedin, H., “Das Bischofsideal der Katholischen Reformation. Eine Studie über die Bischofsspiegel vornehmlich des 16. Jahrhunderts”, in Jedin, Kirche des Glaubens – Kirche der Geschichte. Ausgewählte Aufsätze und Vorträge, vol. 2: Konzil und Kirchenreform (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1966) 75–117. Jedin, H., Das Konzil von Trient. Ein Überblick über die Erforschung seiner Geschichte (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1948). Jedin, H., “Entstehung und Tragweite des Trienter Dekrets über die Bildverehrung”, in Jedin, Kirche des Glaubens – Kirche der Geschichte. Ausgewählte Aufsätze und Vorträge, vol. 2: Konzil und Kirchenreform (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1966) 460–98. Jedin, H., “Nuntiaturberichte und Durchführung des Konzils von Trient”, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 53 (1973) 180–213. Jedin, H., “Papst und Konzil. Ihre Beziehung vor, auf und nach dem Trienter Konzil”, in Jedin, Kirche des Glaubens – Kirche der Geschichte. Ausgewählte Aufsätze und Vorträge, vol. 2: Konzil und Kirchenreform (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1966) 429–40. Kainulainen, J., Paolo Sarpi: A Servant of God and State (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions 180; Leiden: Brill, 2014). Kaufmann, Th., “Einleitung: Transkonfessionalität, Interkonfessionalität, binnenkonfessionelle Pluralität – Neue Forschungen zur Konfessionalisierungsthese”, in K. von Greyerz/M. Jakubowski-Tiessen/Th. Kaufmann (ed.), Interkonfessionalität – Transkonfessionalität – binnenkonfessionelle Pluralität. Neue Forschungen zur Konfessionalisierungsthese (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2003) 9–15. Kaufmann, Th./Schubert, A./Greyerz, K. von (ed.), Frühneuzeitliche Konfessionskulturen (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2008). Kaufmann, Th., Geschichte der Reformation (Verlag der Weltreligionen; Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, 2009). Kaufmann, Th., Konfession und Kultur. Lutherischer Protestantismus in der zweiten Hälfte des Reformationsjahrhunderts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Klauser, Th., Kleine Abendländische Liturgiegeschichte (Bonn: Hanstein, 1944).

96

Günther Wassilowsky

Koch, K., “Wahrnehmung und Bedeutung des Tridentinums in Theologie und ökumenischem Dialog der Gegenwart”, in P. Walter/G. Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563–2013) (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 163; Münster: Aschendorff, 2016) 37–50. Kranemann, B., “Liturgiereform nach Trient. Dynamiken eines Erneuerungsprozesses”, in P. Walter/G. Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563–2013) (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 163; Münster: Aschendorff, 2016) 303–34. Leinsle, U.G., “Humanismus und Thomismus auf dem Konzil von Trient”, in P. Walter/G. Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563– 2013) (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 163; Münster: Aschendorff, 2016) 125–40. Leppin, V./Wien, U.A. (ed.), Konfessionsbildung und Konfessionskultur in Siebenbürgen in der Frühen Neuzeit (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2005). Leppin, V., “Spätmittelalterliche Theologie und biblische Korrektur im Rechtfertigungsdekret von Trient”, in P. Walter/G. Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563–2013) (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 163; Münster: Aschendorff, 2016) 167–84. Maissen, Th., “Konfessionskulturen in der frühneuzeitlichen Eidgenossenschaft. Eine Einführung”, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Religions- und Kulturgeschichte 101 (2007) 225–46. Molitor, H., “Die untridentinische Reform. Anfänge katholischer Erneuerung in der Reichskirche”, in W. Brandmüller et al. (ed.), Ecclesia militans. Studien zur Konzilienund Reformationsgeschichte (FS Remigius Bäumer; Paderborn: Schöningh, 1988) 1.399– 431. Mozzarelli C./Zardin D. (ed.), I tempi del concilio. Religione, cultura e società nell’Europa tridentina (Biblioteca del Cinquecento 79; Rome: Bulzoni, 1997). Mumm, R., Die Polemik des Martin Chemnitz gegen das Konzil von Trient. Erster Teil, mit einem Verzeichnis der gegen das Konzil gerichteten Schriften (Naumburg: Lippert des Rauhen Hauses, 1905). Münkler, H., Die Deutschen und ihre Mythen (Berlin: Rowohlt, 2009). O’Malley, J.W., “The Council of Trent: Myths, Misunderstandings, and Misinformation”, in Th.M. Lucas (ed.), Spirit – Style – Story: Essays honoring John W. Padberg, S.J. (Chicago, IL: Loyola Press, 2002) 205–26. Pancheri, R., Il concilio di Trento. Storia di un’immagine (Temi di storia dell’arte 1; Trent: Tipografia Editrice Temi, 2012). Pancheri, R., “Il concilio di Trento: storia di un’immagine”, in R. Pancheri/D. Primerano (ed.), L’uomo del Concilio. Il cardinale Giovanni Morone tra Roma e Trento nell’età di Michelangelo (Museo Diocesano Tridentino, Trent 4 aprile – 26 luglio 2009) (Trento: Tipografia Editrice Temi, 2009) 103–49. Pancheri, R./Primerano, D. (ed.), L’uomo del Concilio. Il cardinale Giovanni Morone tra Roma e Trento nell’età di Michelangelo (Museo Diocesano Tridentino, Trento 4 aprile – 26 luglio 2009) (Trent: Tipografia Editrice Temi, 2009). Piepkorn, A.C., “Martin Chemnitz’ Views on Trent: The Genesis and the Genius of the Examen Concilii Tridentini”, Concordia Theological Monthly 37 (1966) 5–37.

The Myths of the Council of Trent and the Construction of Catholic Confessional Culture 97

Prodi, P., Il paradigma tridentino. Un’epoca della storia della Chiesa (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2010). Prosperi, A., Il Concilio di Trento: una introduzione storica (Turin: Einaudi, 2001). Reinhard, W., “Das Konzil von Trient und die Modernisierung der Kirche. Einführung”, in P. Prodi/W. Reinhard (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die Moderne (Schriften des Italienisch-Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Trient 16; Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2001) 23–42. Reinhard, W./Schilling, H. (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung. Wissenschaftliches Symposium der Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus Catholicorum und des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 1993 (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 198; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus/Münster: Aschendorff, 1995). Reinhard, W., “Was ist katholische Konfessionalisierung?”, in W. Reinhard/H. Schilling (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung. Wissenschaftliches Symposium der Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus Catholicorum und des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 1993 (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 198; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus/Münster: Aschendorff, 1995) 419–55. Romeo, G., “La congregazione dei vescovi e i visitatori apostolici nell’Italia post-tridentina: Un primo bilancio”, in M. Sangalli (ed.), Per il Cinquecento religioso italiano. Clero, cultura, società (Rome: Edizione dell’Ateneo, 2003) 2.607–114. Sangalli, M. (ed.), Chiese chierici sacerdoti. Clero e seminari in Italia tra XVI e XX secolo (Rome: Herder, 2000). Sieben, H.J., Konzilsdarstellungen – Konzilsvorstellungen. 1000 Jahre Konzilsikonographie aus Handschriften und Druckwerken (Würzburg: Echter, 1990). Soen, V., “Chronique: Conference Report Das Konzil von Trient und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563–2013), Freiburg, 18–21 September 2013”, Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 108 (2013) 1431–4. Stollberg-Rilinger, B., “Einleitung”, in A. Pietsch/B. Stollberg-Rilinger (ed.), Konfessionelle Ambiguität. Uneindeutigkeit und Verstellung als religiöse Praxis in der Frühen Neuzeit (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 214; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2013) 9–26. Walter, P., “Das Konzil von Trient als theologisches Ereignis”, in P. Walter, Syngrammata. Gesammelte Schriften zu Humanismus und Katholischer Reform, G. Wassilowsky (ed.) (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte. Supplementband 6; Münster: Aschendorff, 2015). Walter, P./Wassilowsky, G. (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563–2013) (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 163; Münster: Aschendorff, 2016). Wassilowsky, G., “Katholizismus”, Enzyklopädie der Neuzeit 6 (2007) 467–73. Wassilowsky, G., “Posttridentinische Reform und päpstliche Zentralisierung. Zur Rolle der Konzilskongregation”, in A. Merkt/G. Wassilowsky/G. Wurst (ed.), Reformen in der Kirche. Historische Perspektiven (Quaestiones Disputatae 260; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2014) 138–57. Wassilowsky, G., “Symbolereignis Konzil. Zum Verhältnis symbolischer und diskursiver Konstituierung kirchlicher Ordnung”, in B. Schmidt/H. Wolf (ed.), Ekklesiologische Alternativen? Monarchischer Papat und Formen kollegialer Kirchenleitung (15.–

98

Günther Wassilowsky

20. Jahrhundert) (Symbolische Kommunikation und gesellschaftliche Wertesysteme. Schriftenreihe des Sonderforschungsbereichs 496, 42; Münster: Rhema, 2013) 37–53. Wassilowsky, G., “Trient”, in Ch. Markschies/H. Wolf (ed.), Erinnerungsorte des Christentums (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2010) 395–412. Wassilowsky, G., “‘Wo die Messe fellet, so ligt das Bapstum’. Zur Kultur päpstlicher Repräsentation in der Frühen Neuzeit”, in B. Emich/Ch. Wieland (ed.), Kulturgeschichte des frühneuzeitlichen Papsttums (Zeitschrift für historische Forschung. Beiheft 48; Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2013) 219–47. Weisbach, W., Der Barock als Kunst der Gegenreformation (Berlin: Cassierer, 1921). Wendebourg, D., “Die Ekklesiologie des Konzils von Trient”, in W. Reinhard/H. Schilling (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung. Wissenschaftliches Symposium der Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus Catholicorum und des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 1993 (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 198; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus/Münster: Aschendorff, 1995) 70–87. Wiesner, C., “‘Weide seine Lämmer’. Zu Umsetzung und Verortung der Residenzpflicht zwischen Mikropolitik und Seelenheil an der posttridentinischen Kurie”, in P. Walter/G. Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563– 2013) (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 163; Münster: Aschendorff, 2016) 221–54. Wolf, H., “‘… ein Rohrstengel statt des Szepters verlorener Landesherrlichkeit …’ Die Entstehung eines neuen Rom- bzw. Papstorientierten Bischofstyps”, in R. Decot (ed.), Kontinuität und Innovation um 1803. Säkularisation als Transformationsprozess. Kirche – Theologie – Kultur – Staat (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte. Beiheft 65; Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2005) 109–34. Zitzlsperger, Ph., “Trient und die Kraft der Bilder. Überlegungen zur virtus der Gnadenbilder”, in P. Walter/G. Wassilowsky (ed.), Das Konzil von Trient und die katholische Konfessionskultur (1563–2013) (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte 163; Münster: Aschendorff, 2016) 335–73.

Trent, the Bible, and Liturgy

Els Agten/Wim François

The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bible Reading: What Happened in the Build-Up to and during the Fourth Session (1546)?

The question of whether the faithful were allowed to read the Bible in the vernacular, arose in the late medieval and early modern Catholic Church regularly, often giving rise to fierce debates. At the Council of Trent, this question was discussed in the build-up to Session 4 in the spring of 1546. Given the fact that no uniform legislation or customs existed in the Catholic Church – only diverse local traditions existed – the Council fathers were not able to reach an agreement on the matter, so that any decision regarding vernacular Bibles continued to be in the hands of the local authorities. Our essay consists of two parts. First, we will give an overview of the various positions regarding Bible reading in the vernacular that existed in diverse regions in late medieval Europe and that, inevitably, influenced the attitude the Catholic authorities adopted towards the ‘new’ – often Reformation-minded – translations that were edited on the eve of Trent. Secondly, we will show how these diverse positions resounded through the debates regarding vernacular Bible reading that took place in the build-up to Session 4 of the Council of Trent, and more particularly in the period between 1 March 1546 and 8 April 1546. In this regard, attention will be paid to the most important proponents and adversaries of this Bible reading as well as to the arguments they used in this debate.

I.

Regional Traditions relating to Vernacular Bible Reading on the Eve of Trent

One of the most persistent myths about the late medieval and early modern Catholic Church is that it had straightforwardly prohibited the reading of the Bible in the vernacular1 and that it was Luther who had made the Scriptures 1 It should, however, be observed that, in comparison with the contemporary conception of the Bible as a closed collection of canonical books, the Middle Ages leave us with a broader understanding about what the notion ‘Bible’ might include: in addition to pandects or complete Bibles, copies of the New Testament, as well as of separate books (the Gospels, the

102

Els Agten/Wim François

accessible to the common people for the very first time. The statement, which can at least partially be traced back to the reformer of Wittenberg himself, has also ‘enjoyed’ a considerable reception among scholars for generations. It even belongs to the ‘myths of origin’ of European Protestantism; the kind of myths that were to be found on all sides of the confessional spectrum and contributed largely to the construction of distinctive identities in the confessional era, as Günther Wassilowsky has argued rightly elsewhere in this volume. Recent scholarship by Andrew C. Gow, Sabrina Corbellini (and her Groningen research group) has made considerable efforts to disprove the myth,2 so that it now may be obvious that on the eve of the Council of Trent, there was no unequivocal policy in the Catholic Church regarding Bible reading in the vernacular – let alone an outright ban –, but that, instead, only local traditions existed which were often very diverse.3 The general picture is that in regions in which the Church was confronted with other sets of beliefs or had to challenge ‘heterodox’ movements, the authorities issued edicts with the general intention of stemming the tide of the production and reading of Bible translations in the vernacular. The reason was, after all, that an uncontrolled reading of the Bible may easily give rise to erroneous and even heretical interpretations. The censorship measures did have effects in some areas of late medieval Europe – as the history of censorship has particularly emphasized4 – but were not able to quell the people’s appetite for Bible reading in Apocalypse etc.), also biblical material that was ordered according to the liturgical practice of the Church (Psalms, Epistle and Gospel readings from Mass, sometimes accompanied with short explanations) is meant. Apart from what we consider as Bibles in the strict sense of the word, also Bible–based material is often taken into consideration, such as Gospel harmonies, Lives of Jesus and postils in which the extensive explanations and glosses to the biblical text take the overhand. 2 A.C. Gow, “Challenging the Protestant Paradigm: Bible Reading in Lay and Urban Contexts of the Later Middle Ages”, in T.J. Heffernan/T. Burman (ed.), Scripture and Pluralism. Reading the Bible in the Religiously Plural Worlds of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 123; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 161–91; A.C. Gow, “The Contested History of a Book: The German Bible of the Later Middle Ages and Reformation in Legend, Ideology, and Scholarship”, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 9 (2009) 2–37; S. Corbellini/M. van Duijn/S. Folkerts/M. Hoogvliet, “Challenging the Paradigms: Holy Writ and Lay Readers in Late Medieval Europe”, Church History and Religious Culture 93 (2013) 171–88. 3 A fuller account of the subsequent overview is published in W. François, “Vernacular Bible Reading in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. The ‘Catholic’ Position Revisited”, The Catholic Historical Review 102/1 (2018) 23–56. 4 P. Hofmeister, “Bibellesen und Bibelverbot”, Österreichisches Archiv für Kirchenrecht 17 (1966) 298–355, on pp. 313–28; R.E. Lerner, “Les communautés hérétiques”, in P. Riché/G. Lobrichon (ed.), Le Moyen Âge et la Bible (Bible de tous les temps 4; Paris: Beauchesne, 1984) 597–614; K. Schreiner, “Volkstümliche Bibelmagie und volkssprachliche Bibellektüre. Theologische und soziale Probleme mittelalterlicher Laienfrömmigkeit”, in P. Dinzelbacher/D.R. Bauer (ed.), Volksreligion in hohen und späten Mittelalter (Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiet der Geschichte, N. F. 13; Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1990) 329–73, on pp. 360–4; P.-M.

The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bible Reading

103

other areas. The Iberian Peninsula was most probably among the regions in which prohibitory measures against vernacular Bible editions had been most successfully implemented. Being a multicultural area in the late Middle Ages, with vernacular Bibles being used by all Jewish and Christians groups present there, the Iberian Peninsula saw its re-catholicization and confessional unification accompanied by a harsh oppression and even destruction of copies of the Bible.5 This policy culminated in a strict prohibition of vernacular Bibles, probably issued by the Inquisition in 1492 with the consent of the so-called Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella. The prohibition was intended on preventing Jews and conversos from continuing their Jewish worship clandestinely, from interpreting the Scriptures according to their former Hebrew traditions and, thus, from secretly initiating their children in the Mosaic Law. The Emperor Charles V and his Spanish administration continued the same restrictive Bible policy in order to keep the upcoming Protestantism on a tight rein. Some editions containing the Epistle and Gospel readings from Mass were, however, allowed. In England, vernacular translations of (parts of) the Bible freely circulated, until the authorities saw themselves confronted with the Bible-based ‘heresy’ of John Wycliffe and the Lollards, as well as the vernacular translations that found their origin in that group.6 Through the Oxford Constitutions, issued in the wake Bogaert, “La Bible française au Moyen Âge. Des premières traductions aux débuts de l’imprimerie”, in Bogaert (ed.), Histoire illustrée du Moyen Âge à nos jours (Turnhout: Brepols, 1991) 13–46, on pp. 41–3; M.-E. Henneau/J.-P. Massaut, “Lire la Bible: un privilège, un droit ou un devoir?”, in Homo religiosus. Autour de Jean Delumeau (Paris: Fayard, 1997) 415–24. 5 For a general introduction to Spanish vernacular Bibles, see E.C. Francomano, “Castilian Vernacular Bibles in Iberia, ca. 1250–1500”, in S. Boynton/D.J. Reilly (ed.), The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: Production, Reception, and Performance in Western Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011) 315–37; G. Avenoza, “The Bible in Spanish and Catalan”, in R. Marsden/E.A. Matter (ed.), The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2: From 600 to 1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) 288–306. See also: S. Fernández López, Lectura y prohibición de la Biblia en lengua vulgar: defensores y detractores (León: Universidad, Secretariado de Publicaciones y Medios Audiovisuales, 2003); K. Reinhardt, Die biblischen Autoren Spaniens bis zum Konzil von Trient (Corpus scriptorum sacrorum Hispaniae, Subsidia 7; Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia, 1976). 6 For a general introduction to the vernacular Bible in English, see the overviews by R. Marsden, “The Bible in English”, in Marsden/Matter (ed.), The New Cambridge History of the Bible, 2.217–38, and “The Bible in English in the Middle Ages”, in Boynton/Reilly (ed.), The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 272–95. See also: D. Daniell, The Bible in English: Its History and Influence (New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press, 2003). For a discussion of the Oxford censura and further literature by Mary Dove, Anne Hudson, and others, see K. Gosh, The Wycliffite Heresy: Authority and the Interpretation of Texts (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 45; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 86–111 and E. Poleg, “Wycliffite Bibles as Orthodoxy”, in S. Corbellini (ed.), Cultures of Religious Reading in the Late Middle Ages: Instructing the Soul, Feeding the Spirit and Awakening the Passion (Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy, 25; Turnhout: Brepols, 2013) 71–91.

104

Els Agten/Wim François

of the Oxford Synod of 1407–1409, the authorities forbade any (new) translation of the Bible into English or any other vernacular language without the prior approval of the local bishop or a provincial council. In this case, discussion still prevails as to the degree to which this ban was effectively enforced. There is not only the fact that a large number of manuscripts – over 250 – containing the Wycliffite and Lollard texts are known to have survived in libraries and archives up until today, but also that some of the manuscripts have even been adapted to an orthodox readership, through the removal of Wycliffite prologues and glosses, and the addition of Old Testament readings from Mass. Whatever the case may be, when William Tyndale published his New Testament translation, which was largely tributary to Erasmus’ Latin-Greek New Testament and also based upon Luther’s German translation, in 1526, with a first print in Worms, and subsequent editions in Antwerp, it was immediately affected by the English authorities’ prohibitory measures. In France, the situation is even more complicated.7 In the late Middle Ages, heterodox Bible-based movements, such as Waldensians and even Beguines and Beghards, were active in several parts of France. When Bishop Bertram of Metz complained to Pope Innocent III of the so-called heretical groups thought to be active in his diocese, and who convened, discussed as well as preached from French translations of the Bible – obviously the Waldensians are who were meant – the Pope replied with a renowned letter entitled Cum ex iniuncto (1199), amongst other documents. The Pope did not denounce vernacular Bible reading in itself, but instead opposed secret conventicles in which the Bible was freely discussed, as well the practice of the ministry of preaching without having received any prior ecclesiastical approval. Innocent III’s Cum ex iniuncto has been included among the Decretals of Gregory IX in 1234 and, as such, has become part of the Western Church’s canon law.8 Adversaries of Bible reading in the vernacular would, in the years and centuries which followed, invoke Cum ex iniuncto as an official papal ban on vernacular Bible reading with a general demeanor, although this was never the Pope’s initial intent, nor had it significantly stemmed the tide of the production of vernacular Bibles in France. Large quantities of manuscripts containing (parts of) the Bible were produced, 7 For a general introduction to late medieval and early modern Bible translations in French, see C.R. Sneddon, “The Bible in French”, in Marsden/Matter (ed.), The New Cambridge History of the Bible, 2.251–67; M. Hoogvliet, “Encouraging Lay People to Read the Bible in the French Vernaculars: New Groups of Readers and Textual Communities”, Church History and Religious Culture 93 (2013) 237–72. Important remains also P.-M. Bogaert (ed.), Histoire illustrée du Moyen Âge à nos jours (Turnhout: Brepols, 1991). 8 See in this regard: Decretales Gregorii IX Lib. V Tit. VII De Haereticis c. XII, in Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. 2: Decretalium Collectiones, E. Friedberg (ed.) (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1881), cols. 784–7.

The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bible Reading

105

the Bible Historiale complétée (first decade of the fourteenth century) being the most important one among them and obviously one of the first to be printed. Another Bible-based ‘heresy’, viz. that of John Hus in Bohemia, may have further increased the suspicion of the French clergy and the Paris theologians, towards Bible reading in the vernacular, especially since the historic leader of the Paris Faculty of Theology, Jean Gerson, had witnessed Hus’ ‘heterodox’ standpoints at the Council of Constance (1417) and had become convinced that it was partly due to the idiosyncratic reading of the Bible, which circulated in a manifold of vernacular copies in Bohemia. The Paris theologians eventually came into operation after the advent of biblical humanism and évangélisme in France. In 1527, they condemned Erasmus’ plea for a vernacular Bible – as held in his Paraphrases to the Gospel of Matthew (1522) –, a condemnation that was eventually published in 1531. This pronouncement by the influential theological Faculty of Paris should be considered a landmark in the controversy regarding vernacular Bible reading that raged in the Catholic Church, since it was repeatedly cited by opponents to such reading in the years that followed. In 1525– 26, the theologians backed up by the Parlement de Paris, had also placed a ban on the “new” French vernacular Bibles issued by Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples (which however continued to be printed in Antwerp, with the support of the Louvain theologians).9 The question remains, however, as to how efficacious these prohibitory measures were, especially in those parts of France which fell beyond the Faculty and Parlement’s sphere of influence. The situation in Germany, the Low Countries, and Italy was different since in these regions vernacular Bible translations circulated and were widely read in the late Middle Ages. The spread of vernacular editions, in the wake of the Reformation, was not met with a general prohibition on all vernacular Bibles, but by a selective prohibition of Reformation-minded editions, for which an alternative was often offered in the form of the production of ‘good’ Catholic Bible editions. Building upon a centuries-old manuscript tradition, German Bible texts became available for printing, so that between 1466 and 1522, and thus before the Reformation, about seventy editions containing such books were printed.10 9 For the censorship measures, see W. François, “The Condemnation of Vernacular Bible Reading by the Parisian Theologians (1523–1531)”, in W. François/A. A. den Hollander (ed.), Infant Milk or Hardy Nourishment? The Bible for Lay People and Theologians in the Early Modern Period (BETL 221; Leuven: Peeters, 2009) 111–39. 10 For a general introduction to late medieval and early modern Bible translations in German, see A.C. Gow, “The Bible in Germanic”, in Marsden/Matter (ed.), The New Cambridge History of the Bible, 2.198–216, and the aforementioned essay of Gow, “The Contested History of a Book”; R. Bentzinger, “Zur spätmittelalterlichen deutschen Bibelübersetzung. Versuch eines Überblicks”, in I. Rösler (ed.), “Ik lerde kunst dor lust”. Ältere Sprache und Literatur in Forschung und Lehre (FS Ch. Baufeld; Rostocker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 7; Rostock: Univ., Philos. Fak., 1999) 29–42; also Th. Kaufmann, “Vorreformatorische Laienbibel und

106

Els Agten/Wim François

Eighteen of them were pandects or complete Bibles, the first being the Mentellin Bible of 1466. True, there were efforts to prevent the vernacular Bible from falling into the hands of the uneducated – let alone heretical – people, but none of them were able to effectively impede the interest in vernacular versions of the Scriptures in Germany among clerics, nobles, and literate burghers. When Martin Luther published the first vernacular version of his New Testament in 1522, and his complete Bible in 1534, he not only based himself upon the novel source texts published by Erasmus and other biblical humanists – as has long been emphasized in Protestant historiography –, but could also rely on this centuries-long interest in vernacular Bible reading in the late medieval Germany. The Catholic Church in the Holy Roman Empire did not react by imposing a strict ban on vernacular Bible editions, but by putting ‘good’ Bibles into the people’s hands, viz. Bibles in which confessionally sensitive passages from the Luther Bible had been corrected on the basis of the Vulgate. The best known of these Catholic Korrekturbibeln are the New Testament of Jerome Emser (1527), and the Bibles of John Dietenberger (1534) and John Eck (1537). A similar picture is to be found in the Low Countries.11 Several parts of the Bible, such as History Bibles, Psalters, translations of the New Testament, Gospel harmonies, as well as books containing the Epistles and Gospel readings from Mass, were widespread by the end of the Middle Ages (especially in Dutch, but also in French). Part of the material was printed, beginning with the Delft Bible (1477), which was in fact a Dutch Old Testament version without the Psalms, and which was largely based upon the text of the Herne Bible (made between 1359 and 1384 in the Carthusian monastery of Herne near Brussels). The edition was immediately followed by the supplementary printing of the Epistle and Gospel reformatorische Evangelium”, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 101 (2004) 138–74. Among the manifold of introductions to Luther’s Bible translations, see J.L. Flood, “Martin Luther’s Bible Translation in its German and European Context”, in R. Griffiths (ed.), The Bible in the Renaissance: Essays on Biblical Commentary and Translation in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (St. Andrews studies in Reformation history; Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001) 45–70; V. Leppin, “‘Biblia, das ist die ganze Heilige Schrift deutsch’: Luthers Bibelübersetzung zwischen Sakralität und Profanität”, in J. Rohls/G. Wenz (ed.), Protestantismus und deutsche Literatur (Münchener Theologische Forschungen 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2004) 13– 26 (see there for further literature). 11 For an introduction to the medieval Dutch Bible, see the first part (ed. Y. Desplenter) of P. Gillaerts et al. (ed.), De Bijbel in de Lage Landen: Elf eeuwen van vertalen (Heerenveen: Royal Jongbloed, 2015) 31–202; also S. Volkerts, “Reading the Bible Lessons at Home: Holy Writ and Lay Readers in the Low Countries”, Church History and Religious Culture 93 (2013) 217–37. For the early modern Bible production and censorship, see the second part (ed. W. François) in Gillaerts et al. (ed.), De Bijbel in de Lage Landen, 203–388; also W. François, “Die volkssprachliche Bibel in den Niederlanden des 16. Jahrhunderts. Zwischen Antwerpener Buchdruckern und Löwener Buchzensoren”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 120 (2009) 187–214; A. A. den Hollander, De Nederlandse bijbelvertalingen: Dutch Translations of the Bible 1522– 1545 (Bibliotheca Bibliographica Neerlandica 33; Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1997).

The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bible Reading

107

readings from Mass, as well as by Psalters, which would go through several reprints in Gouda, Utrecht, Delft, and in other towns of the northern regions of the Low Countries. The availability of the texts in printing “and the advantages of high output and low price”12 demonstrably contributed to the further opening up of vernacular biblical material to a lay urban audience. When the first Bible editions appeared in the early modern Low Countries, based upon the text of Erasmus and/or Luther, the authorities did not react with a general ban on vernacular Bibles. What was prohibited by means of edicts, were especially those Bible editions that contained prologues, marginal glosses, summaries above the chapters, and other ‘paratextual’ elements that might influence the interpretation of the reader in a heterodox direction. The discussion of the Bible’s interpretation, which often took place in semi-clandestine gatherings or conventicles, was also forbidden. Just as in Germany, the authorities were keen to provide the population with a trustworthy translation, based upon the Vulgate and devoid of all interpretative glosses. This was, for example, the aim of the Dutch Vorsterman Bible, named after the printer who published this Bible for the first time in 1528 in Antwerp, as well as the French Bible of the humanist Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, which was printed by Martin Lempereur in 1530 in the same town because it was forbidden in Paris. Lefèvre’s New Testament had been published from 1525 onwards and his Old Testament was completed in 1528. Regarding Italy, it may be concluded that biblical texts in the vernacular also played a fairly important role in the devotional life of late medieval burghers, as well as tertiaries of Saint Francis and other (semi-)religious women, especially in Tuscany and in the northern regions.13 In these cases, the Church authorities also had formulated no fundamental objections to the reading of the Bible in the vernacular by lay people. Building upon an important manuscript tradition, the 12 M. van Duijn, “Printing, Public, and Power: Shaping the First Printed Bible in Dutch (1477)”, Church History and Religious Culture 93 (2013) 275–99, on p. 289. 13 For vernacular Bible production and reading in medieval Italy, see L. Leonardi, “The Bible in Italian”, in Marsden/Matter (ed.), The New Cambridge History of the Bible, 2.268–87. Among the manifold of publications of S. Corbellini, see “Looking in the Mirror of the Scriptures: Reading the Bible in Medieval Italy”, in W. François/A. A. Den Hollander (ed.), “Wading Lambs and Swimming Elephants”: The Bible for the Laity and Theologians in Late Medieval and Early Modern Era (BETL 257; Leuven: Peeters, 2012) 21–40; “Reading, Writing and Collecting: Cultural Dynamics and Italian Vernacular Bible Translations”, Church History and Religious Culture 93 (2013) 189–216. For the Early Modern Era, see especially E. Barbieri, “Éditeurs et imprimeurs de la Bible en italien (1471–1600)”, in B.E. Schwarzbach (ed.), La Bible imprimée dans l’Europe moderne (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale de France, 1999) 246– 59; G. Fragnito, La Bibbia al rogo: La censura ecclesiastica e i volgarizzamenti della Scrittura (1471–1605) (Saggi 460; Bologna: Il Mulino, 1997), 23–74; A. Del Col, “Appunti per una indagine sulle traduzioni in volgare della Bibbia nel Cinquecento italiano”, in A. Prosperi/A. Biondi (ed.), Libri, idee e sentimenti religiosi nel Cinquecento italiano: 3–5 aprile 1986 (Modena: Panini, 1987) 165–88.

108

Els Agten/Wim François

Italian Bible translated by the Camaldolese monk Nicolò Malerbi, first edition 1471, went through sixteen printed editions before the Reformation and another eleven would follow, up until 1567. The Reform-minded Florentine layman Antonio Brucioli was the first to publish a New Testament (in 1530) and a complete Bible (in 1532) that were said to be based upon the original Greek and Hebrew. But this did not cause the Catholic Church authorities to subsequently prohibit Bibles. On the contrary, the same mechanism that was observed to be at work in Germany and in the Low Countries also arose in Italy: two Dominicans from the Florentine San Marco monastery provided a Catholic translation, a correction of Brucioli’s translation in fact, viz. Fra Zaccaria of Florence in 1536 (the New Testament only) and Sante Marmochino in 1538 (complete Bible). The presence of Bibles, vernacular and otherwise, has also been attested to in medieval Sicily and other regions of Southern Italy.14 However, in the late Middle Ages Sicily, Sardinia, and the Kingdom of Naples were added to the Aragonese Crown. Ferdinand of Aragon managed to introduce the Spanish Inquisition to Sicily and Sardinia in 1487 and 1492 respectively, something that has never succeeded in the Kingdom of Naples. Bringing this part of Italy into the Spanish religious-cultural sphere may have negatively influenced the Church leaders’ view upon vernacular Bible reading and may have effectively affected the diffusion and reading of vernacular Bibles in this part of Italy, although the question remains to be examined in greater depth. Having sketched the multicolored map of vernacular Bible reading in late medieval and early modern Western Europe on the eve of the Council of Trent, the general picture takes shape that in regions in which the Church had to face other systems of belief, as was the case in Spain, or ‘heresies’, as in Wycliffite England, the ecclesiastical authorities managed to impose prohibitory measures. It is obvious, however, that large amounts of manuscripts containing biblical texts continued to circulate in England, but that the Bible was not printed prior to the Reformation. In France, the picture is even more ambiguous; although the country saw several Bible-based dissident movements or even ‘heresies’ being rampant on its soil (Cathars, Waldensians, heterodox Beguines) Bible translations continued to circulate and were even printed, although the printing press largely limited itself to History Bibles. The existence of these religious dissident movements had made the Paris theologians suspicious towards vernacular Bibles – in the wake of their historic leader Jean Gerson – and they eventually managed to prevent the printing of the ‘new’ vernacular translations made by Lefèvre d’Étaples c.s. in the atmosphere of the French évangélisme. The atmosphere was 14 H. Bresc, Livre et société en Sicile (1299–1499) (Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani. Bollettino. Supplementi 3; Palermo: Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani, 1971), s.v. Biblica and Psalterium.

The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bible Reading

109

very different in (the northern part of) Italy, Germany, the Low Countries, Bohemia – the presence of Bible-based Hussitism notwithstanding – to which Poland and Dalmatia-Croatia should be added.15 In these regions, a tradition of permitting vernacular Bibles or parts of it, to be read by people who did not understand Latin, had existed since the Middle Ages. Even the advent of the Reformation had not led to the prohibition of vernacular Bible translation, but to the production of Catholic translations as an alternative to Reformation-minded versions.

II.

The debate about Vernacular Bible Reading at the Council of Trent (1546)

1

The Council of Trent and the Biblical Question

When the Council fathers gathered in Trent, from December 1545 onwards, they aimed to respond to the challenges that (German) Reformation involved, both by defining the genuine doctrine of the Church and by proclaiming measures for Church reform. Their responsibility for the Catholica as such did not prevent them from being conditioned by the traditions and customs which were peculiar to their local Church or by the politico-religious factions to which they belonged. The Council fathers were convinced that they should first deal with the sources of the faith, upon which all doctrine and reform were to be founded. Since the reformers had proclaimed the Bible as the sole reliable source of theological truth and the faith of the believers, the Council fathers had to discuss issues such as the extent of the biblical canon, the authenticity of the Latin Vulgate and the (lasting) value of other Bible versions – whether in the original language or in the vernacular –, the relation between Scripture and (unwritten) traditions, the norms of interpreting the sacred text and its emendation, as well as the inevitable misinterpretations to which it was liable to give rise. In this context the Council fathers also engaged in ardent debates about Bible reading in the vernacular before Session 4 eventually took place on 8 April 1546.16 15 For the Central- and Eastern-European traditions, see J. Krasˇovec (ed.), The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement series 289; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), especially the contributions by J. Pecˇírková, “Czech Translations of the Bible”, 1167–1200, esp. pp. 1169–79 and 1193–8, and B. Wodecki, “Polish Translations of the Bible”, 1201–33, esp. pp. 1201–8 and 1222–3. 16 For information on Session 4 of the Council: J.W. O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, MA/London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013), 89– 99; H. Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient (4 vol. in 5; Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 1949–75),

110

Els Agten/Wim François

The Fathers, prelates, and theologians in Trent tackled the issues at stake in three types of meetings: general congregations, smaller working groups, and solemn sessions.17 During its first period the work of the Council was overviewed by three Cardinal-legates, namely the canonist Giovanni Maria del Monte (1487– 55), the first in rank and the later Pope Julius III, Marcello Cervini (1501–55), the later Pope Marcellus II, and Reginald Pole (1500–58), who played only a minor role. The general congregations were a venue for discussion and debate between the bishops and superiors of the main orders on the issues that the Council had to face. From January to May 1546, precisely the period when biblical matters were discussed, the general congregations were divided into three particular congregations or classes. Each of these smaller groups was composed of an evenly balanced number of adherents and opponents of the three legates and was chaired by one of them. One of the advantages of this split was that the opposing voices were divided and would not have the same impact as in a general congregation. However, as several Council fathers did not see any advantage to this system, it would eventually be abolished in May 1546.18 In addition to the general and particular congregations, smaller working groups gathered. Very important in this regard were the congregations of (socalled) minor theologians, where professional theologians thoroughly discussed the issues at stake, and in which the bishops were in attendance but, as a rule, remained silent. In addition, there were the deputations, viz. committees that prepared drafts of documents to be discussed in the general congregations, amongst other committees. Finally, the solemn sessions were one-day, formal, and principally ceremonial gatherings that were held in the Saint Vigilius cathedral of Trent. During the sessions, the decrees that had been debated and finalized in the general congregations were read out and received a final approving vote. The Council of Trent went through 25 sessions in total; the fourth took place on 8 April 1546.19 In this part we will show how the Council fathers, when they dealt with Bible reading in the vernacular especially, were largely tributary to the local tradition from which they emerged and the arguments that were brought up in the milieus stated. Considering that the Italians were in the majority and were followed at a considerable distance by the Spaniards, we may already guess what kind of polarization this debate might have caused. Frenchmen and Germans were, at 2.42–82; H. Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, E. Graf (trans.) (2 vol.; London et al.: T. Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1961), vol. 2: The First Sessions at Trent 1545–47, 52–98; P. Hughes, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325–1870 (Garden City, KS: Hanover House, 1961), 301–32. 17 O’Malley, Trent, 77–8 and 84–6. 18 Jedin, Council of Trent, 2.32–3, 53–5, and 114; Jedin, Konzil von Trient, 2.42–3. 19 O’Malley, Trent, 77–8 and 84–6.

The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bible Reading

111

that stage of the conciliar deliberations, largely underrepresented. Showing how the protagonists in the debate were rooted in – often local – traditions and debates that can be traced back to the Middle Ages, but which had been challenged by the upcoming humanism and Reformation, is the aim of the section which follows.

2

The Council of Trent and Bible Reading in the Vernacular

The Council fathers had to tackle a first time the issue of Bible translations in the vernacular20 on 1 March 1546, when they were gathered in their three different classes, and were asked to reflect on the abuses relating to the reading of the Scriptures and to propose possible remedies thereto. The records have been preserved of only one classis, viz. the group chaired by Cardinal Cervini; the records are written by the secretary of the Council Angelo Massarelli. In a preparatory memorandum, to the attention of his classis, Antoine Imbert Filhol (or Filheul), the Archbishop of Aix-en-Provence (r. 1541–50), presented both the favourable and the negative position someone could take toward Bible reading in the vernacular, but explicating his personal position, he proposed to the members of his classis that the Bible should not be printed in the vernacular language, since it was not to be given to all people to read and to interpret the Bible.21 He also immediately brought up the principal argument that was used in pleas against vernacular Bible reading by the laity, especially in the French theological milieu from which he came: when illiterate people, particularly women (“mulierculae”), read the Bible and interpret it according to their own insights they 20 For a general overview of the discussions about (vernacular) Bible translations at the Council of Trent, see amongst others, Fernández López, Lectura y prohibición, 161–78; R. McNally, “The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bibles”, Theological Studies 27 (1966) 204–27, on pp. 212–26; L. Lentner, Volkssprache und Sakralsprache: Geschichte einer Lebensfrage bis zum Ende des Konzils von Trient (Wiener Beiträge zur Theologie 5; Vienna: Herder, 1964), 226–64; F. Cavallera, “La bible en langue vulgaire au Concile de Trente (IVe session)”, in Mélanges Emmanuel Podechard. Études de sciences religieuses offertes pour son éméritat au doyen honoraire de la Faculté de Théologie de Lyon (Lyon: Facultés catholiques, 1945) 37–56; also: W. François, “La Iglesia Católica”, 256–62; V. Coletti, L’éloquence de la chaire. Victoires et défaites du latin entre Moyen Âge et Renaissance (Cerf Histoire; Paris: Cerf, 1987), 199–224; H.A.P. Schmidt, Liturgie et langue vulgaire. Le problème de la langue critique chez les premiers réformateurs et au Concile de Trente (Analecta Gregoriana 53; Rome: Universitas gregoriana, 1950), 81–95; G. Duncker, “La Chiesa e la versione della S. Scrittura in lingua volgare”, Angelicum 24 (1947) 140–67, esp. pp. 147–57; V. Baroni, La contre–Réforme devant la Bible. La question biblique (Lausanne: La Concorde, 1943), 108–17. 21 For the texts of the council diaries, decrees, letters and treatises, see Concilium Tridentinum: Diariorum, actorum, epistularum, tractatuum nova collectio (13 vol.; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1901–2001). This collection of documents will be hereafter referred to as CT with the pertinent editor, volume, page and, if required, lines cited.

112

Els Agten/Wim François

risked falling into errors and even heresies. He argued that it would be better for them to rely on the preaching and the teaching of the clergy, while at the same time contending that the poor quality of the preaching by the clergy should be counted among the abuses that were related to the reading of the Scriptures, an abuse that also needed to be remedied.22 Tommaso Campeggio, Bishop of Feltre, in North-Italian Veneto (r. 1520–64), stood up for a more nuanced standpoint. Although the illiterate and unstable people may distort the meaning of the Scriptures through a faulty interpretation – reference in this regard was made to the classical scriptural argument of 2 Pet 3:16 – the translation and reading of the Scriptures should not, therefore, be counted among the abuses. In order to support his proposition, he invoked the argument that Jerome himself had translated the Mass in the Illyric language with the approval of the Church.23 He also referred to the case of Alexander Alesius (1500–65), a Scottish Lutheran–minded theologian who, actually, had gone against a decree issued by Scottish bishops in that period and had defended in 1533 and 1534 the right of all men to read the Bible. For this reason, he was condemned and banned from Scotland. Campeggio, for his part, seems to presume, mistakenly, that Alesius himself had produced vernacular biblical and/or liturgical texts. Campeggio reasoned that Alesius was not condemned because of his writings as such, but because they contained impious statements, errors, and mistaken interpretations. In order to avoid this, he pleaded for the bishop’s vigilance in watching over the Bible translations’ conformity to the content of the faith.24 However, in addition to Archbishop Filhol, three other bishops counted vernacular translations among the abuses relating to the use of the Bible, viz. Bishop Coriolano Martirano of San Marco (Italy),25 Bishop Giacomo Giacomelli 22 Massarelli Diarium III, S. Merkle (ed.), CT 1, 500 l.12–502 l.12, on pp. 500 l.40–501 l.5: “Nihilominus tamen et forsitan utilius esset quod non imprimeretur in vulgari, quia non omnibus datum est lectura et interpretatio sacri codicis, adeo quod nostra tempestate usque ad mulierculas tenebantur bibliae in vulgari, et forte incidebant in errors pessimos volentes interpretari secundum capita sua et apponere manum ad rem, ad quam docti, qui in eo studio aetatem consumpserunt, reputant se adhuc tenues esse. Sufficiet enim mulieres ipsas et indoctos laicos regi et gubernari secundum praedicationem eis fiendam per doctos in hac re, quibus concessum est praedicare”; Acta. 10. Classes, S. Ehses (ed.), CT 5, 22 l.7–24 l.2. See Fernández López, Lectura y prohibición, 162–3; McNally, “The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bibles”, 208–10; Lentner, Volkssprache und Sakralsprache, 237–8; Cavallera, “La bible en langue vulgaire au Concile de Trente”, 38. 23 Massarelli Diarium III, CT 1, 502 l.38–504 l.12, on p. 503 l.13–14 “Nec etiam abusum habendum censeo, quod sacri libri vernacula lingua legantur …”; Acta. 10. Classes, CT 5, 24 l.29– 25 l.26. 24 Comp. Fernández López, Lectura y prohibición, 163; McNally, “The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bibles”, 210–11; Lentner, Volkssprache und Sakralsprache, 238–9; Cavallera, “La bible en langue vulgaire au Concile de Trente”, 38–9. 25 Massarelli Diarium III, CT 1, 504 l.25–8; Acta. 10. Classes, CT 5, 25 l.31–4.

The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bible Reading

113

of Belcastro (Italy),26 as well as Bishop Diego de Alaba y Esquivel of Astorga (Spain).27 It is striking that both Italian bishops were from Calabria, in the Kingdom of Naples, which was under Spanish rule. As a result of the first discussions in the classes, as well as the subsequent difficulties of arriving at an unambiguous image of the abuses relating to the Bible, the general congregation of 5 March 1546 decided to establish an extraordinary committee, composed of Council fathers and theologians under the presidency of Archbishop Filhol.28 The main tasks of this commission consisted not only of listing and studying the abuses of the Bible but also in coming up with possible remedies as a basis for discussion in the plenary meeting.29 Since the theologians took the lead during this extraordinary committee’s discussions, a wider group of theologians who were accredited to the Council, the so-called theologi minores (in contrast to the bishops or theologi maiores), were invited to develop their standpoint during two subsequent congregations, and held on 8 and 9 March 1546.30 Among the debaters, we focus more in particular upon two skilled theologians, viz. the Spanish Alfonso de Castro and the French Gentian Hervetus, who eloquently defended two completely opposing views. The Franciscan friar Alfonso de Castro (1495–1558), who was attached as a peritus or theologian to Cardinal Pedro Pacheco (1488–1560), the then Bishop of Jaén (Spain), presented his point of view extensively in the congregation of 8 or 9 March 1546. De Castro was a self-professed adversary of Bible translations in the vernacular. Although the text of his address has not been preserved, his negative judgment can be reconstructed on the basis of his famous book Adversus omnes haereses (Against all Heresies), published for the first time in 1534. Whilst residing in Trent, in early 1546, De Castro had re-edited this book in Venice and had the text preceded by a dedication to Cardinal Pacheco.31 It is evident from his 26 Massarelli Diarium III, CT 1, 504 l.37–42; Acta. 10. Classes, CT 5, 25 l.41–3. 27 Massarelli Diarium III, CT 1, 504 l.43–505 l.3; Acta. 10. Classes, CT 5, 25 l.44–26 l.2. 28 The committee consisted of eight Council fathers, namely Antoine Filhol (Aix-en-Provence), Diego de Alaba y Esquivel (Astorga), Juan Fonseca (Castellamare), Marco Vigerio della Rovere (Senigallia), Tommaso Sanfelice (Cava de’ Tirreni), Pietro Bertano (Fano), Cornelio Musso (Bitonto), and Girolamo Seripando (Superior General of the Augustinians). In addition, three theologians were member, namely, Ambrosius Catharinus O.P., Richard of Le Mans O.Min.Conv., and Alfonso de Castro O.F.M. 29 Massarelli Diarium III, CT 1, 509 l.11–30; Acta. 11. Congregatio generalis, CT 5, 27 l.32–28 l.16. See S. Fernández López, Lectura y prohibición, 164; McNally, “The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bibles”, 212; Cavallera, “La bible en langue vulgaire au Concile de Trente”, 39; also Duncker, “La Chiesa”, 149–50. 30 Massarelli Diarium III, CT 1, 510 l.10–511 l.8; Acta. 12. Congregatio theologorum minorum and 13. Congregatio theologorum minorum, CT 5, 28. Comp. Baroni, La Contre-Réforme devant la Bible, 108–9, with a reference to Sarpi. 31 References are to Alfonsus de Castro, Adversus omnes haereses libri quatuordecim (Venice: Ad signum spei, 1546). De Castro resumed the topic in another work from his hand, entitled

114

Els Agten/Wim François

writing that, for De Castro, Bible reading in the vernacular was one of the sources of heresy. De Castro hastened to emphasize that it was not the Bible itself, but its mistaken interpretation, that should be blamed for the origin of heresies. He especially pointed the finger at those people who, without education or background, ventured to interpret the Bible and ran the risk of interpreting its words in an erroneous or even heretical way. For these reasons, and as the Church father Jerome had argued, the Jewish tradition forbade men below thirty years of age from reading the book of Genesis and the Song of Songs.32 A key passage in De Castro’s argumentation was Matt 7:6 – a quotation already read in Cum ex iniuncto and constantly repeated by adversaries of vernacular Bible reading – “Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you” (Douay-Rheims Version, henceforth abbreviated as DRV). The Spanish Franciscan felt no hesitance in denying access to the Bible to those people who were said to live as dogs (the unbelievers and pagan philosophers) or swine (the majority of the commoners). He further praised the initiative of the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella, who were reputed to have forbidden the translation and reading of the Scriptures in the vernacular in Spain.33 In addition to the Spanish prohibitory tradition, De Castro aligned himself with the Paris theologians, bringing vernacular versions also in relation with the rise of dissident groups as the Waldensians or Poor of Lyons, Begards, and ‘Turlupins’.34 The reading and interpretation of the Bible should be reserved, De Castro continued, to those who, as well as their faith, commanded the knowledge necDe iusta haereticorum punitione, published in 1547 in Salamanca, but already approved during the Council in July 1546. It is therefore not inconceivable that he wrote this work during the discussions of Session 4. See especially Fernández López, Lectura y prohibición, 248–65; Lentner, Volkssprache und Sakralsprache, 242–4 and 256–7; Cavallera, “La bible en langue vulgaire au Concile de Trente”, 45–51 and 54–5. Further: E. García Centeno, “Alfonso de Castro y la lectura de la Biblia en lengua vulgar”, Studium Legionense 5 (1964) 161–96; C. Gutiérrez S.J., Espanˇoles en Trento (Corpus Tridentinum Hispanicum 1; Valladolid: CSIC, 1951), 36–51; F. Asensio, “Alfonso de Castro y los decretos tridentinos sobre Sagrada Escritura”, Estudios Eclesiásticos 20 (1946) 63–103. 32 Hieronymus, Comm. in Hezechielem, Prol., F. Glorie (ed.) (CCSL 75; Turnhout: Brepols, 1964), 3 l.24–4 l.30. 33 As mentioned above, the reality in Spain was more complex than this: it was probably the Inquisition, supported by the Catholic Kings, that had promulgated such prohibition, which especially targeted (converted) Jews who might have used vernacular Bibles to continue to clandestinely practice their cult and initiate their children in the Mosaic Law. See Fernández López, Lectura y prohibición, 102–4. 34 De Castro, Adversus omnes haereses, 142–5, on p. 143: “Si ergo ex perversa scripturae intelligentia haeresis oritur, quis facilius in haeresim incidet quam vulgus legens id quod minime intelligere potest?” ‘Turlupins’ and ‘Turlupines’ are a somewhat popular designation for Beguines and Begards, which we found especially in French sources in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, amongst others in works of Jean Gerson.

The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bible Reading

115

essary to gain insight into the Scriptures. He expressly objected to Luther and the Reformers who had argued that the Bible, the New Testament particularly, were clear and intelligible to everyone. As a response to their arguments, De Castro referred to the classical passage, 2 Pet 3:16, in which Peter had claimed that in Paul’s Letters there “are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (DRV). De Castro added that even those skilled in the sacred and profane sciences experienced huge difficulties in the explanation of the Scriptures, regarding the parables and similitudes they contained, the figurative language, as well as the passages that seemingly contradict each other. How much more, then, would the reading and interpretation of the Scriptures be problematic for the simple man, De Castro continued, and in particular for women, whom he said “were so arrogant that it was easier to deter a hundred men from an error than one single woman”?35 De Castro addressed himself to Erasmus in his book Against all Heresies, after having entered into a discussion with Luther and the (other) reformers. The humanist had expressed the desire that the Scriptures be translated into all languages so that they could be read by the farmer, the smith, the mason, and even by women – an allusion to the humanist’s famous introduction to his Paraphrases to the Gospel of Matthew. De Castro did not refrain from stating that the Paris Faculty of Theology had (rightly) condemned this and other utterances of Erasmus’ in favour of vernacular Bible reading, a censure with which De Castro displayed his familiarity. De Castro especially counter-argued against Erasmus that what used to be allowed in the past – as the Church fathers, especially John Chrysostom and Jerome testified – might be considered more harmful in more recent eras, given the advent of heresies.36 On the other side of the spectrum, the French humanist and theologian Gentian Hervetus (1499–1584), who served as a secretary to Cardinal Cervini, held an ardent plea in favour of vernacular Bible reading.37 He argued that God’s 35 De Castro, Adversus omnes haereses, 145–8, on p. 148: “Praecipue cum vulgus non sola lectione sit contentum sed de earum intelligentia etiam disputet, adeo ut de earum intelligentia non vereantur nebulones doctissimos quosque viros ad certamen provocare, cum illisque contendere. Et quod omnibus peius est, non solum haec a viris fiunt, verum etiam a foeminis … adeo proterve, ut facilius centum viros ab errore revoces, quam mulierem unam.” 36 De Castro, Adversus omnes haereses, 148–52, on p. 148: “Is enim quum in pluribus ab eo aeditis libris dixisset se cupere sacras litteras in omnes verti linguas, ut possint legi ab agricola, a fabro, a latomo, a muliere …” Allusion to Desiderius Erasmus, Paraphrases in Matthaeum, in Pio Lectori, J.-F. Cottier/A. Vanautgaerden (ed.) (Notulae Erasmianae 5; Turnhout: Brepols/ Anderlecht: Erasmushuis, 2005), 66 l.133–5. 37 Gentian Hervetus, Oratio, qua suadetur, ut libri sacri in linguam vulgarem transferantur, V. Schweitzer (ed.), CT 12, 530–6. In the edition by Schweitzer, Hervetus’ oration is indistinctively dated in March 1546, but it should have been pronounced in a congregation of minor theologians, either on 8 or 9 March 1546 (see also Duncker, “La Chiesa”, 152–3). A discussion

116

Els Agten/Wim François

revealed Law, the story of the exodus and entrance in the Beloved Land, as well as other sacred histories, were, thanks to Moses’ efforts, communicated to the Hebrew people through a book in a language familiar to them.38 Later, other books had been added to the Old Testament. Hervetus was nevertheless willing to admit that not all of these books could indiscriminately be read by everybody, referring in this regard to the Church fathers and the frequently invoked old Jewish tradition. Since the Jewish people would eventually not recognize their Lord and Messiah – the best example that a book translated into the vernacular was therefore not easily understood – God, in his providence, ordained King Ptolemaeus to charge the Seventy with the Greek translation of the Old Testament, in order to make it accessible to the gentiles.39 Jesus, while on earth, preached the message of the Gospels to everybody without any distinction and did so in a simple and understandable language.40 The apostles too preached the Gospel in the common language and Paul wrote his letters in Greek, understandable to everyone. As a universal language in the Church, Greek had soon been succeeded by Latin, so that the Scriptures were also translated into that language.41 In this way, Hervetus argued, Scripture was spread in the three sacred languages that were also to be found at the top of Jesus’ cross – the inscription at the top of Jesus’ cross being in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin was often invoked in humanist circles as proof of the sanctity of the languages stated. Later, the translation movement continued to extend as Indians, Ethiopians, and Armenians received the Gospels in their own language. Hervetus also alluded to the argument that Jerome had translated the Old Testament into the Dalmatian language – an argument that was historically

38

39

40

41

of the content in: Fernández López, Lectura y prohibición, 177–8; Coletti, L’éloquence de la chaire, 211–14; Lentner, Volkssprache und Sakralsprache, 253–5; Schmidt, “Liturgie et langue vulgaire”, 86–8; Cavallera, “La bible en langue vulgaire”, 52–4. Hervetus, Ut libri sacri in linguam vulgarem transferantur, CT 12, 532 l.3–6: “Et sunt haec quidem omnia ea lingua scripta, quae unicuique e populo aperta et plana fuit. Quae quidem per manus tradita diligentissime in hodiernum usque diem ab Hebreis servatur et intelligitur.” Hervetus, Ut libri sacri in linguam vulgarem transferantur, CT 12, 533 l.7–10: “… sacrorum librorum eloquia, quae, quid futurum et expectandum esse, significant, in eam linguam transferrentur, quae per universum fere terrarum orbem diffusa et propagata erat, nempe graecam. Divinitus itaque inspiratus Ptolemeus ille Philadelphus septuaginta illis evocatis interpretibus…” Hervetus, Ut libri sacri in linguam vulgarem transferantur, CT 12, 533 l.52–534 l.10: “Cum itaque cum vulgo Christus sibi et eloquendum et vivendum esse statuerit, an non eum illa usum esse lingua consentaneum est, quae populo erat frequentissima et familiarissima? … Quae quidem, si a populo olim audiebantur, hoc etiam tempore a populo legenda sunt.” Hervetus, Ut libri sacri in linguam vulgarem transferantur, CT 12, 534 l.24–6: “Postquam autem lingua graeca minus in usu esse cepisset, latina autem per Galliam et Ispaniam et totum denique occidentem propter Romanum, cui suberant, imperium popularis evasisset, in latinam quoque linguam biblia traducta sunt.”

The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bible Reading

117

incorrect and had been launched by Erasmus. As a consequence of this argumentation, thus reasoned Hervetus, all people, including those in the West, should have their own vernacular translation of the Bible at their disposal, also because Latin had become the language of a learned minority.42 Hervetus concluded his plea by responding in a direct and strongly Erasmiantainted way to some of his opponents’ arguments. The French theologian began by protesting against the identification of the illiterate faithful with the dogs and the swine of Matt 7:6 and wondered whether people, whom the Lord had redeemed with his blood, could actually be called swine. Another argument concerned the catechumens, whom he ranked among the auditores who were allowed to listen to the instructions but, not yet initiated, could not take part in the sacraments. Even the pagans could read the Bible and take advantage of it, like in the case of the eunuch who read the writings of Isaiah and was later baptised by Philip (Acts 8:26–40). Next, he replied to the most important argument, namely that heresies originated from the fact that the laity had read and interpreted the Scriptures without fully understanding them. In this regard, he retorted with the argument that most heresies in the Church were to be attributed not to “simple and innocent” people, but to learned bishops and priests who were replete with idle knowledge. In addition, Church leaders had an overwhelming responsibility as they had neglected to pasture the flock, abandoned preaching, and had not led exemplary lives.43 According to Hervetus, the solution to this problem was obvious: the Bible should be translated by pious and learned men and be given to the people as a remedy.44 The polarized discussion within the congregation of the minor theologians led the deputies to draft a text in which vernacular Bible reading was not included 42 Hervetus, Ut libri sacri in linguam vulgarem transferantur, CT 12, 534 l.28–34: “Nihil tamen vetat, quominus scriptura in alias quoque linguas vulgares transferatur … Quodsi unquam in suam cuiusque nationis linguam sacros libros traduci oportuit, id nunc certe in occidentis regionibus est prope necessarium.” 43 Hervetus, Ut libri sacri in linguam vulgarem transferantur, CT 12, 535 l.30–47: “Sin autem et Arriani ab Arrio et Eunomiani ab Eunomio, Montani a Montano, Nestoriani a Nestorio et omnes denique, qui in aliqua heresi fuerunt, ab heresiarchis et denominati et impulsi sunt, ne velimus in simplicem et innocentem plebeculam magna aliorum peccata transferre … pauci admodum episcopi suo officio fungerentur et partim gregem suum non solum non pascerent, sed etiam deglubarent, partim modo populum suis predicationibus et exhortationibus in officio non continerent … ipsi denique nostrae religionis coryphei, qui virtutis exempla vulgo esse debebant, avaritia, ambitione, libidine, teterrimis humani generis pestibus referti et propemodum obruti essent…” 44 Hervetus, Ut libri sacri in linguam vulgarem transferantur, CT 12, 536 l.2–6: “Quod quidem meo certe iudicio tum demum pulchre procedet, si ii sint qui debent antistites, et christianus populus ex ipsis sacris litteris Christum hauriat. Nec est quod quis timeat, ne ulla rerum confusio sequatur et ab apostolo tradita pulcherrima apostolorum prophetarumque ac doctorum distinctio auferatur, si sacrae litterae vulgari lingua tradantur.”

118

Els Agten/Wim François

among the four abuses relating to the use of the Scriptures. In other words, it became clear that the proponents and adversaries of vernacular Bible reading kept each other in equilibrium, so that any hope of reaching an agreement on the matter gradually decreased. The draft text served as the basis for the discussion in the general congregation, of 17 March 1546, in which Archbishop Filhol presented the list of four abuses and their corresponding remedies. The aforementioned Cardinal Pedro Pacheco, a vehement adversary of vernacular Bible reading, immediately expressed his amazement that this practice had not been included in the list of abuses relating to the use of the Scriptures, where it rightly belonged… He found a harsh opponent in the Cardinal Cristoforo Madruzzo, Prince-Bishop of Trent and host of the Council (1512–78) who, at the general congregation of 17 March, held his first plea in favour of vernacular Bible reading.45 This clash of the Titans was simultaneously a clash between two traditions regarding Bible reading in the vernacular, viz. the Spanish rejection and the (Northern-)Italian-German acceptance thereof. During his plea, Madruzzo used as a leitmotif the Apostle Paul’s wish that the Scriptures would never be removed from the people’s mouth (Rom 10:8), to which he added the German custom, which he had become familiar with through his German mother and according to which parents used to teach their children vernacular religious texts such as the Our Father and the Creed, without a scandal ever issuing from that practice. The problems in the Church (of Germany) were, according to Madruzzo not caused by simple people, but by scholars skilled in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.46 Madruzzo, therefore, implored the Council fathers not to include Bible translations in the vernacular as being among the abuses. At that moment the Cardinal Pacheco gave the impression of easing off: he replied that he had himself made no pronouncement as to whether the translation of the Bible into the vernacular was actually to be included among the abuses or not, but that he had only requested that the question be examined, in the light of the Spanish laws that forbade such translation. He even claimed that 45 References to the discussion between Pacheco and Madruzzo on 17 March can be found in Severolus, CT 1, 36–8; Massarelli Diarium II, CT 1, 436; Acta 14. Congregatio generalis, CT 5, 29–31; comp. Pratani Epilogus, S. Merkle (ed), CT 2, 381 l.15–28; Marcello Cervini to Allesandro Farnese, 17 March 1546, G. Buschbell (ed.), CT 10, nr. 337, 421 l.12–25. See Fernández López, Lectura y prohibición, 165–7; McNally, “The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bibles”, 213–14; Lentner, Volkssprache und Sakralsprache, 241–2 and 257–8; Duncker, “La Chiesa”, 153–4; Cavallera, “La bible en langue vulgaire au Concile de Trente”, 41; Baroni, La contre–réforme devant la Bible, 109–10. 46 See Severolus, CT 1, 37 l.45–52; Acta 14. Congregatio generalis, CT 5, 30 l.36–31 l.5: “Scio ego Germana nostra lingua mihi per manus traditam esse orationem Dominicam itemque simbolum fidei et pleraque alia, quae omnes patres familias in tota Germania suis filiis adhuc infantibus docere solent, ex qua institutione nullum unquam scandalum memoria hominum advenit … Non enim haereses et mala semina ab idiotis et maternam tantum linguam scientibus unquam ortae sunt, sed ab iis, qui se eruditos esse professi sunt.”

The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bible Reading

119

Pope Paul II had approved these measures, an allegation that is very difficultly to prove.47 In his turn Madruzzo bluntly replied that Pope Paul and the other Popes might have been mistaken in that regard – by which statement he did not want to express that they had actually been mistaken – but that the Apostle Paul’s instruction that the Gospel would never be removed from our mouth was in, any case, free from error.48 The clash between Pacheco and Madruzzo thoroughly impressed the members of the Council, not least the legates, who must have noticed that a polarization regarding the matter had taken place. Although Del Monte, Pole, and Cervini were initially inclined to meet the question of Pacheco and to include the issue of vernacular Bible translations to be discussed by the classes on 23 March 1546, they finally decided not to do so. On 22 March 1546, the day before the meeting, they sent Massarelli, the Council’s secretary, to Cardinal Pacheco in order to explain why they had decided to drop the case, invoking three arguments in this regard.49 First, some newly arrived prelates, unaware of the intimate friendship between Pacheco and Madruzzo, were said to be scandalised by their short-tempered dispute. The legates feared that, if the debate was reopened, the deep antagonism would inevitably manifest itself again. Second, the polarization may sweep through the ranks of the other Council fathers, given that most of them had well pronounced standpoints in one or another direction and would not be prepared to make concessions. Eventually, a schism might even occur (“forsan schisma oriatur”). Third, Massarelli argued that the Council should be wary of only promulgating those measures that met with the general approval of the Christian faithful. In other words, it was most unlikely that an explicit prohibition or permission of vernacular Bible reading would receive the consent of all ‘provinces’ of Christianity: And, would the realms of the Spanish lands and France ever receive the Sacred Books translated in the vernacular? Surely not, since this translation has been prohibited by royal edicts under the threat of severe punishments, so that these people would have led themselves more by the secular power than by any conciliar permission. Moreover, the people in this area have long since learned through experience what kind of scandal, damage, impiousness, and evil such translation has brought in their realms. And would the Germans, Italians, Polish, and other nations be prepared to accept a negative de-

47 Severolus, CT 1, 38 l.1–3; Acta 14. Congregatio generalis, CT 5, 31 l.9–11. Comp. Fernández López, Lectura y prohibición, 102–4. 48 Severolus, CT 1, 38 l.4–7; Acta 14. Congregatio generalis, CT 5, 31 l.12–15. 49 Massarelli Diarium III, CT 1, 518 l.36–519 l.20. See Fernández López, Lectura y prohibición, 168–9; McNally, “The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bibles”, 216; Schmidt, Liturgie et langue vulgaire, 90–1; Cavallera, “La bible en langue vulgaire au Concile de Trente”, 41–2; also Jedin, Konzil von Trient, 2.58.

120

Els Agten/Wim François

cision? Surely not, since, by contrast, they have seen in several parts of their reign what kind of edification and instruction may result from such a version.50

Therefore, the legates judged it preferable that every individual nation could continue to observe its own local customs regarding vernacular Bible reading. It could be permitted where positive effects were to be expected and it could be prohibited where it might inflect damage. However, Pacheco was not willing to drop the issue of vernacular Bible reading and reacted to the threefold consideration of the legates, as worded by Massarelli.51 First, newly arrived prelates would soon become aware of the real friendship between him and Madruzzo. Moreover, this friendship did not prevent the two bishops from defending their own opinion. Second, Pacheco was convinced that the so-called disagreement regarding vernacular Bible reading between the various regions and countries was not so marked as generally accepted, insinuating that the majority were in favour of a prohibition. In this regard he emphasized that prelates coming from Spain and France opposed the practice, as did a majority of the Italians – we may remember that the Kingdom of Naples, Sardinia, and Sicily were under Spanish rule, and that the Spanish Inquisition was active in Sardinia and Sicily. Therefore, he considered it incomprehensible that the issue was to be removed from the agenda altogether. To the opposition of Spaniards and Frenchmen against vernacular Bible reading, Pacheco added the condemnation that the Faculty of Theology of Paris had issued which, given the institution’s authority, could leave nobody indifferent. If the Council had difficulties pronouncing itself upon the issue, it should leave the question to the Pope, and this is how Pacheco concluded. Third, concerning the lack of general support of conciliar decisions, as was feared, Pacheco guaranteed that Spain would respectfully accept these decisions and that he had no reasons to assume that this would not be the case elsewhere. He nevertheless proposed a compromise by allowing the diverse nations the opportunity to act according to the local circumstances and to determine which books were eligible for translations and which were not. He remained convinced that even adherents of vernacular Bible 50 “Hispaniarum enim Galliaeque regna anne recipient unquam sacros libros verti in linguam vernaculam? Certe non, tum quia regiis edictis adeo id prohibitum sub gravissimis poenis est, quod magis saecularem potentiam, quam permissionem concilii pertimescent, tum etiam, quod iam diu experientia didicerunt, quantum scandali, damni, impietatis et mali versio huiusmodi in illis regnis attulit. Anne vero Germani, Itali, Poloni et reliquae nationes negativam suscipient? Certe etiam non, cum e converso in plurimis locis harum nationum aedificationem instructionemque dictam versionem afferre perspexerunt” (Massarelli Diarium III, CT 1, 519 l.10–17). 51 Massarelli Diarium III, CT 1, 519 l.21–520 l.43. See Fernández López, Lectura y prohibición, 169–71; McNally, “The Council of Trent”, 216–18; Jedin, Konzil von Trient, 2.58–9; Schmidt, Liturgie et langue vulgaire, 91–2; Duncker, “La Chiesa”, 154–5; Cavallera, “La Bible en langue vulgaire”, 42–3; Baroni, La contre-réforme devant la Bible, 111–12.

The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bible Reading

121

reading would never allow rude commoners and simple women to have access to those Bible books which even scholars and experienced theologians found difficult to understand, like the Apocalypse, the Letters of Paul (especially that to the Romans) or Ezekiel for instance. Inversely, those who were generally suspicious of vernacular Bible reading would, however, never oppose the translation of Proverbs, Psalms, and Acts of the Apostles, which were among the books that were more easily understood. Pacheco’s discontentment notwithstanding, on the morning of 23 March 1546 the legates renounced definitively the idea of including the question of vernacular Bible reading into the discussion of the classes that very day.52 The debates mainly dealt with the relation between Scripture and tradition(s). When the abuses regarding the Scriptures were brought up, Cardinal Cervini held the reins tightly so that elaborations on not-programmed questions were reduced to a minimum, the attempts of the Spaniards notwithstanding, and especially of Bishop Diego de Alaba y Esquivel of Astorga to include the issue of vernacular Bible translations in the text about the abuses.53 It was eventually concluded that the extraordinary committee, which had been composed on 5 March, would prepare a draft decree about the abuses of the Bible and would submit it to the subsequent general congregation.54 This general congregation convened on 1 April 1546 under the presidency of Cardinal Del Monte.55 Apart from some issues regarding Scriptures and tradition(s), it dealt with the abuses relating to the Scriptures on the basis of the scheme that had been prepared by the extraordinary committee. In contrast to Madruzzo, Pacheco was not satisfied with the work of the committee and continued to speak out on the issue that vernacular Bible reading had not been included in the document on the abuses. His proposal was that, after having approved the Vulgate, the Council fathers would reject all other Bible versions (including the Septuagint) and would explicitly condemn all translations that had been made by heretics.56 Bishop Pietro Bertano of Fano (Marche, Italy; 1501–58), one of the referees of the Council fathers regarding biblical matters, reacted on 52 Massarelli Diarium III, CT 1, 521–8, on 528 l.7–10; comp. Acta. 16. Classis cardinalis S. Crucis, CT 5–III, 32–8. See McNally, “The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bibles”, 218–19; Cavallera, “La bible en langue vulgaire au Concile de Trente”, 43. 53 Hercules Severolus to Bernardino Maffei, 24 March 1546, CT 10, nr. 346, 429 l.31–7. Hercules Severoli astonishingly notices that only the Spaniards opposed Bible reading in the vernacular, but that the Italians and Frenchmen disagreed with that blunt rejection. Severolus’ letter does not correspond with the other conciliar documents. 54 Massarelli Diarium III, CT 1–II, 528 l.1–2. 55 Severolus, CT 1–II, 40–2; comp. Acta. 20. Congregatio generalis de libris canonicis, CT 5–III, 42–51, on pp. 50 l.22–51 l. 28. See McNally, “The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bibles”, 219–20. 56 Severolus, CT 1–II, 41 l.48–42 l.2 and 42 l.17–18.

122

Els Agten/Wim François

behalf of the extraordinary committee and affirmed that he did not consider it to be an abuse that several versions of the Bible circulated, since the practice was tolerated since the most ancient times of the Church. He deemed it, however, to be an abuse that several translations may be regarded as authentic and be used in public disputations, explications, and preaching. Therefore, he agreed to proclaim the Vulgate as the only authentic version of the Church. At that moment, Bertano made his famous statement that Bible versions made by the heretics should not automatically be rejected, especially since the practice of the ancient Church imposed this attitude. In this regard he referred to Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, who were ‘heretics’, but whose Greek Bible translations were not rejected by the Church (viz. included in Origen’s Hexapla).57 It was most probably during this general congregation, on 1 April 1546, that Cardinal Madruzzo held an even fiercer plea in favour of vernacular Bible reading than he had done two weeks previously.58 In the first part of his plea he cited several scriptural proof texts, such as 2 Tim 3:16–17, in which it was written that the entire Scripture was given to man for his instruction, guidance, correction, and education in justice. In the light of this and other texts, he asked why the vernacular translations of the Bible should be kept out of the hands of simple people, thus giving food to the Protestants who would not hesitate to blame the Council for such a prohibition insinuating that this was done out of fear that knowledge of the Gospels would unveil (so-called) Roman falsity and fraud.59 Building on another, widespread, biblical motif, Madruzzo also inquired why simple people should not have any access to the milk, viz. the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, by which they might be fed and grow in Christ (1 Cor 3:2 and Heb 5:12–14).60 Another pressing question the Cardinal brought to the fore was whether the Council fathers would go so far as to identify the laity with the dogs to 57 Severolus, CT 1–II, 42 l.3–16. 58 C. Madrutius, De vertendis libris sacris in linguam vulgarem, CT 12, 528–30. Schweitzer approximately dates Madruzzo’s oration “March 1546”, possibly confusing with Madruzzo’s earlier intervention of 17 March. A translation of the intervention of Madruzzo can be found in Coletti, L’éloquence de la chaire, 206–10. Also A. Tallon, Le concile de Trente (Paris: Cerf, 2000), 105–9: “cette traduction [de Coletti], visiblement faite à partir d’une traduction précédente en italien, présente de nombreuses erreurs que j’ai corrigées à partir du texte original.” Also: Fernández López, Lectura y prohibición, 172–4; McNally, “Trent and Vernacular Bibles”, 220–1; Lentner, Volkssprache und Sakralsprache, 248–52; Schmidt, Liturgie et langue vulgaire, 88–9; Cavallera, “La Bible en langue vulgaire”, 51–2. 59 Madrutius, De vertendis libris sacris in linguam vulgarem, CT 12, 528 l.30–8: “Cur, obsecro, populo plebique christianae volumus eripere hanc vulgarium scripturarum paene de manibus et extorquere? Numquid, ut demus ansam adversariis nostris Protestantibus dicendi, sanctam et venerabilem synodum hanc temere et crudeliter abstulisse simplicis christianis sitientibus … nempe evangelium … ne scilicet ex cognitione divinarum scripturarum patefaciant nostrae (ut ipsi vocant) imposturae et fraudes…” 60 Madrutius, De vertendis libris sacris in linguam vulgarem, CT 12, 529 l.2–3.

The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bible Reading

123

which what is Holy should not be given or with the swine before which pearls should not be cast (Matt 7:6). In his view, they should instead be considered as God’s adoptive children, whom Christ had also redeemed by the precious gift of his blood.61 After considering a few biblical passages that could sustain his argument, the Cardinal further dealt with some current motives that were invoked to deny the laity the benefits of the Scriptures. In this regard, he referred to the ancient heresy of the “Poor of Lyons” that was said to have been rooted in the popular Bible. But, so Madruzzo replied, Arius, Novatus, Sabellius, Cerinthus, Novatian, Paul of Samosate, Photinus, Eunomius, and the complete phalanx of ancient heretics were scholars and were skilled in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Also in their own time, Luther, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Melanchthon, Bucer, and others were remarkably competent in the three languages. Madruzzo, therefore, asked the rhetorical question of whether Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Bibles should also be abolished in order to root out heresies … and: should the reading of Paul’s Letters be prohibited, since Peter had predicted that from its reading heresies may originate (an allusion to 2 Pet 3:16)? Comparably, should all vernacular Bible versions be abolished because at times scandals had arisen from these versions?62 Madruzzo further stated that Paul had already resolved the question of vernacular Bible translations in 1 Cor 14:8–9, in which he had affirmed that the Gospels needed to be heard and understood, which immediately implied that it should be communicated in a comprehensible language. Moreover, for these reasons, the former generations had allowed the Dalmatians to celebrate their ceremonies and rites in the Illyrian language, their mother tongue. Consequently, the Cardinal returned to his point of departure, which was the very classical argument that erudition and knowledge of the doctrine of faith had produced more heresies than simplicity and ignorance.63 Madruzzo let himself go by giving, in a lyrical way, a speech about the benefices of vernacular Bible reading, which McNally had called “a high-water mark in the history of the Bible in the Catholic Church”.64 Madruzzo also deemed it to be 61 Madrutius, De vertendis libris sacris in linguam vulgarem, CT 12, 529 l.6–10: “Absit, ut … adoptati in eius filios, … ut illi, inquam, quos Christus … pretio magno sui sanguinis redemit, canes nobis sint aut dicantur et sues…” 62 Madrutius, De vertendis libris sacris in linguam vulgarem, CT 12, 529 l.21–4: “Num, quia quandoque ex vulgaribus Bibliis, quemadmodum frequenter ex graecis etiam ac latinis, scandala orta sunt, concerpenda aut comburenda sunt verba vitae aeternae, quae nobis spiritum et vitam loquuntur?” 63 Madrutius, De vertendis libris sacris in linguam vulgarem, CT 12, 529 l.35–8: “Prefecto, amplissimi Patres, plures haereses (ut ex historiis et conciliis compertum habemus et ipsa etiam tempora nostra loquuntur) peperit nobis eruditio et doctrina quam simplicitas et ignorantia idiotarum; nunquam tamen aut interdicta est eruditio, aut damnata doctrina…” 64 McNally, “Trent and Vernacular Bibles”, 221. See e. g. Madrutius, De vertendis libris sacris in

124

Els Agten/Wim François

very beneficial that the old catechisms be re-edited, so that Christian children would not be fed by obscene tales of poets, or silly stories of old women, but, according to 2 Tim 3:15, by the basic tenets of the Gospel message itself (“evangelicis rudimentis”), as though it were easily digestible milk.65 Here we are presented with several passages that sound very Erasmian and seem to be inspired by the humanist’s introduction to the Paraphrases of Matthew, e. g. the humanist’s plea to have vernacular Bible reading prepared by a thorough cathechisation of the faithful. Regarding vernacular editions of the Bible, Madruzzo further proposed the inclusion of explicatory notes for ambiguous and difficult passages, which could be composed by learned and pious men, to whom the Council would give a mandate to that end.66 Madruzzo even proposed the wording of a decree, for adoption by the Council, which was to read: We condemn all corrupt Bible translations. That these [Bible translations] not be printed without the approval of the ordinary, on punishment of ecclesiastical sanctions to be defined, and that these printings would not be sold, without the same approval, on punishment of censures to be defined.67

Madruzzo’s proposition, although negatively formulated, took for granted that certain Bible translations in the vernacular should be permitted, be it with the explicit approbation of the bishop. Despite Madruzzo’s plea in favour of vernacular Bible reading, Cardinal Pacheco once more complained that Bible translations had not been included among the scriptural abuses. When Bishop Bertano wanted to retort, he was silenced by the chair, Cardinal Del Monte, and the session was subsequently adjourned under great turmoil.68 During the general congregation of 3 April, the Council fathers dealt with the four abuses of Scripture and had to decide whether, apart from the evident promulgation of the Latin Vulgate as the authentic version of the Church, a version in each of the languages (“in uno quoque idiomate”) should even be declared authentic, or whether these words should be limited to the three biblical

65 66 67 68

linguam vulgarem, CT 12, 529 l.39–42: “Legamus igitur pro Christi gloria, et passim ac promiscue, non tamen illotis manibus, sed religiose, caste, et iuxta uniuscuiusque captum relegamus non hebraice tantum aut graece aut latine, sed vulgariter quoque Iesum Christum, in quo ‘non est Iudaeus neque Graecus’ nec Latinus neque vulgaris…” Madrutius, De vertendis libris sacris in linguam vulgarem, CT 12, 530 l.3–6. Madrutius, De vertendis libris sacris in linguam vulgarem, CT 12, 530 l.7–9. Madrutius, De vertendis libris sacris in linguam vulgarem, CT 12, 530 l.12–14: “Interdicimus omnes vitiatas scripturas vulgares, neque deinceps imprimantur sine licentia ordinarii sub poenis” etc; “neque impressa vendantur sine eiusdem licentia sub censuris”. Severolus, CT 1–II, 42 l.27–32; Acta. 20. Congregatio generalis de libris canonicis, CT 5–III, 51 l.25–8. See also Fernández López, Lectura y prohibición, 174; McNally, “The Council of Trent”, 222.

The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bible Reading

125

languages Latin, Greek, and Hebrew only.69 The majority of those participating in the vote, viz. 22 Council fathers, established themselves as being in favour of the mere promulgation of the Latin Vulgate as the authentic version of the Church, without explicitly adding a clause in favour of, or opposed to, this authentic version in other languages. Fourteen prelates, with Pacheco as their spokesman, explicitly opposed promulgation of such an authentic version in each of the other languages (and obviously wanted to have this prohibition included in the final decree). Ten or eleven prelates – depending on whether “Cum Tridentino” viz. Madruzzo was counted among this amount or not – pronounced themselves to be in favour of the most inclusive formulation, thus fully accepting translations in each of the languages.70 Given the regionally diversified traditions regarding Bible reading in the vernacular, it is interesting to consider to which “nations” belonged the prelates voting explicitly in favour and those voting against vernacular Bible editions. In the outspoken “yes”-camp, Madruzzo was accompanied by seven or eight other Italians (four from the South,71 three or four from the North72), one Dalmatian and even one Spaniard. In the “no”-camp, Pacheco, was joined by six Italians (five from the South,73 one from the North74), three Spaniards, three Frenchmen, and one Swedish.75 Accordingly, the Council fathers declared during the fourth, solemn session of the Council on 8 April 1546 that the Vulgate should be considered as the “authentic” version of the Scriptures for the Catholic Church and that it was the only version to be used in public lessons, disputes, preaching, and exposition. The Council fathers also expressed the wish that an emended version of the Vulgate be published as quickly as possible.76 This implied, however, that the use of Hebrew 69 See Herculis Severoli … commentaries, CT 1–II, 43 l.17–24 and 44 l.13–22; Acta. 28. Congregatio generalis de 4 abusibus, CT 5–III, 58–67, on pp. 66–7. Summary in Massarelli Diarium II, CT 1–II, 437 l.10–12. Comp. McNally, “Trent and Vernacular Bibles”, 222–4; Lentner, Volkssprache und Sakralsprache, 258–63; Jedin, Konzil von Trient, 2.68–70. 70 One of them, Tommaso Sanfelice, the Bishop of Cava de’ Tirreni, explicated that his vote should be considered in favour of both the vernacular and the three biblical languages, whereas the Superior General of the Augustinian Hermits, Girolamo Seripando, only wished an authentic version in the three biblical languages (obviously without including a reference to a vernacular language). 71 Capaccio, Cava de’ Tirreni, Castellamare di Stabia (Juan Fonseca, the Bishop, was from Spanish descent), and Bitonto. 72 Chioggia, Senigallia, Fano (and Pienza). 73 Porto Torres in Sardinia (Salvador Alepuz, a Spaniard), Palermo, San Marco, Sora, and Lanciano (Juan Salazar Fernández, a Spaniard). 74 Acqui (“Vorstius”, to distinguish from Acqui as Aix-en-Provence). 75 Comp. Lentner, Volkssprache und Sakralsprache, 260, with a reference to Schmidt, Liturgie et langue vulgaire, 93–4. 76 The text of the Decree on the Vulgate and the Interpretation of Scripture in: Sessio quarta. Decretum secundum: Recipitur vulgata edition, CT 5–III, 91–2. The text is also to be found in Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta. Editio critica: The Oecumenical

126

Els Agten/Wim François

and Greek (and even other Latin versions) in the scholarly study of the Bible was not explicitly forbidden and that vernacular versions may be continuously tolerated c.q. forbidden in regions in which this had been the case before. Since the Vulgate had been proclaimed the authentic version of the Bible, vernacular editions were to be based upon this Latin version more than they ever had been previously.

Conclusion Concluding this essay, it should be re-emphasized that the Council fathers, who brought their own diverging traditions regarding vernacular Bible reading, were not able to reach an agreement on the legitimacy of vernacular Bible translations during the Session 4 of the Council of Trent (April 8, 1546). More specifically, a clash manifested between the Spanish prohibitory tradition (Pacheco) and the (Northern-)Italian-German ‘liberal’ tradition (Madruzzo), with the controversy between the influential Paris Faculty of Theology and the humanist movement resounding in the background. Since the Council was not able to arrive at an agreement, any decision regarding vernacular Bibles remained, for the time being, in the hands of the local authorities who continued to decide according to their own local traditions. The conciliar silence was eventually broken in 1564 when Pope Pius IV published the Tridentine Index of Forbidden Books, which was prepared by a committee of prelates at the Council. This catalogue of forbidden books contained rules that defined the contours of book censorship. The famous Regula Quarta or fourth rule, while opposing the free reading and interpretation of the Bible, allowed the laity to read vernacular Bibles if they were deemed capable and if they had obtained written permission from the local bishop or inquisitor. The translation itself had to be made by a Catholic author. The view, however, that “the Council forbade the printing, selling and reading of the Bible in the vernacular” figures on John O’Malley’s “list of myths that no amount of scholarship has up to this point been able fully to dispel”.77 It was a further variant of the aforementioned paradigm – evident in Protestant circles, both popular and scholarly, for centuries – that the Catholic Church maintained a general ban on the reading of the vernacular Bible by the illiterate laity. Councils of the Roman Catholic Church, K. Ganzer/G. Alberigo/A. Melloni (ed.) (3 vol. in 4 published; Corpus Christianorum; Turnhout: Brepols, 2006–2013), 3.16–17. For a recent English translation, see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, N.P. Tanner/G. Alberigo (ed.) (2 vol.; London: Sheed & Ward/Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 2.664–5. 77 J.W. O’Malley, “What Happened and Dit Not Happen at the Council of Trent”, in this volume.

The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bible Reading

127

It was, however, in the last decades of the sixteenth century that the Inquisition took stricter measures against vernacular Bible reading by the illiterate laity in Italy, Spain and Portugal, whereas in the countries of Northern and Central Europe, where Catholics had to share the space with Bible-centered Protestants, such reading continued to be tolerated, be it that it was in principle subject to the stipulations of Trent’s fourth rule. As a result of these post-Tridentine evolutions, a new ‘geography’ of Bible reading in the vernacular became apparent in Europe.78

Bibliography Printed and edited sources Castro de, Alphonsus, Adversus omnes haereses libri quatuordecim (Venice: Ad signum spei, 1546). Decretales Gregorii IX Lib. V Tit. VII De Haereticis c. XII, in Corpus Iuris Canonici, vol. 2: Decretalium Collectiones, E. Friedberg (ed.) (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1881). Erasmus, Desiderius, Paraphrases in Matthaeum, in Pio Lectori, J.-F. Cottier/A. Vanautgaerden (ed.) (Notulae Erasmianae 5; Turnhout: Brepols/Anderlecht: Erasmushuis, 2005). Hieronymus, Comm. in Hezechielem, Prol., F. Glorie (ed.) (CCSL 75; Turnhout: Brepols, 1964).

Secondary sources Asensio, F., “Alfonso de Castro y los decretos tridentinos sobre Sagrada Escritura”, Estudios Eclesiásticos 20 (1946) 63–103. Avenoza, G., “The Bible in Spanish and Catalan”, in R. Marsden/E.A. Matter (ed.), The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2: From 600 to 1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) 288–306. Barbieri, E., “Éditeurs et imprimeurs de la Bible en italien (1471–1600)”, in B.E. Schwarzbach (ed.), La Bible imprimée dans l’Europe moderne (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale de France, 1999) 246–59. 78 See G. Fragnito, “Per una geografia delle traduzioni bibliche nell’Europa cattolica (sedicesimo e diciasettesimo secolo)”, in J.-L. Quantin/J.-C. Waquet (ed.), Papes, princes et savants dans l’Europe moderne: Mélanges à la mémoire de Bruno Neveu (École pratique des hautes études. 4e section: Sciences historiques et philologiques 5; Hautes études médiévales et modernes 90; Geneva: Droz, 2007) 51–77. On the Tridentine Index, and especially the Regula Quarta, see, amongst others, Fragnito, La Bibbia al rogo, 95–106; J. Martínez De Bujanda/R. Davignon/E. Stanek, Index de Rome 1557, 1559, 1564: Les premiers index romains et l’index du Concile de Trente (Index des livres interdits 8; Sherbrooke: Éditions de l’Université de Sherbrooke/ Geneva: Droz, 1990), 91–9, 143–53, and 814–15. Also O’Malley, Trent, 160, 163, 177–8, 245, and 266–7.

128

Els Agten/Wim François

Baroni, V., La contre–Réforme devant la Bible. La question biblique (Lausanne: La Concorde, 1943). Bogaert, P.-M., “La Bible française au Moyen Âge. Des premières traductions aux débuts de l’imprimerie”, in Bogaert (ed.), Histoire illustrée du Moyen Âge à nos jours (Turnhout: Brepols, 1991) 13–46. Bresc, H., Livre et société en Sicile (1299–1499) (Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani. Bollettino. Supplementi 3; Palermo: Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani, 1971). Cavallera, F., “La bible en langue vulgaire au Concile de Trente (IVe session)”, in Mélanges Emmanuel Podechard. Études de sciences religieuses offertes pour son éméritat au doyen honoraire de la Faculté de Théologie de Lyon (Lyon: Facultés catholiques, 1945) 37–56. Coletti, V., L’éloquence de la chaire. Victoires et défaites du latin entre Moyen Âge et Renaissance (Cerf Histoire; Paris: Cerf, 1987). Corbellini, S./Duijn van, M./Folkerts, S./Hoogvliet, M., “Challenging the Paradigms: Holy Writ and Lay Readers in Late Medieval Europe”, Church History and Religious Culture 93 (2013) 171–88. Corbellini, S., “Looking in the Mirror of the Scriptures: Reading the Bible in Medieval Italy”, in W. François/A. A. Den Hollander (ed.), “Wading Lambs and Swimming Elephants”: The Bible for the Laity and Theologians in Late Medieval and Early Modern Era (BETL 257; Leuven: Peeters, 2012) 21–40. Corbellini, S., “Reading, Writing and Collecting: Cultural Dynamics and Italian Vernacular Bible Translations”, Church History and Religious Culture 93 (2013) 189–216. Daniell, D., The Bible in English: Its History and Influence (New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press, 2003). De Bujanda, J. Martínez/Davignon, R./Stanek, E., Index de Rome 1557, 1559, 1564: Les premiers index romains et l’index du Concile de Trente (Index des livres interdits 8; Sherbrooke: Éditions de l’Université de Sherbrooke/Geneva: Droz, 1990). Del Col, A., “Appunti per una indagine sulle traduzioni in volgare della Bibbia nel Cinquecento italiano”, in A. Prosperi/A. Biondi (ed.), Libri, idee e sentimenti religiosi nel Cinquecento italiano: 3–5 aprile 1986 (Modena: Panini, 1987) 165–88. Duijn van, M., “Printing, Public, and Power: Shaping the First Printed Bible in Dutch (1477)”, Church History and Religious Culture 93 (2013) 275–99. Duncker, G., “La Chiesa e la versione della S. Scrittura in lingua volgare”, Angelicum 24 (1947) 140–67. Fernández López, S., Lectura y prohibición de la Biblia en lengua vulgar: defensores y detractors (León: Universidad, Secretariado de Publicaciones y Medios Audiovisuales, 2003). Flood, J.L., “Martin Luther’s Bible Translation in its German and European Context”, in R. Griffiths (ed.), The Bible in the Renaissance: Essays on Biblical Commentary and Translation in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History; Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001) 45–70. Fragnito, G., La Bibbia al rogo: La censura ecclesiastica e i volgarizzamenti della Scrittura (1471–1605) (Saggi 460; Bologna: Il Mulino, 1997). Fragnito, G., “Per una geografia delle traduzioni bibliche nell’Europa cattolica (sedicesimo e diciasettesimo secolo)”, in J.-L. Quantin/J.-C. Waquet (ed.), Papes, princes et savants dans l’Europe moderne: Mélanges à la mémoire de Bruno Neveu (École pratique des

The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bible Reading

129

hautes études. 4e section: Sciences historiques et philologiques 5; Hautes études médiévales et modernes 90; Geneva: Droz, 2007) 51–77. François, W., “Die volkssprachliche Bibel in den Niederlanden des 16. Jahrhunderts. Zwischen Antwerpener Buchdruckern und Löwener Buchzensoren”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 120 (2009) 187–214. François, W., “The Condemnation of Vernacular Bible Reading by the Parisian Theologians (1523–1531)”, in W. François/A. A. den Hollander (ed.), Infant Milk or Hardy Nourishment? The Bible for Lay People and Theologians in the Early Modern Period (BETL 221; Leuven: Peeters, 2009) 111–39. François, W., “Vernacular Bible Reading in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. The ‘Catholic’ Position Revisited”, The Catholic Historical Review 102/1 (2018) 23–56. Francomano, E.C., “Castillian Vernacular Bibles in Iberia, ca. 1250–1500”, in S. Boynton/ D.J. Reilly (ed.), The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: Production, Reception, and Performance in Western Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011) 315– 37. García Centeno, E., “Alfonso de Castro y la lectura de la Biblia en lengua vulgar”, Studium Legionense 5 (1964) 161–96. Gillaerts, P. et al. (ed.), De Bijbel in de Lage Landen: Elf eeuwen van vertalen (Heerenveen: Royal Jongbloed, 2015). Gosh, K., The Wycliffite Heresy: Authority and the Interpretation of Texts (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 45; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Gow, A.C., “Challenging the Protestant Paradigm: Bible Reading in Lay and Urban Contexts of the Later Middle Ages”, in T.J. Heffernan/T. Burman (ed.), Scripture and Pluralism: Reading the Bible in the Religiously Plural Worlds of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 123; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 161– 91. Gow, A.C., “The Bible in Germanic”, in R. Marsden/E.A. Matter (ed.), The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2: From 600 to 1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) 198–216. Gow, A.C., “The Contested History of a Book: The German Bible of the Later Middle Ages and Reformation in Legend, Ideology, and Scholarship”, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 9 (2009) 2–37. Gritsch, E.W., “Luther as Bible Translator”, in D.K. McKim (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther (Cambridge Companions to Religion; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) 62–72. Gutiérrez, C., S.J., Españoles en Trento (Corpus Tridentinum Hispanicum 1; Valladolid: CSIC, 1951). Henneau, M.–E./Massaut, J.–P., “Lire la Bible: un privilège, un droit ou un devoir?”, in Homo religiosus. Autour de Jean Delumeau (Paris: Fayard, 1997) 415–24. Hofmeister, P., “Bibellesen und Bibelverbot”, Österreichisches Archiv für Kirchenrecht 17 (1966) 298–355. Hollander den, A. A., De Nederlandse bijbelvertalingen. Dutch Translations of the Bible 1522–1545 (Bibliotheca Bibliographica Neerlandica 33; Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1997). Hoogvliet, M., “Encouraging Lay People to Read the Bible in the French Vernaculars: New Groups of Readers and Textual Communities”, Church History and Religious Culture 93 (2013) 237–72.

130

Els Agten/Wim François

Hughes, P., The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, 325–1870 (Garden City, KS: Hanover House, 1961). Kaufmann, Th., “Vorreformatorische Laienbibel und reformatorische Evangelium”, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 101 (2004) 138–74. Lentner, L., Volkssprache und Sakralsprache: Geschichte einer Lebensfrage bis zum Ende des Konzils von Trient (Wiener Beiträge zur Theologie 5; Vienna: Herder, 1964). Leonardi, L., “The Bible in Italian”, in R. Marsden/E.A. Matter (ed.), The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2: From 600 to 1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) 268–87. Leppin, V., “‘Biblia, das ist die ganze Heilige Schrift deutsch’: Luthers Bibelübersetzung zwischen Sakralität und Profanität”, in J. Rohls/G. Wenz (ed.), Protestantismus und deutsche Literatur (Münchener Theologische Forschungen 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2004) 13–26. Lerner, R.E., “Les communautés hérétiques”, in P. Riché/G. Lobrichon (ed.), Le Moyen Âge et la Bible (Bible de tous les temps 4; Paris: Beauchesne, 1984) 597–614. Marsden, R., “The Bible in English”, in R. Marsden/E.A. Matter (ed.), The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2: From 600 to 1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) 217–38. Marsden, R., “The Bible in English in the Middle Ages”, in S. Boynton/D.J. Reilly (ed.), The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: Production, Reception, and Performance in Western Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011) 272–95. McNally, R., “The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bibles”, Theological Studies 27 (1966) 204–27. Pecˇírková, J., “Czech Translations of the Bible”, in J. Krasˇovec (ed.), The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement series 289; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 1167– 1200. Reinhardt, K., Die biblischen Autoren Spaniens bis zum Konzil von Trient (Corpus scriptorum sacrorum Hispaniae; Subsidia 7; Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia, 1976). Schmidt, H.A.P., Liturgie et langue vulgaire. Le problème de la langue critique chez les premiers réformateurs et au Concile de Trente (Analecta Gregoriana 53; Rome: Universitas gregoriana, 1950). Schreiner, K., “Volkstümliche Bibelmagie und volkssprachliche Bibellektüre. Theologische und soziale Probleme mittelalterlicher Laienfrömmigkeit”, in P. Dinzelbacher/D.R. Bauer (ed.), Volksreligion in hohen und späten Mittelalter (Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiet der Geschichte, N. F. 13; Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1990) 329– 73. Sneddon, C.R., “The Bible in French”, in R. Marsden/E.A. Matter (ed.), The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2: From 600 to 1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) 251–67. Volkerts, S., “Reading the Bible Lessons at Home: Holy Writ and Lay Readers in the Low Countries”, Church History and Religious Culture 93 (2013) 217–37. Wodecki, B., “Polish Translations of the Bible”, in J. Krasˇovec (ed.), The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement series 289; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 1201–33.

Wim François/Antonio Gerace*

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

Introduction During its Session 4, on 8 April, 1546, the Council of Trent declared the Latin Vulgate to be the authentic Bible version of the Catholic Church, while at the same time expressing the hope that a critical revision of the Vulgate be completed as soon as possible. Although the Council did not explicitly recognize the value of the Greek Septuagint, let alone that of the ‘original’ Hebrew version of the Old Testament, it did leave room for biblical humanist studies to contribute to the emendation of the Church’s official version.1 The influence of the Louvain theologian John Driedo (ca. 1480–1535), a native of Turnhout, in Brabant, is especially discernible in the discussions and deliberations leading up to the promulgation of Trent’s Vulgate decree. Driedo had already passed away when the Council fathers were assembled in Trent, but his work De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus (On the Scriptures and Doctrines of the Church) published for the first time in 1533 and reprinted in 1543 – and afterwards included in several editions of the Opera Omnia – most probably circulated among the theologians present at Trent, who used it as a kind of reference work.2 This was, at least, the purport of an article that (another) Louvain theologian, René Draguet, published * We wish to thank Dr. Paul Arblaster for his invaluable assistance in translating the text. 1 The text of the Decree on the Vulgate and the Interpretation of Scripture in: Sessio quarta. Decretum secundum: Recipitur vulgata editio Bibliae praescribiturque modus interpretandi sacram scripturam etc., in Concilium Tridentinum: Diariorum, actorum, epistularum, tractatuum nova collectio (13 vol.; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1901–2001) 5–III.91–2 (henceforth abbreviated as CT). The text is also to be found in Corpus Christianorum. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta. Editio critica: The Oecumenical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church, K. Ganzer/G. Alberigo/A. Melloni (ed.) (3 vol. in 4 published; Turnhout: Brepols, 2006–13), 3.16–17 (henceforth abbreviated as CC COGD). For a recent English translation, see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, N.P. Tanner/G. Alberigo (ed.) (2 vol.; London: Sheed & Ward/Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 2.664–5. 2 References are to the editio princeps, viz. Johannes Driedo, De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus libri quatuor… (Leuven: Bartholomeus Gravius, 1533).

132

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

in 1946, a time when research on the Council of Trent had received new impetus from the occasion of its fourth centenary.3 Draguet’s article elicited a response from the Italian Dominican scholar Beniamino Emmi, published in 1949 in the Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses.4 Draguet’s view was largely adopted by Hubert Jedin in his foundational history of the Council of Trent, as we will see further. There is, however, more. Only a few weeks after the Council’s pronouncement, an agreement was contracted between the Emperor’s administration in the Low Countries, the Louvain Faculty of Theology, and the printer Bartholomew van Grave (Bartholomeus Gravius) with a view to the publication of an emended version of the Vulgate (and of both a Dutch and a French translation based upon it). This brought the execution of the Council’s wish back to Louvain, where the work of critically revising the Vulgate was entrusted to the theologian John Henten or Johannes Hentenius (1499–1566). Published in 1547, the Biblia Vulgata Lovaniensis was to be one of the most important versions of the Latin Vulgate for years to come. Further and more careful emendations were included in the text from the 1570’s onwards by another Louvain scholar, Francis Lucas, known as ‘of Bruges’ (1548/9–1619).5 For the history of the revision of the Vulgate and the contribution of the Lovanienses, the works of Hildebrand Höpfl (1913) and Henri Quentin (1922) remain indispensable. The debates about the Vulgate at the Council naturally received additional attention on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the opening of the Council of Trent, in general, and of the promulgation of the Vulgate decree, in particular. Apart from the treatment of the topic in Jedin’s work,6 research done on this occasion issued in several publications that are still very valuable, by Arthur Allgeier,7 Beniamino Emmi,8 3 R. Draguet, “Le maître louvaniste Driedo inspirateur du décret de Trente sur la Vulgate”, in Miscellanea historica Alberti De Meyer (2 vol.; Leuven: Bibliothèque de l’Université, 1946) 2.836–54. 4 B. Emmi, “Il posto del ‘De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus’ nelle discussioni Tridentine”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 25 (1949) 588–97. 5 H. Höpfl, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sixto-Klementinischen Vulgata (Biblische Studien 18; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1913); H. Quentin, Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate: Octateuque (Rome/Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1922). Also: A. Gerace, “Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’ and Textual Criticism of the Vulgate Before and After the Sixto-Clementine (1592)”, Journal of Early Modern Christianity 3 (2016) 201–37. 6 H. Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, E. Graf (trans.) (2 vol.; London et al.: T. Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1957–61), 2.52–98. 7 See, amongst other works: A. Allgeier, “Authentisch auf dem Konzil von Trient. Eine Wort- und Begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchung”, Historisches Jahrbuch 60 (1940) 142–58; A. Allgeier, “‘Haec vetus et vulgata editio’. Neue wort- und begriffsgeschichtliche Beiträge zur Bibel auf dem Tridentinum”, Biblica 29 (1948) 353–90; A. Allgeier, “Ricardus Cenomanus und die Vulgata auf dem Konzil von Trient”, in G. Schreiber (ed.), Das Weltkonzil von Trient: sein Werden und Wirken (2 vol.; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1951) 1.359–80.

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

133

Salvador Muñoz Iglesias,9 James M. Vosté,10 and others.11 More recent contributions have been written by Antonio Garcia-Moreno12 and, especially, Jared Wicks.13 In combination with the influence of John Driedo on the coming into being of the decree on the Vulgate, the eagerness with which the Louvain theologians executed the Council’s wish to have an emended version of the Vulgate published creates the impression that during and after Trent, the Vulgate was considered largely as a Louvain project. In this article, the evidence for this thesis will be pieced together and, supplemented with new elements, will be brought to a new synthesis.

I.

Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus and the Authenticity of the Vulgate

Several sources testify that Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus was read with interest by a number of theologians and Fathers at Trent, and was used as a kind of reference work on the versions of the Bible, although Driedo’s name is not to be found in the official documents of the Council, nor in the diaries of the participants. The first source is Tractatus 65, a memorandum written by one of the participants of the Council seemingly inspired by Driedo’s work, and more specifically by chapter one of the second book, where Driedo deals with the translation and interpretation of the Scriptures. According to Draguet, in agreement with Vincenzo Schweitzer, who edited volume 12 of the Acts of the Council, which includes Tractatus 65, its author was no one less than Nicolas Audet (1482–1562), 8 B. Emmi, “Una votazione pro o contro i testi originali della S. Scrittura al Concilio di Trento”, Angelicum 34 (1957) 379–92. 9 S. Muñoz Iglesias, “El decreto tridentino sobre la Vulgata y su interpretación por los teólogos del siglo XVI”, Estudios Biblicos 5 (1946) 137–69. 10 J.M. Vosté, “The Vulgate and the Council of Trent”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9 (1947) 9–25. Earlier, an Italian version was published: J.M. Vosté, “La Volgata al Concilio di Trento”, Biblica 27 (1946) 301–19. 11 E.F. Sutcliffe, “The Council of Trent on the Authentia of the Vulgate”, Journal of Theological Studies 49 (1948) 35–42. 12 A. Garcia-Moreno, “Reflexiones en torno a la Sessión IV de Trento”, in T. Stramare (ed.), La Bibbia “Vulgata” dalle origini ai nostri giorni (Collectanea Biblica Latina 16; Rome: Abbazia San Girolamo/Vatican City: Libreria Vaticana, 1987) 40–60. 13 J. Wicks, “Catholic Old Testament Interpretation in the Reformation and Early Confessional Eras”, in M. Sæbø/M. Fishbane/J.L. Ska (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (2 vol.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2008) 2.617–48, on pp. 624–36.

134

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

the Superior General of the Carmelites.14 Emmi, however, adduced strong arguments for identifying the author as the Franciscan friar Battista Castiglione (Castilloneus), a minor theologian accredited to the Council.15 In this view, Tractatus 65 should be considered a summary, probably written post-factum, of the address delivered by Castiglione on 8 or 9 March 1546 in the congregation of (minor) theologians. This congregation dealt with the abuses to which the Scriptures were liable, as well as the measures to remedy the situation. Such congregations and the texts that they issued were extremely helpful to the bishops (and superior-generals) in view of the discussions in which they had to engage during the general congregations of the Council. When Castiglione dealt with the various versions of the Bible, he adopted some of Driedo’s views and even his formulations, while ignoring other ideas of the Louvain theologian (see Appendix 1). Castiglione appreciated the Greek Septuagint as a “good version” (“bona editio”), because it was – here he follows Driedo – used by Christ, the apostles and the evangelists.16 However, he admitted that “many (other) things” (“multa”) had been handed down by the apostles and evangelists. With the term “multa”, he obviously referred to textual material stemming from traditions other than the Septuagint (including the Hebrew Bible) that were included in the New Testament, but especially to traditions and interpretations transmitted by the evangelists and apostles. In this regard, Castiglione makes mention both of passages that were not included in the Septuagint, and biblical passages from the same version that were obscure (and thus needed further interpretation) or omitted. Mention is further made of scribal errors that crept into the Septuagint in the course of its age-long tradition. For all these reasons, a new version based on the Hebrew text and reflecting the further traditions of the Church had become imperative. The redaction of such a more complete and intelligible version was entrusted to Jerome (ca. 347–420), as Castiglione argues with the help of Driedo’s wordings.17 The Franciscan theologian seems not to identify Jerome’s version with the Latin text the Church of his time was using, since Jerome’s text was in its centuries-long tradition liable to corruption and scribal errors. It is even curious to notice that Castiglione used the term “Vulgate” only in reference to the Latin version of his age, which should be identified with ‘Jerome’s text with (some) mistakes’. And although this version was in its turn in need of emendation, it

14 Draguet accepted Schweitzer’s view, which was instrumental to his attempts to maximize Driedo’s influence, see Draguet, “Le maître louvaniste Driedo”, 841. 15 B. Castiglione, Tractatus 65. De sacrae scripturae abusibus, et eorum remedia, CT 12, 509–12. For Castiglione’s authorship, see Emmi, “De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus”, 593–4. 16 Castiglione, Tractatus 65, CT 12, 511 l.23. For the correspondences with Driedo, see Appendix 1, n. 1, 2, and 4. 17 See Appendix 1, n. 1, 21, and 28.

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

135

should be accepted as the official version par excellence of the Church.18 Castiglione was not prepared to grant the same status to the Septuagint, in contrast with Driedo, who regarded the Septuagint as “autentica”19 and was also open to the use of further biblical versions, albeit for study purposes. Notwithstanding the Vulgate being obscure in some passages and inconsistent with the original text, as well as containing stylistic inadequacies, viz. solecisms and barbarisms, Castiglione together with Driedo emphasized that the Vulgate was completely trustworthy as regards the “faith and morals” of the Church (“in his que ad fidem et ad mores pertinent”).20 Admittedly, some emendations to the Vulgate were highly desirable, although a new Latin text, on which the humanists insisted, was not deemed necessary. Just like Driedo, Castiglione argued that a text composed in a popular language interspersed with “solecisms” and “barbarisms” but which adequately reflected the content, was to be preferred to a new text in an impeccable Latin which might, through its innovations, throw the Church into confusion or make the sense of the text either ambiguous or less clear or less in accordance with the sense expressed in its source. Christ himself had used simple and unaffected language, as had the apostles, the authors of the sacred texts, and Paul. In other words, a new Latin text, as required for by the humanists, was not necessary, although some emendations might be required.21 Castiglione also opposed the translation of the Bible into the vernacular; in this regard, he referred, amongst others, to the inscription above Jesus’ cross that was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. These languages had been chosen by God to express sacred things; vernacular languages were not deemed suitable for this aim.22 It is another analogy with Driedo, one however, Draguet did not insert in his article. 18 Castiglione, Tractatus 65, CT 12, 511 l.36–8: “Ex dictis ergo concludo: editionem latinam, qua nunc utitur ecclesia, ab omnibus esse applectandam et a sacrosancto concilio acceptandam et corroborandam facta tamen aliqua correctione, ubi vitio scriptorium aliquid est immutatum.” Earlier in the text, he spoke about “traductionem nostram, qua nunc utimur et ab annis supra mille usa est in ecclesia” (509 l.15–6) and in the sequel of the reasoning: “concedo tamen ipsam Vulgatam aliqua correctione indigere” (510 l.31–2). See also Appendix 1, n. 30: where Castiglione dealt with “ipsa Vulgata”, Driedo used “aeditio Latina nostra”. See also Driedo, De ecclesiasticis, 79: “Interpretatio Latina seu communis aeditio vulgata, qua Ecclesia nunc utitur.” 19 Driedo, De ecclesiasticis, 53: “cum sub Apostolorum temporibus tota Christi Ecclesia habuerit aeditionem … septuaginta … tanquam autenticam, et tanquam scripturam sacram aeditam in suo fonte, suaque origine”; 70: “… Ecclesia sub Apostolorum temporibus habuerit septuaginta interpretum aeditionem, tanquam autenticam divinoque spiritu aeditam, qua et Christus, suique Apostoli sunt usi, ad demonstranda fidei primordia.” 20 Castiglione, Tractatus 65, CT 12, 510 l.23–24, see also Appendix 1, n. 12. 21 On Christ’s words, see Appendix 1, n. 18; about the use of “solecisms” and “barbarisms”, see Appendix 1, n. 14–6 and n. 30 for the emendation of the Bible. 22 See Appendix 1, n. 31.

136

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

The (partial) similarity of Castiglione’s reasoning with that in chapter one of the second book of Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus was not simply due to the authors’ common inhaling of prevalent ideas of their time. Draguet pointed out 28 passages in Tractatus 65 that contain literal similarities with Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus, although the arguments were sometimes applied to another line of reasoning than Driedo’s, and some passages were copied in a hasty and not always accurate manner.23 Further comparison between the two texts has revealed at least five additional parallels that Draguet had not included, for instance Castiglione’s above-mentioned reference to the languages found above Jesus’ cross as an argument against vernacular Bible translations. Therefore, we are able to reinforce Emmi and Draguet’s conclusion, both by increasing the number of similarities to 33 and affirming that 85 % or more of Castiglione’s text was borrowed from Driedo.24 The second source showing the reception of Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus in Trent comprises a document written by Jerome Seripando (1493–1563), who was then the Superior General of the Augustinian Hermits. Later he would become Archbishop of Salerno, Cardinal and legate of Pope Pius IV during the third period of the Council in Trent. Due to the circumstances of the war, Draguet did not have the opportunity to study the document in detail, but only by way of excerpts and summaries provided him by Hubert Jedin25 (who had also published some excerpts in his book on Seripando).26 Draguet, in his article of 1946, even wondered whether the manuscript had survived the war. Actually, Seripando’s notes, with the title De libris sanctis. Collecta Tridenti in concilio sub Paulo III are preserved – obviously in a seventeenth century copy – in the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples (signature Ms. Vind. Lat. 66 II [olim Vind. 6017], fol. 123vo–127vo).27 In what follows, we are able to present the results of the comparison of Seripando’s notes with Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus, a comparison Draguet had wished for in 1946 and is now finally available through this study (see Appendix 2). In his notes, Seripando is deeply indebted to the sequence and the line of argumentation from the first chapter of Driedo’s second book. In the first two folios of his notes, Seripando simply ‘copies and pastes’ the Louvain theologian’s

23 Draguet, “Le maître louvaniste Driedo”, 842. 24 Emmi, “De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus”, 592; Draguet, “Le maître louvaniste Driedo”, 842. 25 Draguet, “Le maître louvaniste Driedo”, 849. 26 H. Jedin, Girolamo Seripando: Sein Leben und Denken im Geisteskampf des 16. Jahrhundert (2 vol.; Würzburg: Rita-Verlag und -Druckerei der Augustiner, 1937), 1.325 n. 8, 1.326 n. 1–2, and 1.327 n. 1. 27 Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale (BNN), Ms. Vind. Lat. 66 II, fol. 123vo–127vo.

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

137

work. As regards the first topic, viz. the correctness of the Septuagint,28 Seripando’s introduction is highly dependent on Driedo’s work.29 Dealing with the history of the first translations from Hebrew to Greek and the problem about the number of books translated by the 72 Hebrew scholars – viz. whether only the Pentateuch was translated or the entire Old Testament – as well as the differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible, Seripando makes a synopsis of Driedo’s explanation.30 In the last folios Seripando analyses the second topic, namely the correctness of the Latin edition. Dealing with the question of whether it is permissible or desirable to use the Greek and Hebrew texts in order to emend the Latin Bible, he answers in the positive. Among other items he deals with is whether Jerome translated both the Old and the New Testament. In this second part, Seripando’s notes are not strictly a copy of Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis, but rather a synopsis, even using the same keywords, making the same references to Church fathers and using the same examples during his analysis.31 The controversy between Draguet and Emmi as to whether Seripando read Driedo’s book himself, as the former suggested, or rather heard the oral presentation of Tractatus 65 by Battista Castiglione on 8 or 9 March 1546 and jotted down some notes, as Emmi believed, can be resolved entirely in Draguet’s favour.32 The most important argument is that the first two folios of Seripando’s notes are simply a ‘copy-and-paste’ of Driedo’s text and that the first five parallels (present in these copied-and-pasted folios) are simply not present in Castiglione’s Tractatus. Hence, any reliance on Castiglione’s text and, a priori, on an oral presentation of it, is excluded. Also other arguments present in Seripando’s text, but absent in Castiglione’s Tractatus 65, can only be explained by a 28 The analysis of the correctness of the Septuagint takes up the first four folios: BNN, Ms. Vind. Lat. 66 II, fol. 123vo–126ro, viz. Appendix 2, n. 1–14. 29 See, for instance, Appendix 2, n. 1–5. 30 Appendix 2, n. 6–14. 31 Appendix 2, n. 15–24. 32 Draguet, “Le maître louvaniste Driedo”, 848–50, esp. on p. 850. Emmi, “De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus”, 592 absolutely excludes (“dobbiamo assolutamente escludere”) the possibility that Seripando borrowed directly from Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus. And although he had to admit that there was a word for word correspondence between Seripando’s notes and Driedo’s work, he astonishingly argued that a direct reading of Driedo’s work by Seripando was excluded, simply because the latter expressed a different view where Driedo stated that Jerome had corrected the Latin New Testament on the basis of the Greek (and had not translated it anew). For Emmi this was reason enough to accept that Seripando simply took notes during Castiglione’s exposition at the Council. Moreover, Emmi based his reasoning merely on the footnotes in Jedin’s book on Seripando, without consulting the manuscript in Naples. The fact however is – which Emmi should have taken into account – that the words quoted by Jedin were present in Seripando and Driedo (see Appendix 2, n. 12, 15, and 18), but not in Castiglione’s Tractatus 65.

138

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

direct reading of Driedo’s chapter, for instance the history of the first Bible editions, from the Septuagint to Jerome’s translation.33 Draguet further argued that Seripando was a member of the preparatory committee that, after the long deliberations in the general congregations, established a draft decree dealing with four so-called abuses of the Bible, while at the same time proposing measures that were expected to remedy the situation.34 Draguet, followed by Jedin, recognized the important influence of Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus on the formulation of the first abuse (see Appendix 3).35 The abuse related to the fact that textually divergent versions of the Scriptures were circulating and were even being used “pro authenticis” in public lessons, disputations, expositions, and sermons. As a remedy, the acceptance of the Vulgate (“editio vetus et vulgata”) as the “authentic” version was proposed, as well as its exclusive use in public lectures, debates, expositions and sermons. In the draft text however, it was immediately added that no infringement should be made on the authority of the Septuagint, which was called a “pura et vera interpretatio”, employed by the apostles. Nor should other Bible editions be rejected that could be helpful in coming to an understanding of the authentic meaning of the Vulgate. Draguet recognized Driedo’s influence and characteristic formulation on four levels: (1) the use of the word “authentica” and the formula “tanquam authentica”, which was applied to the various Bible versions, and more specifically to the Vulgate; (2) the Vulgate’s proposed use in public lessons, disputations, expositions, and sermons; (3) the lasting authority of the Septuagint as a “pura et vera interpretatio”; (4) the value of “other Bible editions” as being capable of clarifying the sense of the Vulgate.36 Since this influence went far beyond what was included in Castiglione’s Tractatus, Driedo’s ideas and formulations may have found their way into the draft decree through the intervention of Seripando or indeed of one of the other members of the drafting deputation. Given the fact that neither Castiglione nor Seripando had included the important concept “authentica” in the notes they made on the basis of Driedo’s work, and that the concept had nevertheless entered the draft decree, with its numerous reminiscences of the Louvain theologian’s book, other members may have been responsible for its introduction. In this regard, we may think of Pietro Bertano, the Bishop of Fano, a prominent member of the preparatory committee and an important referee of the Council fathers as regards

33 For Seripando’s appreciation of Driedo, see also In Pauli Epistolas ad Romanos et Galatas commentaria (Naples: Johannes Jacobus Carlinus, 1601), 163: “Summis in hac parte laudibus efferendum censeo Ioannem Driedonis Lovaniensem…” 34 Acta. 14. Congregatio generalis. Leguntur abusus collecti a deputatis, CT 5, 29–31. 35 Draguet, “Le maître louvaniste Driedo”, 850–3; Jedin, Council of Trent, 2.70–3. 36 See Appendix 3, n. 2–5.

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

139

‘biblical affairs’, to whom Emmi and Allgeier attributed paternity of the “authentica” concept.37 The second abuse addressed in the draft decree was the (relative) corruption of the text of the Vulgate: it could not be denied that mistakes had crept into the text. The remedy proposed was to ask the Pope to order a pure, reliable and uniform text of the Vulgate (and, if possible, also of the Hebrew and Greek texts). No clear parallels with Driedo’s text have been found: this may be due to the fact that Driedo showed rather conservative in admitting a “new” version of the Vulgate, but rather proposed that the current Latin text continued to be used in public lectures, fully allowing, however, the elucidation of obscure or corrupted passages by learned scholars on the basis of the Hebrew and Greek originals, old Latin manuscripts and even other versions.38 The third abuse treated by the draft decree, which relates to the private, not to say idiosyncratic, interpretation of the Scriptures, and its remedy, viz. bringing this interpretation under ecclesiastical control, are again reminiscent of Driedo’s terminology, although here we have to leave the confines of the first chapter of the second book, and turn to its third chapter.39 The deputies presented the draft decree, provided with the title De abusibus Scripturae, during the general congregation of 17 March 1546.40 During the subsequent deliberations,41 where Bishop Bertano vehemently defended the draft decree, more traditionalist views were voiced by Cardinal Pedro Pacheco. The latter argued that it made no sense to receive the Vulgate as “authentica”, while at 37 Emmi, “De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus”, 595. See also Allgeier, “Authentisch auf dem Konzil von Trient”, 148 (about Bertano as the ‘father’ of the “authentica”-concept) and 151–8 (about the meaning of “authentica”); also Vosté, “The Vulgate at the Council of Trent”, 14, with reference to Classis coram cardinale S. Crucis Tridenti, CT 5, 37 1.24–37. 38 See, amongst other texts, Driedo, De ecclesiasticis, 73 [=100]: “Et ideo illis saeculis, cum nondum haberet Ecclesia latina veteris testamenti aeditionem, ex suo fonte Hebraeo versam & castigatam, congruebat Ecclesiae novam quandam talem aeditionem in usum recipere, quam nunc inveteratam, & in usum uniformiter per universas Ecclesias receptam, & in commentariis patrum citatam, non sic convenit propter minuta quaedam, & forsitan minus recte versa repudiare, & loco eius novam recipere … Non haec dicimus, quod alias aeditiones ab eruditis intentione pia et non subdola aeditas refutemus, aut contemptibiles atque inutiles censeamus: sed quod publicam huius lectionem arbitremur non esse mutandam propter aeditiones novas, etiam a viris quantumvis eruditis profectas: quibus tamen suum honorem tribuimus in privatis studiis, legentes illas tanquam explanationes quasdam et elucidationes, magnopere adiuvantes studia nostra, ad intelligendum loca vel obscura, vel ambigua, vel per scriptorum incuriam depravata in aeditione nostra”; and also Driedo, De ecclesiasticis, 83, 85, and 93. 39 Appendix 3, n. 6: The fourth abuse related to the uncontrolled divulgation of editions and commentaries of the Scriptures. In this case too, the remedy proposed was to bring divulgation under ecclesiastical control. 40 Congregatio generalis. Leguntur abusus collecti a deputatis, CT 5, 29–31. 41 Especially Herculis Severoli … commentarius, CT 1, 41–4; Congregatio generalis de quatuor abusibus, CT 5, 58–67.

140

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

the same time recognizing other translations, which, in his view should rather be rejected. The views advocated by Pacheco had a certain influence, so that a majority of the Council fathers tended towards a compromise, preferring not to mention the lasting value of the Septuagint as a “pura et vera interpretatio”, nor the appeal to other (Latin) Bible editions as being capable of clarifying the sense of the Vulgate, without however rejecting these versions explicitly. Moreover, the idea that the Vulgate should be emended on the basis of faithful old manuscripts was accepted, although there was, at the same time, opposition to too explicit recognition, at least in the official texts, of the Vulgate’s deficiency as well as of the necessity to have an emended version published. It was thought that such an explicit recognition would be grist to the mill of the Protestant reformers. The final vote on 3 April42 reflected this more cautious view so that the Council’s decree Insuper read: Moreover, the same holy Council … decides and declares that the old well known Latin Vulgate edition which has been tested in the Church by long use over so many centuries should be kept as the authentic text in public readings, debates, sermons and explanations; and no one is to dare or presume on any pretext to reject it … [Hence] the Council decrees and determines that thereafter the sacred Scriptures, particularly this ancient Vulgate edition, shall be printed after a thorough revision.43

Draguet recognized that the decree reflected only a faint echo of the biblical humanist ideas to which Driedo had given expression, but that the use of the word “authentica” to characterize the Vulgate, as well as the phrases “in publicis lectionibus … disputationibus …” in the final decree can nevertheless be traced back to Driedo. His ideas, however, about the lasting value of the Septuagint and the possible appeal to other Bible editions did not survive the final voting and are not to be found in the decree.44 Emmi, following Allgeier, argues that other theologians with more traditionalist views were thus more influential in forming the Council’s final opinion than Driedo was. In this regard, they refer to Agostino Steucho (Eugubinus) (1497–1548) and in particular to Francis Titelmans (1502– 37), another Louvain theologian, a contemporary of Driedo, who would later become a Capuchin friar in Italy. In particular the words “haec vetus et vulgata 42 Congregatio generalis de quatuor abusibus, CT 5, 65–7. 43 Sessio quarta. Decretum secundum: Recipitur vulgate editio Bibliae…, CT 5, 91 1.35–92 1.3 and 92 1.15–7 as well as CC COGD 3, 16 l.176–83 and 17 l.199–200: “Insuper eadem sacrosancta Synodus … statuit et declarat, ut haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur, et quod [=ut] nemo illam reiicere quovis praetextu audeat vel praesumat … decernit et statuit, ut posthac sacra scriptura, potissimum vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quam emendatissime imprimatur.” For the English translation, see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.664–5. 44 Draguet, “Le maître louvaniste Driedo”, 850–3; Jedin, Council of Trent, 2.73 n. 1.

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

141

editio” and “quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata” may have derived from the prologue to Titelmans’ Collationes quinque super Epistolam ad Romanos beati Pauli Apostoli (1529).45 In an immediate reaction, in the days following the proclamation of the Tridentine decree on the Vulgate, Rome showed dissatisfaction with its faint wording, as has rightly been emphasized by Jared Wicks: Both the liaison commission headed by Card. Farnese and cardinals in consistory with the Pope voiced consternation over a text that left the Vulgate isolated from the Hebrew and Greek original texts and only implied a needed work of correcting, no easy task, the many accuracies of the Vulgate.46

The papal legates in Trent did their best to explain that the wish to have the Vulgate emended was cautiously concealed in Trent’s decree, in order not to give further ammunition to the enemies of the Church, but that the principle of such an emendation was integrally safeguarded and that an agreement had even been made that the Cardinal legates through a discrete communication should ask the Pope for such an emended version. Moreover, a correction of the Greek and Hebrew texts was requested. In a letter dated 26 April, written by the legates to Alexander Farnese, the Cardinal nephew and confidant of Paul III, we read: The decision, taken on this point, was that we, Legates, should write to His Holiness in the name of the Synod, as we do by the present letter, beseeching him that he may be pleased to order, with all possible speed, a corrected version, first of our Latin, and then of the Greek and Hebrew texts.47

Wicks, however, observes that: Roman dissatisfaction remained, at least for a time, over a decree judged to need correction, for example to avoid condemning those who diverge from the Vulgate when its text does not render well the Hebrew or Greek original.48

Nevertheless, the task critically to revise the Latin Vulgate was assumed in Louvain, Rome and elsewhere, as we will see further. To conclude this section regarding Driedo’s influence on Trent’s decree on the Vulgate, we refer briefly to the Defensio Tridentinae Fidei, written by the Portuguese theologian Diego de Andrada de Payva (1528–75) and published in 45 Emmi, “De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus”, 597. See also Allgeier, “Haec vetus et vulgata editio”, 378–85, also on pp. 390 and 360–1. In contrast to Driedo, the names of Titelmans and Steucho were quoted by Dominico Soto as important referees for the (more traditionalist) view that the whole Vulgate was the work of Jerome, as recorded by Angelo Massarelli (1510–66) in his diary, see Massarelli Diarium III, CT 1, 542 l.13. 46 Wicks, “Catholic Old Testament Interpretation”, 628–9, see there for further references. 47 Cf. Vosté, “The Vulgate at the Council of Trent”, 17, with a reference to Cardinales Legati A. card. Farnesio, Trent, 16 April 1546, CT 10, 471 1.10–14. 48 Wicks, “Catholic Old Testament Interpretation”, 628–9.

142

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

Lisbon in 1578. Andrada de Payva, who had been sent to Trent by his King in 1561, conceived his work as a retort to Martin Chemnitz’ famous Examinis concilii Tridentini opus integrum, and it has generally been considered as an authoritative explanation of the Tridentine decrees. When it came to defending the authenticity of the Vulgate, Andrada de Payva in his turn borrowed extensively from the first chapter of the second book of De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus. In contrast to the documents of the Council, Andrada de Payva explicitly referred to his source, viz. the “vir eruditissimus” John Driedo.49

II.

The Decree on the Acceptance of the Sacred Books and Apostolic Traditions: Also Co–inspired by Driedo?

Apart from Driedo’s influence on the decree on the Vulgate, his views regarding Scripture and tradition(s), again as expressed in his book De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus, may be recognized in the conciliar decree on the Scriptures and the apostolic traditions. This at least was the conviction of Joseph Lodrioor, who in 1948 defended a (Dutch-language) doctoral dissertation on John Driedo at the University of Louvain, which he introduced, amongst others, by the question: Given that the decisions of the Council [regarding the versions of the Bible] are placed next to the decree de traditionibus Apostolorum, and, on the other hand, John Driedo’s treatise on the traditions is juxtaposed to his treatise on the canonical Scriptures, we ask ourselves whether the Louvain theologian also influenced the decree regarding traditions.50 49 Diego de Andrada Payva, Defensio tridentinae fidei catholicae et integerrimae quinque libris compraehensa aduersus haereticorum detestabiles calumnias & praesertim Martini Kemnicij Germani (Lisbon: Antonius Riberius, 1578) 254r–256v; see also: B. Emmi, “Il Decreto Tridentino sulla Volgata nei commenti della prima polemica protestanto-cattolico”, Angelicum 30/2 (1953) 228–72, on pp. 255–8. 50 “Gezien nu deze besluiten van het Concilie [over de Schrift] plaats vinden naast het decreet de traditionibus Apostolorum, en anderzijds het tractaat van Johannes Driedo over de tradities eveneens staat naast zijn tractaat over de canonieke schriften, vragen wij ons af, of de Leuvense theoloog geen invloed zou gehad hebben op het decreet nopens de tradities”. See J. Lodrioor, De leer over de christelijke traditie in de theologie van Joannes Driedo van Leuven (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, K.U.Leuven; Leuven, 1948), IV. For further literature on Driedo’s view as regards Scripture and Tradition, see W. François, “John Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus (1533). A Controversy on the Sources of the Truth”, in L. Boeve/M. Lamberigts/T. Merrigan (ed.), Orthodoxy, Process and Product: On the MetaQuestion (BETL 227; Leuven: Peeters, 2009) 85–118; J.L. Murphy, The Notion of Tradition in John Driedo (Milwaukee, WI: Seraphic Press, 1959; repr. [Whitefish:] Literary Licensing, 2011); J. Lodrioor, “La notion de tradition dans la théologie de Jean Driedo de Louvain”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 26 (1950) 37–53; also M. Gielis, “Johannes Driedo. Anwalt der Tradition im Streit mit Humanismus und Reformation”, in M.H. Jung/P. Walter

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

143

Lodrioor’s research question proved to be merely rhetorical and in the conclusion of his dissertation he made efforts to demonstrate that there are actually resemblances between the decree on traditions and the corresponding passages of Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus,51 which – we may rightly assume – circulated among the Council fathers. In what follows, we will summarize the thrust of Lodrioor’s argumentation, since his Dutch-language dissertation has not received a broad reception. Lodrioor first argues that the aim of Trent’s decree was “that the purity of the Gospel, purged of all errors, may be preserved in the Church” (“ut sublatis erroribus puritas ipsa Evangelii in Ecclesia conservetur”),52 an aim that was shared by Driedo who also wanted to defeat the heresies of his day and, subsequently, safeguard the integrity of the deposit of the faith. In this regard Lodrioor remarks rightly that Trent did not use the term “Evangelium” in the sense of the written Gospel, but in the sense of deposit of the faith or the original Revelation. Such use of the term “Evangelium” was indeed to be found with Driedo (although not exclusively with him).53 Trent’s decree further points to the facts that the Old Testament prophets foretold or “promised” the Messiah, that Christ “proclaimed with his own lips” the divine Revelation and that the apostles preached this Revelation to every creature. In the decree the “Evangelium” or Gospel is called the “source of the whole truth of salvation and rules of conduct” (“fons omnis et salutaris veritatis et morum disciplinae”).54 These are considerations that, as regards content, are akin to what we can read in Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus.55 Lodrioor moreover argues that the Louvain theologian had indeed distinguished between the truths of the faith and the moral rules that should be followed, a sharp distinction that is, however, nuanced by J.L. Murphy.56

51 52 53

54 55 56

(ed.), Theologen des 16. Jahrhunderts. Humanismus – Reformation – Katholische Erneuerung. Eine Einführung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002) 135–53. Lodrioor, Traditie in de theologie van Driedo, 196–9. Sessio quarta. Decretum primum: recipiuntur libri sacri et traditiones apostolorum, CT 5, 91 1.3 and CC COGD 3, 15 1.136–37. For the English translation, see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.663. Driedo, De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus, 150–1, 562, and 623–5. See Lodrioor, Traditie in de Theologie van Driedo, 196 and 80–8; Lodrioor, “Notion de tradition chez Driedo”, 39–40; also Gielis, “Johannes Driedo: Anwalt der Tradition”, 140 n. 4; Gielis, “Een Romeins doctoraat over het Traditiebegrip van Johannes Driedo van Turnhout”, Taxandria. Jaarboek van de Koninklijke geschied- en oudheidkundige kring van de Antwerpse Kempen 68 (1996) 145–61, on pp. 153 and 159; further: François, “John Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus (1533)”, 92–3; Murphy, The Notion of Tradition in John Driedo, 73–6. Sessio quarta. Decretum primum: recipiuntur libri sacri et traditiones apostolorum, CT 5, 91 1.4–6 and CC COGD 3, 15 1.137–41. Comp. for the English translation: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.663. Driedo, De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus, 525, but also 149 [=137], 357, 456, and 465, amongst other passages. See Lodrioor, Traditie in de Theologie van Driedo, 196. Apart from “Traditio” and “traditiones” Driedo used a few other terms. More than once, he

144

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

Trent’s decree furthermore declares that revealed Truth and rule “are contained in written books and in unwritten traditions which were received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or had been handed down by the apostles themselves, at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and as such came to us”.57 Famous ideas about the “libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus” are also to be found in the work of Driedo himself.58 Lodrioor further observes that the terminology of Trent’s decree “the traditions concerning both faith and conduct” (“traditiones (ipsas) tum ad fidem tum ad mores pertinentes”) should be seen as a reference to the extra-scriptural traditions that play an important role in Driedo’ work. In the literature there has been a discussion, however, as to whether Driedo was among those theologians who already accepted an extra-scriptural source of revealed Truth, in the sense that Scripture and Tradition were considered two distinct sources of revealed Truth – a view adhered to by Lodrioor – or whether Driedo assumed an overlap between what was found in Scripture and what was included among the ecclesiastical traditions, whereby both supported and clarified each other, and functioned as each other’s norm.59 Finally, Lodrioor points to some expressions in the decree that he takes to be quasi-literally present in Driedo’s work. In this regard he refers to the apostolic traditions that are preserved in the Catholic Church “by an unbroken line of succession” (“continua successione”). He sees the term “per manus traditae” as close to Driedo’s line of reasoning and terminology. And he draws attention to the Council’s declaring that it receives and honours all the books of the Old and the New Testament, as well as the traditions themselves, “with a like feeling of piety and reverence”, indicating that the expression “pari pietatis affectu” is also literally to be found in Driedo’s work.60 However, this part of Lodrioor’s argu-

57 58 59 60

used the concepts “consuetudines ecclesiae”, “observationes”, as well as “mores”. “Traditio” seems to be the more encompassing term: apart from referring to the act of handing down, it may refer to doctrinal points of faith, as well as practices regarding liturgy and ecclesiastical discipline. The content of the term “consuetudo” is often the same as that of “Traditio”, albeit with a stronger reference to liturgical and disciplinary practices. The latter is even more the case with the terms “observationes” and, a priori, with “mores”. J. Lodrioor tries to distinguish the diverse terms as clearly as possible and to determine their specific meaning (Lodrioor, Traditie in de Theologie van Driedo, 25–31, 49–61, 99–113, and 196–7; Lodrioor, “La notion de tradition chez Driedo”, 40–1 and 44–6). J.L. Murphy for his part underscores that the terms overlap each other to a large degree (Murphy, The Notion of Tradition in John Driedo, 48–58). Decretum primum: recipiuntur libri sacri et traditiones apostolorum, CT 5, 91 1.7–9 and CC COGD 3, 15 1.141–44. For the English translation, see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.663. Driedo, De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus, 563–4, further 567–71, and 627–8, 631. Comp. Lodrioor, Traditie in de Theologie van Driedo, 197. François, “John Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus (1533)”, 97–8. Comp. Driedo, De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus, 611: “Dogmata quae in ecclesia praedicantur, quaedam habemus e doctrina scripto prodita, quaedam rursus ex Apostolorum

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

145

ment is the weakest: although the last quoted sentence may indeed refer to a similar formulation chosen by both Driedo and the Fathers in Trent, other expressions of the decree such as “sine scripto tradita”, “per manus traditae” or “continua successione”61 are not characteristic of Driedo, but are to be found more literally among other authors, among whom the names of John Fisher (and Thomas More) consistently pop up,62 as well as that of Jacob Latomus – a colleague of Driedo in Louvain – and other pre-Tridentine controversialist theologians, such as Josse Clichtove, the Germans John Eck, Jerome Emser, and John Cochlaeus, as well as Albert Pighius, not to forget Melchior Cano and John Gropper.63 In short, while there are three written documents irrefutably testifying that Driedo’s views about the Vulgate and the other versions of the Scriptures (as mainly contained in chapter one of the second book) served as a basis for the Council fathers’ discussions in Trent, and that his wordings resounded to a certain degree in the final decree, the evidence is far weaker regarding Driedo’s ideas concerning Scriptures and (unwritten) tradition(s). Admittedly, Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus also contained one of the most important systematisations of the ideas then circulating in the Church regarding this point, and there is reason to assume that the Council fathers did not limit their reading to the theologian’s folios relating to the Vulgate and the versions of the Scriptures, there is nevertheless the fact that the wording of Trent’s decree on traditione in mysterio. i. in occulto tradita recepimus, quorum utraque parem vim habent ad pietatem, nec in his quisquam contradicit, quisquis sane vel tenuiter expertus est … Verum & alia quoque, & ante, & post dicimus, tanquam multum habentia momenti ad mysterium, quae ex traditione citra scriptum accepimus.” Cf. Lodrioor, Traditie in de Theologie van Driedo, 197–8. 61 Driedo, De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus, ad lectorem, f. a8: “continua successionis serie”. Driedo however mainly uses “secundum seriem successionis”. 62 This is at least what a search through the Digital Library of the Catholic Reformation (http:// solomon.dlcr.alexanderstreet.com/) has revealed. Cf. B. Cummings, “‘The Oral Versus The Written’: The Debates over Scripture in More and Tyndale”, Moreana 45 (2008) 15–50. 63 The plurality of authors that may have influenced this part of the Tridentine decree is recognized in J.R. Geiselmann, “Das Konzil von Trient über das Verhältnis der Heiligen Schrift und der nicht geschriebenen Traditionen”, in M. Schmaus (ed.), Die mündliche Überlieferung: Beiträge zum Begriff der Tradition (Munich: Hueber, 1957) 123–206, on pp. 140–66; J.R. Geiselmann, Die Heilige Schrift und die Tradition. Zu den neueren Kontroversen über das Verhältnis der Heiliger Schrift zu den nichtgeschriebenen Traditionen (Quaestiones disputatae 18; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1962), 166–83, on pp. 161–6 (Geiselmann sees an important influence of Fisher, Driedo, and Eck). Also Y. Congar, La Tradition et les traditions (2 vol.; Paris: Fayard, 1960), 1.207–32 and H. Barth, “Die katholische Lehre von den zwei Quellen der Offenbarung: Philologische und theologische Überlegungen zu einem umstrittenen Text des Konzils von Trient, seiner Vorgeschichte und seiner Rezeption”, Una Voce Korrespondenz 40 (2010) 29–125. Jedin for his part especially refers to Driedo’s early contribution to the discussion on Scripture and Tradition, while also mentioning Eck: Jedin, Council of Trent, 2.58 and 75.

146

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

the Scriptures and the (unwritten) traditions is not particularly reminiscent of Driedo but rather of other authors. Further research is necessary to determine which influences may have been in play in the decree’s text concerning Scripture and (unwritten) traditions, and even concerning the canon of the Bible.64

III.

Louvain and the Emendation of the Latin Vulgate

At the very time that an epistolary quarrel was developing about what Rome considered an all too faint recommendation from Trent to publish a revision of the Vulgate, and its lack of clarity as regards the contribution of the Hebrew and Greek originals in this process of emendation,65 a prompt initiative was taken in Louvain. The imperial authorities – Charles V was very keen on every initiative for Church reform – as well as the Faculty of Theology and the printer-publisher Bartholomeus Gravius concluded an agreement for the publication of a critical revision of the Vulgate, a work that was entrusted to John Henten or Johannes Hentenius.66 Henten had lived as a Hieronymite monk in Portugal, but returned to Louvain around 1540 and joined the Dominican Order in 1548. In addition to a knowledge of theology, he had a very good mastery of Greek and even Hebrew and had edited two Latin translations of commentaries assembled from the Church fathers (in particular the Greek), one on the Gospels, in 1544, and one on the remaining parts of the New Testament, in 1545. Henten prepared his emendation of the Vulgate under the supervision of the theologians Ruard Tapper and Peter de Corte (Curtius).67 64 Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus opens with some 52 pages regarding the canon of the Bible. J. Wicks lists Driedo among the authors who may have also influenced Trent’s deliberations in this regard. See Wicks, “Catholic Old Testament Interpretation”, 625. 65 In Spain, the question of the authenticity of the Vulgate, the recommendation to publish a revised version and the contribution of the Hebrew and Greek originals to this process of critically revising the Vulgate led to a quarrel that lasted for several decades. The climax was the imprisonment of the Augustinian friar Luis de León by order of the Inquisition. Luis de León, amongst others, argued “for the reliability of the Hebrew texts of the Scriptures of Israel then available”, and he declared Trent’s Vulgate decree to be “compatible both with present use of alternate readings and then with a thorough revision, based on the Hebrew and Greek originals, to improve the current Latin Bible”. In the prison of the Inquisition from 1572 to 1576, Luis de León “defended his positions on the Vulgate as coherent with Trent, for example, by appeal to the views of J. Driedo and A. de Vega and insisting on the difference between holding Vulgate passages to be badly translated, as he did, and saying that they teach error” [italicization ours]; cf. Wicks, “Catholic Old Testament Interpretation”, 633–4, see there for further references. 66 For biographical information on John Henten see, amongst others, E.-H.-J. Reusens, “Hentenius (Jean)”, Biographie Nationale de Belgique 9 (1886–87) 233–6; R. Aubert, “Henten (Jan)”, Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastiques 23 (1990) 1286–7. 67 On Henten’s version of the Latin Vulgate, see especially Quentin, Mémoire sur l’établissement

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

147

In his emendation of the Vulgate, Henten adopted many readings from Robert Estienne’s (Stephanus’) Latin Bible of 1532 and especially that of 1540 (which the Louvain theologians had, incidentally, only a few months earlier put on their Index of Forbidden Books [1546]). In his preface, Henten pays extensive homage to Estienne’s text-critical work, but also lashes out at those who had inspired Estienne to compose his erroneous marginal notes and his prefaces. Henten further compared the text with about 26 Latin manuscripts and at least one incunabulum.68 The variant readings taken from the manuscripts were included in the margins of the new edition, with an indication of the number of manuscripts containing the variant in question, the quantity of such manuscripts being considered an important criterion for the validity of a reading. Henten’s revision of the Latin Bible must have been completed within the year after he had begun the work, and it was published by Gravius in November 1547. This Biblia Vulgata Lovaniensis was widely distributed and reprinted several times. In the years 1568 to 1573 the splendid Polyglot Bible or Biblia Regia was published by Christopher Plantin (1520–89) in Antwerp. It contained biblical materials in five languages, viz. Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Syriac.69 This work had been supervised and the proofs corrected by the Spanish scholar and humanist Benito Arias Montanus (1527–98). He had been assisted by a number of Louvain theologians including Augustinus Hunnaeus and Cornelius Reyneri du texte de la Vulgate, 128–36; also Höpfl, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sixto-Klementinischen Vulgata, 56–7; L. Dequeker/F. Gistelinck, Biblia Vulgata Lovaniensis 1547–1574. Theology Faculty Library. Exhibition on the Occasion of the XII Congress of the International Organisation for the Study of the Old Testament. August 25 – Sept 8 1989 (Leuven: Bibliotheek van de Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid, 1989), 17–20; J.-P. Delville, “L’évolution des Vulgates et la composition de nouvelles versions latines de la Bible au XVIe siècle”, in M.-C. Gomez-Géraud (ed.), Biblia. Les Bibles en latin au temps des Réformes (Paris: PUPS, 2008) 71–106, on p. 78. 68 Biblia. Ad vetustissima exemplaria nunc recens castigata…, Johannes Hentenius (ed.) (Leuven: Bartholomeus Gravius, 1547), ijv–ijr. He used, amongst others, the fourteenthcentury Codex Bessarionis, which had been a gift from Cardinal Bessarion (1403–72) to the Louvain theologian Henricus van Zomeren (ca. 1418–72) and was subsequently preserved in the Holy Spirit College in Louvain, but which perished when the university library was burned in May 1940. Henten further consulted the so-called Codex Atrebatensis Sericatus or Anjou Bible (early fourteenth century), which is still preserved in the Maurits Sabbe Library of the Louvain Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies. See L. Dequeker, “The Anjou Bible and the Biblia Vulgata Lovaniensis, 1547/1574”, in L. Watteeuw/J. Van der Stock (ed.), The Anjou Bible. A Royal Manuscript Revealed: Naples 1340 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010) 127–38. 69 On the Antwerp Polyglot Bible, see, amongst others, L. Voet, The Plantin Press (1555–1589): A Bibliography of the Works Printed and Published by Christopher Plantin at Antwerp and Leiden (6 vol.; Amsterdam: Van Hoeve, 1980), 1.280–315; B. Rekers, Benito Arias Montano 1527–1598. Studie over een groep spiritualistische humanisten in Spanje en de Nederlanden, op grond van hun briefwisseling (Groningen: VRB, 1961); B. Rekers, Benito Arias Montano (1527–1598) (London: The Warburg Institute/Leiden: Brill, 1972), 45–69; R.J. Wilkinson, The Kabbalistic Scholars of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible (Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 138; Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2007), 67–75.

148

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

Goudanus, and by the Jesuit Hebraist and biblical scholar Johannes Wilhelmi Harlemius.70 Since Arias Montanus considered the Vulgate a philological absurdity and was only prepared to include its text in the Biblia Regia under pressure from King Philip II of Spain, the revision of the Catholic Church’s official version was again put on the scholarly agenda. A revised edition had to observe the stipulations of the Tridentine decree with regard to the authenticity of the Vulgate while at the same time meeting the humanists’ concern for a philologically justified Latin text. In 1570–1571 the task of revising the Vulgate text was entrusted to Francis Lucas ‘Brugensis’ or ‘of Bruges’ (1548/49–1619),71 at the time a promising student of theology in Louvain with a particular interest in scriptural studies. And although a member of the secular clergy, he studied the Scriptures and biblical languages with the aforementioned Johannes Wilhelmi Harlemius, professor at the Jesuit college in Louvain. Harlemius, as well as Augustinus Hunnaeus and Cornelius Reyneri Goudanus, professors at the Faculty of Theology, supervised Francis Lucas’ revision work.72 In comparison to Henten, Francis Lucas was able to take considerable steps forwards. Not only was he able to take more Latin manuscripts into account than Henten, allowing his scrutiny of additional variant readings, but he had, more importantly, an explicit mandate to compare the variants in the Latin text with the ‘original sources’ of the Bible, namely, the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts of the Old Testament, and the Greek and Syriac versions of the New Testament. In contrast, more than twenty years earlier John Henten had declared in his prologue that he would not consider the problem of the Vulgate’s conformity with the Greek or Hebrew Bible.73 For his comparison with texts in the original biblical languages, Lucas made use of the textual material collected by Plantin and Arias Montanus in preparing the Biblia Regia. In his search for the ‘right’ reading of a passage, Francis Lucas also scrutinized the commentaries of the Church fathers, not primarily for their

70 D. Lanoye, “Benito Arias Montano (1527–1598) and the University of Louvain, 1568–1576”, Lias 29 (2002) 23–44. 71 Still important for an overview of Francis Lucas’ life and works is A.C. De Schrevel, “Lucas (François)”, Biographie Nationale de Belgique 12 (1892–93) 550–63. 72 On Francis Lucas’ textual critical work, see Höpfl, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sixto-Klementinischen Vulgata, 104–6 and 111–14; Quentin, Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate, 136–46; Dequeker/Gistelinck, Biblia Vulgata Lovaniensis, 27–9; Delville, “L’évolution des Vulgates”, 78–9. 73 “Summo studio curavimus … non solum quae castigatius excusa erant exemplaribus, vero aliis quoque plus minus viginti … ex horum collactione restituiremus, quod fieri posset, veterem ac vulgatam editionem synceritati suae atque puritati: non miscentes nos interim quaestionis, num Graecis et Hebraeis ubique respondeat”. See Biblia ad vetustissima exemplaria nunc castigata, Hentenius (ed.), 2ro.

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

149

quotations of the biblical passages as such, but with an eye to their interpretation of the text that might favour one or another reading.74 Once Plantin and the scholarly group working with him heard to their surprise that in 1569 a papal committee had resumed its activities with a view to the revision of the Vulgate and since they wanted to avoid seeming to pre-empt the committee’s conclusions, it was decided that Francis Lucas would simply adopt the text of the 1547 version, but would further elaborate its apparatus of marginal notes through the inclusion of references to more Latin manuscripts, to patristic commentaries, and especially to the ‘original’ Hebrew, Greek and other texts. The marginal notes would be the first reflection of an important new principle of textual criticism: not the quantity of manuscripts, but their quality gives plausibility to a certain reading. By 1574, the revised edition of the Biblia Vulgata Lovaniensis had been completed, and it was published by Plantin in Antwerp. As there was insufficient space in the octavo edition of the 1574 Vulgate Bible to offer explanation for the preference for a particular reading, and because Francis Lucas aimed at a more detailed study of text-critical questions, a decision was taken to publish the apparatus in a later, separate edition. In the development of this project, Plantin and Francis Lucas considered it moreover appropriate to seek regular feedback to their work in Rome (where Plantin’s Polyglot remained subject to suspicion). Francis Lucas sent some examples of his text-critical work to the Roman authorities, where it was submitted to the judgement of Cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto (1514–85), a biblical scholar and custodian of the Vatican library. These samples were proof texts from Gen 3:15, Ps 5:9, Sir 10:27, Isa 6:1, and Matt 3:16. Another concern was related to the use of the text-critical work of Lorenzo Valla, Desiderius Erasmus, Sebastian Münster and Robert Estienne, which might have been a reason for discontent in curial circles. In 1580, when Francis Lucas published his more extensive text-critical Notationes containing explanations of the variant readings of the Vulgate, it was dedicated to Cardinal Sirleto.75 In 1583, in Antwerp, Plantin was able to publish a beautiful edition in 74 “In primis vulgatae editionis Latinae, lectiones variae, in manuscriptis exemplaribus, antiquissimis et correctissimis deprehensae … deinde, universae lectiones variae tam illae quas Hentenius invenit quam eae quae nunc repertae sunt, primum ad eum vulgatae editionis Textum, qui in Regiis Bibliis, iussu Catholici Regis, ex Complutensi exemplari, in officina Plantiniana … collatae sunt … Tum ad veterum Tractatorum textus et commentaria examinatae sunt; et quorundam quidem librorum … quorum signa in margine perspiciantur … Praeterea expensae sunt eadem lectiones, veteris quidem instrumenti, ad Hebraicum, Graecum, et Chaldaicum; novi vero, ad Graecum et Syriacum editionis Regiae Textus.” See Biblia sacra. Quid in hac editione Theologis Lovaniensibus praestitum sit, paulo post indicator, Franciscus Lucas Brugensis (ed.) (Antwerp: Christopher Plantin, 1574), 2vo. 75 Franciscus Lucas Brugensis, Notationes in sacra Biblia, quibus variantia discrepantibus exemplaribus loca, summo studio discutiuntur (Antwerp: Christopher Plantin, 1580), 3–15; Höpfl, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sixto-Klementinischen Vulgata, 111–12; Quentin, Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate, 145.

150

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

folio of the revised Biblia Vulgata Lovaniensis that included the Notationes. Still other reprints were to follow.76 In Rome, conversely, the Louvain Bible was considered to be the basis par excellence for a revision of the Vulgate that the Roman authorities intended to undertake themselves, but which would result in a new edition only after nearly half a century. The aforementioned Cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto, friend of Cardinal Marcello Cervini, papal legate during the first session of the Council, had in 1548 or 1549, at Cervini’s request, begun his work of revising the Vulgate.77 By 1554 this work comprised thirteen codices of handwritten annotations to the New Testament.78 In 1563 or 1564 he further drew up guidelines for the revision to be undertaken in Rome: errors of scribes and printers should be emended but not the old established renderings and interpretations, included in the Vulgate.79 For, during the third period at the Council of Trent, in 1561, Pope Pius IV had appointed a congregatio pro emendatione Bibliorum.80 On 25 June 1562, Cardinal Girolamo Seripando, then one of the papal legates at the Council, wrote to Cardinal Marcantonio Amulio (1505–72) suggesting that the Louvain Vulgate and the methodology to produce it should be adopted in Rome, checking ancient copies from the Eternal City and even from across Italy in order to include more textual evidence. He moreover advised that a booklet with annotations (libro d’Annotationi), intended only for scholars, could be produced, containing the passages that translators had translated faithfully (“bene interpretato”) from the Hebrew, especially when these were important for the corroboration of the faith 76 Biblia sacra. Quid in hac editione a theologis Lovaniensibus prestitum sit, Franciscus Lucas Brugensis (ed.) (Antwerp: Christopher Plantin, 1583). 77 On Cardinal Sirleto and his revision of the New Testament, see G. Denzler, Kardinal Guglielmo Sirleto (1514–1585). Leben und Werk. Ein Beitrag zur nachtridentinischen Reform (Müncher theologische Studien/I. Historische Abteilung 17; Munich: Hueber, 1964), 117–41. Also H. Höpfl, Kardinal Wilhelm Sirlets Annotationen zum Neuen Testament. Eine Verteidigung der Vulgata gegen Valla und Erasmus (Biblische Studien 13/2; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1908), 17–56 and 100–23. 78 For a list of the thirteen Vatican codices containing Sirleto’s annotations on the New Testament, see Denzler, Kardinal, 126 n. 47. Sirleto’s annotations on the Psalms are included in the Polyglot published at Antwerp by Christopher Plantin: Illustriss. D. Sirleti S.R.E. Cardinalis Annotationes variarum lectionum in Psalmos, ad sacri Biblorum Apparatus instructionem, in Communes et familiares Hebraicae linguae idiotismi (=Biblia Sacra Hebraice, Chaldaice, Graece, & Latine 8, 15th section; Antwerp: Christopher Plantin, 1572), 1–11. Plantin begged for his collaboration to the edition of other Old Testament texts, see Denzler, Kardinal, 134–5. 79 For excerpts, see Höpfl, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sixto-Klementinischen Vulgata, 94–5 and Denzel, Kardinal, 131, with a reference to F. Amann, Die Vulgata Sixtina von 1590: Eine quellenmässige Darstellung ihrer Geschichte, mit neuem Quellenmaterial aus dem Venezianischen Staatsarchiv (Freiburger theologische Studien 10; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1912), 19–20. 80 On the Vulgate committee of 1561, see Höpfl, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sixto-Klementinischen Vulgata, 60–76 and Denzler, Kardinal, 128–9.

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

151

and morals. Further, the annotations could contain those passages to which the Greek and Latin fathers had given a different translation in comparison to the copies that circulated at that time, viz. the sixteenth century.81 These were the kind of annotations that Sirleto had collected in thirteen codices and that Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’ would publish in 1580. A further Vatican Vulgate committee was established by Pope Pius V in 1569, and it continued its work into the pontificate of Gregory XIII but was disbanded by him in 1572, without having been able to produce a new edition of the Vulgate.82 Cardinal Sirleto, who had been the most active member of the committee, continued his work of critically revising the Vulgate in Rome, as he had done for several years already. Sirleto introduced variants from several origins – from the Latin fathers, old missals and psalters, as well as manuscripts – in the margins of his copy of the 1547 Louvain Bible, which is still preserved in the Vatican Library (codex Vaticanus latinus 9517).83 After Sirleto’s death, a new committee, established in 1585 by Sixtus Vand led from November 1586 by Cardinal Antonio Carafa, engaged energetically with the task of preparing the revised edition of the Vulgate.84 With that aim, the committee took as its basis a copy of the Biblia Vulgata Lovaniensis, as it was revised by Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’ and published in 1583 by Plantin. It was into this copy that the members of the committee introduced their emendations of the text. They also had the manuscripts with Sirleto’s annotations on the New Testament at their disposal, and could, from 1587 onwards, make use of the early 81 See Höpfl, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sixto-Klementinischen Vulgata, 72–3; moreover, on pp. 307–8, there is an excerpt of the letter of Seripando to Amulio, Trent, 25 June 1562 and, in particular, Seripando writes: “Non lasserò di dire, che tra l’altre Impressioni si potrebbe haver qualche aiuto: à me assai soddisfà la Lovaniense la quale è quella che io ho più familiarmente usata. Contiene semplicemente l’Edittione vulgata corretta con circa XX Esemplari Antichi, et mette in margine qualche Varietà di lettioni col numero de libri antichi che convengono in quella lettione. Questo si potrebbe fare in Roma con maggior numero di Testi antichi, ove credo, che vene siano molti. Ma chi volesse poi aiutar molto i studioso, bisognerebbe fare un altro libro d’Annotiationi, ove si notassero prima quei luoghi che hanno bene interpretato dall’Hebreo gl’Interpreti che sono stati ò prima ò dopo, massime quando aiutano ò la fede ò buon costumi. A presso si potrebbe annotare i luoghi che sono notati nei Dottori ò Greci ò Latini altrimenti di quel che si legge nei libri che hoggi si trovano. Et quel che ho detto delli Interpreti dello Hebreo intendo del Testamento Vecchio. Il che potrebbe farsi dal Greco nel nuovo” [italicization ours]. It seems clear that Seripando refers to Henten’s Bible edition (1547), writing this letter in 1562. 82 On the Vulgate committee of 1569–1572, see Höpfl, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sixto-Klementinischen Vulgata, 77–101; Quentin, Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate, 160–8; Denzler, Kardinal, 130–4. 83 See Denzel, Kardinal, 138; comp. Höpfl, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sixto-Klementinischen Vulgata, 114; Quentin, Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate, 168–9. 84 On the committee’s work, see Höpfl, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sixto-Klementinischen Vulgata, 128–40; Quentin, Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate, 170–80; Denzler, Kardinal, 139–40.

152

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

eighth-century Codex Amiatinus, which conserved an old and hardly corrupted text of the Vulgate and was brought over from the Tuscan Abbazia di San Salvatore di Monte Amiata. The committee’s basic aim was not to provide a new translation from the ‘original’ languages, but to offer a critical revision on the basis of Latin codices deemed to contain a text closer to Jerome’s original text.85 An exemplar of the 1583 Biblia Vulgata Lovaniensis is still preserved in Rome with a text containing deletions and the margins provided with handwritten variants, the printed marginal notes of the Lovanienses having been crossed out. The exemplar is obviously the one used by the committee established by Sixtus V to put forward the results of its deliberations; as codex Carafianus, it is named after the committee’s chairman, Cardinal Antonio Carafa (codex Vaticanus latinus 12959–60).86 When Cardinal Carafa in 1588 submitted the results of his committee’s work to Pope Sixtus V, the latter simply put aside these results and engaged, with two assistants, in his own revision of the Vulgate. To that aim another copy of the 1583 Louvain Bible was used as a basis. The Sixtine Vulgate, which remained deeply indebted to the Louvain Bible, was eventually published in 1590 and was presented as the emended version the Council of Trent had envisaged.87 After Sixtus V’s death, sales of the Sixtine Vulgate were halted and as many sold copies as possible called in and even destroyed. Gregory XIV established another Vulgate committee, led by Marcantonio Colonna,88 that should correct Sixtus’ edition, an assignment that was reaffirmed by Innocent IX and Clement VIII. As a matter of fact, the committee returned to the work that had been done 85 The view that Cardinal Sirleto had, from 1574 onwards, already used the Codex Amiatinus has been disputed by Quentin, Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate, 168–9. 86 On the committee’s use of this Bible, see Höpfl, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sixto-Klementinischen Vulgata, 106; Quentin, Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate, 171–2. 87 On Sixtus’ revision, see Höpfl, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sixto-Klementinischen Vulgata, 140–58; Quentin, Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate, 181–92; Denzel, Kardinal, 140–1. 88 It has been said that the Louvain theologian Henricus Gravius was also a member of the committee. Gravius, the son of the Louvain printer Bartholomeus Gravius, had earlier done some text-critical work with regard to the Vulgate and had been called to Rome by Sixtus V in order to work for the newly established Congregatio super typographia Vaticana deputata (which implied editorial activities for both the typographia and the bibliotheca). When Gravius arrived in Rome in the autumn of 1590, Sixtus V and his successor Urban VII, had already died. He was, however, able to work as a book censor of the Holy See, until his death in April 1591. See: J. Townley, Illustrations of Biblical Literature Exhibiting the History and Fate of the Sacred Writings from the Earliest Period to the Present Century, Including Biographical Notices of Translators and Other Eminent Biblical Scholars (New York: Published for the Methodist Episcopal Church by G. Lane & P. Sandford, 1842), 493 (repr. London: Forgotten Books, 2013, 170–1); cf. B. Boute, Academic Interests and Catholic Confessionalisation: The Louvain Privileges of Nomination to Ecclesiastical Benefices (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 35; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 223–4 and 227–33.

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

153

in the years 1586–88 and could count upon the assistance of Robert Bellarmine, a prominent member of the committee. Their work issued, in November 1592, in the publication of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, which differed in about 5.000 passages from the Sixtine Vulgate.89 And although it is recognized that the work integrated the valuable text-critical work of the 1586–88 committee, Wicks concludes that “it remains substantially the text of Sixtus V and the Louvain Vulgate…”90 The Sixto-Clementine Vulgate was put forward as the definitive version the Council of Trent (and according to Clement VIII, through it God Himself) had envisioned,91 and a monopoly of ten years was granted to the typographia vaticana for the printing of the edition. If anybody else should have the presumption to print, divulge, sell or possess this or a discrepant (“discrepantes”) text, they would be liable to heavy fines and even to papal excommunication.92 Francis Lucas – since 1581 a member of the episcopal curia in Saint-Omer and occasionally involved in the biblical education of future priests – nevertheless continued to follow the work in Rome with a (text-)critical interest that would lead him to further publications. In 1603 – not by coincidence after the expiration of the ten years’ embargo – he published a list of the most important corrections introduced in the Vatican edition of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate.93 89 On the road to the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, see Höpfl, Beiträge zur Geschichte der SixtoKlementinischen Vulgata, 158–86; Quentin, Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate, 192–201; Denzel, Kardinal, 141; Delville, “L’évolution des Vulgates”, 79–80. 90 Wicks, “Catholic Old Testament Interpretation”, 635. 91 See, however, the divergent opinion of Wicks: “The prefaces prepared under Pope Clement VIII do not declare the 1592 edition to be the authentic Vulgate of the Tridentine Decree of 1546” (Wicks, “Catholic Old Testament Interpretation”, 635–6). 92 Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis (Rome: Typographia Vaticana, 1592), 3: “In multis, magnisque beneficiis, quae per sacram Tridentinam synodum Ecclesiae suae Deus contulit, id in primis numerandum videtur, quod inter tot Latinas editiones divinarum Scripturarum, solam veterem ac vulgatam, quae longo tot saeculorum usu in Ecclesia probata fuerat, gravissimo decreto authenticam declaravit.” Further: “Cum sacrorum librorum vulgatae editionis textus summis laboribus ac vigiliis restituitus … Nos … inhibemus, ne intra decem annos a data praesentis numerandos, tam citra, quam ultra montes, alibi quam in nostra Vaticana typographia, a quoquam imprimatur … Si quis vero typographus in quibuscumque regnis … hanc eamdem sacrarum Scripturarum editionem intra decennium praedictum quoquomodo … imprimere, vendere, venales habere, aut alias edere vel evulgare … praesumpserit, ultra amissionem omnium librorum, et alias arbitrio nostro infligendas poenas temporales, etiam majoris excommunicationis sententiam eo ipso incurrat: a qua nisi a Romano Pontifice … absolvi non possit.” See Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis, 9–10. 93 The reference is to Romanae Correctionis, in Latinis Biblis editionis Vulgatae jussu Sixti V. Pont. Max. recognitis, loca insigniora (Antwerp: Christopher Plantin, 1603). After the Romanae Correctionis, Francis Lucas continued his activity on textual criticism, adding, for instance, an appendix to his commentaries on the four Gospels (Antwerp: Plantin, 1606–1616) entitled Notarum ad varias lectiones in quatuor Evangeliis occurrentes libellus duplex: quorum uno graece, altero latinae varietates explicantur. Even a year before his death, Francis

154

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

Conclusion In short, both the input to and the outcome of Trent’s Vulgate decree demonstrate a profound Louvain character. Whereas John Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus demonstrably (co-)inspired the discussion leading to the elaboration of the Vulgate decree (and maybe also the debate on Scriptures and traditions and even that on the canon of the biblical books),94 the emendation of the Latin Bible, ordered in Trent, was immediately taken in hand by John Henten and was further refined by Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’. For around half a century the castigatio Lovaniensis was one of – if not the – most important version of the Vulgate, until the Vatican committees took over the initiative in the work of emendation. The successive Vatican committees, to different degrees, profiled their emendations to the text of the Louvain Vulgate version and it has been recognized that the Sixto-Clementine edition of 1592 was still largely derived from the said version. Even after the publication of the Sixto-Clementine edition, Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’, a biblical scholar who was a graduate of Louvain and a member of the episcopal curia in Saint-Omer, continued his text-critical work.

Bibliography Archival sources Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale (BNN), Ms. Vind. Lat. 66 II, fol. 123vo-127vo: Seripando, Hieronymus, De libris sanctis. Collecta Tridenti in Concilio sub Paulo III. De LXX Interpretibus.

Printed and edited sources Biblia. Ad vetustissima exemplaria nunc recens castigata…, Joannes Hentenius (ed.) (Leuven: Bartholomeus Gravius, 1547). Biblia sacra. Quid in hac editione a theologis Lovaniensibus prestitum sit, Franciscus Lucas Brugensis (ed.) (Antwerp: Christopher Plantin, 1583). Lucas was able to publish another booklet: Libellus alter continens alias lectionum varietates, in eisdem Biblis latinis, ex vetustis manuscriptis exemplaribus collectas: quibus possit perfectior reddi, feliciter coepta collectione, si accedat Summi Pontifici auctoritas (Antwerp: Christopher Plantin, 1618). 94 Jedin even refers to the influence Driedo’s work may have had for the preparation of the decree on Justification, where “Bonuccio recommended a formulation by the Louvain theologian John Driedo, the only controversial theologian quoted beside John Fisher in the course of these discussion of expert”. See Jedin, Council of Trent, 2.296. Moreover, Driedo was also appreciated for another controversial topic, viz. that of grace, see Jedin, Council of Trent, 1.399.

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

155

Biblia sacra. Quid in hac editione Theologis Lovaniensibus praestitum sit, paulo post indicatur, Franciscus Lucas Brugensis (ed.) (Antwerp: Christopher Plantin, 1574). Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis (Rome: Typographia Vaticana, 1592). Driedo, Joannes, De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus libri quatuor… (Leuven: Bartholomeus Gravius, 1533). Lucas Brugensis, Franciscus, Notationes in sacra Biblia, quibus variantia discrepantibus exemplaribus loca, summo studio discutiuntur (Antwerp: Christopher Plantin, 1580). Payva de Andrada, Diego de, Defensio tridentinae fidei catholicae et integerrimae quinque libris compraehensa aduersus haereticorum detestabiles calumnias & praesertim Martini Kemnicij Germani (Lisbon: Antonius Riberius, 1578). Seripando, Hieronymus, In Pauli Epistolas ad Romanos et Galatas commentaria (Naples: Johannes Jacobus Carlinus, 1601).

Secondary sources Allgeier, A., “Authentisch auf dem Konzil von Trient. Eine Wort- und Begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchung”, Historisches Jahrbuch 60 (1940) 142–58. Allgeier, A., “‘Haec vetus et vulgata editio’. Neue wort- und begriffsgeschichtliche Beiträge zur Bibel auf dem Tridentinum”, Biblica 29 (1948) 353–90. Allgeier, A., “Ricardus Cenomanus und die Vulgata auf dem Konzil von Trient”, in G. Schreiber (ed.), Das Weltkonzil von Trient: Sein Werden und Wirken (2 vol.; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1951) 1.359–80. Amann, F., Die Vulgata Sixtina von 1590: Eine quellenmässige Darstellung ihrer Geschichte, mit neuem Quellenmaterial aus dem Venezianischen Staatsarchiv (Freiburger theologische Studien 10; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1912). Aubert, R., “Henten (Jan)”, Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastiques 23 (1990) 1286–7. Barth, H., “Die katholische Lehre von den zwei Quellen der Offenbarung: Philologische und theologische Überlegungen zu einem umstrittenen Text des Konzils von Trient, seiner Vorgeschichte und seiner Rezeption”, Una Voce Korrespondenz 40 (2010) 29–125. Boute, B., Academic Interests and Catholic Confessionalisation: The Louvain Privileges of Nomination to Ecclesiastical Benefices (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 35; Leiden: Brill, 2010). Delville, J.-P., “L’évolution des Vulgates et la composition de nouvelles versions latines de la Bible au XVIe siècle”, in M.-C. Gomez-Géraud (ed.), Biblia. Les Bibles en latin au temps des Réformes (Paris: PUPS, 2008) 71–106. Denzler, G., Kardinal Guglielmo Sirleto (1514–1585). Leben und Werk: Ein Beitrag zur nachtridentinischen Reform (Müncher theologische Studien/I. Historische Abteilung 17; Munich: M. Hueber Verlag, 1964). Dequeker, L./Gistelinck, F., Biblia Vulgata Lovaniensis 1547–1574. Theology Faculty Library. Exhibition on the Occasion of the XII Congress of the International Organisation for the Study of the Old Testament. August 25 – Sept 8 1989 (Leuven: Bibliotheek van de Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid, 1989).

156

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

Dequeker, L., “The Anjou Bible and the Biblia Vulgata Lovaniensis, 1547/1574”, in L. Watteeuw/J. Van der Stock (ed.), The Anjou Bible. A Royal Manuscript Revealed: Naples 1340 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010) 127–38. De Schrevel, A.C., “Lucas (François)”, Biographie Nationale de Belgique 12 (1892–93) 550– 63. Draguet, R., “Le maître louvaniste Driedo inspirateur du décret de Trente sur la Vulgate”, in Miscellanea historica Alberti De Meyer (2 vol.; Leuven: Bibliothèque de l’Université, 1946) 2.836–54. Emmi, B., “Il Decreto Tridentino sulla Volgata nei commenti della prima polemica protestanto-cattolico”, Angelicum 30/2 (1953) 228–72. Emmi, B., “Il posto del ‘De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus’ nelle discussioni Tridentine”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 25 (1949) 588–97. Emmi, B., “Una votazione pro o contro i testi originali della S. Scrittura al Concilio di Trento”, Angelicum 34 (1957) 379–92. François, W., “John Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus (1533): A Controversy on the Sources of the Truth”, in L. Boeve/M. Lamberigts/T. Merrigan (ed.), Orthodoxy, Process and Product. On the Meta-Question (BETL 227; Leuven: Peeters, 2009) 85–118. Garcia-Moreno, A., “Reflexiones en torno a la Sessión IV de Trento”, in T. Stramare (ed.), La Bibbia “Vulgata” dalle origini ai nostri giorni (Collectanea Biblica Latina 16; Rome: Abbazia San Girolamo/Vatican City: Libreria Vaticana, 1987) 40–60. Gerace, A., “Francis Lucas ‘of Bruges’ and Textual Criticism of the Vulgate Before and After the Sixto-Clementine (1592)”, Journal of Early Modern Christianity 3 (2016) 201–37. Gielis, M., “Een Romeins doctoraat over het Traditiebegrip van Johannes Driedo van Turnhout”, Taxandria: Jaarboek van de Koninklijke geschied- en oudheidkundige kring van de Antwerpse Kempen 68 (1996) 145–61. Gielis, M., “Johannes Driedo. Anwalt der Tradition im Streit mit Humanismus und Reformation”, in M.H. Jung/P. Walter (ed.), Theologen des 16. Jahrhunderts. Humanismus – Reformation – Katholische Erneuerung: Eine Einführung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002) 135–53. Höpfl, H., Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sixto-Klementinischen Vulgata (Biblische Studien 18; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1913). Höpfl, H., Kardinal Wilhelm Sirlets Annotationen zum Neuen Testament: Eine Verteidigung der Vulgata gegen Valla und Erasmus (Biblische Studien 13/2; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1908). Jedin, H., Girolamo Seripando: Sein Leben und Denken im Geisteskampf des 16. Jahrhundert (2 vol.; Würzburg: Rita-Verlag und -Druckerei der Augustiner, 1937). Lanoye, D., “Benito Arias Montano (1527–1598) and the University of Louvain, 1568– 1576”, Lias 29 (2002) 23–44. Lodrioor, J., De leer over de christelijke traditie in de theologie van Joannes Driedo van Leuven (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, K.U.Leuven; Leuven, 1948). Muñoz Iglesias, S., “El decreto tridentino sobre la Vulgata y su interpretación por los teólogos del siglo XVI”, Estudios Biblicos 5 (1946) 137–69. Murphy, J.L., The Notion of Tradition in John Driedo (Milwaukee, WI: Seraphic Press, 1959; repr. [Whitefish:] Literary Licensing, 2011).

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

157

Quentin, H., Mémoire sur l’établissement du texte de la Vulgate: Octateuque (Rome: Desclée de Brouwer, 1922). Rekers, B., Benito Arias Montano (1527–1598) (London: The Warburg Institute/Leiden: Brill, 1972). Rekers, B., Benito Arias Montano 1527–1598. Studie over een groep spiritualistische humanisten in Spanje en de Nederlanden, op grond van hun briefwisseling (Groningen: VRB, 1961). Reusens, E.-H.-J., “Hentenius (Jean)”, Biographie Nationale de Belgique 9 (1886–87) 233–6. Rongy, H., “La Vulgate et le concile de Trent”, Revue Ecclésiastique de Liège 19 (1927–28) 19–31. Sutcliffe, E.F., “The Council of Trent on the Authentia of the Vulgate”, Journal of Theological Studies 49 (1948) 35–42. Townley, J., Illustrations of Biblical Literature Exhibiting the History and Fate of the Sacred Writings from the Earliest Period to the Present Century, Including Biographical Notices of Translators and Other Eminent Biblical Scholars (New York: Published for the Methodist Episcopal Church by G. Lane & P. Sandford, 1842). Voet, L., The Plantin Press (1555–1589): A Bibliography of the Works Printed and Published by Christopher Plantin at Antwerp and Leiden (6 vol.; Amsterdam: Van Hoeve, 1980). Vosté, J.-M., “La Volgata al Concilio di Trento”, Biblica 27 (1946) 301–31. Vosté, J.-M., “The Vulgate and the Council of Trent”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9 (1947) 9– 25. Wicks, J., “Catholic Old Testament Interpretation in the Reformation and Early Confessional Eras”, in M. Sæbø/M. Fishbane/J.L. Ska (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (2 vol.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2008) 2.617–48. Wilkinson, R.J., The Kabbalistic Scholars of the Antwerp Polyglot Bible (Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 138; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2007).

158

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

Appendices Appendix 1: Analogies95 between Castiglione’s Tractatus 6596 and Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus97 D: Analogies that have been established by Draguet, “Le maître louvaniste Driedo”, 842–8. FG: Analogies that have been established by W. François and A. Gerace. Castiglione, Tractatus 65. [1] 509, 22–6: … illam etiam comprobaverunt Christus, apostoli et evangeliste, qui pretermissis interdum his, que habetur in Hebreorum codicibus, editionem 72 citaverunt.

Two examples from Gal 3:10 and Gal 3:13. [2] 509, 27–8: … Lucas etiam in suo Evangelio et in Actis Apostolorum iuxta Hebreorum, scilicet iuxta 72 interpretes, usus est sacre scripture testimoniis. [3] 509, 28–30: Deinde, quod ad eam faciendam tot et tanti viri auctoritate publica electi, in diversis cellulis constituiti, non se ingerentes sed vocati in illa pariter consenserunt. [4] 509, 31–2: Ireneus et Augustinus, Hilarius et Hieronymus testantur hanc editionem Spiritu sancto et prophetico factam.

Driedo, De ecclesiasticis Scripturis et dogmatibus. 53: … Apostoli et Evangelistae passim praetermissis sententiis, quas in Hebraeorum voluminibus legimus, citaverunt scripturas veteris testamenti, secundum aeditionem. 70. 61: … ea usus est Christus, usi sunt Apostoli et Evangelistae, qui praetermissis interdum his, quae habentur in Hebraeorum codicibus, secundum aeditionem septuaginta, sententias ex veteri testamento citaverunt. Two examples from Gal 3:10 and Gal 3:13. 54: … Item Lucas in suo Evangelio, et in Actis Apostolorum, non iuxta Hebraicum, sed iuxta septuaginta usus est scripturae testimoniis. 61: Deinde quod ad eam faciendam tot ac tanti viri autoritate publica electi destinantur… constituentes numerum septuagintaduorum, qui in illam pariter consenserunt. Quod multi consona voce, consensu unanimi non sese ingerentes, sed vocati et electi. 54: Irenaeus, Orige. Augus. certo tenent aeditionem septuaginta, spiritu sancto et prophetico factam.

D

D D

D

D

95 We use italics for divering words or even (outspokenly) different forms of the same word, although the meaning is in both cases (about) the same. 96 Castiglione Tractatus 65. De sacrae scripturae abusibus, et eorum remedia, CT 12, 509–12. 97 Driedo, De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus. Sometimes in Driedo’s original there are typographical mistakes in the numeration: thus, in square brackets we put the right page number, for instance 82 [=71].

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

159

D 82 [=71]: Si aeditio nostra Latina esset male tradita, et in quibusdam a suo fonte discordaret, consequens esset Ecclesiam hactenus esse delusam, generaliaque concilia errasse, dum ea quae sunt fidei, consueta sint probari ex hac aeditione Latina. Cum ergo haec omnia sint absurda… [6] 510, 2–3: 55: D Et hoc modo fides nostra infirmis titubaret profecto fides nostra. Titubat titubabitur pedibus. enim fides… [7] 510, 3–5: 82 [=71]: D Nam Augustinus… exclamat:… is quoted The same argument, but without citation. the same passage. 82 [=71]: D [8] 510, 9–10: Si latius semper esset recurrendum ad si Latinis semper esset recurrendum ad hebreos vel grecos codices, sacre scripture exemplaria Graeca, vel Hebraea, sacrae auctoritas ab Hebreis dependeret, qui pro scripturae autoritas penderet a Graecis et maiori parte sunt nobis inimici. Hebraicis voluminibus. Hoc autem videtur absurdum, cum iam Graeci et Hebraei sint hostes nostrae Christianae fidei… [9] 510, 11–5: Gal 3:10 is quoted, referring 92: to the systematic falsification of the D Hebrew codices by Jews. 93: [10] 510, 15–7: Apostolus Hebraeae peritiae, et in lege D Et non est credendum Paulum, peritissimum in lege callentemque doctissimus, nunquam protulisset, nisi in linguam hebream, «omnis» et «in Hebraeis voluminibus haberetur… omnibus» protulisse, nisi fuisset in Frustra igitur tulerunt id Iudaei, ne antiquis codicibus, sed Hebrei viderentur esse sub maledicto, non abstulerunt, non potentes implere que potentes implere, quae scripta sunt. scripta sunt. [11] 510, 17–19: 72: D Ambrosius etiam dicit latinos nostros Idem demonstrari videtur ex Ambrosii codices esse emendatiores quam codices commentariis in quinto capite ad Hebreorum sive Grecorum. Idem dicit Romanos tradentis Latinorum codices esse emendatiores, quam Graecorum. Origenes. [12] 510, 22–4: 90: D Nam fidei et morum praecepta… Ubi dicunt scripturam esse obscuram, sufficienter sunt expressa, et declarata in dubiam etc., respondeo quod licet sint aliqua obscura et a fonte aliqualiter devia, aeditione nostra Latina… Quamobrem non tamen in his, que ad fidem et ad non oportet nos turbari, si quibusdam in mores pertinent. locis aeditionis nostrae scriptura sit vel ambigua a vel obscura, vel suspecta tanquam aliquantulum devia a mente scriptoris. [13] 510, 24–6: 80: D An example from Gen 1:2, with also The same example, but without Hebrew Hebrew text. text.

[5] 509, 34–7: Nam si esset vera, sequeretur Ecclesiam per tot tempora fuisse delusam, concilia generalia errasse, cum ea, que sint fidei, ex nostra editione sint consueta probari… Que omnia videntur rationi inconsentanea.

160 [14] 510, 34–5: Ad illud de solecismis et barbarismis, cuiusmodi sunt: «Neque nubent neque nubentur»; item «Magis pluris estis vos», «Pauperes evangelizantur», et cetera. [15] 510, 35–9: respondeo secundum Augustinum dicentem, consuetudinem vulgarem cum barbarismo plerumque esse utiliorem quam literatam integritatem latini sermonis sua novitate aut perturbantis ecclesiam aut facientis sensum vel ambiguum vel minus apertum vel minus consonum, in suo fonte expressum. [16] 510, 39–41: Unde et sancti patres vetustissimi Cyprianus, Augustinus, Hieronymus et alii in linguam latinam eruditissimi huiusmodi solecismos in sacra scriptura non horruerunt, utentes editionis nostris verbis. [17] 510, 42–4: Item Gregorius in prefatione Divi Iob: non barbarismum, confusionem, dein positum motumque prepositionum etiam casusque servare contemno, quod indignum vehementer existimo, ut verba celestis oraculi restringam sub regulis Donati. [18] 510, 44–6: Humili enim et simplici et inaffectato sermone usus est Christus, usi sunt apostoli et librorum sacrorum auctores, uti Paulus: «Non in persuasibilis humanae sapientiae verbis sermo meus est». [19] 510, 49–511, 1: Dico etiam, quod tempore illo fuit expediens ad Hebreorum Grecorumque codices recurrere, quod erant tot editiones latinae, quarum diversitas et varietas ecclesiam turbavit.

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

83 [=85]: Sunt per viros in arte Latina eruditos nonnulli in aeditione Latina soloecismi notati, cuiusmodi sunt, Neque nubent, neque nubentur, Magis plures estis vos, Pauperes evangelizantur… 83 [=85]: Sic olim docuit venerabilis Augustinus, consuetudinem vulgarem cum barbarismo plaerumque esse utiliorem, quam literatam integritatem Latini sermonis, sua novitate aut perturbantis ecclesiam, aut facientis sensum vel ambiguum, vel minus apertum, vel minus consonum sensui expresso in suo fonte. 83 [=85]: Unde etiam sancti patres vetustissimi, Cyprianus, Hieronymus, & Augustinus, in lingua latina eruditi, huiuscemodi soloecismos in scriptura sacra non horruerunt, utentes verbis aeditionis nostrae. 87: Gregorius in praefatione beati Iob. Non barbarismi confusionem devito situs motusque praepositionum etiam casusque servare contemno, quia indignum vehementer existimo, ut verba caelestis oraculi restringam sub regulis Donati. 87: Humili simplici et inaffectato sermone usus est Christus, usi sunt Apostoli librorum sacrae scripturae autores, non in persuasibilibus humanae sapientiae verbis. Sermo meus est, inquit Paulus, sed in ostensione spiritus et virtutis… 85 [=86]: Ideo et si olim expediebat Ecclesiae aeditionem novam in usum recipere, non tamen hinc oportet sequi, nunc esse utile aliam novam recipere. Olim magna erat Latinorum codicum varietas, et interpretum dissonantia, quae ingerebant multis in scripturae locis de textu scripturae sacrae quaestiones.

D

D

D

D

D

D

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

161

D 72 [=99]: … ut inquit August. latinorum interpretum numerosa varietas, per quam turbantur studiosorum hominum studia atque ingenia… Unde Augu. lib. 2. de doct. Christ. de hac diversitate latinorum interpretum, pro suo saeculo sic loquitur. Qui scripturas ex Hebraea lingua in Graecum veterunt numerari possunt, latini autem interpretes nullo modo. D [21] 511, 5–10: 73 [=100]: Et ideo illis seculis fuit expediens, Et ideo illis saeculis, cum nondum haberet Hieronymum ad hebreos recurrere Ecclesia latina veteris testamenti aeditionem, ex suo fonte Hebraeo versam codices, ut fierent una editio de hebreo et castigatam, congruebat Ecclesiae traducta et castigata, congruum etiam novam quandam talem aeditionem in erat, ut ecclesia talem novam usum recipere, quam nunc inveteratam, et traductionem in usum reciperet. in usum uniformiter per universas Postquam ergo longa consuetudine ab Ecclesias receptam, et in commentariis annis super mille est introducta ab ecclesiaque in uniformem usum recepta et patrum citatam, non sic convenit propter in tot commentariis patrum citata hec minuta quaedam, et forsitan minus recte nostra editio latina, non expedit propter versa repudiare, et loco eius novam minuta quedam et forsan minus recte recipere. versa hanc repudiare et loco eius novam recipere. [22] 511, 11–2: Cfr.: 63 and 68. D …sive in diversis cellulis, …sive in uno loco fuerant… D [23] 511, 13–7: 67–8: Spiritus sanctus multis modis loquitur. … spiritus sanctus multis modis loquitur. Quedam enim ad tempus tacet et preterit, Quaedam enim ad tempus tacet et quedam vero umbrat et velat, quedam praeterit, quaedam vero obumbrat et velat, quaedam compendio abbreviat. compendio breviat; 72 autem interpretes quedam, ut inquit Sed omnia haec iusta facit ratione… Septuaginta interpretes, quaedam, inquit Hieronymus, ex iusta ratione Hieronymus, ex iusta causa praeterierunt, preterierunt, ne sacramenta sue fidei ethnicis proderent; quedam doctores ob ne sacramenta suae fidei Ethnicis gratiam et Spiritus sancti auctoritatem proderent, quaedam ob decoris gratiam, ediderunt… et spiritus sancti autoritatem addiderunt… D [24] 511, 18–22: 64: In Apologia contra Rufinum se nusquam …ipse, ut testatur in Apologia contra voluisse aut reprehendere aut iniurari 72 Ruffinum,… declarant… se nusquam interpretum editionem. «Ego, inquit, voluisse aut reprehendere aut criminari contra 72 interpretes quicquam non sum septuaginta interpretum aeditionem. Ego, locutus, quos ante annos plurimos inquit, contra septuaginta interpretes quicquam sum loquutus? quos ante annos emendatos diligenitssime meae lingue plurimos emendatos diligentissime meae studiosis dedi, quos quotidie in linguae studiosis dedi, quos quotidie in conventum fratrum edissero, quorum conventu fratrum edissero, quorum Psalmos iugi meditatione decanto». psalmos iugi meditatione decant. [20] 511, 1–5: Dicit enim Augustinus de doctrina christiana, quod hoc tempore latinorum interpretum numerosa varietas erat, per quam turbantur studiosorum hominum studia atqua ingenia. Ait enim supra: «Qui Scripturas ex hebrea lingua in grecam verterunt, numerari possunt, latini autem interpretes nullo modo».

162 [25] 511, 24–6: Four citations from LXX. [26] 511, 27–8: Ut… rationabiliter… in hac editione Hieronymi invenirentur. [27] 511, 28–9: Primo, ne Iudei amplius insultarent, improperantes ecclesie nostre in hebreo non ita haberi. [28] 511, 29–35: Secundo, ut ea que in 72 interpretibus aut obscura, aut omissa erant, fierent pura ex nova traditione manifestiora. Respondeo, ut ea, que in 72 interpretibus fuerant scriptorum vitio depravata, fierent pura et castigata, que sub Hieronymi seculis fuerint multis modis vitiate. Tertio, ut compesceretur tumor superbie Grecorum, qui se preferebant Latinis, improperantes eis, quod nihil divinarum literarum haberent, nisi quod per eorum linguam et codices ad eos derivatum esset. [29] 510, 29–30: Hoc tamen non obest nec quoad fidem nec quoad mores, inquit Augustinus: errare in his rebus, quibus nihil interes ad regnum Dei, non arbitror esse peccatum. [30] 510, 30–1: Dico igitur ob praedictas rationes non amplius esse recurrendum ad hebreo vel greco codices concedo tamen ipsam Vulgatam aliqua correctione indigere ad emendanda, que vitio scriptorum vel impressorum sunt vitiata. [31] 511, 44–6: In opinione ego adhereo addends, quod absque mysterio, sed nutu et providentia Dei actum esset, ut titulus in cruce, quam Christus suo sanguine consecravit, esset hebraice, graece et latine conscriptus in memoriam, quod his tantum tribus linguis sacre litere trade discerent.

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

66: The same citations in the same order. 70: Huius sui laboris causas rationabiles assignans multas. 70: Quarum prima est, Ne Iudaei Ecclesiis Christus diutius insultarent, improperantes, in Hebraeo non ita haberi… 82 [=71]: Tertia ut ea quae apud septuaginta interpretes aut obscura aut omissa fuerant, fierent ex nova interpretatione manifestiora. Quarta, ut ea quae in septuaginta interpretum codicibus fuerant scriptorum vitio depravata, fierent pura et castigata, quae sub Hieronymi saeculis fuerant multis mendis vitiata. Quinta ratio, ut compesceretur tumor superbus Graecorum, qui se Latinis praeferebant, improperantes eis, quod nihil divinarum literarum haberent, nisi per eorum linguam codices ad se derivatum. 95: Errare in his rebus inquit Augustinus, quibus nihil interest ad consequendum regnum dei, utrum credantur aut non credantur, non arbitrandum est esse peccatum. 71: Quod standum sit aeditioni Latinae nostrae, & non amplius iam sit recurrendum ad exemplaria praecedentia, vel Graeca, vel Hebraea.

D D D

D

F G

F G

F 56: sciendum est quod triplex est scripturae G sacrae sermo, Hebraicus videlicet, Graecus, et Latinus, quo consuevit Christianorum schola uti, et demonstrare, atque corroborare contra haereticos suae fidei documenta. Unde et titulus in cruce Iesu, scriptus erat Hebraice, Graece, et Latine.

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

[32] 511, 47–512, 1–3: Dixit Demetrio: «Miror, quare nemo poetarum aut historicum de tot tantisque rebus gestis ullam fecerit mentionem». Cui Demetrius respondit: «Divina» inquit «hec lex est et a Deo data, atque ideo, si qui eam attingerint a Deo percussi resilierunt». [33] 512, 3–4: Addit etiam Eusebius exemplum cuisdam Theodoti poete, qui volens aliquam ex iudaica scriptura transferre ad fabulas, luminibus captus fuit.

163

58: … interrogavit Demetrium qua ratione nemo aut poetarum aut historicorum de tot tantisque rebus gestis ullam fecerit mentionem, cui Demetrius respondit, divina, inquit, haec lex est, & a deo data, atque ideo si qui attigerunt, a deo percussi resilierunt. 58: Ego quoque ipse, inquit, a Theodoto tragediarum poeta accepi, quod cum ipse multa ex Iudaica scriptura ad fabulam quandam transferre vellet, luminibus captus fuerit… Haec Eusebius de praeparatione Evangelica libro octavo.

F G

F G

Appendix 2: Analogies between Seripando’s Collecta in Concilio sub Paulo III and Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus J: Excerpts included in Jedin’s book on Seripando, which Draguet, “Le maître louvaniste Driedo”, 849 has recognized as being parallels with Driedo’s work. Seripando, Collecta in Concilio sub Paulo III. De LXX Interpretibus.98 [1] 123 vo: Ireneus ex Detectione Interpretatio LXXII consonat Apostolorum traditioni, Petrus et Joannes, Paulus, et relinqui. Deinceps et horum sectatores prophetica omnia ita adnuntiaverunt, quemadmodum seniorum LXXII interpretatio continet unus ut sic idem spiritus qui in prophetis vaticinatus est in senioribus interpretatus est.

Driedo, De ecclesiasticis sripturis et dogmatibus.99 53–4: Interpretatio septuaginta duorum consonat, inquit Irenaens, Apostolorum traditioni. Petrus etenim, Ioannes, Paulus, & reliqui deinceps, & horum sectatores prophetica omnia ita annuntiaverunt, quemadmobum seniorum. 70. duorum interpretatio continet. Unus enim & idem spiritus, qui in prophetis vaticinatus est, in senioribus interpretatus est.

98 BNN, Ms. Vind. Lat. 66 II, fol. 123vo–127vo: De libris sanctis. Collecta Tridenti in concilio sub Paulo III. On concession of “Ministero dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo” by Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli. 99 Also Draguet saw paralles between Seripando’s notes and Driedo’s book, on the basis of excerpts and summaries provided him by Hubert Jedin, who had also included short quotations from this manuscript in the footnotes of his book on Seripando. See Draguet, “Le maître lovaniste Driedo”, 849, n. 4 and Jedin, Girolamo Seripando, 325–7.

164 [2] Maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno, sic apud LXX, non sic apud Hebreos invenitur, et sic citatur Paulo ad Galalatas. Ireneus Gal. III Maledictus omnis qui non permanserint in omnibus quae scriptae sunt in libro legis. Hieronymus in Esaiam: cap. VI. Lucas in Evangelio, et actis, non iuxta haebraicum apud iuxta LXX usus est scripturae testimonii.

[3] 124 ro: Ptolemaeus volens experimentum sumere, et metuens ne forte veritatem scripturae per interpretationem absconderent, eosdem a seinvicem separat. Post interpretationem autem convenientibus, inquit, ipsis in unum apud Ptolemaeum, et comparantibus suas interpretationes Deus glorificatus est, et scripturae vere divinae sunt creditae omnibus eadem et eisdem verbis, et eisdem nominibus recitantibus ab initio usque in finem, uti per praesentes gentes cognoscerent, per aspirationem verbi Dei interpretatas esse scripturas. Eadem Hilarius super Esaiam II, Tertullianus in Apologia XVIII et XIX, Augustinus XV De Civitate Dei cap. XXIII et lib. XX cap. XXIX lib. XVIII cap. XVII Eusebius lib. VIII, Josephus lib. XII Antiquitates cap. II et Ruffinus contra Hieronymum. Chrysostomus: Homilia V Matthaei. [4] Ad faciendam verae translationis fidem omnibus aliis iure septuaginta interpretes sunt digniores. Siquidem alii post adventum domini interpretati sunt. Iudaei siquidem permanentes merito suspecti, quippe qui inimice et subdole multa corruperint, et data prorsus opera a prophetis Christi mysteria celaverint. Septuaginta vero ante centum et aliquanto amplius dominici adventus annos ad interpretandum tot, ac pariter accedentes, ab omni huiuscemodi suspitione sunt libri, et ex tempore et ex ipso quod super omnia debet valere consensu.

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

53–4 : Scriptum, inquit, Maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno, sic apud septuaginta & non apud Hebraeos invenitur. Sic & illud, quod citatur ad Galatas 3. Maledictus omnis qui non permanserit in omnibus, quae scripta sunt in libro legis quod sic apud septuaginta, non apud Hebraeos, invenitur. Item Lucas in suo Evangelio, & in Actis Apostolorum, non iuxta Hebraicum, sed iuxta septuaginta usus est scripturae testimoniis, quemadmodum docet idem Hieronymus in commentario super Esaiam, capite sexto 54: Ptolemaeus volens experimentum sumere, & metuens ne forte veritatem scripturae per interpretationem absconderent, eosdem a seinvicem separat. Post interpretationem autem convenientibus, inquit, ipsis in unum apud Ptolemaeum, & comparantibus suas interpretationes Deus glorificatus est, & scripturae vere divinae sunt creditae omnibus eadem & eisdem verbis, et eisdem nominibus recitantibus ab initio usque in finem, uti & praesentes gentes cognoscerent, per aspirationem Dei interpretatas esse scripturas. Eandem sententiam de ipsis interpretibus seorsum interpretantibus, & sic convenientibus probat Hilarius, item Tertullianus, in Apologia adversus gentes […] Deinde Aug. 15. de civit. Dei, cap. 23. […], &. 20. de civitate Dei, cap. 29. […] Item Chrysostomus super Evangelium Matthaei, homilia quinta. Primo quidem inquit, dicemus, quod ad faciendam verae translationis fidem omnibus aliis iure septuaginta interpretes sunt digniores. Siquidem alii post adventum domini interpretati sunt. Iudaei siquidem permanentes merito suspecti, quippe qui inimice & subdole multa corruperint, & data prorsus opera a prophetis Christi mysteria celaverint. Septuaginta vero ante centum & aliquanto amplius dominici adventus annos ad interpretandum tot, ac pariter accedentes, ab omni huiuscemodi suspitione sunt liberi, & ex tempore & ex ipso (quod super omnia debet valere) consensu.

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

[5] Origines in Epistula ad Africanum de Historia Susannae. Hoc solum pro vero habendum est in scripturis divinis, quod septuaginta interpretes transtulerunt Nam id solum est quod omne Apostolica non confirmatum est. [6] LXX ante Christum. II Aquila Judeus tempore Sixti, qui fuit octavus a Petro; tertius Theodotion tempore Soteris, qui fuit XIII a Petro, quartus Symmacus tempore Severini, qui fuit a Petro XVI. De his tribus Hieronymus in Apologia contra Ruffinum.

[7] 124 vo: Quinta editio cuius autor ignoratur, quam Beda inventam dicit Hierosolymis. Sextae etiam ignoratur autor Nicopoli repertam inquit Beda sub Imperatore Aurelio Antonino, de ijs duobus Hieronymus meminit in explanatione Psalmi 44 ad Principiam Virginem in Psalmo 89 ad Cyprianus. Septimae autor ignoratur cuius nuntio fit prologo super Chronicis Eusebij. Octavam Origines fecit. De quibus Eusebius Ecclesiasticae Historiae lib VI cap. 21. nonam Hieronymus: quam interpretatam LXX ex graeco vertit in latinum, ut patet in Apologia contra Ruffinum. Deinde nonam fecit versionem ex hebreo in latinum. Tertio novum testamentum Graecae fidei reddidit, ut de se in libro de viris illustribus.

165

54–5: Item longe ante tempus illud, Origines in epistola ad Africanum de historia Susannae sic loquitur. Hoc solum pro vero habendum est in scripturis divinis, quod septuaginta interpretes transtulerunt. Nam id solum est quod omne Apostolica non confirmatum est. 58: Primi ergo sacrae scripturae interpretes fuerunt septuaginta, deinde Aquila Iudaeus […] scripta sua aedidit sub ipsis temporibus Sixti, qui fuit octavus, post Petrum Romanus Pont. […]. Tertius veteris legis interpres fuit Theodotion, sub tempore Soteris decimitertii, qui fuit decimustertius post Petrum […]. Quartus veteris legis interpres Symmachus, sub temporibus fuit Severini decimisexti Pontificis post Petrum. De his tribus interpretibus sic habet Hieronymus […] in Apologia adversus Ruffinum. 59–60: quinta & sexta aeditio sunt a divo Hieronymo appellatae, quarum omnium & ipse meminit diversis in locis, & praecipue in explanatione psalmi quadragesimi quarti ad Principiam virginem, & in explanatione psalmi octogesiminoni ad Cyprianum. Quintam aeditionem dicit Beda inventam esse Hierosolymis. Sextam dicit esse repertam Nicopoli, sub imperatore Aurelio Antonio. Praeter has sex etiam septimam quandam aeditionem apud veteres patres fuisse constat, quam prologus super chronicis Eusebianis commemorat, ita dicens. Quinta & sexta & septima aeditio licet quibus censeantur autoribus ignoretur […] Deinde Origenes […] De quibus iam olim ante Hieronymum saecula, lequitur Eusebius libro 6. Ecclesiasticae historiae cap. 31.

166

[8] Ea Christus, et Apostoli usi sunt numerus interpretum, et eorum consensus, qui vocati, et electi eam facere, sub Petro usque Damasum recepta in Ecclesia.

[9] Contra interpretes LXX ex Hieronymo in prologo Pentateucho. Multa praeterimisere, multa alia dixere, quam hebrea habeat veritas sententia de cellulis fabulosa, quorum Aristeas Ptolomei satelles non meminissent neque Josephus, Ireneus, Tertullianus, Origenes: omne vetus testamentum a LXX translatum dicunt. [10] quod Hieronymus consentit Josephi et alij totum Pentateuchum, de quo Hieronymus ait quod plusquam alij libri cum haebraicis consonant, vates fuere, non interpretes.

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

Amplius autem post omnes aeditiones supra dictas, divus Hieronymus septuaginta interpretes emendatos ex Graeco in Latinum vertit eloquium, quemadmodum & ipse multis in locis testatur, praesertim in Apologia adversus Ruffinum […]Insuper &novum testamentum Graece fidei reddidit, ut & ipse testatur de seipso in lib. de viris illustribus. 61: Primum quod ea usus est Christus, usi sunt Apostoli […] ad eam faciendam[…], consensu unanimi non sese ingerentes, sed vocati & electi […] sub Petro Iesu Cristi vicario, & sub successoribus illius usque ad Damasum Papam in tota Ecclesia tam Graeca quam Latina scripturae recitabantur secundum editionem septuaginta interpretum. 63: Sed supradictis videtur forsitan obviare argumentum ex doctrina Hieronymi docentis Septuaginta interpretes nonnulla praetermisisse, & aliter etiam dixisse quam habeat Hebraica veritas, etiam arbitrantis sententiam de cellulis, & fabulosam esse & confictam. […] cum Aristeas Prolemaei satelles, […] Nos tamen, inquit, sequuti autoritatem veterum, Irenaei, Tertulliani, Origenis, totum vetus testamentum, per septuaginta translatum dicimus. 66: quod etiam in libris Moysi non nulla sint, quae non sic habet litera Hebraicae veritatis, ut. 70. transtulerunt, quippe qui non sensum dei perfecte habebant, nec enim vates sed interpretes erant.

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

[11] De cellulis non est litigandum; verumque salva fide, et charitate teneri posset 125 r o de spiritu prophetico esto habuerint qua ad ea quae per eos spiritus voluit predicere non per prophetas, non tamen sequitur quod in omnibus habuerint aequalitem spiritum Prophetis quos interpretabantur, non omnes aeque illustrantur, propterea non omnia forte ipsi interpretando intellixere quod Prophetarum scribendo. Esto etiam habuerint non propterea Prophetarum fuere. Habuere enim non ut futura predicerentur, sed ut quam predicta erant in aliam linguam interpretarentur. Neque etiam Apostoli aequandi sunt; illi enim potuere interpretari; quam plane non intelligabant, ac propterea sententiis dubijs: Apostoli vero quos sensus apertus fuit, ut scripturas intelligerent, nulla in re dubij, quam intelligebant et completa iam viderant dixere.

[12] Propterea tametsi multa praetermiserint, totum hoc ex divini spiritus dispositione factum fuit, qui iuxta personas et tempora sua aperit mysteria. Multa itaque per LXX tacere, quae in haebraeo erant, Spriritus voluit, multa propalare, multa addere, quae erant reformata ipsis tamquam propinquioribus Christo venienti omnia tamen vera sunt.

167

63–4: […] non esse curiose discutiendum, utrum septuaginta interpretes seorsum in singulis cellulis interpretantes […] Et quia res haec est de numero eorum, quae ad utramque partem, salva fide & charitate disputari possunt […]. Deinde & sciendum, quod etsi septuaginta interpretes […] habuerint propheticum spiritum, non tamen hinc concludi potest, illos interpretando libros prophetarum intellexisse in illis omnia, quae prophetae intellexerunt scribendo, neque enim fuerunt aequaliter omnes illustrati, qui prophetice sunt loquuti. […] aliter per sepuaginta interpretes, aliter per Apostolos spiritus sanctus testimonia ex veteri lege contexuit. Illi [i. e. Interpretes] eruditione verborum, & copia ea quae scripta inveniebant transtulerunt, & ante adventum Christi interpretantes, interdum id vel quod nesciebant, vel cuius mysteria non plane intelligebant, dubiis protulerunt sententiis. Apostoli vero quibus Christus post passionem, & resurrectionem longe plenius atque copiosius aperuit sensum, ut intelligerent scripturas, qui & operibus Christi praesentes fuerunt, & non tam prophetiam, quam historiam in scripturis propheticis intellexerunt. Summary of pp. 63–4.

J

168 [13] Hieronymus in 2 cap. Michaea et alibi videtur dubitare, an LXX et solos quinque libros Moysis, an integrum vetus testamentum transtulerint verum semper in suis commentarijs supponit omne vetus testamentum ab eis fuisse translatum: nusquam dicit eos errasse, aut falsum asseruisse; aut linguam haebraicam non intellexisse verum id dum taxat dicit, quam fuisse ab eis caelata, alia tacita non bene intellecta, alia potuisse aliter interpretari: quaedam fuisse in eorum interpretatione ab alijs adiecta, aut depravata.

De annorum computatione variant LXX ab haebrei. [14] 125 vo: Multa inquit Hieronymus in prologo Pentatheuco, in novo testamento allegantur ex veteri quae in LXX non reperiuntur: ex Aegipto vocavi filium meum, Nazaraenus vocabitur, videbant in quem compunxerunt, flumina de ventre eius fluent aquae vivae, nec oculus vidit, nec auris audivit. Hieronymus in prologo Esaiae: docet. In novo testamento tunc adduci testimonium ex LXX cum inter eos, et haebraicam veritatem nihil differt. Ubi autem differt, haebraicum magis sequuntur docet item, in novo testamento multa contineri testimonia quae in LXX non inveniuntur, nullum autem ex LXX quod non invenitur in haebraeo Paulus Gal. 3 adducit illud maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno, iuxta LXX. Hieronymus ait iam hoc factum quia aeditio LXX vulgata erat inter eos non quos scribebat, et nimium sibi videbantur vix scripturas ipsas audientibus ostendere eos male fuisse interpretatos ex haebreo. Ego sicut ad spiritum sanctum refero interpretationem LXX ita testimonium Pauli ex illis acceptum.

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

65: Hiero. super prophetas coarguentis interpretationes eorundem. Unde super capite. 2. Micheae […] Hieronymus plaerisque in locis videatur dubitare, an septuaginta interpretes transtulerint solos quinque Moysi libros, semper tamen in commentariis supponit alios etiam veteris testamenti libros, ab ipsis esse translatos, & nusquam calumniatur eosdem septuaginta interpretes errare, & falsa interpretatos esse, aut significationem Hebraicorum nominum non intellexisse, sed demonstrat vel quaedam ab illis fuisse caelata aut tacita, aut etiam ignorata, & non plene intellecta, vel nomina Hebraea etiam aliter potuisse interpretari, vel in ipsorum aeditione, quaedam per alios interdum esse aut adiecta, aut depravata & corrupta. […] Attamen etiam in eisdem libris Moysi magna erat inter Hebraeorum, &. 70. interpretum codices distantia, & praecipue de numero annorum. 66–7: Multa, inquit Hiero. de veteri testamento legimus, quae in. 70. interpretum codicibus non reperiuntur, cuiusmodi sunt. Ex Aegypto vocavi filium meum. Item, Nazaraeus vocabitur. Viderunt in quem compunxerunt. Item. Flumina fluent de ventre eius aquae vivae. Item. Nec oculus vidit, nec auris audivit. Unde & ipse Hieron. in prooemio libri. 15. comentariorum Esaiae Apostoli & Evangelistae ubicunque de veteri instrumento, inquit, ponunt testimonia, si inter Hebraicum & septuaginta nulla diversitas sit, vel suis vel septuaginta interpretum verbis uti solent, sin autem aliter in Hebraeo, aliter in veteri aeditione sensus est, Hebraicum magis quam septuaginta interpraetes sequuntur. Denique, ut nos inquit ostendimus, Apostolos & Evangelistas posuisse ex Hebraeo multa, quae in septuaginta non habentur. […] quare ergo Paul. [..] ad Gal. […] Maledictus omnis homo, qui pendet in ligno.

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

[15] 126 ro: An ei standum sit, vel adhuc ad suos fontes pro dubijs recurrendum, graecos scilicet codices, et haebreos.

Videtur non recurrendum primo Hieronymus eam eodem fecit spiritu, quo scripta in suo fonte est, et agens negotium totius ecclesiae latinae, de qua non videtur hactenus sic decepta. Decepta autem essent si quod in sua biblia devium a veritate esset, et sic ut Augustinus argumentatur nihil in ea remaneret auctoritatis. Item Concilia generalia quae per hanc aeditionem concluserunt ea quae sunt fidei, errare potuerunt. Item haebraei dicunt ante Christum natum correctam fuisse suam scripturam a sapientibus, qui inter caetera posuerunt in margine quaedam quae sibi videbantur honestiora vocabula, quaeque ea quae erant in textu, unde sensus emersit alius, ut ostendit Porchetus lib cap. XV multa etiam mutaverunt in textu, quae Christi incarnationem, et mortem designabant, unde sequitur quod nec etiam Christi tempore quarum textum habuerint.

169

82 [=71]: Et primum discutiendum est, utrum iam adhuc in hac nostra aeditione Latina aliquid contineatur, quod sit aut dubium, aut suspectum, aut a suo fonte devium, pro quo sit recurrendum ad fontem scripturae, aut Hebraicae aut Graecae. Primum argumentum. Hieronymus hanc J nostram aeditionem fecit, eodem spiritu sancto, quo & ipsa scriptura in suo fonte aedita est, a prophetis & Apostolis. Deinde ipse Hieronymus negotium egit totius Ecclesiae, quae falli non potest. Secundo, Si biblia Latina, qua hactenus usa est tota Christianorum Ecclesia, in quibusdam devia sit a veritate, consequens est, nihil autoritatis remanere in illa. Sic enim argumentatur Augustinus de scriptura sacra. […] generaliaque concilia errasse, dum ea quae sunt fidei, consueta sint probari ex hac aeditione Latina. Item … habuerint: there is a summary on the pages 72–4. In particular, p. 73 has the same mention of Porchetus: “quemadmodum demonstrat Porchetus libro primo victoriae, adversus Hebraeos capite decimoquinto.”

170 [16] 126 vo: I propositio. Scripturae hebraeorum ante Christi adventum non fuerunt de industria universaliter depravatae. Patet ab Orig. super Esaia VIII et Hier. super Esaia cap. VI quia hoc eorum crimen non tacuisse Christus et Apostoli. Christus enim dixit eis scrutamini scripturas§ Ioa: V. et incoepit a Moysi et omnibus Prophetiis et super cathedram Moysi§ Hi loci requirere videbantur, ut hoc illorum crimen depravatas scripturas detegeretur: bene reprehenduntur quae non intelligebant eos.

[17] Differentia est inter Prophetam, Interpretem, et Expositorem. Primus non potest errare. Secundus, et si moveatur a Spiritu S. ad interpretandum, potest vel ex ignorantia linguarum, vel alia aliqua ratione errare, et non exprimere verum sensum auctoris, seu Spiritus Sancti, sic et certius errare potest. [18] Prima est proprositio: Editio communis et vulgata Veteris Testamenti neque est penitus alia ab interpretatione Hieronymi, neque penitus eadem. Nota: Esse incertum, an Hieronymus Novum Testamentum ex graeco omnino transtulerit an tantum correxit.

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

76: Quod Iudaei non falsaverint scripturas suas Hebraeas ante Christi adventum possimus coniicere ex argumento Origenis divique Hieronymi, qui sic argumentantur. Christus & Apostoli, qui caetera crimina in Iudaeis arguerunt, hoc itidem crimen quod maximum fuisset, reprehendissent, nec salvator illis ad scrutandum eas, quas habebant scripturas provocasset dicens, Scrutamini scripturas, nec incepisset a Moyse & omnibus prophetis interpretans eas quas habebant scripturas, nec dixisset. Super cathedram Moysi sederunt scribae & pharisei. 79:100 Hactenus de argumentis, quibus nobis factum est verisimile Graecorum & Hebraeorum scripturas sacras non esse universaliter de industria depravatas, 79: doctrinam est commemorandum, quod aliud est esse prophetam, aut evangelistam, aliud est prophetae, aut Evangelistae esse interpretem, aliud expositorem. Propheta vel Evangelista in edendo scripturas sacras a veritate deviare non potest, Interpres autem potest aberrare a sensu autoris, & plaerumque vel ex obscuritate, vel ex ambiguitate vel imperitia linguae originalis fallitur. 80: Interpretatio Latina seu communis aeditio J vulgata, qua Ecclesia nunc utitur, tam veteris quam novi testamenti, videtur neque penitus esse alia ab interpretatione Hieronymi […] Non omnino certum esse, an Hieron. transtulerit ex Graeco totum ipsum novum testamentum…, et ita se novum testamentum ex Graeco non transtulisse, sed correxisse.

100 In Driedo’s original there is no page 78 because of a mistake in numeration.

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

[19] [Hieronymus] in libro 2 de viris illustribus dicit quod novum testamentum graecae fidei reddidit, vetus ad haebraicam transtulit, et in prefatione quatuor Evangeliorum ad Damasum ait, se ita calamum temperasse101 ut ea tantum quae sensum mutare videbantur, corrigere, reliqua dimitteret. [20] 127 ro: Licebit adhuc divinos libros studiose eos examinare recurrendo ad suos fontes graecos seu haebreos, iam nulla possit esse translatio tam luculenta, tam clara quae non alia contineat, vel ambigua, vel obscura. Recurrendum tamen dico non ad confundendos auctoritates aliarum aeditionum ad fontes sed ad rectius explicandum sensum autoris, et stabilendum quae sunt fidei non autem nova fidis dogmata adversus vetera sanciendum.

[21] Virtus apud graecos non habet eam amphibologiam quam apud latinos, apud quos significet, et id quod vitio opponitur, et potentiam, id unum est quod in aeditione vulgata facit obscuriorem.

[22] Dato quod haec aeditio vulgata sit Hieronymi non sequitur quod nullum possit habere errorem, habuit enim Hieronymus spiritum charitatis quo motus hoc fecit non intelligentis, parem ijs qui scripsere, ut in nulla re ab eorum intelligentia errare potuerit.

171

80: Unde & ipse [scil. Hieronymus] in lib. de vir. Illust. asserit se novum testamentum Graecae fidei reddidisse, vetus autem iuxta Hebraicam transtulisse. […] Cui & consonat, quod in praefatione quatuor Evangeliorum ad Damasum Papam dicit, Ita in hac emendatione calamo imperavimus,101 ut his tantum, quae sensum videbantur mutare correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant. 83: Quapropter non arbitremur absurdum esse sermonem scripturae sanctae translatum ex suo fonte in linguam aliam examinare, recurrendo ad suam originem […], adhuc liceret pro intelligendis locis obscuris recurrere ad scripturam in suo fonte. Nulla potest esse aeditio ex uno idiomate in aliud versa, tam luculenter, tam clare expressa, quae non tractu temporis, vel propter diversitates interpretantium, vel exponentium, vel propter quaestiones haereticorum, quibusdam in locis redditur ambigua & obscura, quae plaerumque ex scriptura custodita in suo fonte, suaque origine potest fieri clara, & manifesta. 84 [=85]: Virtus quae contrariae est vitio in Graeca linguae nomen habet aliud quam virtus pro robore, seu potentia. Proinde latinus interpres promiscue utens in latina aeditione nomine virtutis, sensum facit ambiguum qui apud fontem Graecum certus est & unicus. Commendanus autem est quisquis hanc amphibologiam tollens, loco virtutis robur seu potentiam ponit secundum Graecam dictionem. 88: Hieronymus quidem fecit aeditionem suam eodem spiritu, quo & prophetae suam scripturam aediderunt in suo fonte, […], non inde consequens est Hieronymum accepisse mysticam visionum propheticarum intelligentiam tam plene, quam acceperunt prophetae visiones illas propheticas discribentes.

101 Driedo used the expression calamum temperasse at p. 74.

172 [23] Tamesti autem egerit negotium Ecclesiae Hier. numquis tamen Ecclesia sic eam aeditionem approbavit, ut non liceret dubitare in aliquibus, et ad suos recurrere fontes.

[24] Concilia generalia quae latina aeditione nixa sunt errare non potuere: quia ea, in quibus nostra haec editio discrepat a suo fonte, non talia sunt, ut aliam fidei regulam, alia morum praecepta parere possint, sed tantum continent obscura quedam, et ambigua hactenus neque a christianis, neque a Judaeis intellecta sicut multa esse constat in prophetis; et Apocalypsis Iohannis, quae tamen si ad salutem faciunt alibi clare posita sunt.

[25] Emendatio scribarum facta ante Christum: non recipienda, de cuius mendacijs praedixit Hieremias cap. VIII, et facta fuit non in libris sacris, sed in commentarijs : non quo ad sacros libros benedicunt Patres, quia Iudaei sunt capsarii librorum, qui pro nobis contra eos testimonia continent, et ut supra dictum est numquam hoc crimem falsatis scripturarum Christus tacuisse.

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

88 [=89]: Caeterum ipse traducens scripturam sacram, egit quidem negotium totius Ecclesiae, quae non fallitur, sed non inde consequens est aeditionem eius nusquam aberrare ab Hebraica veritate. Alius est iussu Ecclesiae novum testamentum castigare, aliud est id quod castigatum est iussu Ecclesiae in singulis sic approbare, ut non liceat unquam haesitare aut dubitare, ne forte interpres non recte scripturam verterit. 90: Ad tertium argumentum [Si aeditio nostra Latina esset male tradita, generaliaque concilia errasse] similiter dicimus, consequentiam esse invalidam. Nam fidei & morum praecepta aliaque ad salutem utilia sufficienter sunt expressa, & declarata in aeditione nostra Latina, […] Quamobrem non oportet nos turbari, si quibusdam in locis aeditionis nostrae scriptura sit vel ambigua a vel obscura, vel suspecta tanquam aliquantulum devia a mente scriptoris. Quemadmodum neque oportet nos turbari, si in lege Moysi, in prohetis, in Apocalypsi Ioannis, caeterisque scripturis dicantur esse sermones quidam difficiles, obscuri, quorum sensus in hodiernum usque diem est incertus, & ambiguus, tam Christianae Ecclesiae, quam Hebraeorum synagogae. 93–4: respondeo non oportere nos recipere, quae in Iudaeorum talmud, aut in tiquun sofrim asseruntur vera esse. Unde & tiquun sofrim, & talmud, sunt mendacia scribarum, de quibus tunc futuris vaticinatus fuerat Hieremias capite octavo, Vere mendacium operatus est stylus mendax scribarum. Unde & in hodiernum usque diem crediderunt patres orthodoxi Iudaeos esse custodes seu capsarios librorum, ex quibus adferuntur fidei nostrae testimonia, etiam contra ipsos in scripturis exponendis excaecatos.

Trent and the Latin Vulgate: A Louvain Project?

173

Appendix 3: Analogies between the draft decree abusus … super libris sacris, cum remediis adhibendis, treated by the Council fathers in the General Congregation of 17 March 1546,102 and Driedo’s De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus. Abusus … super libris sacris. First abuse [1] 29.7: Primus abusus est habere varias editiones sacrae scripturae …

Driedo, De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus.

73 [=100]: Ex alia tamen parte turbabatur Ecclesiae unitas, propter diversas latinorum interpretum etiam indoctorum aeditiones. 55: [2] 29.9–10: … totus Christianorum coetus et universalis Remedium est habere unicam tantum editionem, veterem sc. et vulgatam, qua Ecclesiae synodi hac [editione vulgata] sint omnes utantur pro authentica… usi tamquam probata et autentica… [3] 29.10–11: 73 [=100]: in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, Unde & iam citra annos mille aut circiter expositionibus et praedicationibus… latini scriptores, non sic leguntur in scripturis sacris citatis esse varii atque diversi, concorditer utentes hac nostra aeditione latina, qua & iam sic in usum atque autoritatem recepta semper deinceps usa est Ecclesia in publicis lectionibus, studiis, disputationibus, & exercitiis scholasticis, et id quidem ratione iusta… 54: [4] 29.11–13: non detrahendo tamen auctoritate purae et [Chrysostomus…] verae translationis fidem verae interpretationis Septuaginta omnibus aliis iure septuaginta interpretes interpretum, qua nonnumquam usi sunt sunt digniores [also 63] apostoli… 70: credidiset septuaginta editionem se habere puram & incorruptam… [editio] septuaginta interpretum, qua usi sunt Christus et apostoli… [5] 29.13: 73 [=100]: neque reiiciendo alias editiones, quatenus Non haec dicimus, quod alias aeditiones ab authenticae illius intelligentiam iuvant. eruditis … aeditas refutemus … quibus tamen suum honorem tribuimus in privatis studiis legentes illas, tanquam … adiuvantes studia nostra ad intelligendum loca, vel obscura, vel ambigua, vel per scriptorum incuram depravata in aeditione nostra.

102 Congregatio generalis. Leguntur abusus collecti a deputatis super libris sacris, cum remediis adhibendis, CT 5, 29.

174

Wim François/Antonio Gerace

Third abuse [6] 29.27: Remedium est, ne cuipiam liceat in rebus fidei et morum ad aedificationem doctrinae Christianae [7] 29.22 : Tertius abusus est, ut quilibet propriae prudentiae innixus non in scriptura sacra voluntatem habens, sed ad suam voluntatem scripturam contorquens

90: Deinde … de rebus gestis, quae sive sic, sive aliter contigerunt, possunt fidem & mores aedificare. 147: Utrunque proinde caveat ne videlicet innixus suae prudentiae ita suo fidat ingenio, ut arbitretur non opus esse sibi humano magisterio. Also 165 [=156]: hic iam [Paulus] docet haereticum posse appellari eum, qui secundum opinionem suam de Ecclesia non recedit, velut qui aut pertinaciter suae prudentiae innixus, aut temerarie, aut carnaliter torquet scripturam ad disciplinam quam putat meliorem.103

103 Driedo often uses the expression “scripturam/s (de)torquere”, both in the first chapter (p. 76) and third chapter of the second book (pp. 128 and 134).

Joris Geldhof

Trent and the Production of Liturgical Books in its Aftermath

In a perspicuous study dating from the 1940s, Annibale Bugnini observed that the Council of Trent did not say much about the liturgy qua liturgy.1 It said a lot about the sacraments, their number, their institution by Christ, the conditions for their validity, the importance of the Eucharist being interpreted as a sacrifice, etc. This discrepancy between liturgy and sacraments is generally held to be typical of theological developments which have their origin in the Middle Ages and which are commonly characterized by notions like intellectualism, formalism, and legalism. Epistemological and juridical clarity seem to have prevailed over spiritual and existential depth. And, in line with a certain dualism occupying Western history, there was more confidence in the internal and invisible core of the sacraments (their res) than in the outer and material forms of their actual celebrations (the sacramentum tantum).2 These developments were definitely reinforced by the Council of Trent’s approach to the Church’s life of worship in general and to liturgical books in particular. That, at least, is the hypothesis undergirding the following considerations. The goal of the present contribution is to look at the production of liturgical books after Trent3 and to lay bare the particular interpretation of Trent that the bulls promulgating these books reveal. For it seems correct what several historians have suggested, namely, that Trent would not, and could not, have been so successfully implemented if not the Popes had taken it on them to put the Council into practice.4 The fervor with which they carried out what they thought was the right interpretation of Trent, was enormous and has co-shaped both the actual 1 A. Bugnini, “La ‘liturgia’ dei sacramenti al concilio di Trento”, Ephemerides Liturgicae 59 (1945) 39–51. 2 For a thoroughgoing theological critique of this mentality, see e. g. the work of L.-M. Chauvet, Symbol and Sacrement: A Sacramental Reinterpretation of Christian Existence (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), esp. chapters 1–4. 3 H. Jedin, “Das Konzil von Trient und die Reform der liturgischen Bücher”, Ephemerides Liturgicae 59 (1945) 5–38. 4 J.F. White, Roman Catholic Worship: Trent to Today (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003).

176

Joris Geldhof

reception and the reputation of the event. Correspondingly, I argue that there is a difference between what Trent said about the sacraments and what the Popes did with the liturgical books they published in the last part of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century.5 That difference often goes unnoticed and urges one today to be very careful to use categories like ‘Tridentine liturgy’ or ‘Tridentine Mass’. Such terms may make sense as a general historical characterization, but cannot claim theological precision. Moreover, as I demonstrated elsewhere, it can be seriously doubted whether at all Trent brought about a liturgical reform.6 The structure of this contribution is threefold. First, I introduce the major documents at stake, i. e. the bulls promulgating the Breviarium Romanum, the Missale Romanum, the Pontificale Romanum, and the Rituale Romanum as well as their authors. I will leave the Calendarium, the Martyrologium and the Caeromoniale Episcoporum out of scope, not primarily because of practical reasons, but above all since they are less directly connected with the actual celebration of the liturgy. Second, I compare the content of these texts and discuss in which way they refer to the authority of the Council of Trent. Third, I briefly interpret the nature of these texts against the backdrop of theories of modernity.

I.

The Popes and the Bulls they Wrote

Although several attempts had been made, the Council of Trent itself had not succeeded in revising the liturgical books. It had investigated and discussed many liturgical abuses,7 but the whole issue had eventually appeared too delicate. In addition to that, there was quite some pressure in 1563 to put the Council to a close. Therefore, in the very last session, the Council fathers entrusted the 5 Yet another issue is the complex history of the celebration of the Eucharist itself. In spite of its reputation of fixedness and rigidity, a lot happened with regard to ‘the Mass’ in the time span between the sixteenth and the twentieth century. In this respect, reference must be made to the compelling study of Ph. Martin, Histoire de la Messe. Le théâtre divin (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2010). 6 J. Geldhof, “Did the Council of Trent Produce a Liturgical Reform? The Case of the Roman Missal”, Questions Liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy 93 (2012) 171–95. 7 A commission under the leadership of a cardinal was assigned to come up with a document that listed these abuses: “Abusus, qui circa venerandum missae sacrificium evenire solent, partim a partibus deputatis animadversi, partim ex multorum praelatorum dictis et scriptis excerpti.” This document is published in full in Concilium Tridentinum: Diariorum, actorum, espistularium, tractatuum nova collectio (13 vol.; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1901–2001), 8.916–21. For a commentary, see R. Knittel, “Deformata Reformare – Liturgische Miβbräuche und Reformanliegen in den Trienter Redormdekreten”, Forum Katholische Theologie 12 (1996) 247–60.

Trent and the Production of Liturgical Books in its Aftermath

177

practical work of the revision of the liturgical books, along with other important documents like the Catechism and the Index of Forbidden Books, to the Pope. The phrase with which this was decided is astonishingly brief and does not quite testify of intrinsic respect for the liturgy qua liturgy: [T]he Council orders that all they have prepared should be presented to the Pope and so by his wisdom and authority be completed and published. It gives similar orders in the matter of the catechism prepared by those commissioned, and of the missal and breviary.8

The first revised liturgical book was the Breviarium Romanum. In 1568, only five years after the closure of the Council, Pius V proudly announced its publication and mandated it to the clergy of the entire Roman Catholic Church. Two years later, in 1570, the Missale Romanum appeared, still under the reign of Pius V. This Dominican, who lived like an ascetic and was notoriously severe, had pursued a career in the Roman Inquisition and was canonized already in 1610 by Pope Paul V. Unfortunately, however, “[t]he details of the processes of revising the Breviary and Missal are unknown; minutes of the commissions have not survived”.9 It is also worth noting that Pius V had made it possible that the Catechism appeared in 1566, but no intrinsic connection was established with the liturgical books proper. This apparent priority of the Catechism may have to do with the urge to position oneself very clearly on a doctrinal level and to get programs of religious socialization practically organized, as the proponents of the Konfessionalisierungshypothese have suggested.10 A central figure in the revision of the Catechism, the Breviary, and the Missal was Cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto (1514–85).11 He was appointed the librarian of the Vatican library under the very short reign of Pope Marcellus II (1555) and was known for his scholarship and didactic talents; his most famous pupil may well be Carlo Borromeo, who was another powerful figure in implementing the use of the new liturgical books. Cardinal Sirleto was also involved in the revision of the Vulgate, the Calendar, and the Martyrology under Pius V’s successor, Gregory XIII. This Pope gave his name to the Gregorian calendar, which replaced the ageold Julian calendar in 1582, as well as to the Gregorian University, which emerged out of an extension of the Collegium Romanum founded by Ignatius of Loyola in 1552. As to the Martyrologium, a particular challenge was the removal of leg8 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, N.P. Tanner/G. Alberigo (ed.) (2 vol.; London: Sheed & Ward/Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 2. 797. 9 White, Roman Catholic Worship, 7. 10 W. Reinhard/H. Schilling (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 198; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1995). 11 G. Denzler, Kardinal Guglielmo Sirleto, 1514–1585, Leben und Werk: Ein Beitrag zur nachtridentinischen Reform (Münchener theologische Studien; Historische Abteilung 17; Munich: Hüber, 1963).

178

Joris Geldhof

endary elements – a typical concern of the time and one in which one can discern a certain humanist inclination as well as a drive to purify. Sixtus V became Pope after Gregory XIII in 1585. He did not do much pertaining to the production of liturgical books but, in addition to realizing many public architectural and artistic projects, he substantially reformed the Roman Curia.12 One of the crucial parts of that reform was the foundation of the Congregation of Sacred Rites in 1588, which “saw its work as establishing and maintaining uniformity in worship in the West and to this end from time to time published particular decrees dealing with individuals or localities and general decrees dealing universally in the West”.13 It turned out to be a very efficient means to shape the identity of Roman Catholic worship from the seventeenth up until the middle of the twentieth century.14 It certainly embodied the liturgical mentality which many a representative of the Liturgical Movement in the twentieth century depreciatively called ‘rubricism’. On the eve of and during the Second Vatican Council it was renowned for its stubbornness and conservatism.15 The papacy of Sixtus V was followed by three shorter papacies (Urban VII, Gregory XIV, and Innocent IX), during which no initiative was taken with regard to the production of books for the celebration of the liturgy. This process only continued under Clement VIII, who published the revised Pontificale Romanum in 1596. To this he added in 1600 another book with prescriptions for the ceremonies presided by bishops and the honors due to bishops, the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. In addition, Clement VIII found it necessary to republish, with slight modifications, both the Breviarium Romanum and the Missale Romanum in 1602 and 1604 respectively. He did this in spite of the fact that his predecessor Pius V had ordered that not a syllable be changed to the entire volume. The title of the bull promulgating the Missal was Cum sanctissimum, the one launching the Breviary Cum in Ecclesia. Besides, although Clement VIII had again supposed this was the final version of the Missal to which no changes should be made, Pope Urban VIII again modified it in 1634 and promulgated it with the bull Si quid est. Three years earlier he had done likewise with regard to the Breviary. But in both cases he did pay tribute to his predecessors Pius V and Clement VIII, who he esteemed had done a wonderful job. Since the seventeenth century until the publication of the new Missal in 1970, almost all editions of the Missale Romanum have been preceded by the three promulgating bulls Quo primum, Cum

12 W.T. Selley, Sixtus V: The Hermit of Villa Montalto (Leominster: Gracewing, 2011). 13 White, Roman Catholic Worship, 9. 14 F.R. MacManus, The Congregation of Sacred Rites (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 352; Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1954). 15 P. Marini, A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Reform 1963–1975, M.R. Francis/K.F. Pecklers (ed.) (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007).

Trent and the Production of Liturgical Books in its Aftermath

179

sanctissimum, and Si quid est. This is less consistently the case for the Breviarium Romanum. The last liturgical book issued after the Council of Trent was the Rituale Romanum, containing the celebration of the sacraments presided over by a (parish) priest, as well as many other rituals and blessings. This was done by Pope Paul V in 1614 with the bull Apostolicae Sedi. The reason it took so long before this basic book appeared is probably due to the most fundamental problem Trent and the Popes after the Council saw themselves confronted with, viz. diversity.16 Liturgical Book Breviarium Romanum (1)

Title bull Quod a Nobis

Pope Pius V

Reign 1566–1572

1570 1582

Missale Romanum (1) Calendarium Romanum

Quo primum Inter gravissimas

Pius V Gregorius XIII

1566–1572 1572–1585

1584

Martyrologium Romanum Pontificale Romanum

Emendato iam kalendario Ex quo in Ecclesia Dei

Gregorius XIII

1572–1585

Clemens VIII

1592–1605

Caeremoniale Episcoporum Breviarium Romanum (2)

Com novissime

Clemens VIII

1592–1605

Cum in Ecclesia

Clemens VIII

1592–1605

1604 1614

Missale Romanum (2) Rituale Romanum

Cum sanctissimum Apostolicae Sedi

Clemens VIII Paul V

1592–1605 1605–1621

1631

Breviarium Romanum (3) Missale Romanum (3)

Divinam Psalmodiam

Urbanus VIII

1623–1644

Si quid est

Urbanus VIII

1623–1644

1568

1596 1600 1602

1634

II.

The Content and General Tendency of the Bulls

In this section we will have a close look at the bulls promulgating the Breviarium Romanum, the Missale Romanum, the Pontificale Romanum, and the Rituale Romanum.17 Together these liturgical books cover the entire liturgical life of the 16 When commenting upon the reasons Vatican I did not address liturgical issues, Philippe Martin pointedly observes that it is very likely that this council would have wanted to confirm and continue the ‘Tridentine spirit’, which consists in fighting against diversity and affirming pontifical power. Martin, L’histoire de la Messe, 34. 17 We refer to the editions of these books in the Monumenta Liturgica Concilii Tridentini (MLCT) series, in which the editiones principes of the liturgical books issued after the Council of Trent were edited by leading Italian (and one Spanish) scholars: Pontificale Romanum. Editio princeps (1595–1596), M. Sodi/A.M. Triacca (ed.) (MLCT 1; Vatican City: Libreria

180

Joris Geldhof

Catholic Church, at least insofar as it celebrates the liturgy according to the Roman rite: the Divine Office, or Liturgy of the Hours,18 the celebration of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments, in addition to a whole lot of other celebrations and benedictions presided over by either a (parish) priest or a bishop. I will first attempt at a general characterization and then develop four emphatic features of those texts.19 In general, all these bulls are concise and concrete. The language and style the Popes employ is rather juridical, practical, and historical than theological, reflexive, pastoral, or spiritual. Their overall tone is aloof, distant, and official; there seems to be no room for literary creativity. The Popes briefly situate the liturgical books, tenaciously affirm their legality and authoritatively issue them. They do not see in the promulgation of a liturgical book an occasion for theologizing, let alone for encouragement or spiritual nourishment. They take on a defensive stance and express themselves almost in a threatening fashion. Because the text is now officially approved by the highest ecclesial authorities, everyone falling under their responsibility has to accept it. In what follows, first the explicit references to Trent and the Popes claiming both the Council and its correct interpretation are discussed. Second, we take a look at how the authority of the liturgical books is justified, with particular

Editrice Vaticana, 1997); Missale Romanum. Editio princeps (1570), M. Sodi/A.M. Triacca (ed.) (MLCT 2; Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1998; 22012); Breviarium Romanum. Editio princeps (1568), M. Sodi/A.M. Triacca (ed.) (MLCT 3; Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1999; 22012); Rituale Romanum. Editio princeps (1614), M. Sodi/J.J. Flores Arcas (ed.) (MLCT 5; Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004). These editions contain general introductions which are definitely worth reading. The bulls promulgating the 1568 Breviarium Romanum and 1570 Missale Romanum have additionally been published together with a German translation and commentary in a special text series in the Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft: M. Klöckener, “Die Bulle ‘Quo primum’ Papst Pius’ V. vom 14. Juli 1570 zur Promulgation des nachtridentinischen Missale Romanum”, Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 48 (2006) 41–51; A. Zerfass/A. A. Häussling, “Die Bulle ‘Quod a Nobis’ Papst Pius’ V. vom 9. Juli 1568 zur Promulgation des nachtridentinischen Breviarium Romanum”, Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 48 (2006) 334–53. Other texts related to Trent are foreseen in the same series as well. 18 In the light of the reforms of the liturgy after the second Vatican council, this change in terminology is significant. See S. Campbell, From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours: The Structural Reform of the Roman Office 1964–1971 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995). 19 The present contribution is a first attempt at a more detailed discussion of the characteristics typical of the prefaces of liturgical books that pushes a study of Martin Klöckener just a little further by not simply looking at one single liturgical book. Klöckener himself suggests but does not elaborate the thesis that his conclusions apply to liturgical books other than the Pontificale – which is precisely the reason we particularly focus on the Breviary, the Missal, and the Rituale. M. Klöckener, “Das Pontifikale. Ein Liturgiebuch im Spiegel seiner Benennungen und der Vorreden seiner Herausgeber, zugleich Würdigung und Weiterführung einer Studie von Marc Dykmans”, Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 28 (1986) 396–415.

Trent and the Production of Liturgical Books in its Aftermath

181

attention for the appeal to scholarship.20 Third, the one renowned exception from the universal implementation of the new liturgical books is presented and interpreted against its historical background. Fourth, it deserves to be noted how the printing companies were addressed.

1

Explicit References to Trent

As a matter of fact, there are not many explicit references to the Council of Trent in the texts under consideration. Only the first two bulls, Quod a Nobis (1568) and Quo primum (1570), do this. They do not quote any single line of the Council documents but appeal to its status and importance for the Church. Pius V highlights and maintains to act very answerably; he opens Quo primum by saying that the unity and purity of the liturgy has always been a priority for him and that the task assigned to him as a Pope by the Council was taken up with a great sense of responsibility (… cogitationes omnes direximus, quae ad Ecclesiasticum purum retinendum cultum pertinerent, eaque parare, et, Deo adiuvante, omni adhibito studio efficere contendimus). In addition, the Pope emphasizes, still in Quo primum, that it was important to him that there be correspondence between the Missal and the Breviary (ut Breviario Missale responderet, ut congruum est et conveniens).21 When Clemens VIII and Paul V later issued the Pontificale and the Rituale, respectively, they no longer appealed to Trent itself but to their predecessor Pius V (among others). He had done a wonderful job in making available a unified form for the celebration of the Mass and the office. It was especially his fundamental example that was followed for the preparation and publication of the remaining liturgical books.

2

The Apology for the Liturgical Books’ Authority and Validity

Hence, the authority with which the texts were issued did not only depend on the legal power given by the Council. The Popes, and in particular Pius V, were very confident they could do and had to do what they did when they authoritatively let the ‘new’ liturgical books be published. What was new was not so much the content of the books (the rites, the prayers, the gestures, the feasts, etc.) but the 20 J.-M. Pommarès, Trente et le Missel. L’évolution de la question de l’autorité compétente en matière de Missels (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae 94; Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 1997). 21 It is difficult to imagine which kind of convergence he had in mind (i. e. whether it pertained to the rites, the music, and the euchology as well), but the convergence in terms of the course of the liturgical year and the feasts was definitely still improved by the revised calendar under Gregory XIII.

182

Joris Geldhof

fact that one single version of them was to be used unreservedly by the universal Church from now onwards. Pius V seems to be aware of this, when he says that the major criterion for the liturgical books after Trent was their full agreement with the tradition and that this agreement was the only reason he consented. In Quod a Nobis, Pius V says an adaptation and return to the old rule of prayer was necessary (necessaria visa res est, quae ad pristinam orandi regulam conformata revocaretur). He significantly uses similar vocabulary in Quo primum, where he asserts that the present Missal represents the oldest and original rite of the “holy Fathers” (ad pristinam Missale ipsum sanctorum Patrum normam ac ritum restituerunt).22 However, the authority of the Pope as the supreme pontiff of the universal Church and the claim of agreement with the tradition had to be supported by relevant instances. This explains why the bulls often appeal to scholars or scholarly commissions, which had looked into available sources and whose piety and orthodoxy were beyond doubt. Interestingly, the members of these commissions are never mentioned by name, nor is the method with which they operated transparent. In this respect, the bulls remain at the surface, although they do unveil glimpses. Pius V suggests in Quod a Nobis he had appointed a commission which consisted of pious scholars on which Trent had already relied (doctis quibusdam et piis viris a Concilio datum esset negotium), to which he added some other members to effectuate the task in Rome (illis ipsis Patribus ad id munus delectis, Romam vocatis, nonnullisque in Urbe idoneis viris ad eum numerum adiunctis). They worked efficiently and thanks to their efforts, he is now able to launch the “one and only” Roman Breviary. Similarly, Pius V elected outstanding men to prepare the edition of the Missal (eruditis delectis viris onus hoc demandandum duximus) and he even reveals something of what they did: they compared unspoiled and errorless liturgical manuscripts with the oldest available sources of the Vatican library. In addition, they even consulted secondary sources, so as to make sure that the present Missal was pure and incorrupt (diligenter collatis omnibus cum vetustis Nostrae Vaticanae Bibliothecae, aliisque undique conquisitis, emendatis, atque incorruptis codicibus; necnon veterum consultis ac probatorum auctorum scriptis, qui de sacro eorundem rituum instituto monumenta Nobis reliquerunt).

22 Several scholars have advanced the idea that this criterion of originality and the corresponding norm of conserving the tradition were the driving force behind the ‘liturgical reforms’ after Trent. However, Angelus A. Häuβling has expressed serious hesitation about whether at all one was able to do this, since the necessary knowledge about the history of the liturgy as well as the practical expertise were lacking at that time. See A. A. Häuβling, “Liturgiereform. Materialien zu einem neuen Thema der Liturgiewissenschaft”, Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 31 (1989) 1–32.

Trent and the Production of Liturgical Books in its Aftermath

183

Later Popes were less elaborate on this point; when promulgating the Rituale Romanum, Paul V said in the accompanying bull Apostolicae Sedi that the work was carried out by Cardinals who excelled in piety, erudition and prudence (Cardinalibus pietate, doctrina et prudentia praestantibus) and that they could safely rely on excellent previous scholarly work.23

3

The Exception to the Universal Rule

A particular, and emphatic, regulation of the two bulls by Pius V is that dioceses and religious congregations which could prove that they were using a missal or a breviary of more than 200 years old, were exempted from implementing the new universal Missale Romanum or Breviarium Romanum. In Quod a Nobis one reads that the exception can be granted on the condition that it is certain that there is an uninterrupted tradition of 200 years either by habit or else by an official recognition by the Vatican (illis tamen exceptis, quae ab ipsa prima institutione, a Sede Apostolica approbata, vel consuetudine, quae, vel ipsa institutio, ducentos annos antecedat, aliis certis Breviariis usa fuisse constiterit). The sentence is almost literally repeated two years later in Quo primum (nisi ab ipsa prima institutione a Sede Apostolica approbata, vel consuetudine, quae, vel ipsa institutio super ducentos annos Missarum celebrandarum in eisdem Ecclesiis assidue observata sit). This exception is all the more worth noting, because one would not expect at all that any exception was provided in a text which promulgates new liturgical books with so much vigor and insistence on its universal acceptance. Why would the Pope allow an exception when he at the same time prohibits very powerfully that any other version of the breviary c.q. missal be used from now onwards, cancels the validity of all existing versions, and orders that the present books ought to be spread quickly and systematically? To answer this question, one must recall the peculiar intricacies around the breviary and the divine office in the sixteenth century. Although the breviary had been a theme of discussion repeatedly, the Council of Trent did eventually say nothing officially about it. The reason was the delicacy of the whole dossier. This delicacy had to do with the immense popularity of the so-called Kreuzbrevier, 23 In this context, a special reference is made to Julius Antonius Santorius (1532–1602), who had been assigned by Gregory XIII to prepare a Rituale Romanum in line with the Breviarium Romanum and Missale Romanum issued by Pius V. This work appeared to be of tremendous importance for the eventual Rituale Romanum that appeared in 1614, although the printed version had never been brought onto the market, basically because it was too extensive and therefore not suitable (enough) for pastoral ministry. See B. Löwenberg, Das Rituale des Kardinals Julius Antonius Sanctorius. Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Rituale Romanum (Munich: Salesianische Offizin, 1937).

184

Joris Geldhof

which had been composed by the Spanish Franciscan and Cardinal Francisco de Quiñonez (1482–1540) and of which the second revised edition is dated 1536, one year already after the first.24 The model of this breviary had been the individual parish priest with a heavy pastoral work load, not the monk or canon or any other clergyman with choral functions. In addition, it had programmed the 150 psalms in one week according to a strict schedule, removed many hagiographic and hymnal elements, rationalized the structure of the individual hours, and engrafted the whole more consistently on Scripture. Because of these ‘improvements’, it had become immensely popular and widespread, also among famous figures like Ignatius of Loyola. Nevertheless, there was a lot of vehement criticism as well, because the reform of this breviary resembled contested humanist and, in the eyes of some of the opponents, even ‘Protestant’ principles. Many perceived it as a rupture with tradition. Basically because of the reasons mentioned, Pope Paul IV definitely forbade its use in 1558.25 By the time it was replaced by Pius V’s Breviarium Romanum ten years later, however, more than 115 printed editions from all over Europe had been published, spread, and used. The urge for a unified liturgy of the hours and the turmoil around the breviary at least partially explain Pius V’s emphasis on the exclusive validity of the newly established Breviary as well as the rigid juridical language he uses. He clearly wanted to have things settled once and for all; the whole history of the damned Kreuzbrevier must finally be left behind.26 However, he must take into account the real situation of the time and that means that allowing an exception was indispensable. According to Häuβling, however, the permission to use liturgical forms of more than 200 years old has nothing to do with a kind of leniency, let alone with respect for local liturgical traditions, but everything with pragmatism and Realpolitik. The Dutch Jesuit Peter Canisius (1521–97), who taught in Germany and became Provincial there, informed the Pope that the fragile peace between Catholics and Protestants (cf. the Augsburg Settlement of 1555) could be endangered if Catholic bishops implemented new rules from foreign powers. Pius V, who held Peter Canisius in high esteem, listened to him and adapted the

24 A.A. Häuβling, “‘Kreuzbrevier’ in Benediktbeuern? Eine unbeachtete Episode bayerischer Kirchengeschichte unter Herzog Albrecht V. (1564)”, in A. A. Häuβling, Tagzeitenliturgie in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Historische und theologische Studien, M. Klöckener (ed.) (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen 100; Münster: Aschendorff, 2012) 164–85, on pp. 170–2. 25 J.A. Jungmann, “Warum ist das Kreuzbrevier des Kardinals Quiñonez gescheitert?”, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 78 (1956) 98–109. 26 At the outset, Quod a Nobis explicitly refers to the Kreuzbrevier. Pius V says that many members of the clergy were seduced by its brevity (plurimi specie Officii commodioris allecti, ad brevitatem novi Breviarii, a Francisco Quignonio … confugerunt) and straightforwardly speaks about a certain perturbatio in liturgical matters.

Trent and the Production of Liturgical Books in its Aftermath

185

text of Quod a Nobis accordingly.27 In Quo primum, he must have had the same reasons to provide for the exception. What is striking, however, is that much more dioceses and congregations could have made an appeal to this regulation than the ones that actually did it. Strangely enough, a certain jurisprudence around the rule of 200 years seems not to have developed. Some authors suggest this had to do with a certain tiredness as well as with financial considerations. For it was easier and cheaper to introduce the new Roman liturgical books than instead continue with one’s own material. In Apostolicae Sedi, the bull promulgating the Rituale Romanum, neither the rule nor the exception to it is repeated any longer. This was probably due to a matter of prudence, since one knew very well how much variation existed at the local level and one may have become aware of how complex it was to impose one and the same liturgical form to the entire Church. In addition, the situation with respect to the celebration of the sacraments other than the Eucharist was still more diverse than the Eucharist itself in sixteenth century Western Europe. It would have been simply impossible to enforce it. Paul V had already seen his predecessor Clement VIII come up with a revised version of the ‘never-to-bechanged’ Missal and Breviary but nevertheless subscribed to the importance of unity in matters liturgical. He significantly employs the terminology of exhorting and refrains from downright obliging it (In quo cum receptos et approbatos Catholicae Ecclesiae ritus suo ordine digestos conspexerimus, illud sub nomine Ritualis Romani merito edendum publico Ecclesiae Dei bono judicavimus. Quapropter hortamur in Domino … ut … Ecclesae fillii … Rituali in sacris functionibus utantur, et … inviolate observent).28

4

Addressing the Printing Companies

Another element which is particularly worth mentioning – because it reveals something of the (post-)‘Tridentine’ mentality – is the way in which the Popes address the owners of the printing companies. Especially Pius V is noticeably harsh in this regard. In Quo primum he sets the goal of having the same pure Missal everywhere (ut ubique terrarum incorruptum, ac mendis et erroribus 27 A. A. Häuβling, “Petrus Canisius und das Brevier”, Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 95 (2000) 20–53. 28 This language clearly deviates from Pius V’s, who commanded all the responsible clergy without exception to introduce the Breviarium Romanum after having discontinued any special arrangement (Iubemus igitur, omnes et singulos Patriarchas, Archiepiscopos, Episcopos, Abbates, et ceteros Ecclesiarum Praelatos, ut omissis quae sic suppressimus et abolevimus, ceteris omnibus etiam privatim per eos constitutis, Breviarium hoc in suis quisque Ecclesiis, Monasteriis, Conventibus, Ordinibus, Militiis, Dioecesibus, et locis praedictis introducant).

186

Joris Geldhof

purgatum praeservetur) and accordingly prohibits any printer to deviate from the original, be it for additions, modifications, or things left out. The Pope also threatens with the severe sanction of excommunication. He had done that before in Quod a Nobis, where he expressed the same concern that the Breviary be the same and uncorrupted everywhere (Sed ut Breviarium ipsum ubique inviolatum et incorruptum habeatur, prohibemus, ne alibi usquam in toto orbe, sine Nostra … expressa licentia imprimatur, proponatur, vel recipiatur). It is difficult to imagine that this could work out, but for quite some time it did. The Church’s control over the production of liturgical books has been astonishingly efficient, but this can also be explained as the result of economic considerations, in the sense that one would not be inclined to buy books which were not officially approved by relevant authorities.

III.

Elements for a Contemporary Interpretation of the Bulls

It is one thing to present the text material and the historical content. Yet another question is how one can interpret them. I content myself with three brief reflections on the intersection of history and theology. First, many commentators stress the importance of the invention of printing for the success of the implementation of the Council of Trent. This certainly holds true for the production and spread of the liturgical books in its aftermath. Thanks to the new and continuously improving techniques as well as the possibility of mass-production it was a lot easier to enforce uniformity beyond the boundaries of individual regions. Between the printing of the first Missale Romanum in 1474, which, ironically, did not happen in Rome but in Milan, and the 1570 version of Pius V, not less than 300 editions were published, often together with local variations and additions. Printing houses and their clients, mostly dioceses and religious congregations, played the free game of supply and demand. These practices were put to an end by the bull Quo primum, at least theoretically (cf. supra). Second, one needs to think about the preface of a liturgical book as a specific literary genre. In this respect, the almost unknown German liturgist and scholar of world literature John Hennig has made noteworthy remarks.29 He said that the writing of a preface introducing a liturgical book is a phenomenon which would have been very strange until the late Middle Ages or the Renaissance. The fact that this was done by the Popes after Trent in a peculiar way, is utterly significant, and must be seen in comparison to other genres of text production where a preface 29 J. Hennig, “Grundzüge der Liturgiereform nach den Vorreden des Missale Romanum und des Book of Common Prayer”, Liturgisches Jahrbuch 21 (1971) 177–85, on pp. 179–80.

Trent and the Production of Liturgical Books in its Aftermath

187

became increasingly popular. According to Hennig, the emergence of prefaces in liturgical books means that their authors and composers – or rather, the ones who authoritatively issued them – considered the following work as a rounded piece of literature, i. e. one that is complete and closed. The drafting of a preface additionally implies a conditioning of the reader or user. They are manipulated into a certain direction, which the author decides upon and keeps under control. In the specific case of liturgical books, Hennig further suggests, the fact that a great amount of concrete instructions needed to be given30 supposes that one no longer had a spontaneous sensitivity for what liturgy actually was and that some personal appropriation of the subject matter was above all mistrusted. Third, and this is the conclusion of this chapter, I evoke the issue of continuity and discontinuity. Is or is there not a rupture between the Council of Trent and the liturgical books published in the time span of a half century after it? Any answer to this question must be nuanced, for a simple either-or alternative will not do. On the one hand, there is certainly discontinuity in that the Council itself remained almost completely silent about the liturgy in spite of the fact that the sacraments were of eminent doctrinal importance for the Council fathers. The things one could say is that there was a largely spread unease towards the Kreuzbevier and that there had been a growing consensus towards the composition of an Einheitsmissale for the entire Catholic Church. A formal decision, however, had not been taken and was left over in the hands of the Pope. On the other hand, one could speak of a certain continuity as well, inasmuch as Trent itself had been as “absolutely modern” – to use a concept from Wolfgang Reinhard31 – as the promulgation and spread of the liturgical books. The liturgical books, as exemplified in the prefaces introducing them, embodied quite well the ‘Tridentine mentality’ which determined the life of the Roman Catholic Church from the seventeenth until the twentieth century. It may not even be wrong to hold not only that they can serve as excellent illustrations of that mentality but that they also partially gave shape to it.

30 Hennig here alludes to the Rubricae generales Missae and the extensive Ritus servandus in celebratione Missarum, which were published on the very first pages of the Missal (Missale Romanum, Sodi/Triacca (ed.), 5–8 and 9–22, respectively). 31 W. Reinhard, “Il concilio di Trento e la modernizzazione della Chiesa: Introduzione”, in P. Prodi/W. Reinhard (ed.), Il concilio di Trento e il moderno (Annali dell’Istituto storico italogermanico 45; Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996) 27–47.

188

Joris Geldhof

Bibliography Printed and edited sources Breviarium Romanum. Editio princeps (1568), M. Sodi/A.M. Triacca (ed.) (Monumenta Liturgica Concilii Tridentini 3; Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1999; 22012). Missale Romanum. Editio princeps (1570), M. Sodi/A.M. Triacca (ed.) (Monumenta Liturgica Concilii Tridentini 2; Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1998; 22012). Pontificale Romanum. Editio princeps (1595–1596), M. Sodi/A.M. Triacca (ed.) (Monumenta Liturgica Concilii Tridentini 1; Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997). Rituale Romanum. Editio princeps (1614), M. Sodi/J.J. Flores Arcas (ed.) (Monumenta Liturgica Concilii Tridentini 5; Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004).

Secondary sources Bugnini, A., “La ‘liturgia’ dei sacramenti al concilio di Trento”, Ephemerides Liturgicae 59 (1945) 39–51. Campbell, S., From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours: The Structural Reform of the Roman Office 1964–1971 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995). Chauvet, L.-M., Symbol and Sacrement: A Sacramental Reinterpretation of Christian Existence (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995). Denzler, G., Kardinal Guglielmo Sirleto, 1514–1585, Leben und Werk: Ein Beitrag zur nachtridentinischen Reform (Münchener theologische Studien; Historische Abteilung 17; Munich: Hüber, 1963). Geldhof, J., “Did the Council of Trent Produce a Liturgical Reform? The Case of the Roman Missal”, Questions Liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy 93 (2012) 171–95. Häuβling, A. A., “‘Kreuzbrevier’ in Benediktbeuern? Eine unbeachtete Episode bayerischer Kirchengeschichte unter Herzog Albrecht V. (1564)”, in A. A. Häuβling, Tagzeitenliturgie in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Historische und theologische Studien, M. Klöckener (ed.) (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen 100; Münster: Aschendorff, 2012) 164–85. Häuβling, A. A., “Liturgiereform. Materialien zu einem neuen Thema der Liturgiewissenschaft”, Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 31 (1989) 1–32. Häuβling, A. A., “Petrus Canisius und das Brevier”, Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 95 (2000) 20–53. Hennig, J. “Grundzüge der Liturgiereform nach den Vorreden des Missale Romanum und des Book of Common Prayer”, Liturgisches Jahrbuch 21 (1971) 177–85. Jedin, H., “Das Konzil von Trient und die Reform der liturgischen Bücher”, Ephemerides Liturgicae 59 (1945) 5–38. Jungmann, J.A., “Warum ist das Kreuzbrevier des Kardinals Quiñonez gescheitert?”, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 78 (1956) 98–109. Klöckener, M., “Das Pontifikale. Ein Liturgiebuch im Spiegel seiner Benennungen und der Vorreden seiner Herausgeber, zugleich Würdigung und Weiterführung einer Studie von Marc Dykmans”, Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 28 (1986) 396–415.

Trent and the Production of Liturgical Books in its Aftermath

189

Klöckener, M., “Die Bulle ‘Quo primum’ Papst Pius’ V. vom 14. Juli 1570 zur Promulgation des nachtridentinischen Missale Romanum”, Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 48 (2006) 41–51. Knittel, R., “Deformata Reformare – Liturgische Miβbräuche und Reformanliegen in den Trienter Redormdekreten”, Forum Katholische Theologie 12 (1996) 247–60. Löwenberg, B., Das Rituale des Kardinals Julius Antonius Sanctorius: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Rituale Romanum (Munich: Salesianische Offizin, 1937). MacManus, F.R., The Congregation of Sacred Rites (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 352; Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1954). Marini, P., A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Reform 1963–1975, M.R. Francis/K.F. Pecklers (ed.) (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007). Martin, Ph., Histoire de la Messe. Le théâtre divin (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2010). Pommarès, J.-M., Trente et le Missel. L’évolution de la question de l’autorité compétente en matière de Missels (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae 94; Rome: Edizioni Liturgiche, 1997). Reinhard, W./Schilling, H. (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 198; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1995). Reinhard, W., “Il concilio di Trento e la modernizzazione della Chiesa: Introduzione”, in P. Prodi/W. Reinhard (ed.), Il concilio di Trento e il moderno (Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico 45; Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996) 27–47. Selley, W.T., Sixtus V: The Hermit of Villa Montalto (Leominster: Gracewing, 2011). White, J.F., Roman Catholic Worship: Trent to Today (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003). Zerfass, A./Häussling, A. A., “Die Bulle ‘Quod a Nobis’ Papst Pius’ V. vom 9. Juli 1568 zur Promulgation des nachtridentinischen Breviarium Romanum”, Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 48 (2006) 334–53.

Vasyl Popelyastyy

The Post-Tridentine Theology of the Sacrament of Penance on the Basis of the Rituale Romanum (1614)

The liturgical prayer of a particular Christian community influences its faith. Nevertheless, the belief of the community also influences its prayer. This statement is especially relevant for the Latin Church in both the Scholastic and Early Modern Periods, when discussions among different theologians and theological schools combined with the reaction of Catholics against challenges from Protestant reformers, determined the vectors for the development of Roman-Catholic theology for centuries afterwards. In this essay, I will discuss the influence and implementation of the PostTridentine theology of the holy sacrament of penance on the practical plane, namely in liturgical texts. The doctrinal part of the liturgical rite of sacramental confession in the Rituale Romanum from 1614 will be the basis of my research. Attention will first be given to the investigation of the source base for the Rituale Romanum and then to doctrinal questions regarding the sacrament of penance.

I.

The Rituale Romanum and Its Sources

On 17 June, 1614 Pope Paul V promulgated the Rituale Romanum through means of the Bull Apostolicæ Sedi. This way he completed the edition of the official Roman liturgical books which had been started by his predecessor Pius V with the publication of the Breviarium Romanum (1568) and the Missale Romanum (1570), was continued by Gregory XIII, who promulgated the Martyrologium Romanum (1584), and by Clement VIII, who added the Pontificale Romanum (1595–96) as well as the Cæremoniale Pontificale (1600). Paul V completed with this endeavor the work of Post-Tridentine liturgical reform, initiated by the Fathers at the Council of Trent at its conclusive Session 25 on 4 December, 1563, when they committed its implementation to the papal authority. In fact, the edition of the Roman Ritual was not a direct instruction of the Council:

192

Vasyl Popelyastyy

The holy council, in the second session celebrated under our most holy lord Pius IV, entrusted to certain chosen Fathers to consider what needed to be done about various censures and books that were either suspect or dangerous, and report back to it. Hearing from them now that they have exerted all their efforts in this matter, but that a clear judgment cannot reasonably be passed by the council because of the number and variety of the books, the council orders that all they have prepared should be presented to the Pope and so by his wisdom and authority be completed and published. It gives similar orders in the matter of the catechism prepared by those commissioned, and of the missal and breviary.1

Throughout both the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period, a vast number of liturgical books, which contained the liturgical rites for the sacraments, circulated in Latin Christendom under different titles, such as Agenda, Manuale, Obsequiale, Ordinarium, Rituale, Sacerdotale, etc. Almost every diocese had its own liturgical books, which often absorbed and depicted local traditions. External distinctions among the books reflected internal divergences in the ministering of the sacraments, in particular the sacrament of penance. For this reason, it is very difficult to identify all of the possible sources for the Rituale Romanum. The pontifical Bull mentions that outstanding contemporary scholars prepared the Rituale Romanum by thoroughly analyzing the source material, including “ancient as well as other available rituals” and the Ritual of Cardinal Julius Santori, which had a special value and importance among the scholars.2 1 Council of Trent, “Index of Books, the Catechism, Breviary and Missal” (Session 25, 3–4 December, 1563), in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, N.P. Tanner/G. Alberigo (ed.), (2 vol.; London: Sheed & Ward/Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 2.797. 2 I based my research on the text of the Rituale Romanum, 1614 edited in Rituale Romanum: Editio Princeps (1614), M. Sodi/J.J.F. Arcas (ed.) (Monumenta Liturgica Concilii Tridentini 5; Rome: Ex Typographia Reuerendæ Cameræ Apostolicæ, 1614; repr. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004), 5. Normally, I refer to the original pagination of the Rituale Romanum, 1614 indicated on the left and right corners of the edition. Only in this footnote do I refer to the pagination indicated by the editors because in the original text there is no pagination in this place. The English quotations of the Rituale Romanum are based on the online version of the Rituale Romanum, published in 1964 with careful application to the Latin text of the Rituale Romanum from 1614 (Sancta Missa: Rituale Romanum: Roman Ritual, available from http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/index.html; accessed 19 March 2014). For more on the history of Latin liturgical books, in particular the Rituals, see P.-M. Gy, “Collectaire, rituel, processionnal”, Revue des Sciences philosophiques et théologiques 44 (1960) 441–69; repr. in P.-M. Gy, La Liturgie dans l’histoire (Paris: Éditions Saint-Paul/Éditions du Cerf, 1990) 91–126; E. Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books from the Beginning to the Thirteenth Century (A Pueblo Book; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1998); C. Vogel, Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources (Washington: The Pastoral Press, 1986); B. Nadolski, “Rytuał (Ksie˛ga)”, in Leksykon Liturgii (Poznan: Pallottinum, 2006) 1335–6; M. Maciukiewicz, “Rytuał”, Encyklopedia Katolicka 17 (2012) 717–18; J.F. White, Roman Catholic Worship: Trent to Today (New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1995), 12; P. Jounel, “The Pontifical and the Ritual”, in A.G. Martimort (ed.), The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, vol. 3: The Sacraments (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1988) 1–100, on

The Post-Tridentine Theology of the Sacrament of Penance

193

Besides Santori’s book, the scholars also note that Albert Castellano’s Liber Sacerdotalis served as an important printed source for the Rituale Romanum of 1614.3 Modern scholars, such as Cyrille Vogel,4 Manlio Sodi, Juan J. F. Arcas5 and Giuseppe Löw,6 extend the list of the sources and add to it Francesco Samarino’s Sacerdotale. These liturgical collections have never been official books of the Latin Church. Nonetheless, they obtained certain official status through either pontifical approval or papal initiative, and it seems that they were among the first attempts made by the Catholic Church to unify liturgical books and rites for the ministering of the sacraments and different blessings in the Early Modern Period.

1

The Liber Sacerdotalis of Albert Castellano

The Dominican Albert Castellano (de Castello/Castellani) completed the manuscript of the Liber Sacerdotalis in the beginning of 1520. He grounded the preparation of his book on the solid basis of source materials. In particular, he consulted items preserved in the Apostolic Library in Rome. Pope Leo X approved the manuscript on 2 November, 1520.7 However, Melchior Sessa and Peter de Ravanis (“per Melchiorem Sessam et Petrum de Ravanis socios”) took until 20 June, 1523 to print it in Venice. The book did not obtain an official status within the Latin Church because the papal bull was never published, as Leo X passed away in 1521.8

3

4 5 6 7 8

pp. 6–8; K.F. Pecklers, “History of the Roman Liturgy from the Sixteenth until the Twentieth Centuries”, in A.J. Chupungco (ed.), Handbook for Liturgical Studies, vol. 1: Introduction to the Liturgy (A Pueblo Book; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1997) 153–78, on p. 160. For instance, see A. Albert-Zerlik, Liturgie als Sterbebegleitung und Trauerhilfe: Spätmittelalterliches Erbe und pastorale Gegenwart unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ordines von Castellani (1523) und Sanctorius (1602) (Pietas liturgica. Studia 13; Tübingen/Basel: A. Francke, 2003), 19–24; B. Löwenberg, “Rituale”, Lexicon für Theologie und Kirche 8 (1963) 1327–9, on p. 1328; A. Ward/C. Johnson, “Introduction”, in Rituale Romanum (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae. Subsidia. Instrumenta liturgica quarreriensia. Supplementa 6; Rome: C.L.V.-Edizioni Liturgiche, 2001) xvii–xxiv. Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, 264–5. M. Sodi/J.J.F. Arcas, “Introduzione”, in Rituale Romanum: Editio Princeps (1614) (Monumenta Liturgica Concilii Tridentini 5; Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004) ix–lxxvi, on pp. xxxiv–xlii. G. Löw, “Rituale Romano”, Enciclopedia Cattolica 10 (1953) 1010–16, on pp. 1011–13. E. Cattaneo, “Il Rituale Romano de Alberto Castellani”, in Miscellanea Liturgica (2 vol.; FS Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro; Rome et al.: Desclée, 1967) 2.629–47, on pp. 632–3; Sodi/Arcas, “Introduzione”, xxxiv–xxxv. M. Gozzi (ed.), Le fonti liturgiche a stampa della Biblioteca musicale L. Feininger: Presso il Castello del Buonconsiglio di Trento (2 vol.; Trent: Servizio beni librari e archivistici, 1994), 2.863–4.

194

Vasyl Popelyastyy

This edition of the Liber Sacerdotalis was very successful and, as Marco Gozzi states, it was popular both within and outside Italy during the sixteenth century.9 It is well structured, and there are clear doctrinal and pastoral explanations, in addition to liturgical texts.10 It was republished at least sixteen times by 1597,11 with the addition of certain corrections and adaptations to the new theological postulates (after the Council of Trent) as well as the introduction of the Tridentine Canons into later editions,12 whilst also changing the title, for instance from the Liber Sacerdotalis into the Sacerdotale, etc.13 The Liber Sacerdotalis is divided into three parts. The first part is dedicated to the sacraments, in particular to Baptism, Marriage, Penance, Eucharist and the Last Anointing, and the departure of the soul and funeral services. The second part consists of different blessings, for instance the blessing of water on the vigil of the Epiphany, the blessing of a dwelling or house (locus vel domus), new bread, etc. The third part includes rites for different processions, including on Pentecost and the feast of the Most Holy Body of Christ; rites dedicated to some special occasions, such as a bishop’s visit; exorcisms; examples of sermons; and different treatises useful in pastoral life, like the ‘musical hand’ or the solar year, etc.14 The Tractatus about the sacrament of penance contains approximately 25 leaves. It gives doctrinal and pastoral instructions about the sacrament itself, with a focus on defining what the sacrament of penance is, its important constituents, etc. The Tractatus also defines the minister of the sacrament and his qualities and explains the different limitations of the confessor’s authority of absolution, for instance reservations to the pope and to a diocesan bishop as well as excommunications, interdictions, suspensions and canonical impediments (irregularitates). In the context of the ancient penitential canons, it mentions William Duranti’s Repertorium sive Breviarium. The Tractatus is concluded with different forms of absolution.15 9 10 11 12 13 14

Gozzi (ed.), Le fonti liturgiche, 1.90. Löwenberg, “Rituale”, 1328. Cattaneo, “Il Rituale Romano de Alberto Castellani”, 641. Löw, “Rituale Romano”, 1012. See also Cattaneo, “Il Rituale Romano de Alberto Castellani”, 642. For a more detailed description of the Liber Sacerdotalis’ content, see Cattaneo, “Il Rituale Romano de Alberto Castellani”, 634–40. See also Francisco Antonio Zaccaria, Bibliotheca Ritualis, vol. 1: De libris ad sacros utriusque ecclesiae orientalis ritus pertinentibus (Rome: Octavius Puccinelli, 1776), 144; J.-B. Molin/A. Aussedat-Minvielle (ed.), Répertoire des Rituels et Processionnaux imprimés conservés en France (Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1984), 11; Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, 264; Albert-Zerlik, Liturgie, 19–21. 15 In my research I will use two editions of Castellano’s work, namely Sacerdotale iuxta s. Romane ecclesie et aliarum ecclesiarum, ex apostolice bibliothece … scriptis … collectus [sic.] … ac summorum Pontificum authoritate multoties approbatum…, Albert Castellano (ed.) (Venice: Petrus Rabanus et socii, 1554) (henceforth Sacerdotale); Sacerdotale Romanum: Ad consuetudinem S. Romanæ Ecclesiæ aliarumq′; Ecclesiarum ex Apostolicæ Bibliothecæ …

The Post-Tridentine Theology of the Sacrament of Penance

2

195

The Sacerdotale of Francesco Samarino

The Guinta printing house in Venice published in 1579 the first edition of the Sacerdotale, sive Sacerdotum Thesaurus, a work by Francesco Samarino, a canon of the Lateran. Angelo Rocca reprinted the work several times at the Venice press of Ziletti, for instance in 1583, 1587, 1597.16 Cyrille Vogel also mentions another edition from 1593.17 Castello’s Liber Sacerdotalis, as Vogel affirms, serves as the basis for Samarino’s book.18 The Sacerdotale is divided into four parts. The structure of the first part (without a specific title) is rather complex and repeats certain themes. It includes teachings about the sacraments, blessings, exorcisms, their forms and rites of ministering, and the explanation of some feasts, among other topics.19 The second part is called the Pro episcopis, et praelatis. It consists of instructions concerning bishops and other prelates and their different responsibilities, especially in regard to visitations, liturgical duties, the administering of Confirmation, different ordinations, the consecration of a church, and blessings. The Pro hominibus ecclesiasticis represents the third part. It is dedicated to questions regarding a church building and some aspects of liturgical life that take place in it. In particular, it discusses the architecture of a church, its structure and decoration, the consecration of a church, and its different parts, like the altar, the orders of ministers and their liturgical vestments, Mass and its parts, divine offices, main feasts, etc. The fourth part is known as the Pro omnibvs Christi fidelibvs in exercitium animæ and includes teaching related to sins and the spiritual life, such as advice for spiritual growth, some examples for its stim-

16 17 18

19

scriptis … collectum, atqve svmmorvm pontificvm authoritate multoties approbatum…, Albert Castellano (ed.) (Venice: Dominicus Nicolinus, 1585) (henceforth Sacerdotale Romanum). There is discrepancy in spelling of Duranti’s name between Sacerdotale 1554 and Sacerdotale 1585: the first one indicates it as Guilielmus Durantis [Sacerdotale, Castellano (ed.), 1554, 53v], and the last one notes it as Guilielmus Durantis [Sacerdotale Romanum, Castellano (ed.), 1585, 54r]. Zaccaria, Bibliotheca Ritualis, 144–5; A. Fortescue, “Ritual”, The Catholic Encyclopedia 13 (1912) 88–90, on p. 89; Löw, “Rituale Romano”, 1012; Sodi/Arcas, “Introduzione”, xxxvi– xxxvii. See also Gozzi, Le fonti liturgiche, 2.881–2. Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, 264. Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, 264. In my research I will use Sacerdotale siue Sacerdotum Thesaurus ivxta consvetvdinem S. Romanae Ecclesiae, sacrique Concilij Tridentini Sanctiones … Ex diuersis voluminibus compendiosè collectus, & in quatuor partes diuisus. Avctore R. D. Francisco Samarino Beneficiato Lateranensi: Industria verò R. P. M. Angeli Rocch. à Camerino expurgatus, multisque rebus auctus, et nuperrimè reformatus, Cui nouissimè adiectum est Calendarivm Gregorianum. Cvm indice copiosissimo. Cvm privilegiis, Francesco Samarino (ed.) (Venice: Jordanus et Nicolaus Zilettus, fratres, 1593). See also Sodi/Arcas, “Introduzione”, xxxvi–xxxvii. In the exemplar of the Sacerdotale used by me the titles of chapters are changed. Also the first part has its own title: De omnibus sacramentis in genere.

196

Vasyl Popelyastyy

ulation, for instance the life of Saint Brigida, as well as a commentary (expositio) on the seven penitential psalms. The information regarding the sacrament of penance is scattered throughout the first part of the Sacerdotale and is related to various topics. It includes teachings about the sacrament in general, the minister of the sacrament, sins, the way of doing confession, reservations to the Pope and a diocesan bishop, ecclesiastical penalties, and forms of absolution. Some texts are in Italian, especially those which are related to dialogues between a confessor and a penitent, instruction for confessors, etc. This is evidence that Latin had started to lose its predominant position in European society in the sixteenth century and was considered to be a language only used by some members of a limited educated class, like the clergy.20 The largest part of the text, which is dedicated to the sacrament of penance, contains approximately 77 leaves.

3

The Rituale of Cardinal Julius Santori

In 1575, Julius Santori (Sanctorio/Santorio/Santorius), at the request of Pope Gregory XIII, began work on his Ritvale Sacramentorvm Romanvm.21 He grounded his compilation on solid source materials (both manuscript and printed), with Castellano’s Liber Sacerdotalis being the most influential among them. He printed the first pages of the book in 1584, a date indicated on the title page. However, he published the whole folio edition shortly before his death in 1602, although four pages were still lacking.22 Annette Albert-Zerlik states that the implementation and realization of the Tridentine reforms were among the main motives of his ecclesiastical activity and this influenced his Ritual, as well.23 Besides the expected liturgical rites of the 20 R. Hirsch, Printing, Selling, Reading 1450–1550 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1967), 132. 21 Ritvale Sacramentorvm Romanvm Gregorii Papae XIII. Pont. Max. ivssv editvm, Julius Santori (ed.) (Rome: n.p., 1584). It is printed in 4º, in red and black. Some scholars, for instance Cyrille Vogel and Marco Gozzi, affirm that Santori begun the preparation of the Ritvale Sacramentorvm Romanvm only in 1578 (Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, 264; Gozzi, Le fonti liturgiche, 1.92). 22 Albert-Zerlik, Liturgie, 23. Francisco Antonio Zaccaria indicates the year 1601 as the date of Severino’s death, and points out that his Ritvale Sacramentorvm Romanvm was edited after the author passed away: “qui e vivis excessit sub annum MDCI” (Zaccaria, Bibliotheca Ritualis, 146). Pierre Jounel, James F. White, and Keith. F. Pecklers follow Francisco Antonio Zaccaria and repeat the same date (White, Roman Catholic Worship, 12; Jounel, “The Pontifical and the Ritual”, 7; Pecklers, “History”, 160). However, Francisco Antonio Zaccaria seems to be mistaken. Bruno Löwenberg affirms that the Cardinal passed away on June 7, 1602, See B. Löwenberg, Das Rituale des Kardinals Julius Antonius Sanctorius: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Rituale Romanum (Munich: Salesianischen Offizin, 1937), 7. 23 Albert-Zerlik, Liturgie, 22.

The Post-Tridentine Theology of the Sacrament of Penance

197

sacraments, different blessings, processions and exorcisms, the book includes numerous doctrinal and pastoral articles. Moreover, Julius Santori tended to make references to the sources of doctrinal-pastoral material within the margins. Despite never becoming a popular edition, Santori’s Ritvale Sacramentorvm Romanvm was nevertheless, as Cyrille Vogel affirms, “… a liturgical-didactic production which became the immediate source of the official Rituale of 1614”.24 The Ritvale Sacramentorvm Romanvm consists of 712 pages and is divided into three books. The sacraments of baptism and confirmation are included in the first book; the sacraments of penance, Eucharist (apart from the Mass), the last anointing, the departure of the soul, and funeral services, and the sacrament of marriage make up the second book; and blessings, processions and exorcisms constitute the third book.25 The text about the sacrament of penance is on pages 257–94 inclusive. It consists of three parts: De Sacramento Pœnitentiæ præmonitiones, which includes the general teachings about the sacrament, the qualities of a confessor, the proper place for confession, the mode of receiving confession, etc.; Canones Pœnitentiales; and De Formis Absolvtionvm.

4

The Rituale Romanum of 1614

In 1612, Pope Paul V convoked a commission for the revision and preparation of the official Roman Ritual. It constituted of two groups: “the commission of Cardinals” and “the counsel of scholars”.26 It appears that the full list of the members of the commission (a group of approximately 25, since 25 copies of Santori’s Rituale were distributed among the members) is still not known. Balthasar Fisher specifically mentions two members of the first group of Cardinals, Paolo Camillo Sfondrati and P. Paulo27 Pico, the president and the sec24 Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, 265. 25 In my research I consulted the exemplar preserved in the National Museum of Andrew Sheptytskyy in Lviv. There is no table of contents. The Ritvale Sacramentorvm Romanvm is concluded with “Exorcismi sive conivrationes contra ingruentes ae¯reas tempestates” (pp. 707–12). See also the description of the content of Santori’s Ritual in Albert-Zerlik, Liturgie, 24; Sodi/Arcas, “Introduzione”, xl–xlii. See also Zaccaria, Bibliotheca Ritualis, 145; Fortescue, “Ritual”, 89; Löw, “Rituale Romano”, 1012–13; G.J. Sigler, “The Influence of Charles Borromeo on the Laws of the Roman Ritual”, The Jurist 24 (1964) 119–68 and 319–34, on pp. 121–2; Löwenberg, “Rituale”, 1328; S. Ricci, Il sommo inquisitore: Giulio Antonio Santori: Tra autobiografia e storia (1532–1602) (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2002). 26 Sancta Missa: Rituale Romanum: Roman Ritual, “The Apostolic Constitution”. 27 Manlio Sodi and Juan Javier Flores Arcas write this name as Paolo; Sodi/Arcas, “Introduzione”, xlvi.

198

Vasyl Popelyastyy

retary of the Congregation of Sacred Rites respectively.28 Scholars Manlio Sodi and Juan Javier Flores Arcas indicate three additional participating Cardinals: Bernardo Giustiniani, Giangrazia Millini and Roberto Bellarmino.29 There are also five names of scholars mentioned in the original manuscript of the Rituale Romanum (the approbation on the last page signed by their own hands) owned by Joannes Antonius Gabutius, the Barnabite: Antonius, episcopus Sarnensis; Petrus Alagon, Societatis Jesu; Jo. Ant. Gabutius, Clericus reg.ris S. Pauli; Ascanius Torrius, Parochus S.ti Petri in Vaticano; Felix Veronicus, Parochus S. Laurentii in Damaso.30 It would seem that these men were the main compilers of the Rituale Romanum and that Gabutius played a leading role in its creation (he introduced some corrections in the text after its signing on 23 November, 1613, the copy of the original manuscript being preserved in the Barnabite collections).31 In line with previous official Roman liturgical books, Gabutio’s manuscript insisted on the obligatory character of the Rituale. Nevertheless, by using the word “hortamur” in the promulgated bull, the Pope exhorted the use of the Rituale but neither made it an obligation nor eliminated other Rituales. Moreover, he did not abolish other rites.32 His reason for doing this might have been that he was looking for an objective analysis of the existing situation, namely the existence of numerous different rites and local traditions in Latin Christendom and the pastoral impossibility of abolishing them all together by an official decree. Nonetheless, although it was a non-obligatory text, the book was very popular, greatly influenced local rites, and gradually caused them to conform to its forms.33 Moreover, as Gerald J. Sigler points out, it also became a source for the disciplinary and canonical interpretation of the Church’s position for various Roman congregations, in particular the Congregation of Sacred Rites and the Propagation of the Faith, which also dealt with establishing missions at that time.34 The Rituale enjoyed numerous early reprints in various places, such as in Rome in 1615,35 in Brescia in 1616, and in Antwerp in 1617.36 It was also translated 28 B. Fisher, “Das Originalmanuscript des Rituale Romanum”, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 70 (1961) 244–6, on p. 245. Bruno Löwenberg affirms that 26 copies of the Ritual were printed; see B. Löwenberg, “Die Erstausgabe des Rituale Romanum von 1614”, Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 66 (1942) 141–7, on p. 144. 29 Sodi/Arcas, “Introduzione”, xlvi. 30 Fisher, “Das Originalmanuscript”, 245; Sodi/Arcas, “Introduzione”, xlvi–xlvii. 31 Sigler, “The Influence”, 122–4. See also Fisher, “Das Originalmanuscript”, 245–6; B. Fisher, “Ein bisher unveröffentlichter Entwurf des Einleitungs-dokuments Pauls V. zum Rituale Romanum von 1614”, in P. De Clerck/É. Palazzo (ed.), Rituels (FS P.-M. Gy; Paris: Cerf, 1990) 263–71; Sodi/Arcas, “Introduzione”, xlvii. 32 Sigler, “The Influence”, 320; Sodi/Arcas, “Introduzione”, lii–lvii. 33 Fortescue, “Ritual”, 89. 34 Sigler, “The Influence”, 325–6. 35 Molin/Aussedat-Minvielle, Répertoire, 343.

The Post-Tridentine Theology of the Sacrament of Penance

199

into a variety of languages in the first decades after its publication, including French,37 Albanian (Illyrian)38 and others. The Rituale underwent several revisions and re-editions under different Popes, viz. Benedict XIV in 1752, Pius IX in 1872, Leo XIII in 1884 and Pius X in 1913.39 The process of diffusion and adaptation of the Rituale was different in various Catholic countries. It was adopted in Poland in 1631.40 Cyrille Vogel sums up its spread throughout Western Europe as follows: In Italy, its adoption was more rapid, but in France it was not accepted unanimously until 1853; in Spain, it came into general use only at the beginning of the XIX century; in Germany, it established itself through the intermediary of the Ritual of Constance (seventeenth century) which was, for all practical purposes, the Rituale Romanum.41

The Rituale Romanum is printed in two colors: red and black. It contains the liturgical rites of the sacraments of baptism, penance, Eucharist, the last anointing, rites for the departure of the soul and funeral ceremonies, the sacrament of marriage, different blessings, processions and exorcisms, and examples of metrical books as well as other material. It provides doctrinal and pastoral explanations and instructions for some liturgical rites, especially the rites of the sacraments.42 The text dedicated to the sacrament of penance is placed between pages 40–47 inclusive. It consists of information about the sacrament (De Sacramento Pœnitentiæ), the ordo of administration of the sacrament of penance (Ordo ministrandi Sacramentum Pœnitentiæ) and forms of absolution.

36 See Gozzi, Le fonti liturgiche, 2.893–4. 37 For instance, the Ritual printed in Lyon in 1632; Gozzi, Le fonti liturgiche, 2.895. See also Löw, “Rituale Romano”, 1012. 38 The Ritual was prepared by Bartholomaeus Cassius and published in the printing house of the Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith in Rome in 1640 under the title Rituale Romanum Vrbani VIII Pont. Max. ivssv editvm: Illyrica Lingva. 39 Ward/Johnson, “Introduction”, xxi. 40 It was printed under the title Rituale Sacramentorum ac aliarum Ecclesiae Caeremoniarum ex decreto Synodi Provincionalis Petricoviensis. See, for instance K. Estreicher/S. Estreicher (ed.), “Rituale”, Bibliografia Polska 3/15 (1915) 310–15; M. Konieczny, “Rytuał Piotrkowski”, Encyklopedia Katolicka (2012) 718–19. 41 Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, 265. 42 Some authors mention a division of the Rituale Romanum into tituli, but indicate a variety of different divisions. According to Adrian Fortescue, for example, there are ten tituli (Fortescue, “Ritual”, 89–90), while Joanne M. Pierce argues for twelve tituli; J.M. Pierce, “Ritual, Roman”, New Catholic Encyclopedia 12 (2003) 258. There is no obvious distinction of tituli (the word titulus is not mentioned) in the first editions of the Rituale Romanum, for instance Rome, 1614; Rome, 1615 and Antwerp, 1617.

200

Vasyl Popelyastyy

II.

Doctrinal issues on Penance in the De Sacramento Pœnitentiæ

1

Institution of the Sacrament of Penance and Its Difference from Baptism

The De Sacramento Pœnitentiæ consists of five paragraphs and gives clear and concise general doctrinal explanations on the sacrament of penance, including the reason of its institution by Jesus, its matter and form, a definition of its minister and his main qualities. The Rituale Romanum deals directly with Penance as a sacrament and avoids any theological discussions or references to doctrinal treatises, regulations, or conciliar decrees (the Catechismus Romanus43 is mentioned only once and in general). The opening sentence affirms that “[t]he holy sacrament of penance was instituted by Christ the Lord so that the faithful who have fallen back into sin after baptism may be restored to God’s grace”.44 At an official level, there is a clear distinction made between the Old and New Testament sacraments, listing Penance among the latter septenary group, and a delimitation of its main theological characteristics as expressed by the Council of Florence in the Bull of Union with the Armenians in 1439.45 The Council of Trent elaborated and reaffirmed these statements during Session 14 with a promulgation that concerned the sacrament of penance on 25 November, 1551. Moreover, the Council proclaimed an anathema on anyone who objected to the practice.46 Hubert Jedin explains that the main aim of the Council of Trent was to delimitate and defend Catholic doctrine against Protestant accusations and not to give an exhaustive explanation on it, especially in regard to the different issues of the sacraments.47 Therefore, as a response to the Reformation theologians, in particular to Calvin and Luther,48 43 There are two official names of the same book: Catechismus Romanus and Catechismus, Ex decreto Concilii Tridentini, ad parochos. Henceforth I will use the title Catechismus Romanus in my essay. See B. Melkert, “Catechismus”, in H. Brink (ed.), Theologisch Woordenboek (Romen’s Woordenboeken; Roermond/Maaseik: J.J. Romen & Zonen, 1952) 730–6, on p. 730; G.-J. Bellinger, “Catechismus Romanus”, in M. Buchberger/W. Kasper (ed.), Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche 2 (1994) 976–8, on pp. 976–7. 44 Sancta Missa: Rituale Romanum: Roman Ritual, “Part 5: The Sacrament of Penance”. 45 Council of Florence, “Bull of Union with the Armenians”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 1.534–59, on pp. 541–8. 46 Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing” (Session 14, 25 November 1551), in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/ Alberigo (ed.), 2.703–13, on pp. 711–13. 47 H. Jedin, “La nécessité de la confession privée selon le Concile de Trente”, La Maison-Dieu 104 (1971) 88–115, on p. 114; H. Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, E. Graf (trans.) (2 vol.; London et al.: T. Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1957–61), 2.380–1. 48 K.B. Osborne, Reconciliation and Justification: The Sacrament and Its Theology (New York/ Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1990), 162–6.

The Post-Tridentine Theology of the Sacrament of Penance

201

the Fathers at Trent argue in the first two canons that Penance is “truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord for the reconciliation of the faithful to God himself”. Moreover, the sacrament of penance is distinct from the sacrament of baptism and it is “the second plank after shipwreck” for those Christians who “fall into sins after baptism”.49

2

Effects

While maintaining the difference between the sacraments of penance and baptism, which were both under critique by the Protestant reformers, the Rituale Romanum principally highlights their common effect, viz. restoration of the divine grace for the sinner. It avoids mentioning, however, the specific effects of the sacrament of penance, especially the remission of sins.50 There was also a lack of unanimity and a clear and universally accepted definition regarding the effects of the sacrament of penance within the doctrinal and liturgical documents that preceded the Rituale Romanum. The Council of Florence, for example, clearly affirms the absolution of sins as the effect of the sacrament of penance.51 Nevertheless, later authors did not feel themselves limited by the Council and broadened and expanded this statement. For instance, Castelano’s Sacerdotale indicates the absolution of sins, deliverance from infernal punishment and “restitution of divine grace” as among the sacrament’s effects, while also affirming that the Sacerdotale was based on the Bull of Union with the Armenians.52 Furthermore, Samarino’s Sacerdotale uses the expression “remission of sins” (in remissionem peccatorum).53 At Trent, the Council fathers put the accent on another aspect. In chapter 3 of the Decree on the Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacraments of Penance and Last Anointing, the Fathers at Trent affirmed that “the meaning and fruit of this sacrament … is reconciliation with God”, which might be “followed by a peace and a serenity of conscience accompanied by an intense consolation of spirit”.54 However, the con49 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.711. 50 Rituale Romanum, 40. 51 Council of Florence, “Bull of Union with the Armenians”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 1.548. The bull mentions that “Effectus huius sacramenti est absolutio a peccatis”. This phrase is not translated in Tanner’s English text. 52 Sacerdotale, Castellano (ed.), 39v; Sacerdotale Romanum, Castellano (ed.), 39v–40r. 53 Sacerdotale siue Sacerdotum Thesaurus, Samarino (ed.), 34v. 54 Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.704. See also the first canon regarding the sacrament of penance; Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.711.

202

Vasyl Popelyastyy

ception of the forgiveness of sins is not listed among the effects of the sacrament, but is mentioned in other parts of the conciliar documents. For instance, canon 3 mentions the biblical passage about “the power of forgiving and retaining sins” as fundamental to the institution of the sacrament.55 The Post-Tridentine Catechism attempts to combine the formulations of different documents and defines two specific effects for the sacrament of penance: the restoration of the penitent’s divine grace and union with God and his formal remission of sins.56

3

Frequency

In demanding diligence in the administration and reception of the sacrament of penance, the Rituale Romanum emphasizes the possibility of the sacrament’s repetition, contrary to the sacrament of baptism. However, there is no indication of a frequency or a time for its accomplishment. A penitent should only mention to the confessor the time of his last confession.57 In Constitution 21, Omnis utriusque sexus, the Fourth Lateran Council determined an absolute minimum of confession for all faithful who have reached the age of discernment, namely “at least once a year”.58 Nevertheless, the implementation of this disciplinary decree was, according to André Duval, quite different in practice depending on the particular territory and particular time: some religious communities, for example, maintained their medieval habits of confessing multiple times a week, while other ecclesiastical territories, such as Mainz, did not participate in confession for years at a time during the midsixteenth century.59 Many of the faithful, as Thomas N. Tentler states, fulfilled only the required minimum. There were many reasons and abuses that determined infrequent attendance at confession, such as a gift (or “alms”) given by the penitent to the confessor or the purchase of masses to be celebrated by the confessor himself; lack of good confessors with adequate knowledge and moral conduct; numerous reserved sins, which limited priestly power of absolution; some inner motives of a penitent, for example shame at revealing personal sins, 55 Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.711. 56 Catechismus, Ex decreto Concilii Tridentini, ad parochos Pii Qvinti Pont. Max. ivssv editvs (Rome: Paulus Manutius, 1566), 165–6. In my essay I will also use the English translation of the Catechismus ad parochos, namely Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests: Issued by Order of Pope Pius V, J.A. McHugh/Ch.J. Callan (ed.) (New York: Joseph F. Wagner/ London: B. Herder, 141956), 270–1. 57 Rituale Romanum, 40. 58 Fourth Lateran Council, “Constitutions”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/ Alberigo (ed.), 1.230–71, on p. 245. 59 A. Duval, Des Sacrements au Concile de Trente (Rites et Symboles 16; Paris: Cerf, 1985), 154.

The Post-Tridentine Theology of the Sacrament of Penance

203

excessive hope or hopelessness for being forgiven by God, a fear of a heavy penance;60 Protestant influence in the latter time,61 etc. In the Middle Ages, as Thomas N. Tentler points out, there were numerous appeals for confession more than once a year from the official ecclesiastical authorities, as well as from individual theologians. In general, it was recommended that the faithful go to confession several times a year, especially during the major feasts. Confession was often considered as a means for a spiritual benefit and devotional practice. Therefore, some authors, among whom Jean Gerson, even accepted daily confession and communion.62 Thomas N. Tentler indicates four main reasons, besides Lenten duty, that medieval authors agreed as requiring confession: Two were universally accepted: Christians in the state of sin must confess immediately when they are in danger of dying, either through sickness or because they are about to be placed in some other notable peril; and they must confess before receiving the Eucharist, or, according to some, before receiving any other sacrament except Baptism, or before performing any solemn religious act, such as saying the mass. Two others were almost as universally recognized: if a sinner has someone available who can absolve him of his sins and for some reason it is doubtful that within the year he will have a similar opportunity, he must not delay; and if the sinner’s conscience dictates to him that he confess immediately, he must obey.63

Castellano’s Sacerdotale might be considered a good example of what is depicted in Tentler’s summary. The work presents a list of five cases in which confession is required: grave illness (infirmitas gravis); imminent danger of death (imminet periculum mortis), such as when individuals went on sea voyages, long peregrinations (peregrinatio) or a dangerous trip; the necessity of saying Mass; the possible lack of a confessor in the future, especially during Lent; and dictation of conscience.64 Authors of theological treatises dealing with the sacrament of penance were also aware of the problem of scrupulosity, which might be provoked by too frequently going to confession, and they warned confessors about it.65 The Council of Trent reaffirmed the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council regarding the necessity of annual confession. Moreover, the Council legalized the existing practice of making a yearly confession during the Lenten season.66 The idea of 60 T.N. Tentler, Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977), 70–3. 61 Duval, Des Sacrements, 154. 62 Tentler, Sin and Confession, 72–6. 63 Tentler, Sin and Confession, 73. 64 Sacerdotale, Castellano (ed.), 40r; Sacerdotale Romanum, Castellano (ed.), 40v–41r. 65 Tentler, Sin and Confession, 76–8. 66 This was affirmed by the Council, through its chapter 5 “On Confession” and in canon 8; see

204

Vasyl Popelyastyy

more frequent confession “as often as they fall into sins after baptism” also found support in the Council of Trent,67 as well as in the Post-Tridentine era. The Catechismus Romanus stressed that every member of the faithful should go to confession when he is in danger of death, in “the state of sin” and should “administer or receive the sacraments”, and anxious “of forgetting some sin”.68 Moreover, the document recommends confession after committing any mortal sin or, more often, as a pious practice.69 The Archbishop of Milan, Carlo Borromeo, paid special attention to this issue. According to Wietse de Boer, Carlo Borromeo, basing his ideas on Ignatian spirituality, regarded the sacrament of penance as an important tool for the development of ecclesiastical discipline and for a personal spiritual life, and centered personal devotion on it. Borromeo argued that penance in personal life should be a constant process and a cause of change in one’s life. Therefore, the reception of the sacrament of penance should not only be once a year before Easter, but at least twice during Lent, and even more, weekly throughout the whole year. Moreover, he emphasized that a special relationship between the penitent and confessor, as his or her spiritual director, should also be established.70

4

Matter

The Rituale Romanum affirms that matter, form, and minister constitute the essence of the sacrament of penance,71 and the lack of one of them, according to the teaching of the Council of Florence, invalidates the sacrament.72 The Rituale Romanum distinguishes two kinds of matter, viz. remote (remota materia) and proximate (proxima). The sins of the penitent belong to the former, while “the acts of the penitent, namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction”73 reside with the latter.

67 68 69 70 71 72 73

the Council’s “Decree on the Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.707 and 712. The Council’s “Decree on the Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.711. Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, 287. Catechismus, 178–9. W. de Boer, The Conquest of the Soul: Confession, Discipline, and Public Order in CounterReformation Milan (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 84; Leiden/Boston, MA/ Cologne: Brill, 2001), 77–9. Rituale Romanum, 40. Council of Florence, “Bull of Union with the Armenians”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 1.542. Rituale Romanum, 40; Sancta Missa: Rituale Romanum: Roman Ritual, “Part 5: The Sacrament of Penance”.

The Post-Tridentine Theology of the Sacrament of Penance

205

Nevertheless the Councils of Florence74 and Trent75 mention only triple acts of the penitent, “as it were the matter” (quasi materia) of the sacrament. Many authors, including Kenan B. Osborne76 and Herbert Vorgrimler,77 affirm that by using this ambiguous expression the Fathers at Trent avoided an option for one or another solution in a question that had been for long a dispute between different scholastic theologians, in particular the Thomists and Scotists, the two main scholastic schools.78 Thomas Aquinas argued that the three penitential acts and the penitent’s sins constitute the matter of the sacrament of penance, the proximate and remote respectively. The form of the sacrament was the words “I absolve you” (Ego te absolvo).79 According to Duns Scotus, absolution is the essence of the sacrament,80 and the penitential acts are measures (ut praevia vel sequentia) required for its worthy reception.81 Indeed, the discussion about the matter of sacramental confession was not limited only to the aforementioned two approaches. Some other scholars elaborated their own arguments regarding this issue. The Dominican Durandus of Saint Porciano (Pourçain), for example, agreed that the “words of absolution” (verbis absolutionis) are the form of the sacrament, but its matter only consists of the penitent’s confession to the priest.82 In other words, in Bernhard Poschmann’s rephrasing of Durandus, the matter is “the visible acts of the penitent”.83 “Therefore, [as Durandus says], contrition and satisfaction are not the parts of the sacrament of penance.”84 74 Council of Florence, “Bull of Union with the Armenians”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 1.548. 75 Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.712. 76 Osborne, Reconciliation and Justification, 168. 77 H. Vorgrimler, Busse und Krankensalbung (Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 1978), 174. 78 The same situation seems to appear in the decision of the Council of Florence. The Council uses the term “quasi materia” too; Council of Florence, “Bull of Union with the Armenians”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 1.548. 79 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae III, q. 84, a. 2–3 (Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1948), 589–90. 80 Joannes Duns Scotus, Doctoris subtilis et mariani B. Ioannis Duns Scoti ordinis fratrum minorum Ordinatio: liber quartus a distinctione decima quarta ad quadragesimam secundam (Ordinatio IV, d. 14, q. 4), in Joannes Duns Scotus, Opera omnia (21 vol.; Vatican City: Typis Vaticanis, 1950–), 13.51. 81 Joannes Duns Scotus, Ordinatio: liber quartus (Ordinatio IV, d. 16, q. 1, [n.] 7), 13.136–7. See also B. Poschmann, Penance and the Anointing of the Sick (New York: Herder and Herder, 1964), 187; D.M. Coffey, The Sacrament of Reconciliation (Lex Orandi Series; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2001), 45–6. 82 Durandus de Sancto Porciano, D. Durandi a sancto Portiano super sententias theologicas Petri Lombardi commentariorum Libri quattuor, per fratrem Iacobum Albertum Castrensem ad fidem veterum exemplarium diligenter recogniti (Liber IV, d. 16, q. 1) (Paris: Johannes Roigny, 1539), 257v. 83 Poschmann, Penance and the Anointing of the Sick, 191. 84 “Materia verò (si qua sit) in verbis confessionis quibus pœnitens suam conscientiam aperit sacerdoti: ergo contritio & satisfactio non sunt partes sacramenti pœnitentie˛ propriè lo-

206

Vasyl Popelyastyy

The Catechismus Romanus makes a step forward in the understanding of and commenting on the term quasi materia of the sacrament of penance. It emphasizes the existence of different kinds of sacramental matter. In other words, according to the Catechismus Romanus, contrition, confession and satisfaction are the true matter of the sacrament of penance, but they belong to another kind of matter (non-material) separate from that present in Baptism and Confirmation.85 In the Post-Tridentine period, there was a certain shift in the official ecclesiastical position and an inclination to recognize the whole Thomistic interpretation regarding the matter of the sacrament of penance. It seems that the increasing authority and influence of Thomas Aquinas’ theology conditioned that shift. For example, the Catechismus Romanus explains that the position of some theologians, viz. that sins also belong to the matter of the Sacrament, “does not really differ” from the conciliar affirmation. Nevertheless, it still avoids any indication of the names of these theologians and uses the general expression “the opinion of some”.86 The authors of the Catechismus Romanus were obliged, as John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan affirm, to base themselves on the teaching of the Council of Trent, to present the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, and “to avoid in its [the Catechismus Romanus] composition the particular opinions of individuals and schools”.87 Samarino’s Sacerdotale already clearly affirms two kinds of matter: remota and vero propinqua.88 It seems that the Thomistic understanding of the matter of the sacrament of penance was finally introduced into the official liturgical text in 1614 (the Rituale Romanum). In my opinion, some authors of the official ecclesiastical documents and liturgical books of that time were inclined to avoid the term quasi materia in their works and tended to substitute it with other words of similar meaning. For example, the Council of Trent frequently used the expressions “parts of penance” and “acts of penitence” rather than “quasi materia”.89 The Catechismus Romanus, however, in line with the Fathers at Trent, affirms the synonymic character of the words “parts” and “quasi materia”;90 Castelano’s Sacerdotale at first uses “parts” and then “materia” without “quasi”;91 Samarino’s Sacerdotale uses them

85 86 87 88 89 90 91

quendo.” See Durandus de Sancto Porciano, Commentariorum libri quattuor (Liber IV, d. 16, q. 1), 257v. Catechismus, 164. Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, 268. J.A. McHugh/C.J. Callan, “Introduction”, in Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, xi–lv, on p. xxiv. Sacerdotale siue Sacerdotum Thesaurus, Samarino (ed.), 35r. Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.704–12. Catechismus, 164. Sacerdotale, Castellano (ed.), 39r; Sacerdotale Romanum, Castellano (ed.), 39v.

The Post-Tridentine Theology of the Sacrament of Penance

207

interchangeably;92 and, in the initial doctrinal paragraph about the sacrament of penance, Santori’s Ritvale Sacramentorvm Romanvm mentions only the word “parts”.93 Unsurprisingly, one can find a number of adherents to any approach to this question. The Tridentine’s strong emphasis on the threefold parts of the sacrament of penance as constituting its matter was the result of the critique of the Protestant reformers, who argued that words as contrition, confession and satisfaction were not found in the Bible.94 Phillip Melanchthon stressed that only two things were necessary for the sacrament,95 both of which are mentioned in Canon 4: “terrors afflicting the conscience once sin is acknowledged, and faith arising from the Gospel or from the absolution, with which a person believes that his sins have been forgiven through Christ”.96 Therefore, it is for this reason that the defensive character of the Tridentine postulate ensured a lack of a clear elaboration and an explanation of the doctrine regarding the matter of the sacrament of penance.

5

Form

The Rituale Romanum affirms an indicative mode of absolution for the sacrament of penance: “Ego te absoluo, &c.”97 The indicative mode of a prayer of absolution had already been generally accepted for some centuries in the Latin Church. It was also officially confirmed by the two ecumenical councils at Florence98 and Trent.99 Thirteenth century debates among scholastics regarding some aspects of the sacrament of penance, especially in relation to the meaning of its minister and of priestly absolution, seem to be among the main reasons for starting the process of substitution and for displacing the depreciative mode of absolution by the indicative. Some authors, such as Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Abelard, and Albert the Great considered that absolution was only a sign that the penitent’s sins had already been forgiven by God.100 Nevertheless, by stressing the efficacy of the sacrament and, as Herbert Vorgrimler notes, the juridical function 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Sacerdotale siue Sacerdotum Thesaurus, Samarino (ed.), 35r. Ritvale Sacramentorvm, Santori (ed.), 257. Osborne, Reconciliation and Justification, 169–70. Vorgrimler, Busse und Krankensalbung, 174. Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.712. Rituale Romanum, 40. Council of Florence, “Bull of Union with the Armenians”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 1.548. Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.704. Osborne, Reconciliation and Justification, 106–7.

208

Vasyl Popelyastyy

of the confessor101 as a possessor of ‘the power of keys’ (ecclesiastical power), the position of the indicative mode of absolution was greatly reinforced. Thus, it was even interpreted by some theologians, including Duns Scotus, as the core of the sacrament of penance.102 During the Post-Tridentine period, the depreciative form was generally referred to as belonging to the Eastern Churches,103 which retained the older form, and the indicative form was generally considered as a normal way of absolution in Latin Catholicism104 and “the perfect form of the Sacrament”.105

6

Minister

In the De Sacramento Pœnitentiæ section of the Rituale Romanum, the main accent is put on the minister of the sacrament of penance as a person on whom the sacrament’s administration is dependent and to whom the liturgical texts are addressed. All aforementioned doctrinal questions, so avidly discussed during the previous centuries, are only briefly mentioned. By comparison, the section devotes four and a half paragraphs to different issues regarding the confessor, while only half of the first paragraph is allotted to other doctrinal issues.106 It was supposed that the minister should be well-trained in theology and therefore familiar with all general doctrinal issues regarding the sacrament of penance; this might explain why it was not necessary to discuss them in more detail. Thus, the Rituale Romanum first lists the qualities of a legitimate confessor and then gives the practical recommendations for the proper administration and reception of the sacrament. In line with the councils of Florence107 and Trent,108 the Rituale Romanum indicates that the usual minister of the sacrament of penance is a priest (Sacerdos).109 The meaning of the term also includes bishops. Moreover, aiming to defend ecclesiastical power over absolution of sins, which was challenged by 101 Vorgrimler, Busse und Krankensalbung, 124. 102 Tentler, Sin and Confession, 281. 103 Ioannes Morinus, Commentarius historicus de disciplina in administratione sacramenti poenitentiæ tredecim primis seculis in ecclesia occidentali, et huc usque in orientali observata … His inserta sunt Quæ Judæi antiqui & recentiores tradunt de pœnitentia… (Antwerp: Fredericus a Metelen, 1682), 570–6. 104 Vorgrimler, Busse und Krankensalbung, 187. 105 Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, 269. 106 Rituale Romanum, 40–1. 107 Council of Florence, “Bull of Union with the Armenians”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 1.548. 108 Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.707 and 713. 109 Rituale Romanum, 40.

The Post-Tridentine Theology of the Sacrament of Penance

209

the Protestant reformers, the Council of Trent affirms that priests are “the only ministers of absolution”.110 The Council fathers also stress that “the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone … the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observe”.111 However, this statement is not correct from a historical perspective, especially in regard to the history of the minister of the sacrament. As Kenan B. Osborne has pointed out, a bishop served as the normal administrator of the sacrament during the first few centuries of Christianity. Priests generally occupied this position after the fifth century and their role was already considered as both normal and general in the bestowing of absolution by the beginning of the Carolingian era. However, there were occasional cases of penitents confessing to deacons or to lay persons, not only in the aforementioned period as well,112 but even in latter times.113 The aforementioned statement from the Fathers at Trent also confirmed that sacramental absolution was the only means of remission of sins for a penitent (even true contrition should be linked with the desire for confession).114 Consequently, other ancient forms of receiving forgiveness of sins, such as by confessing one’s sins to another person (not a priest) or to God alone, etc. were repudiated.115 The juridical meaning of absolution did not allow for any priest with the power of orders to act as a minister of the sacrament of penance, but that he should be one who has received an “either ordinary or delegated power to absolve”.116 This statement, which is also present with slight differences in the teachings of the

110 Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.713. 111 Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.712. 112 Osborne, Reconciliation and Justification, 172 and 180. 113 A. Santantoni, “Reconciliation in the West”, in A.J. Chupungco (ed.), Handbook for Liturgical Studies, vol. 4: Sacraments and Sacramentals (A Pueblo Book; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000) 121–59, on p. 142. 114 “The council further teaches that, though it sometimes happens that this contrition is made perfect by love, and a person is reconciled with God before this sacrament is actually received; nevertheless, the reconciliation is not to be attributed to the contrition without a desire for the sacrament being included in it” (“Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/ Alberigo (ed.), 2.705). 115 The confession of sins to God alone and the confession of sins to priests were both considered by the Council of Chalon-sur-Saône 813 as two possible parallel forms practiced in the Catholic Church. On the original Latin text of the Council’s Canon 33 and its English translation, see E.F. Latko, “Trent and Auricular Confession”, Franciscan Studies 14 (1954) 3–33, on p. 29. See also S. Haliczer, Sexuality in the Confessional: A Sacrament Profound (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 12; Santantoni, “Reconciliation in the West”, 130–1, 134–5, and 146. 116 Sancta Missa: Rituale Romanum: Roman Ritual, “Part 5: The Sacrament of Penance”.

210

Vasyl Popelyastyy

councils of Florence117 and Trent,118 broadens the meaning of the confessor’s jurisdiction, which is present in the disciplinary instruction of the Fourth Lateran Council. The Council obliged all the faithful to confess their sins annually to their own (“proprio”) priest. A confession to another priest must be “for good reasons” and only with the permission of their own priest.119 The reason for the expansion of this rule, as Thomas N. Tentler points out, might be seen in the “various privileges granted to the mendicant orders to hear confessions of laymen who were not officially under their pastoral call. The mendicants exercised and tried to defend and expand these privileges”.120 That practice was further extended in the Catechismus Romanus: it allows a penitent the possibility of choosing a priest as a confessor. Moreover, the Catechismus Romanus emphasizes such a selection in order to find a good, prudent, and competent confessor.121 According to the Rituale Romanum, the only exception to the rule occurred when the penitent was in imminent danger of death and the legitimate confessor was not available. In this case every priest could validly absolve one from any kind of sin, even those reserved to a higher authority. In all other cases, he “must delay absolution until he has obtained faculties from his superior”.122 The Rituale Romanum stresses three main qualities of the confessor: goodness (bonitas), knowledge (scientia) and prudence (prudentia).123 The formulation of the Rituale Romanum is very close to Santori’s Ritvale Sacramentorvm Romanvm. It requests similar characteristics from the confessor and only puts the moral condition at the end, viz. “scientia, prudentia & probitate”.124 The similarity between Santori’s statement and the Rituale Romanum is also highlighted

117 Council of Florence, “Bull of Union with the Armenians”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 1.548. The Council used the more precise and technical word “authority” (auctoritas) instead of the Rituale Romanum’s general “power” (potestas). Furthermore, the authority is “either ordinary or by commission of a superior”. 118 Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.708. The Council used the word “jurisdiction” (iurisdictio) instead of the Rituale Romanum’s general “power” (potestas). The jurisdiction is subdelegatam and not only delegatam as is indicated by the Rituale Romanum. 119 Fourth Lateran Council, “Constitutions”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/ Alberigo (ed.), 1.245. 120 Tentler, Sin and Confession, 64. 121 Catechismus, 180. 122 Sancta Missa: Rituale Romanum: Roman Ritual, “Part 5: The Sacrament of Penance”. 123 Sancta Missa: Rituale Romanum: Roman Ritual, “Part 5: The Sacrament of Penance”; Rituale Romanum, 40. 124 Ritvale Sacramentorvm Romanvm, Santori (ed.), 258. It is worth mentioning that the doctrinal part of the Rituale Romanum “De Sacramento Pœnitentiæ” has certain similarity with Santori’s Ritvale but they are far from being identical.

The Post-Tridentine Theology of the Sacrament of Penance

211

by the fact that both texts conclude the line with a demand for the seal of a secret confession.125 Priests were always expected to be examples of high moral standards, expressed by their daily life. Nevertheless, numerous abuses were widespread among confessors. The immoral state of certain ecclesiastics had been strongly criticized by many different authors, including both Catholic and Protestant reformers. Moreover, as Wietse de Boer points out, the ministers’ immoral state of life was one of the main reasons for the rejection of the sacrament of penance among the believers in the sixteenth century.126 The Council of Trent argued that the efficacy of the sacrament is not endangered by the bad moral state of the confessor, insomuch as the sacraments work ex opere operato.127 In other words, the priest who committed a mortal sin can still validly administer the sacrament.128 Thus, the Council avoided drawing out the moral characteristics of confessors. For a better administration of the sacrament of penance, the confessor should also possess a certain intellectual capacity. Thomas N. Tentler notes that the scale of the demands for confessors was quite variable among different authors in the Middle Ages: from a rudiment knowledge of faith and education to the more rigid approach of an expert of spiritual life. Nevertheless, all confessors were first expected to understand revealed sins, namely their nature and essence, discern the gravity of specific actions and distinguish the difference between mortal and venial sins, and the ability to explain them to the penitent.129 The minister should also know and observe, as the Rituale Romanum demands, all cases and censures which limit his authority to absolve, viz. the reservation of certain sins to the authority of the Apostolic See and to his bishop “as well as the regulations of his particular diocese”.130 It should be noticed that the Rituale Romanum, just like Santori’s Ritvale Sacramentorvm Romanvm, does not indicate the lists of reserved sins and different censures, something clearly present in the liturgical books of Castellano and Samarino. On one hand, this absence might be explained by a lack of unanimity among authors dealing with this topic. Indeed, the lists of reservations and ecclesiastical penalties contained in the books of Castellano131

125 Ritvale Sacramentorvm Romanvm, Santori (ed.), 258; Rituale Romanum, 40. 126 De Boer, The Conquest of the Soul, 14. 127 Council of Trent, “First Decree [On the Sacraments]”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.684–6, on p. 685. 128 Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.704. 129 Tentler, Sin and Confession, 95–104. 130 Rituale Romanum, 40; Sancta Missa: Rituale Romanum: Roman Ritual, “Part 5: The Sacrament of Penance”. 131 Sacerdotale, Castellano (ed.), 41r–46r; Sacerdotale Romanum, Castellano (ed.), 42r–46v.

212

Vasyl Popelyastyy

and Samarino132 are different. On the other hand, every local bishop might establish his own list. Moreover, the Catechismus Romanus does not discuss this problem and the Council of Trent indicates the general rights of Popes and bishops to make such reservations for the good of the Church and stresses the invalidity of absolution given by priests without proper authority to absolve sins reserved to a supreme authority.133 The confessor should also constantly increase his moral and intellectual qualities. The Rituale Romanum indicates that the confessor should do this “on the basis of fervent prayers to God, as well as on the basis of approved authors, especially on the basis of the Roman Catechism, and the prudent councils of experts”.134 He should also learn, according to the Rituale Romanum, the full doctrine of the sacrament of penance and everything that is required for its appropriate administration.135 Medieval authors often discussed the main qualities of confessors across the centuries and used the different decisions of various councils as support. These debates, in their turn, influenced the conciliar decisions as well. For instance the Fourth Lateran Council decreed that the confessor “shall be discerning and prudent … carefully inquire about the circumstances of both the sinner and the sin … not to betray the sinner at all by word or sign or in any other way”.136 This issue was also discussed by the Council of Trent, particularly during its period at Bologna. The Fourth Lateran’s formulation, as André Duval notes, became a basis for the draft of Tridentine statement regarding confessor’s qualities. Nevertheless, it was rejected because of a lack of well-educated priests with high spiritual and moral standards who could adequately fulfill the sacrament of penance according to the Church’s teaching.137 In order to solve the problem of the confessors’ general formation, the Council of Trent decreed the establishment of diocesan seminaries, where candidates to the priesthood should be trained to hear confessions as well as receive other spiritual and intellectual training.138 Moreover, the bishop should check and approve of the ability and qualification of the priest to hear confessions after 132 Sacerdotale siue Sacerdotum Thesaurus, Samarino (ed.), 88r–89r. 133 Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.708 and 713. 134 “Tùm assiduis ad Deum precibus, tùm ex probatis authoribus, præsertim è Catechismo Romano, & prudenti consilio peritorum”. See Rituale Romanum, 40. 135 Rituale Romanum, 40. 136 Fourth Lateran Council, “Constitutions”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/ Alberigo (ed.), 1.245. 137 Duval, Des Sacraments, 161–2. 138 Council of Trent, “The True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of Order, to Condemn the Errors of Our Time”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.742–53, on pp. 750–1.

The Post-Tridentine Theology of the Sacrament of Penance

213

ordination.139 The Milanese Archdiocese of Carlo Borromeo represents one of the best examples in which the conciliar decision on this matter was fully implemented in the seminary training. Moreover, Carlo Borromeo tried to improve the quality of confessors through a lifelong training process. Consolidation of episcopal power, constant control over the quality of confessors, and their permanent education were considered as excellent tools in this regard.140 The Rituale Romanum stresses the triple function of the minister during the administration of the sacrament of penance: judicial, therapeutic and arbitral. The text indicates as follows: A confessor should keep in mind above all that he holds the office of both judge and physician, and that he has been constituted by God a dispenser equally of divine justice and mercy, so that like an arbiter between God and men he may advance the cause of God’s honor and souls’ salvation.141

The arbitral functions of confessors are highlighted by the Council of Trent. The Tridentine fathers affirm that confessors are vicars of God (vicarii) and “that by the power of the keys they might declare the decision of forgiveness or retention of sins”.142 It was generally considered that they only mediate the divine forgiveness to repented sinners,143 because God alone can forgive sins. Therefore, as representatives, they are obliged, as Wietse de Boer points out, to preserve the seal of confession,144 since sins are confessed to God through them. The Fourth Lateran Council decreed that it was the confessor’s duty to keep the seal of confession. The Council fathers warn ministers against betraying confessed sins “by word or sign or in any other way”. When confessors needed to 139 Council of Trent, “The True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of Order, to Condemn the Errors of Our Time”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.749. It is worth mentioning that the conciliar document did not limit the bishops in their methods and ways of conducting such examinations. The exemption is granted only for the holders of a parochial benefice: they seem to be considered as approved for hearing confessions. 140 De Boer, The Conquest of the Soul, 258–77; W. de Boer, “The Politics of the Soul: Confession in the Counter-Reformation Milan”, in K. Jackson Lualdi/A.T. Thayer (ed.), Penitence in the Age of Reformations (Aldershot et al.: Ashgate, 2000) 116–33, on pp. 122–4. See also W. de Boer, “At Heresy’s Door: Borromeo, Penance, and Confessional Boundaries in Early Modern Europe”, in A. Firey (ed.), A New History of Penance (Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2008) 343– 75, on pp. 348–53. 141 Rituale Romanum, 40; Sancta Missa: Rituale Romanum: Roman Ritual, “Part 5: The Sacrament of Penance”. 142 Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.706. Samarino’s Sacerdotale also stresses the arbitral function of the confessor: “Mediatores enim sunt Sacerdotes inter Deum & hominess”; see Sacerdotale siue Sacerdotum Thesaurus, Samarino (ed.), 42v. 143 Tentler, Sin and Confession, 297–8. 144 De Boer, The Conquest of the Soul, 58.

214

Vasyl Popelyastyy

get “wise advice” on a specific issue, they should “seek it cautiously without any mention of the person concerned”. Moreover, the Fathers state that everyone who breaks the seal “is not only to be deposed from his priestly office but also to be confined to a strict monastery to do perpetual penance”.145 In emphasizing the secrecy of confession, the Catechismus Romanus stresses the necessity to preserve it not only by the confessor but by the penitent too.146 The judicial and therapeutic functions of the confessor, according to the Rituale Romanum, are manifested in his tasks “to judge rightly” and “to heal the diseases of souls and know how to apply a suitable remedy to each case”. In other words, the minister is supposed to examine sins and impose on the penitent an adequate penance in order to satisfy divine justice and dissolve a temporal punishment, while helping to change one’s bad moral and spiritual state for the better. Thus, he should strive to combine both justice and mercy. Indeed, the fulfillment of the confessor’s functions also requires considerable intellectual capacities from the confessor. The Catechismus Romanus affirms that “the minister of this Sacrament, holding as he does the place at once of judge and physician, should be gifted not only with knowledge and erudition, but also with prudence.” The confessor uses his knowledge for the examination and judging of sins and prudence for their healing.147 Unlike the Fourth Lateran Council,148 the Council of Trent uses clear judicial terminology and images for describing the sacrament. For example, the minister is portrayed as a judge, the penitent as a culprit before the tribunal, and priestly absolution “like a judicial act in which a verdict is pronounced”.149 Therefore, in order to properly discharge the minister’s judicial function and to satisfy offences against God, doctrine required that it was necessary to “confess each and all mortal sins which are remembered after due and careful reflection … together with circumstances which change the character of the sin”.150 Moreover, the minister should have the “intention of acting seriously and truly absolving”.151 145 146 147 148

Fourth Lateran Council, “Constitutions”, 245. Catechismus, 178. Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, 292. Fourth Lateran Council, “Constitutions”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/ Alberigo (ed.), 1.245. The text of the 21st Constitution indicates as follows: “The priest shall be discerning and prudent, so that like a skilled doctor he may pour wine and oil over the wounds of the injured one. Let him carefully inquire about circumstances of both the sinner and the sin, so that he may prudently discern what sort of advice he ought to give and what remedy to apply, using various means to heal the sick person.” 149 Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.704 and 707. 150 Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.712 and 706. 151 Council of Trent, “Teaching Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance and Last Anointing”, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Tanner/Alberigo (ed.), 2.707.

The Post-Tridentine Theology of the Sacrament of Penance

215

It is possible to presume several reasons for such a strong placement of stress on the confessor’s judicial function and, as a result, the marginalization of his therapeutic role in the Tridentine documents. A major reason might be doubt about the moral state of the minister because of numerous abuses. In order to avoid the risk that there could be too strong a relation between the idea of the efficacy of the sacrament and the person of the confessor, the ecclesiastical power over the absolution of sins was defended, and thus the efficacy of it protected. Indeed, it seems impossible to clearly separate the judicial and therapeutic functions of the confessors, since they are interrelated. Nevertheless, it is obvious that in both the Tridentine and Post-Tridentine period the emphasis on the judicial function of the confessor has remained dominant in the Latin Church, in spite of numerous appeals to the therapeutic function of the confessor’s role and recourses to medical terminology and images in the documents of the Council of Trent itself, as well as the endeavors of the Catechismus Romanus and the Rituale Romanum, to restore the lost balance.152

Conclusion It has been clearly shown in this essay that the Council fathers had based themselves on, and were faithful to, historical continuity and the long tradition of the Catholic Church with regard to the sacrament of penance (including the common contemporary historical mistakes). Nevertheless, the Fathers at Trent were occupied with the idea of defining and defending Catholic doctrine against Protestant accusations; they reacted to hotly debated topics and accusations from the outside and avoided discussions on debated topics within the Catholic Church. Therefore, some aspects of the theology of the sacrament of penance were neglected or marginalized in the Tridentine teaching. To sum up the result of the Tridentine discussion regarding this issue, the summary of John W. O’Malley is worth quoting at length:

152 The image of the confessor as a doctor and the application of his therapeutic functions in the sacrament of penance in the late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period is still ambiguous and requires further investigation. For instance, the Catechismus Romanus and the Rituale Romanum presuppose the process of the penitent’s healing. However, according to Anne T. Thayer, this process was limited by preachers between 1450–1520, who considered the confessor as a doctor, only at the moment of absolution. The scholar summarizes as follows: “When the confessor is the doctor, absolution is the healing and cleansing medicine applied to the sin-sick soul”; see A.T. Thayer, “Judge and Doctor: Images of the Confessor in Printed Model Sermon Collections, 1450–1520”, in Jackson Lualdi/Thayer (ed.), Penitence in the Age of Reformations, 10–29, on p. 21.

216

Vasyl Popelyastyy

The part of the decree dealing with penance … is a compendium of the teaching on the sacrament that developed in the West beginning in the twelfth century, once the practice of private confession became widespread outside monasteries. No doctrinal decree of the council had up to this point betrayed such a strong imprint of medieval Scholastic theology and canon law.153

Moreover, some Tridentine decisions proved to be very influential in the further development of the sacrament of penance, especially the establishment of seminaries as places for the spiritual and intellectual training of future confessors, a stressing of the judicial function of the minister, emphasizing the importance of the individual sacramental confession and the value of the absolution, etc. Certainly, those decisions did not solve all existing problems and even evoked new ones. For instance, there was still not enough good (highly spiritual and intellectual) confessors (there was always a lack of them); overemphasizing the private confession caused the suffocation of other kinds of penance, in particular solemn and public confession. For example, the Sacerdotales of Castellano and Samarino presented teaching concerning three kinds of Penance: solemn, public and secret, while the Rituale Romanum deals with only the secret sacramental confession (the rite of solemn penance is contained in the Pontificale Romanum 1595–96). The Rituale Romanum, as a liturgical text claimed to be the official liturgical book of the Roman Catholic Church, expresses the official doctrinal position of the Latin Church, which was elaborated upon and approved by the Fourth Lateran Council, the Councils of Florence and Trent, and the Catechismus Romanus. However, it presents some contemporary changes as well. For instance, the increasing influence of Thomistic theology within half a century after Trent remains very visible. The Rituale does not give very much attention to some topics that were hotly discussed during Trent’s sessions, including questions of contrition, the sacramental nature of confession, and the power of keys. It even suggests that these are held as generally accepted doctrines. Indeed, one of the reasons for such an attitude might be explained by its intended audience. It was addressed by ecclesiastical officials to persons who should already be well grounded in the Catholic doctrine, namely to priests. Therefore, more detailed explanations might not have been considered necessary. The Rituale Romanum’s text about doctrinal aspects of the sacrament of penance is influenced more by the Catechismus Romanus than by the texts of the Council of Trent. The liturgical document refers to the Catechismus Romanus, among others, as the necessary source for increasing the confessor’s knowledge and necessary qualities, but does not mention conciliar decrees. 153 J.W. O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, MA/London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013), 152.

The Post-Tridentine Theology of the Sacrament of Penance

217

The Catechismus Romanus and, consequently, the Rituale Romanum tried to fill the lacuna because the conditions in which these works were formed and their overall aims had changed. This includes, for example, the understanding of the confessor’s judicial and therapeutic functions. The Council of Trent had concentrated mainly on the image of the confessor as a judge, stressing his ecclesiastical position over the absolution of sins and thereby avoiding the accusation that an immoral minister could not validly absolve his penitents, much like a bad doctor who could not properly heal a patient. Both the Catechismus and the Rituale tried to elaborate the therapeutic image of the confessor and, especially in the case of the latter, tried to keep a balance between them. Nevertheless, the judicial function seems to remain dominant. The Rituale Romanum changes the format for presenting the teaching concerning the sacrament of penance. Unlike the books of Castellano, Samarino and Santori, the Rituale Romanum contains only a limited number of references to doctrinal treatises, regulations, and conciliar decrees. In the part dedicated to the doctrinal issues regarding the sacrament of penance, it only refers to the Catechismus Romanus once but does not quote directly from it. The Rituale Romanum claims to be the official liturgical and doctrinal text for references. It also avoids any theological discussions concerning doctrinal questions regarding the sacrament of penance.

Bibliography Printed and edited sources Catechismus, Ex decreto Concilii Tridentini, ad parochos Pii Qvinti Pont. Max. ivssv editvs (Rome: Paulus Manutius, 1566). Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests: Issued by Order of Pope Pius V, J.A. McHugh/Ch.J. Callan (ed.) (New York: Joseph F. Wagner/London: B. Herder, 141956). Duns Scotus, Joannes, Opera omnia (21 vol.; Vatican City: Typis Vaticanis, 1950–) Durandus de Sancto Porciano, D. Durandi a sancto Portiano super sententias theologicas Petri Lombardi commentariorum Libri quattuor, per fratrem Iacobum Albertum Castrensem ad fidem veterum exemplarium diligenter recogniti (Paris: Johannes Roigny, 1539). Morinus, Ioannes, Commentarius historicus de disciplina in administratione sacramenti poenitentiæ tredecim primis seculis in ecclesia occidentali, et huc usque in orientali observata … His inserta sunt Quæ Judæi antiqui & recentiores tradunt de pœnitentia… (Antwerp: Fredericus a Metelen, 1682). Rituale Romanum: Editio Princeps (1614), M. Sodi/J.J.F. Arcas (ed.) (Monumenta Liturgica Concilii Tridentini 5; Rome: Ex Typographia Reuerendæ Cameræ Apostolicæ, 1614; repr. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004).

218

Vasyl Popelyastyy

Rituale Romanum Pauli V. P. M. iussu editum (Rome: Ex Typographia Cameræ Apostolicæ, 1615). Rituale Romanum Pauli V. Pont. Max. jussu editum (Antwerp: Balthasar & Joannes Moretus, 1617). Rituale Romanum Vrbani VIII Pont. Max. ivssv editvm. Illyrica Lingva, Bartholomaeus Cassius (ed.) (Rome: Typographia Sac. Congreg. de Propag. Fide, 1640). Ritvale Sacramentorvm Romanvm Gregorii Papae XIII. Pont. Max. ivssv editvm, Julius Santori (ed.) (Rome: n.p., 1584). Sacerdotale iuxta s. Romane ecclesie et aliarum ecclesiarum, ex apostolice bibliothece … scriptis … collectus [sic.]… ac summorum Pontificum authoritate multoties approbatum …, Albert Castellano (ed.) (Venice: Petrus Rabanus, et socii, 1554). Sacerdotale Romanum: Ad consuetudinem S. Romanæ Ecclesiæ aliarumq′; Ecclesiarum ex Apostolicæ Bibliothecæ … scriptis … collectum atqve svmmorvm pontificvm authoritate multoties approbatum …, Albert Castellano (ed.) (Venice: Dominicus Nicolinus, 1585). Sacerdotale siue Sacerdotum Thesaurus ivxta consvetvdinem S. Romanae Ecclesiae, sacrique Concilij Tridentini Sanctiones … Ex diuersis voluminibus compendiosè collectus, & in quatuor partes diuisus. Avctore R. D. Francisco Samarino Beneficiato Lateranensi: Industria verò R. P. M. Angeli Rocch. à Camerino expurgatus, multisque rebus auctus, et nuperrimè reformatus, Cui nouissimè adiectum est Calendarivm Gregorianum. Cvm indice copiosissimo. Cvm privilegiis, Francesco Samarino (ed.) (Venice: Jordanus et Nicolaus Zilettus, fratres, 1593). Sancta Missa: Rituale Romanum: Roman Ritual, available from http://www.sanctamissa.org/ en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/index.html; accessed 19 March 2014. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (Turin/Rome: Marietti, 1948). Zaccaria, Francisco Antonio, Bibliotheca Ritualis, vol. 1: De libris ad sacros utriusque ecclesiae orientalis ritus pertinentibus (Rome: Ex Typographio Octavii Puccinelli, 1776).

Secondary sources Albert-Zerlik, A., Liturgie als Sterbebegleitung und Trauerhilfe: Spätmittelalterliches Erbe und pastorale Gegenwart unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ordines von Castellani (1523) und Sanctorius (1602) (Pietas liturgica. Studia 13; Tübingen/Basel: A. Francke, 2003). Bellinger, G.-J., “Catechismus Romanus”, in Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche 2 (1994) 976–8. Cattaneo, E., “Il Rituale Romano de Alberto Castellani”, in Miscellanea Liturgica (2 vol.; FS Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro; Rome et al.: Desclée, 1967) 2.629–47. De Boer, W., “At Heresy’s Door: Borromeo, Penance, and Confessional Boundaries in Early Modern Europe”, in A. Firey (ed.), A New History of Penance (Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2008) 343–75. De Boer, W., The Conquest of the Soul: Confession, Discipline, and Public Order in CounterReformation Milan (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought 84; Leiden/Boston, MA/Cologne: Brill, 2001).

The Post-Tridentine Theology of the Sacrament of Penance

219

De Boer, W., “The Politics of the Soul: Confession in the Counter-Reformation Milan”, in K. Jackson Lualdi/A.T. Thayer (ed.), Penitence in the Age of Reformations (Aldershot et al.: Ashgate, 2000) 116–33. Duval, A., Des Sacraments au Concile de Trente (Rites et symboles 16; Paris: Cerf, 1985). Estreicher, K./Estreicher, S. (ed.), “Rituale”, Bibliografia Polska 3/15 (1915) 310–5. Fisher, B., “Das Originalmanuscript des Rituale Romanum”, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 70 (1961) 244–6. Fisher, B., “Ein bisher unveröffentlichter Entwurf des Einleitungs-dokuments Pauls V. zum Rituale Romanum von 1614”, in P. De Clerck/É. Palazzo (ed.), Rituels (FS Pierre-Marie Gy; Paris: Cerf, 1990) 263–71. Fortescue, A., “Ritual”, The Catholic Encyclopedia 13 (1912) 88–90. Gozzi, M. (ed.), Le fonti liturgiche a stampa della Biblioteca musicale L. Feininger: Presso il Castello del Buonconsiglio di Trento (2 vol.; Trent: Servizio beni librari e archivistici, 1994). Gy, P.-M., “Collectaire, rituel, processionnal”, Revue des Sciences philosophiques et théologiques 44 (1960) 441–69; repr. in: P.-M. Gy, La Liturgie dans l’histoire (Paris: Éditions Saint-Paul/Éditions du Cerf, 1990) 91–126. Haliczer S., Sexuality in the Confessional: A Sacrament Profound (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). Hirsch, R., Printing, Selling, Reading 1450–1550 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1967). Jedin, H., “La nécessité de la confession privée selon le Concile de Trente”, La Maison-Dieu 104 (1971) 88–115. Jounel, P., “The Pontifical and the Ritual”, in A.G. Martimort (ed.), The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy, vol. 3: The Sacraments (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1988) 1–100. Konieczny, M., “Rytuał Piotrkowski”, Encyklopedia Katolicka 17 (2012) 718–9. Latko, E.F., “Trent and Auricular Confession”, Franciscan Studies 14 (1954) 3–33. Löw, G., “Rituale Romano”, Enciclopedia Cattolica 10 (1953) 1010–6. Löwenberg, B., Das Rituale des Kardinals Julius Antonius Sanctorius. Ein Beitrag zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Rituale Romanum (Munich: Salesianischen Offizin, 1937). Löwenberg, B., “Die Erstausgabe des Rituale Romanum von 1614”, Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 66 (1942) 141–7. Löwenberg, B., “Rituale”, Lexicon für Theologie und Kirche 8 (1963) 1327–9. Maciukiewicz, M., “Rytuał”, Encyklopedia Katolicka 17 (2012) 717–8. Melkert, B., “Catechismus”, in H. Brink (ed.), Theologisch Woordenboek (Romen’s Woordenboeken; Roermond/Maaseik: J.J. Romen & Zonen, 1952) 730–6. Molin, J.-B./Aussedat-Minvielle, A. (ed.), Répertoire des Rituels et Processionnaux imprimés conservés en France (Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la recherche scientifique, 1984). Nadolski, B., “Rytuał (Ksie˛ga)”, in Leksykon Liturgii (Poznan: Pallottinum, 2006) 1335–6. Osborne, K.B., Reconciliation and Justification: The Sacrament and Its Theology (New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1990). Palazzo, E., A History of Liturgical Books from the Beginning to the Thirteenth Century (A Pueblo Book; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1998). Pecklers, K.F., “History of the Roman Liturgy from the Sixteenth until the Twentieth Centuries”, in A.J. Chupungco (ed.), Handbook for Liturgical Studies, vol. 1: In-

220

Vasyl Popelyastyy

troduction to the Liturgy (A Pueblo Book; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1997) 153–78. Pierce, J.M., “Ritual, Roman”, New Catholic Encyclopedia 12 (22003) 258. Ricci, S., Il sommo inquisitore: Giulio Antonio Santori: Tra autobiografia e storia (1532– 1602) (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2002). Santantoni, A., “Reconciliation in the West”, in A.J. Chupungco (ed.), Handbook for Liturgical Studies, vol. 4: Sacraments and Sacramentals (A Pueblo Book; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000) 121–59. Sigler, G.J. “The Influence of Charles Borromeo on the Laws of the Roman Ritual”, The Jurist 24 (1964) 119–68 and 319–34. Tentler, T.N., Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977). Thayer, A.T., “Judge and Doctor: Images of the Confessor in Printed Model Sermon Collections, 1450–1520”, in K. Jackson Lualdi/A.T. Thayer (ed.), Penitence in the Age of Reformations (Aldershot et al.: Ashgate, 2000) 10–29. Vogel, C., Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources (Washington: The Pastoral Press, 1986). Vorgrimler, H., Busse und Krankensalbung (Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte 4: Sakramente-Eschatologie 3; Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 1978). Ward A./Johnson C. (ed.), Rituale Romanum (Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae. Subsidia. Instrumenta liturgica quarreriensia. Supplementa 6; Rome: C.L.V.-Edizioni Liturgiche, 2001). White, J.F., Roman Catholic Worship: Trent to Today (New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1995).

Antoine Mazurek

Réforme tridentine et culte des saints en Espagne: liturgie romaine et saints ibériques

Introduction La réforme de la liturgie, malgré la mention de la révision du bréviaire et du missel dans la dernière session du Concile, constitue largement une œuvre post-conciliaire. Sa mise en œuvre à partir du dernier quart du seizième siècle met le SaintSiège devant plusieurs difficultés, notamment dans le domaine du culte des saints. Outre la question de l’authenticité des saints, de leurs légendes et des critères pour en juger, la réforme pose celle de l’articulation entre les différentes échelles du culte, locale et universelle. Ces deux aspects du contrôle romain ont été décrits par Simon Ditchfield comme l’universalisation du particulier et la particularisation de l’universel dont le développement simultané est permis par la collaboration entre Rome et les Églises locales.1 L’enjeu en est principalement la conservation d’un patrimoine liturgique qui contribue à définir des identités locales enracinées dans une tradition historique. C’est en effet à travers la célébration des saints que le temps liturgique se trouve lié au temps historique en reportant le passé dans le présent. L’Espagne offre un point de vue intéressant sur ce processus en raison de l’abondance des saints patrons et de l’intervention de Philippe II qui, dès les années 1568–71, cherche à intercaler une dimension ‹nationale› dans la mise en œuvre de la réforme liturgique. Car l’adoption des décrets tridentins par le roi catholique, qui les inscrit, dès 1564, parmi les lois du royaume montre certes l’engagement de Philippe II en faveur de la réforme tridentine mais tout autant sa volonté de capter à son profit les mesures réformatrices.2 La liturgie représente pour la Monarchie catholique un élément renforçant l’indépendance et la di1 S. Ditchfield, Liturgy, Sanctity and History in Tridentine Italy: Pietro Maria Campi and the Preservation of the Particular (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); Ditchfield, «Tridentine Worship and the Cult of Saints», dans R. Po-Chia Hsia (éd.), Reform and Expansion 1500–1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 201–24. 2 I. Fernández Terricabras, Philippe II et la Contre-Réforme. L’Église espagnole à l’heure du Concile de Trente (Paris: Publisud, 2001).

222

Antoine Mazurek

mension cohésive de l’Église espagnole, en construction depuis le règne des rois catholiques. Toutefois, si le rôle du souverain Habsbourg, «véritable restaurateur de la sainteté catholique au seizième siècle»,3 dans la reprise des procès de canonisation est désormais connu, son implication dans les modalités de la réforme liturgique n’a guère retenu l’attention des historiens, si ce n’est pour les aspects économiques de l’entreprise.4 Les liens particuliers entre le roi catholique et l’Église espagnole ont fait de la péninsule ibérique un laboratoire d’un contrôle dans le domaine du culte des saints qui témoigne de la nouvelle importance des états dans la médiation entre Église universelle et églises locales. Cette législation articule de manière inaugurale les échelles universelle, nationale et locale par l’octroi à l’Espagne d’une série de privilèges qui garantissent la conservation d’éléments de l’ancienne liturgie hispanique et la célébration des saints propres aux diocèses et à l’Espagne dans son ensemble. C’est sur cet effet apparemment paradoxal et pourtant presque immédiat d’une réforme liturgique souvent décrite en terme de centralisation et d’uniformisation que porteront les pages qui suivent.

La place des offices propres des saints dans la réforme liturgique Le Concile de Trente n’opère pas une réforme liturgique en tant que telle. Les pères conciliaires n’abordent la liturgie qu’à travers les décrets concernant les sacrements et ceux définissant les pouvoirs de l’ordinaire diocésain. Dans les deux cas la liturgie n’est traitée que de manière incidente et secondaire.5 La réforme des livres liturgiques figure bien dans la première ébauche de la députation Beccadelli sur les abus de la messe mais le manque de temps et de ressources documentaires à Trente en font un problème encore plus difficile à résoudre que celui de l’Index des livres interdits. C’est finalement dans la précipitation des dernières sessions que l’assemblée énonce la nécessité de réviser les 3 La formule est d’Alain Tallon, «Introduction», dans F. Buttay/A. Guillausseau (éd.), Les saints d’État? Politique et sainteté au temps du Concile de Trente (Paris: Presses universitaires de Paris-Sorbonne, 2012), 8. 4 Voir P. M. Baumgarten, Hispanica II et III: Einführung der Breviarium Pianum von 1568 in Spanien, Einführung des Gregorianischen Calenders in Spanien (Krumbach: Franz Aker, 1927); R. Kingdon, «The Plantin Breviaries: A Case Study in the Sixteenth-Century Business Operations of a Publishing House», Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 22/1 (1960) 133–50. Voir cependant H. Kamen, The Phoenix and the Flame: Catalonia and the Counter Reformation (New Haven, CT/Londres: Yale University Press, 1993) et T.J. Schmitz, «The Spanish Hieronymites and the Reformed Texts of the Council of Trent», The Sixteenth Century Journal 37/2 (2006) 375–99. 5 J. Geldhof, «Did the Council of Trent Produce a Liturgical Reform? The Case of the Roman Missal», Questions Liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy 93 (2012) 171–95.

Réforme tridentine et culte des saints en Espagne

223

principaux livres liturgiques, le bréviaire et le missel, tout en confiant cette tâche au pape.6 Si l’on peut tout de même parler de réforme, cela est dû au travail réalisé par la commission nommée par le pape et surtout aux réaménagements de la structure et du gouvernement de l’Église effectués dans le sillage du Concile. La réforme liturgique relève par conséquent du tridentinisme, c’est-à-dire d’une application de la réforme qui est autant une définition de celle-ci et qu’il faut distinguer du Concile de Trente proprement dit.7 Le qualificatif de romain accolé aux livres révisés symbolise de manière particulièrement éloquente ce passage à une réforme conduite par le Saint-Siège. De ce point de vue, la liturgie subit un changement radical entre seizième et dix-septième siècles. Considérée jusqu’alors comme transmettant un héritage intangible, elle exprime désormais l’autorité de l’Église.8 Rome devient en théorie la source unique du droit liturgique en raison, d’une part, de la particularité des livres liturgiques qui contiennent non seulement les textes de la liturgie mais aussi les règles à suivre durant les cérémonies religieuses et, d’autre part, de la mise en place du monopole pontifical sur l’interprétation du Concile qui s’étend par la suite aux décisions des congrégations cardinalices. La révision des livres liturgiques et leur imposition plus ou moins stricte à toute la catholicité débute avec le bréviaire dont l’usage est rendu obligatoire par la bulle Quod a nobis de juillet 1568. Cette mesure est toutefois loin d’uniformiser complètement les pratiques. Tout d’abord, les liturgies qui peuvent se prévaloir d’une ancienneté supérieure à deux cents ans sont autorisées à conserver leurs particularités. Ensuite, le SaintSiège laisse d’emblée une place à la célébration des saints de chaque diocèse ou de chaque ordre religieux par des offices liturgiques propres. C’est ce qui ressort de la lecture des rubriques du bréviaire. La première, intitulée De officio duplici, concède la célébration des fêtes des saints locaux, à savoir le titulaire de chacune des églises, le saint patron du lieu et d’autres qui étaient célébrés habituellement avec une solennité particulière,9 à condition toutefois que ces offices soient ap-

6 Session 25 – 3–4 décembre 1563 – Sur l’Index, le catéchisme, le bréviaire et le missel, dans Les conciles œcuméniques: Les décrets, G. Alberigo/A. Duval (éd.) (2 vol.; Paris: Cerf, 1994), 2.1619; H. Jedin, «Das Konzil von Trient und die Reform der liturgischen Bu¨ cher», dans H. Jedin, Kirche des Glaubens, Kirche der Geschichte. Ausgewählte, Aufsätze und Vorträge (Freiburg i. Br. et al.: Herder, 1966) 2.499–525. Le texte de la députation Beccadelli est édité dans Concilium Tridentinum: Diariorum, actorum, epistularum, tractatuum nova collectio (13 vol.; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1901–2001), 8.917, cité par J.W. O’Malley, Le Concile de Trente: ce qui s’est vraiment passé (Bruxelles: Lessius, 2013), 297–8. 7 Alberigo, «Du Concile de Trente au tridentinisme», Irénikon 54 (1981) 192–210. 8 C. Meunier, Le désir de réforme. La liturgie entre tradition et magistère (ca. 1500 – ca. 1620) (Thèse de doctorat, École nationale des Chartes; Paris, 2004). 9 Breviarium romanum, editio princeps (1568), M. Sodi/A.M. Triacca (éd.) (Cité du Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1999), 23: «Officium fit duplex … in Dedicationis propriae ecclesiae, in festis, quibus in calendario apponitur haec vox, duplex: in die octava festi habentis octavam,

224

Antoine Mazurek

prouvés par Rome.10 Des recueils d’offices sont envoyés à Rome dès le début des années 1570 pour être révisés.11 C’est d’abord le cardinal Sirleto qui se charge de cette tâche avant que la Congrégation des Rites ne prenne le relais à partir de son érection en 1588.12

Les origines d’un privilège liturgique pour l’Espagne En Espagne, l’application de la réforme liturgique rencontre d’emblée de fortes oppositions, parmi les diocèses comme parmi les ordres religieux.13 Les hiéronymites y sont particulièrement hostiles. Leur cas est d’autant plus remarquable que l’ordre entretenait des liens privilégiés avec la Monarchie.14 Dès la réception de la bulle Quod a nobis, Philippe II les charge de réfléchir à «ce qu’il fallait faire» concernant le nouveau bréviaire. Dans un mémorial adressé au monarque, le général de l’ordre rejette le nouveau livre en mettant en avant tous les inconvénients que son adoption entraînerait tant pour les hiéronymites que pour la couronne. Parmi les arguments avancés en faveur de la conservation de leur bréviaire, sont soulignés les liens privilégiés entre l’ordre et l’Espagne. La liturgie hiéronymite reflète l’identité liturgique espagnole, notamment par la

10

11

12

13 14

in festo patroni unius vel plurimum alicuius loci, vel titularis Ecclesiae, et in festis sanctorum qui apud quasdam ecclesias vel congregationes consueverunt sollemniter celebrari.» Dès l’édition anversoise de 1569 du bréviaire, la première rubrique est modifiée par l’ajout de cette précision: «cum eorum octavis consuetis, et officiis propriis a Sede Apostolica approbatis receptis, aut ex eiusdem Sedis auctoritate receptis, vel recipiendis, (servata tamen forma huius Breviarii) alioquin de communi, etiam si praedicta festa in eius calendario non sint descripta.» Sur la procédure et les implications de ces révisions, voir S. Ditchfield, Liturgy, Sanctity and History; B. Dompnier, «Nuovi uffici del santorale. Finalità e metodi dei cambiamenti liturgici nel XVII e XVIII secolo», dans A. Colzani/A. Luppi/M. Padoan (éd.), Barocco Padano 7: Atti del 15. Convegno internazionale sulla musica italiana nei secoli 17.–18. Milano, 14–16 luglio 2009 (Como: A.M.I.S., 2012) 53–90; B. Dompnier, «Les calendriers liturgiques entre Pie V et Benoît XIV. Exigence de l’universel et construction du particulier», Sanctorum 8/9 (2011–12) 13–51. Sur Sirleto, voir G. Denzler, Kardinal Guglielmo Sirleto (1514–1585): Leben und Werk. Ein Beitrag zur nachtridentischen Reform (Munich: M. Hueber, 1964); Ditchfield, Liturgy, Sanctity and History, 61–7. Sur la Congrégation des Rites, voir G. Papa, Le cause di canonizzazione nel primo periodo della Congregazione dei Riti (1588–1634) (Rome: Urbania University Press, 2001); M. Gotor, I beati del papa: santità, inquisizione e obbedienza in età moderna (Florence: Olschki, 2002); Meunier, Le désir de réforme. La Congrégation du Concile a pu à l’occasion procéder à la révision des propres. Voir la supplique présentée par l’évêque d’Oviedo, par l’intermédiaire de son procurateur, pour recevoir l’approbation du propre des saints du diocèse en 1595, Officia propria sanctorum ovetensis ecclesiae et dioecesis auctoritate apostolica approbata ad officii novi formam redacta (s.l.: s.n., [ca. 1700–18]). Kamen, The Phoenix and the Flame, 82–103. Voir Schmitz, «The Spanish Hieronymites».

Réforme tridentine et culte des saints en Espagne

225

célébration de certaines fêtes de saints et l’heureux mélange d’éléments provenant du rite tolédan et du rite romain.15 Elle est en outre, depuis l’époque des rois catholiques, un des fondements de la sacralité monarchique. En 1492, c’est elle qui est adoptée pour les territoires nouvellement conquis sur les Musulmans et en 1568 les moines de l’Escorial offrent au roi un bréviaire enluminé pour suivre les offices.16 Ces arguments convainquent alors le roi qui demande au pape un délai supplémentaire pour mettre en œuvre la réforme. Le bref Ad hoc Deus unxit du 17 décembre 1570 est une réponse à ces inquiétudes et constitue le premier privilège accordé à un royaume en matière liturgique.17 Il autorise notamment la conservation du chant tolédan, celle de la mention du roi dans le canon de la messe et enfin l’impression des Offices propres des messes des saints de cette province (Officia propria Missarum Sanctorum illius Provinciae). Malgré ces concessions, les chapitres cathédraux de Castille18 envoient quelques mois plus tard un long mémorial détaillant tous les problèmes posés par l’adoption des nouveaux livres tandis que certaines d’entre eux cherchent encore à faire valoir l’ancienneté de leur rite pour conserver leur bréviaire. La réaction du roi est alors radicale: il joint à ce mémorial une lettre demandant que l’exception des deux cents ans envisagée par la bulle Quod a nobis soit révoquée pour l’ensemble des diocèses espagnols. En échange de quoi, le souverain accepte que les Églises célèbrent leurs saints particuliers par des offices propres comme lui-même demande l’approbation d’un propre des saints pour l’ensemble du royaume.19 Ces requêtes sont l’objet d’un second bref de Pie V du 15 novembre 1571 qui déclare que toutes les églises d’Espagne sont tenues de re15 Madrid, Archivo General de Palacio, Patronatos, leg. 1790, Capítulos generales de la Orden de San Gerónimo, fol. 335: «tiene sus officios y libreria de canto mezclado, lo Romano con lo Español de la Iglesia toledana», cité par Schmitz, «Spanish Hieronymites», 378. 16 Voir F. Gimeno Blay/H. Kamen, «Les Heures du roi. Le bréviaire de Philippe II», Franco Maria Ricci 72 (1998) 65–76. 17 Le texte est reproduit dans les éditions du missel en usage en Espagne à partir de 1571. Le pape y rappelle les difficultés nées de l’introduction du nouveau missel: «nos ad plenum certiores reddiderit de aliquibus difficultatibus, quae in illis partibus ex Missali huiusmodi oriebantur.» 18 Ceux-ci ont une instance représentative, la «Congregación del clero de Castilla» dont seule la fonction fiscale a été étudiée. Voir S.T. Perrone, «The Procurator General of the Castilian Assembly of the Clergy, 1592–1741», The Catholic Historical Review 91/1 (2005) 26–59. 19 L. Serrano, Correspondencia diplomatica entre España y la Santa Sede (Rome/Madrid: Impr. del Instituto Pio IX, 1914), 2.491, lettre du nonce Castagna au cardinal Rusticucci du 2 septembre 1571: «Perchè il Re si è compiacciuto molto del nuovo Breviario et Missale, conoscendo quanto conviene che gli offitii divini si essercitino uniformemente per tutto, massime in Spagna dove più che altrove era introdutto l’abuso del contrario, però che ogni diocesi voleva abundare in sensu suo; et havendo inteso anchora che alcuni capitoli di chiese trattavano di supplicare che S.S. si degnasse permettere che seguitassero l’uso de la loro diocesi, S.M. non solo desidera che S.B. li neghi questa dimanda, se pure sarà fatta, ma che faccia gratia a li Regni di Spagna di levare quella exceptione de li 200 anni.»

226

Antoine Mazurek

cevoir le missel et le bréviaire romains même si leurs liturgies peuvent se prévaloir d’une ancienneté de deux cents ans et que les offices et commémorations des patrons, des titulaires et des «autres [saints] naturels d’Espagne» («aliorum naturalium Hispaniarum») doivent être imprimés séparément.

La bulle Pastoralis officii de 1573: culte des saints et identités collectives Tant la réforme en général que ces concessions en particulier semblent avoir entraîné une grande confusion dans la liturgie espagnole qu’un autre bref de Pie V ne parvient pas à faire cesser.20 Alors que Philippe II cherche à y mettre fin en assurant l’uniformité et l’orthodoxie des textes par l’octroi du monopole de leur impression au monastère de l’Escorial,21 le successeur de Pie V tente de légiférer de façon plus cohérente sur le sujet. L’œuvre d’un liturgiste tolédan, le minime Pedro Ruiz Alcoholado, éclaire les détails de cette législation et surtout les difficultés d’interprétation qu’elle soulevait. L’auteur, le premier à proposer un commentaire des nouveaux livres liturgiques,22 travaille à Rome avec Grégoire XIII puis Clément VIII à la révision du bréviaire et du missel de Pie V. À Tolède en 1580, il est nommé chapelain de la chapelle de San Pedro située dans la cathédrale et fait partie de la commission nommée par le cardinal Quiroga pour préparer le nouveau rituel, le Manual Toledano.23 Par ses fonctions à la fois romaines et tolédanes, il est sans doute un des meilleurs connaisseurs de la réforme voulue par le pape et des difficultés qu’elle pose dans les territoires de la Monarchie catholique. L’objectif des ouvrages qu’il consacre à la réforme initiée par Pie V est d’en faciliter l’application tant pour les religieux de la province de Tolède que pour ceux du reste de la péninsule,24 d’où l’utilisation par Alcoholado du latin et du vernaculaire.25 20 Pedro Ruiz Alcoholado, Ceremonial romano para misas cantadas y rezadas (Álcala de Henares: herederos de Iuan Gracian, 1589), fol. 96r: «El proprio de los sanctos de España en unos missales viene mas cumplido que en otros, porque como Pio V concedio todas las fiestas acostumbradas en España hizose el quadernillo de las mas dellas.» 21 Sur ce point, voir désormais Schmitz, «The Spanish Hieronymites». 22 B. Gavanti, Thesaurus sacrorum rituum seu commentaria in rubricas breviarii Romani… (2 vol.; Anvers: Balthasar Moretus, 1634), vol. 2, [non paginé] «Ad candidum lectorem». 23 Voir Nicolás Antonio, Bibliotheca Hispana Nova, sive Hispanorum Scriptorum qui ab anno MD ad MDCLXXXIV floruere, notitia (Madrid: Joaquín Ibarra y Marín, 1788), 2.234; I. García Alonso, «Edición tridentina del manual toledano y su incorporación al ritual romano», Salmanticensis 6/2 (1959) 323–99; H.P. Llorente, «Los miembros del cabildo de la catedral de Toledo durante el arzobispado de Gaspar de Quiroga (1577–1594)», Hispania Sacra 62/126 (2010) 563–619. 24 Ruiz Alcoholado, Calendarium perpetuum et generale breviarii romani ex decreto sacrosancti

Réforme tridentine et culte des saints en Espagne

227

La bulle du 30 décembre 1573 trace le cadre général pour le culte liturgique des saints dans les territoires ibériques de la Monarchie catholique. Fruit de négociations entre deux puissances aux ambitions universelles, elle reflète les difficultés d’application d’une législation canonique qui accordait des privilèges tout en s’efforçant de les maintenir dans des limites compatibles avec l’objectif global de la réforme. Elle illustre autant la formation d’un droit concordataire que l’affirmation du centralisme pontifical, deux processus qui caractérisent l’évolution du droit canon après Trente.26 Son interprétation a donc été délicate.27 Le texte se présente d’emblée comme une réponse à la situation chaotique dont Pie V est rendu en partie responsable.28 Celui-ci a en effet concédé «indistinctement» («indistincte») aux églises particulières la célébration – par des offices propres – des saints naturels de leur province. L’ordo du bréviaire romain en a été bouleversé, en raison du nombre particulièrement élevé d’offices doubles dans les calendriers des diocèses et des ordres religieux,29 ce que précisément le SaintSiège avait eu à cœur de combattre en imposant aux églises de la Catholicité un calendrier universel au nombre de fêtes réduit. Grégoire XIII entend donc définir plus précisément les catégories des saints visées par son prédécesseur. Selon le pontife, sont susceptibles de recevoir un office propre et d’être célébrés dans chaque diocèse d’Espagne les patrons des églises ou du diocèse, les «saints na-

25 26 27 28

29

Concilii Tridentini nuper editi triginta sex tabulis constans, pro tota Hispania cum festis quae generaliter in Hispaniarum regnis celebrantur (Tolède: Ioannes a Plaza, 1577–78); Tractado muy util y curioso para saber bien rezar el officio romano que divulgo Pio V (Tolède: Pedro López de Haro, 1584); Ceremonial: Declaración de las rúbricas del nuevo rezado (s.l.: s.n., s.d.); Ordo celebrandi missas solemnes et privatas ac alia officia ad eas spectantia iuxta ritum missalis et caeremonialis Romani (Gênes: Giuseppe Pavoni, 1637). Ruiz Alcoholado, Ceremonial, Epistola a todos los sacerdotes venerandos, non paginée: «Acudi en esto à lo mas flaco, que ya se sabe ser pocos los sacerdotes que ignoran Latin pero el mas Latino se huelga de leer cosas en su lengua materna.» P. Prodi, «Note sulla genesi del diritto nella Chiesa post-tridentina», dans Legge e vangelo. Discussione su una legge fondamentale per la Chiesa (Brescia: Paideia, 1972) 191–223. En dehors de Ruiz Alcoholado, les liturgistes de l’époque moderne ne commentent pas la bulle, Bartolomeo Gavanti se contentant d’y faire une rapide allusion, Thesaurus sacrorum rituum, 2.7. Acta Sanctae Sedis. Ephemerides Romanae a SSmo D.N. Pio PP. X authenticae et officales Apostolicae Sedis actis publice evulgandis declaratae (Rome: Typographia S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1907), 40.113–28. Le texte de la constitution est imprimé dans tous les exemplaires d’offices propres en usage en Espagne ainsi que les missels et bréviaires. On en trouve un brouillon dans Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (désormais BAV), Vat. lat. 6204, fol. 174r–v. Un rapport adressé au cardinal Sirleto et rédigé par un clerc castillan, Johannes de Valladolid, qui compile des remarques et des questions en provenance de toute la péninsule, se fait l’écho de cette situation en constatant d’une part que la législation n’est pas comprise de la même manière dans les différents diocèses espagnols et d’autre part que la réforme a parfois davantage contribué à surcharger le calendrier liturgique qu’à l’alléger, BAV, Vat. lat. 6171, fol. 29r–37v.

228

Antoine Mazurek

turels» du diocèse et enfin ceux dont des reliques «remarquables» («insignes») sont conservées dans une église ou un autre lieu de culte du diocèse. Si les deux premières catégories sont déjà mentionnées dans les rubriques du bréviaire, Grégoire XIII fait correspondre pour la première fois la possession de reliques et la célébration du saint par un office propre. Le lien entre reliques et liturgie est évidemment plus ancien mais l’énoncé d’une règle systématique constitue bien une nouveauté.30 La bulle enfin confirme la célébration de cinq festivités propres à l’Espagne que Pie Vavait déjà accordée en 1571 et qui constituent un «propre des saints espagnols» («proprium sanctorum hispanorum»).31 En comparant les textes, on pourrait penser que la constitution de Grégoire XIII constitue, plus qu’un véritable privilège, une restriction à la porte laissée assez largement ouverte par Pie V à la célébration des saints propres des ordres et des diocèses. D’après les rubriques du bréviaire de 1568 en effet, on l’a dit, non seulement la célébration des saints patrons du lieu, de la dédicace et des titulaires de chacune des églises est autorisée mais encore celle des saints qui y «étaient célébrés habituellement avec une solennité particulière», même si ces derniers ne sont pas mentionnés dans le calendrier de l’année liturgique. Comme l’écrit Bernard Dompnier, «sur cette base, il semble relativement facile de construire un calendrier présentant des originalités par rapport au romain».32 Il pourrait même sembler qu’ainsi on perdait de vue l’objectif que s’était fixé Pie V de redonner sa place au temporal, tant la catégorie des saints célébrés «habituellement» pouvait être large et imprécise et entraîner par conséquent l’engorgement du calendrier liturgique.33 Dans la pratique, on considéra implicitement que les saints concernés devaient avoir été l’objet d’un culte au moins deux fois centenaire, par extension de l’exception accordée par la bulle Quod a nobis pour les bréviaires et missels particuliers. Les diocèses ou ordres religieux désirant l’approbation d’un propre des saints devaient donc apporter la preuve de l’ancienneté et de la continuité du culte pour qu’ainsi ils ne se rendent pas coupable d’innovation. 30 Acta Sanctae Sedis, 114: «Nos huic incommodo occurrere volentes, et praedecessoris praedicti mentem sano modo interpretantes, declaramus, unamquamque Hispaniae ecclesiam eorum tantum Sanctorum, qui in Breviario non sunt descripti, Officia propria celebrare posse, qui vel illius dioecesis sunt naturales, vel eius ecclesiae seu dioecesis sunt patroni, vel quorum corpora seu notabiles reliquiae in ea ecclesia seu dioecesi requiescunt.» 31 Il s’agit de la fête de l’Expectatio Beatae Virginis, celle d’Ildefonse de Tolède, celle d’Isidore de Séville, celle du Triomphe de la Croix, celle de Sainte Anne auxquelles vient s’ajouter celle de la translation des reliques de Saint Jacques pour les lieux où la fête était célébrée antérieurement. Le premier propre des saints de l’Espagne est conservé dans l’édition anversoise de 1572 par Plantin, Breviarium romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilii tridentini restitutum … iussu editum eiusque permissu, festis & Officiis Sanctorum, maxime Hispanorum, in fine auctum. 32 Dompnier, «Les calendriers liturgiques», 17. 33 Ruiz Alcoholado, Tractado, 43: «… en la celebracion de las quales fiestas acostumbradas esta la difficuldad de esta Rubrica, y que es en saber que fiestas de ellas se pueden celebrar».

Réforme tridentine et culte des saints en Espagne

229

En Espagne, selon Ruiz Alcoholado, certains religieux comprennent les brefs de Pie Vet Grégoire XIII comme une explication, à destination des territoires de la Monarchie catholique, de cette catégorie de saints. Or, écrit-il, ce n’est pas le cas: la bulle de Grégoire XIII ne fait que préciser le sens du bref de Pie V de 1570 qui étend l’exception envisagée dans la première rubrique en autorisant très libéralement la célébration des saints propres d’Espagne.34 Il faut donc lire le contenu de la bulle de Grégoire XIII à la lumière de ce premier bref qui autorise indistinctement la célébration des «saints naturels». Dans cette perspective, elle constitue bien un privilège par rapport à la bulle Quod a nobis mais tout autant une restriction par rapport au bref de 1570 Ad hoc Deus unxit.35 Ces dispositions visent à éviter que «toutes les fêtes [d’Espagne] se célèbrent dans toutes les églises d’Espagne avec des offices propres comme c’était la coutume».36 La célébration de l’office d’un saint dans l’ensemble d’un diocèse ou d’une province est possible dans deux cas: le saint doit être naturel d’Espagne ou des reliques insignes lui appartenant conservées dans un lieu de culte du diocèse ou de la province. Cependant, dans ce dernier cas, selon Ruiz Alcoholado, il faut considérer que «le saint mentionné dont il y a le corps ou une relique notable est celui d’un saint naturel d’Espagne».37 Au contraire s’il s’agit de reliques insignes d’un saint «étranger» («alienigena»), la célébration par un office propre de la fête en son honneur doit se limiter au seul lieu de culte où ses reliques sont conservées.38 34 Ruiz Alcoholado, Tractado: «Y antes èste Motu proprio es favorable, que en el se conceden en general fiestas cinco aunque no ayan sido antes celebradas, y se permitten fiestas de Sanctos, cuyos cuerpos, o notables reliquias vuiere, lo qual en èsta Rubrica de doble no estava permittido, sino en quanto fuese acostumbrado.» 35 Ruiz Alcoholado, Calendarium, prologue non paginé: «in primo notabili: quod restrictio facta in hoc proprio motu non extenditur, nisi ad officia propria sanctorum naturalium provinciae Hispaniae, quae per Breve Pij 5 indistincte celebrari concedebantur, sed in alijs concessionibus, & permissis, tam Breve praedictum, quam Rubricae Breviarij in suo robore, & vi promanent»; Ceremonial, p. 44: «Y haze augmentar esta difficultad al parecer de algunos, lo que en èste caso, y à este proposito … el Papa Gregorio xiii dispone en su Motu proprio restrigendo las fiestas acostumbradas en general: pero no suenan tal las palabras de el dico Motu proprio, como se veran al cabo en su Breve. Para declaracion de lo qual es menester se advierta la relation que el Summo Pontifice alli haze, de la qual consta, no tractar de declarar las Rubricas de el breviario, sino los Breves que Pio V para mas declaralas, avia concedido para Hespaña.» 36 Ruiz Alcoholado, Calendarium, prologue non paginé. 37 Ruiz Alcoholado, Calendarium, prologue: «consideranda haec distinctio, videlicet, si praedictus sanctus cuius corpus, vel notabilis reliquia habetur fuerit naturalis Hispaniae». 38 Ruiz Alcoholado, Tractado, 44: «Y fuera de estas fiestas acostumbradas … se puede en cada Diœcesi celebrar fiesta de qualquier Sancto, cuyo cuerpo o notable reliquia (que es cabeza, brazo, ò pierna) estuviere en qualquiera yglesia de la Diœcesi, como sea el Sancto Natural de Hespaña: en la yglesia adonde estuviere cuerpo, ò Reliquia notable Officio doble, en la de mas como se vuiere acostumbrado: y de el Sancto extrangero que vuiere cuerpo ò Reliquia insigne, ô notàble se puede en yglesia ò Monasterio donde estuviere, no mas, y no en otras celebrar Officio doble como està concedido en el Motu proprio ut supra.»

230

Antoine Mazurek

L’application uniforme de ces dispositions à l’ensemble du royaume rend plus aisée sa saisie ainsi que les difficultés auxquelles les églises locales étaient confrontées. Certaines interrogations sont par exemple rassemblées à la fin des années 1570 dans un rapport envoyé au cardinal Sirleto. La définition du saint patron demande notamment à être précisée car «dans certains lieux on appelle patrons tous les saints qu’on célèbre à cause d’une dévotion particulière».39 Celle du saint naturel n’est pas non plus sans présenter des ambiguïtés.40 Quant aux reliques insignes leur possession paraît insuffisante pour élever le rite d’une fête puisque, remarque l’auteur du rapport, «de nombreuses églises possèdent une tête des 11.000 vierges».41 Sirleto répond d’une manière pragmatique à ces doutes par un rappel de l’esprit de la réforme, qui tend à une réduction du nombre des fêtes. On soulignera, avant d’envisager les conséquences concrètes de cette législation, trois points. La constitution de Grégoire XIII consacre, pour les territoires de la Monarchie catholique, une échelle nationale pour la liturgie, en imposant, outre une réglementation uniforme, la célébration de cinq fêtes.42 On a ici le premier propre des saints d’un royaume paru après la réforme liturgique, preuve supplémentaire que la confessionalisation catholique s’accompagne d’un renforcement des identités territoriales que la rédaction de recueils de vies de saints nationaux annonçait déjà tout au long du seizième siècle.43 La demande de Philippe II s’inspire sans doute des arguments mis en avant par les hiéronymites dès 1568 quand ils envisageaient, dans une lettre à Pie V, la possibilité d’adopter le bréviaire romain en échange de la conservation des fêtes et offices de leurs saints propres.44 Les cinq fêtes retenues par Philippe II concourent à la définition d’une Espagne chrétienne ancrée dans son passé wisigothique et marquée du sceau de l’élection dont le sentiment est particulièrement fort dans la péninsule au sei39 BAV, Vat. lat. 6171, fol. 30v: «In aliquibus locis vocant patronos omnes sanctos quos ex devotione particulari celebrant.» 40 BAV, Vat. lat. 6171, fol. 30v: «qui sanctus naturalis et an dicatur naturalis respectu unius loci qui in eo mortui sunt etiam si alias essent alienigenae et sint etiam naturales respectu unius religionis sancti et anctae illius habitus et religionis». 41 BAV, Vat. lat. 6171, fol. 36r: «Multae ecclesiae habent unum caput ex undecim millibus virginum.» 42 Voir Ruiz Alcoholado, Calendarium, prologue non paginé: «… in quo agitur de illis quinque festivitatibus quae generales in tota Hispania constituuntur, est notandum quod obligat eorum celebratio in tota Hispania, licet in aliqua dioecesi omnes, vel aliqua ex illis non consueverint celebrari.» 43 J. Aragu¨ ès Aldaza, «El santoral castellano en los siglos XVI y XVII. Un itinerario hagiografíco», Analecta Bollandiana 118/3–4 (2000) 329–86. 44 Preuve de ce lien particulier entre l’ordre et la monarchie hispanique, le titre des offices propres de l’ordre de Saint Jérôme reproduits dans Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, ms H5, compilé par l’oratorien Antonio Gallonio, fol. 266r–273v: «ex officiis sanctorum hispanorum sub hoc titulo Proprium sanctorum ordinis S. Hieronymi in Hispania».

Réforme tridentine et culte des saints en Espagne

231

zième siècle.45 Les saints évêques confesseurs Ildefonse de Tolède et Isidore de Séville sont des figures marquantes de l’«Hispania Christiana», communauté idéalisée dont l’unité a été rompue par les invasions musulmanes; la reconstruction de cette communauté par la Reconquête est célébrée par la fête du Triomphe de la Croix commémorant la victoire décisive de Las Navas de Tolosa en 1212; enfin, les fêtes de l’Expectatio Beatae Virginis et de Sainte Anne attestent la grande piété mariale des Espagnols.46 La conservation de certains éléments de la liturgie mozarabe dans les missels romains à destination des territoires espagnols contribue à cette identification. Le renforcement de la cohésion de la communauté par la liturgie est ici solidaire d’une politique qui mène Philippe II au même moment à rassembler plus de 7500 reliques à l’Escorial pour établir son autorité de souverain chrétien et de roi espagnol.47 Un tel sanctoral, qui s’enrichit tout au long de la période prise en examen,48 ne célèbre donc pas tant une sainteté dynastique qu’une sainteté ibérique.49 Il trouve à l’échelle diocésaine une expression parallèle. La bulle de 1573 renforce l’échelle du diocèse en facilitant la constitution de calendriers diocésains et en formulant l’obligation pour tous les ordres religieux de célébrer les saints patrons du diocèse.50 En permettant une jonction entre la question des reliques et celle des offices liturgiques, le texte donne de surcroît à l’évêque un rôle prééminent dans la mesure où, selon les décrets du Concile de Trente, c’est à lui que revient la tâche d’authentifier les reliques.51 Cette mise en 45 Voir E. Rowe, Saints and Nation: Santiago, Teresa of Avila, and Plural Identities in Early Modern Spain (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2011), 10. 46 Voir A. Prosperi, «L’Immacolata e Siviglia e la fondazione sacra della monarchia spagnola», Studi Storici 47/2 (2006) 481–510. 47 G. Lazure, «Posséder le sacré. Monarchie et identité dans la collection de reliques de Philippe II à l’Escorial», dans Ph. Boutry/P.-A. Fabre/D. Julia (éd.), Reliques modernes. Cultes et usages chrétiens des corps saints des Réformes aux révolutions (Paris: Éditions de l’EHESS, 2009) 1.371–404. 48 Les fêtes de Sainte Léocadie et de Saint Herménégilde sont ajoutées durant le règne de Philippe II. 49 L’obligation de célébrer ces fêtes concerne l’ensemble de la péninsule, le royaume du Portugal compris: voir Officia sanctorum ecclesiae Olysiponensis ac totius fere Hispaniae propria (Lisbonne: António Ribeiro, 1590). 50 La visée nationale rend compte de la compilation effectuée par Ruiz Alcoholado en 1577–78 des calendriers de tous les diocèses et ordres religieux des territoires des couronnes de Castille et d’Aragon: Calendarium perpetuum. Un tel ouvrage a été possible par la réunion à Tolède, après la réforme, d’une documentation liturgique couvrant l’ensemble de l’Espagne. Voir Madrid, Biblioteca nacional de España, Ms. 13830: Index librorum Bibliothecae Sanctae Ecclesiae Toletanae, 1591, fol. 29r–33v. Voir déjà le Calendarium perpetuum … dans Coenobio Regio Divi Hieronymi apud Madritium olim confectum impressum (Lisbonne: Ioannes Bairerius, 1573), [non paginé,] «Calendarium Sanctorum Hispanorum qui apud diversas Diœceses & Ecclesias Hispaniae respective celebrantur». 51 Session 25 – 3–4 décembre 1563 – Décret sur l’invocation, la vénération et les reliques des saints, et sur les saintes images, dans Les Conciles œcuméniques: Les décrets, Alberigo/Duval

232

Antoine Mazurek

avant de l’ordinaire diocésain correspond aussi au modèle ecclésiastique tridentin adopté par Philippe II.52 Le dernier point est lié au deux premiers mais d’une portée plus problématique: si les brefs de Pie V et Grégoire XIII accordaient à l’Espagne de pouvoir célébrer les fêtes des saints naturels ou dont on possédait les reliques mais qui n’avaient pas jusqu’alors été l’objet d’un culte public ou du moins dont le culte avait connu une éclipse – des fêtes, pour reprendre l’expression de Ruiz Alcoholado, «non acostumbradas» – ils laissaient la porte ouverte non pas peut-être à l’innovation mais du moins à l’invention. C’est du moins ainsi que certains l’entendirent.

Offices propres des saints et historia sacra dans l’Espagne tridentine Comme l’a montré Simon Ditchfield pour l’Italie, on ne peut dissocier la composition des offices propres des saints d’autres genres littéraires que les contemporains réunissaient sous l’appellation d’historia sacra.53 En Espagne cependant, ces écritures se développent dans un contexte particulier. Pour comprendre le sens du privilège accordé par Grégoire XIII, il faut donc élargir l’horizon et considérer le climat religieux et idéologique de l’Espagne du seizième siècle finissant. L’irruption du pouvoir politique dans l’organisation de la liturgie est symptomatique de l’idéologie de Philippe II qui instaure une relation étroite entre la fidélité au catholicisme romain et la constitution d’une religion monarchique. L’historiographie s’offrait comme un outil privilégié de cette construction idéologique. Des recherches récentes ont montré l’enjeu qu’ont constitué l’écriture de l’histoire et en particulier de l’histoire ecclésiastique dans l’Espagne des seizième et dix-septième siècles.54 Au regard de la faveur dont il jouissait dans les autres

(éd.), 1576–7: «On ne reconnaîtra pas de nouveaux miracles, on ne recevra pas de nouvelles reliques sans l’examen et l’approbation de l’évêque.» 52 Fernández Terricabras, Philippe II, 354–412. 53 Ditchfield, «What Was Sacred History? (Mostly Roman) Catholic Uses of the Christian Past after Trent», dans K. Van Liere/S. Ditchfield/H. Louthan (éd.), Sacred History: Uses of the Christian Past in the Renaissance World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) 72–97; Ditchfield, «‘Historia magistra sanctitatis’? The Relationship between Historiography and Hagiography in Italy after the Council of Trent (1564–1743 ca.)», dans M. Firpo (éd.), Nunc alia tempora, alii mores. Storici e storia in età postridentina (Florence: Olschki, 2005) 3–23. 54 Voir R. Kagan, Clio and the Crown: The Politics of History in Medieval and Early Modern Spain (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009); K. Van Liere, «Renaissance Chroniclers and the Apostolic Origins of Spanish Christianity», dans Van Liere/Ditchfield/ Louthan (éd.), Sacred History, 121–44; K. Olds, Forging the Past: Invented Histories in Counter-Reformation Spain (Londres/New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015). Je re-

Réforme tridentine et culte des saints en Espagne

233

nations européennes, ce genre littéraire y était en effet peu développée. Dans son Historia ecclesiastica de España publiée en 1605, l’auteur Francisco de Padilla observe qu’avant le seizième siècle l’histoire ecclésiastique espagnole n’existait pour ainsi dire pas.55 C’est seulement au cours du seizième siècle que se construit un récit historique de l’Espagne catholique qui met l’accent sur les siècles antérieurs à l’invasion musulmane et notamment sur ses origines présentées comme apostoliques. La légende médiévale de la mission de Saint Jacques dans la péninsule constituait à cet égard, selon la formule de Padilla, «la base et le fondement de toute l’histoire ecclésiastique de [l’Espagne]».56 La première étape de ce processus s’inscrit dans le mouvement européen de redécouverte des antiquités romaines. À l’instar de leurs homologues italiens, les humanistes espagnols s’efforcèrent d’exhumer l’histoire antique de la péninsule. Toutefois, l’orientation de ce projet en direction d’une histoire des origines de l’Église espagnole dérive de circonstances particulières. Depuis la chute du royaume de Grenade en 1492, il fallait d’une certaine manière laver l’Espagne de la présence musulmane séculaire en retrouvant les traces des premières Églises chrétiennes et de leurs premiers martyrs. Dès le début du seizième siècle, se met donc en place le récit des origines apostoliques de l’Église hispanique élaboré à partir d’éléments déjà présents dans certaines sources médiévales mais qui manquaient encore de cohérence.57 Selon ce récit, après la dispersion des apôtres, Saint Jacques aurait visité l’Espagne accompagné de douze disciples, dont sept, d’origine espagnole, retournèrent dans leur patrie après le martyre de l’apôtre pour ensevelir son corps et y fonder les premières églises. La déchirure religieuse et l’importance, confirmée par les décrets du Concile de Trente, du culte des saints pour la religiosité catholique, donnèrent à ce projet une dimension nouvelle. Si l’histoire ecclésiastique était une arme dans la controverse confessionnelle, elle était aussi, à l’intérieur de chaque confession, l’objet d’une attention grandissante à un moment où Rome mettait au point les outils d’un contrôle centralisé, symbolisé notamment par l’élaboration du martyrologe ro-

mercie Katrina Olds de m’avoir autorisé à consulter le manuscrit de son livre avant sa publication. 55 F. de Padilla, Historia ecclesiastica de España (Malaga: Claudio Bolan, 1605), Prologo, cité par Van Liere, «Renaissance Chroniclers», 127. 56 Padilla, Historia ecclesiastica, dédicace de l’auteur à Don Juan de Idiaquez, non paginée: «basa y fundamento de toda la Historia Eclesiastica de ella». Voir T. Kendrick, Saint James in Spain (Londres: Methuen and Co., 1960). 57 Les principaux représentants de cette historiographie renaissante sont: Lucius Marineus Siculus, Opus de rebus Hispaniae memorabilibus (Alcalá de Henares: Michael de Eguia, 1533); Pere Antoni Beuter, Cróniques de Valéncia: primera part de la història de Valéncia (Valencia: Joan Mei, 1538); Johannes Vasaeus, Chronici rerum memorabilium Hispaniae tomus prior (Salamanque: Juan de Junta, 1552).

234

Antoine Mazurek

main et par l’action de la Congrégation des Rites.58 Comme le remarque Katrina Olds, l’Espagne était toutefois «désavantagée» sur ce terrain par le manque évident de témoignages sur les premiers siècles de la présence chrétienne dans la péninsule, manque alors attribué aux conséquences destructrices de l’invasion musulmane du huitième siècle.59 L’œuvre d’Ambrosio de Morales manifeste les multiples enjeux de l’historia sacra. Nommé chroniqueur royal de Castille en 1562 par Philippe II, il est chargé par le souverain de réformer les légendes des saints des bréviaires, de localiser les reliques dans les églises et les monastères de l’ancien royaume asturo-léonais où elles étaient censées avoir été mises à l’abri des dévastations des Maures mais aussi de continuer la chronique de son prédécesseur Florián de Ocampo.60 On peut donc raisonnablement penser qu’il a directement influencé Philippe II dans les demandes successives de ce dernier de 1571 et de 1573.61 Le manque de sources concernant les premiers siècles du Christianisme en Espagne combiné à la conviction qu’elles n’attendaient que d’être re-découvertes peuvent donc rendre compte du vaste mouvement de composition d’une historia sacra de l’Espagne et c’est dans ce contexte précis qu’il est pertinent d’inscrire la législation liturgique que nous venons de présenter.62 Elle doit être comprise comme le résultat d’une négociation entre l’universalisme romain et la volonté conjointe du souverain Habsbourg et des églises d’Espagne de donner une large place aux saints de la péninsule. Pour la monarchie comme pour les diocèses il s’agit de faire droit à l’identité catholique de l’Espagne face à la volonté d’uniformisation liturgique romaine.63 La bulle de 1573 apparaît ainsi comme le point de départ d’une opération de sauvetage de l’oubli dans lesquels certains saints étaient tombés à la suite de l’invasion musulmane. De ce point de vue, elle 58 Voir Ditchfield, «What Was Sacred History?», 73. 59 K. Olds, «The ‘False Chronicles’, Cardinal Baronio, and Sacred History in Counter-Reformation Spain», The Catholic Historical Review 100/1 (2014) 1–26. 60 Simancas, Archivo General de Simancas, Casas y Sitios Reales, dossier 258: Ambrosio de Morales, Copia de apuntamientos que tubo Ambrosio de Morales sobre los liçionarios para la orden de Su Magestad y de la repuesta que S Magestad mando hazer a ellos, Mars 1566, cité par S. Edouard, «Le débat sur la représentation des saints à San Lorenzo del Escorial après le Concile de Trente», Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 101/1 (2006) 89–116. Voir aussi Lazure, «Posséder le sacré»; Van Liere, «Apostolic Origins», 136–41. 61 S. Baümer, dans son Histoire du bréviaire (2 vol; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1905), 2.193 fait également allusion au rôle de Benito Arias Montano qui était l’intermédiaire entre le roi et Plantin à Anvers. Sur ce point, voir Kingdon, «The Plantin Breviaries», 138. 62 Comme le suggèrent Olds, «The ‘False Chronicles’» et A.K. Harris, «‘A Known Holy Body, with an Inscription and a Name’: Bishop Sancho Dávila y Toledo and the Creation of St. Vitalis», Archiv fu¨r Reformationsgeschichte 104 (2013) 245–71. 63 Philippe II saisira l’occasion, en 1579–81, de la rédaction du nouveau rituel de Tolède, voulu comme une synthèse du rituel romain et des rituels des diocèses espagnols, pour en encourager l’adoption par l’ensemble des diocèses de la péninsule. Voir García Alonso, «Edicíon tridentina del manual toledano», 324–30.

Réforme tridentine et culte des saints en Espagne

235

pourrait avoir inspiré les «fausses chroniques» qui proposaient un récit, jusqu’alors impossible à donner faute de sources, des premiers siècles du Christianisme dans la péninsule ibérique. En les présentant comme des textes historiques perdus depuis le Moyen Âge, leur auteur, le jésuite Jerónimo Román de la Higuera, ne faisait qu’accompagner les efforts des Églises pour préserver leur liturgie. Longtemps considérées comme un des éléments de la crédulité et de la piété excessives des Espagnols, ces «fausses chroniques» confirment le lien étroit entre hagiographie et histoire dans le Catholicisme tridentin.64

Application et portée de la bulle de Grégoire XIII (1573–ca. 1700.) Les premières années de l’application de la réforme ne suscitent pas immédiatement des demandes d’approbation d’offices propres. Les diocèses se contentent souvent de dresser un calendrier de leurs fêtes particulières en se fondant sur le Motu proprio de 1573 et en ayant recours, pour leur célébration, au commun des saints du bréviaire romain, comme le roi l’avait fait pour la plupart des offices propres des saints de l’Espagne.65 C’est ce qui ressort par exemple du mandement de l’archevêque de Burgos de 1587 qui délivre pour la première fois le calendrier des festivités de la province ecclésiastique que l’ensemble du clergé doit respecter.66 En revanche, en 1594, le même archevêque et le chapitre de la cathédrale de Burgos soumettent des offices propres au Saint-Siège. Ce laps de temps s’explique avant tout par les recherches qui ont dû être effectuées pour satisfaire aux critères énoncées tant dans le bréviaire romain que dans le Motu proprio de 1573. Les autorités ecclésiastiques burgalaises joignent en effet au livret un dossier de documents censés légitimer leur requête en distinguant les saints dont un office a déjà été approuvé par le Saint-Siège, ceux qui sont inscrits dans le Martyrologe Romain et enfin ceux au contraire qui ne sont pas connus en dehors de l’Espagne. Ces derniers font l’objet d’un mémoire qui contient les références aux vieux livres liturgiques locaux, aux archives, aux chroniqueurs médiévaux mais aussi aux auteurs contemporains ou presque, notamment Marinus Siculus, 64 Voir J. Godoy Alcántara, Historia crítica de los falsos cronicones (Madrid: Manuel Rivadeneyra, 1868); Olds, Forging the Past. 65 Ruiz Alcoholado, Ceremonial, fol. 96r-v. Les premières approbations datent de 1577 pour León (BAV, Vat. lat. 6278), de 1581 pour Tolède et Cordoue (BAV, Vat. lat. 3693; Biblioteca Vallicelliana, H10). 66 Rome, Archivio della Congregazione per le Cause dei Santi (désormais ACCS), Positiones rescriptorum et decretorum, n° 42, mandement épiscopal du 30 avril 1587. Même utilisation du commun des saints dans le calendrier du diocèse de Grenade de 1575 où aucune fête n’est dotée d’un office propre, Officia quae in ecclesia Granatensis, dicenda sunt extra illa quae in Breviario novo continentur (Grenade: s.n., 1575).

236

Antoine Mazurek

Beuter et Morales.67 S’y ajoutent un feuillet où le secrétaire public du chapitre de Burgos, a consigné les lieux où se trouvent les reliques de chacun de ces saints.68 Si la Congrégation des Rites procède à une réécriture des leçons en raison d’un style jugé «abject», elle ne remet pas en cause le choix des saints ni la date de leur célébration.69 Dans le cas de Burgos toutefois, ce qu’on a dit de la spécificité du privilège accordé à l’Espagne n’est pas exploité à plein dans la mesure où les saints contenus dans le recueil d’offices propres bénéficiaient tous d’un culte continu depuis plus de deux cents ans.70 En revanche, au début du dix-septième siècle, dans d’autres diocèses, la bulle est le prétexte d’une inventivité liturgique plus problématique. C’est le cas notamment en Andalousie où la longue domination musulmane rend urgente l’écriture d’une historia sacra qui atteste l’ancienneté de la christianisation de la région.71 Si la légende de la mission de Saint Jacques et de ses sept disciples offrait à l’échelle du pays le fondement de cette prétention, à l’échelle locale elle s’appuyaient parfois sur d’autres figures de saints martyrs. Parmi les nombreux exemples de diocèses qui se sont efforcés de promouvoir de telles figures comme autant de preuves de l’antiquité de leur conversion au Christianisme, le cas de Séville met particulièrement en lumière le rôle de la bulle de 1573. En 1587, l’archevêque et le chapitre soumettent au Saint-Siège un recueil d’offices qui ne comporte que neuf fêtes et huit offices propres.72 Durant les années 1619–1620, 67 ACCS, Positiones rescriptorum et decretorum, n° 42, document 2, fol. 1v: «Alia denique in quibus tota est difficultas, de iis sanctis sunt, de quibus licet non adeo clara notitia extra Hispaniam habeatur, in ea tamen provincia praesertim in Burgensi diocesi constans est, ac perpetua traditio et antiquarum Burgensium tabularum et Breviarii Burgensis et Benedictinorum cum recentioribus de rebus Hispaniae scriptoribus summa consensio. Accedit doctissimi Baronii auctoritas qui in suis ad martyrologium notationibus horum sanctorum historias ubi de illis fuit mentio recepit, et lectiones quae nunc de eisdem petuntur a se ipso emendatas probavit.» 68 ACCS, Positiones rescriptorum et decretorum, n° 42, document 3, fol. 1r. 69 ACCS, Positiones rescriptorum et decretorum, n° 42, document 5 (exemplaire du propre manuscrit) et la version approuvée, Officia sanctorum Burgensis Ecclesiae (Madrid: Ex typographia Regia, 1597). L’approbation date du 11 mai 1596. Voir aussi ACCS, Positiones rescriptorum et decretorum, n° 6462. 70 L. Serrano, El obispado de Burgos y Castilla primitiva desde el siglo el siglo V al XIII (Madrid: Estanislao Maestre, 1935–36), 2.386–413; T. Úzquiza Ruiz, «El santoral en los misales burgenses», dans A. Hevia Ballina (éd.), Memoriae ecclesiae XXIV. Hagiografía y Archivos de la Iglesia, Santoral Hispano-Mozárabe en las Diócesis de España. Actas del XVIII Congreso de la Asociación celebrado en Orense (Oviedo: Asociación de Archiveros de la Iglesia en España, 2004) 641–69. 71 A.K. Harris, From Muslim to Christian Granada: Inventing a City’s Past in Early Modern Spain (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007); Olds, «The ‘False Chronicles’». 72 BAV, Barb. lat. 398: Officia propria sanctorum Ecclesiae Hispalensis, 1587. L’approbation est donnée trois ans plus tard. Voir D. Berenberg, Petitions and Petitioners: Evolution of Saint Cults and the Formation of a Local Religious Culture in Early Modern Seville (Thèse de doctorat, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2005), 111–23.

Réforme tridentine et culte des saints en Espagne

237

l’archevêque préside plusieurs réunions du chapitre pour élaborer un nouveau sanctoral très enrichi. L’enjeu principal de ces réunions est de préciser quels saints sont susceptibles de pouvoir être célébrés selon les termes de la bulle de 1573. La définition du saint «naturel» porte notamment à controverse. Selon deux jésuites consultés à cet effet, il faut considérer naturels «non seulement ceux qui naquirent dans un diocèse mais aussi ceux qui y moururent couronnés du martyre, ou avec la gloire du confesseur … et on doit faire de même avec les saints qui y élurent domicile pendant longtemps ou eurent une dignité ou une fonction éminente».73 Cette catégorie de saints est donc considérablement élargie et permet de faire ce que, selon Ruiz Alcoholado, la bulle de 1573 concédait, à savoir célébrer les fêtes des saints «non acostumbradas»74 et parfois même ceux dont on découvre au même moment les reliques et qui retrouvent un lieu d’appartenance au sein de l’Hispania, gage de l’obtention d’un culte liturgique.75 Dans le nouveau calendrier diocésain imprimé en 1624, le chapitre souligne bien le caractère de l’opération à laquelle il s’est attelé.76 Dans ce processus, les fausses chroniques rédigées par le jésuite Higuera sont un instrument indispensable pour l’identification de ces reliques et la «naturalisation» des saints, en fournissant des témoignages jusqu’alors inconnus.77 La bulle soulève une question connexe, celle des prérogatives de l’ordinaire du lieu. Durant les premières décennies de la réforme liturgique, certains diocèses comprennent l’imposition des livres romains comme mettant fin à l’utilisation des textes liturgiques locaux sans que pourtant l’existence des festivités ait été 73 «No solamente los que nacieron en un Obispado sino también los que murieron en él coronados de martyrio, o con gloria de confessores … Y lo mismo se deve usar con los Sanctos, que en tal Obispado tuvieron largo domicilio o dignidad o officio eminente», dans Séville, Archivo General del Arzobispado de Sevilla, Sección II, Gobierno-Congregación de Ritos, cité par M. Martín Riego, «Memorial de los santos del arzobispado de Sevilla a través de las Juntas de 1619 y 1620», dans Ballina (éd.), Memoriae ecclesiae XXIV, 283–316, aux pp. 294– 5. 74 Martín Riego, «Memorial de los santos del arzobispado de Sevilla». Cf. A. de Quintanadueñas, Santos de la ciudad de Sevilla y de su arçobispado (Séville: Francisco de Lyra, 1637), Avertissements au lecteur, non paginé: «Intima la luz de la razon la obligacion especial, que los Reynos, Provincias, y Ciudades tienen de rendir singular veneracion, y culto a los Santos, que per algun titulo son sus naturales, pues que con su nacimiento, vida, dignidad, o muerte las ilustraron.» 75 Voir K. Olds, «The Ambiguities of the Holy: Authenticating Relics in Seventeenth-Century Spain», Renaissance Quarterly 65/1 (2012) 135–84, qui présente l’exemple du diocèse de Jaén. 76 ACCS, Positiones rescriptorum et decretorum, documents non classés concernant le diocèse de Séville: «… por la facultad que concedio a estos Reynos de España la Sanctidad de Gregorio XIII de felice recordación, renovada por otros Pontifices sus successores, y que era conforme a razon, que estos gloriosos sanctos no estuvieran puestos en olvido, y se celebrasen sus fiestas y memorias, como sean celebrado las de otros sanctos desta Diocesi.» 77 Olds, «The ‘False Chronicles’» et Martín Riego, «Memorial de los santos del arzobispado de Sevilla».

238

Antoine Mazurek

remise en cause. Au contraire, l’absence de mention d’un contrôle préalable par Rome dans le texte de 1573 conduit certains clercs à en déduire une plus grande liberté des évêques espagnols en matière liturgique alors que ces derniers sont soumis comme les autres évêques de la catholicité aux règles énoncées dans les rubriques. Déjà en 1584, Ruiz Alcoholado dut insister très fortement sur ce point.78 Dans le cas de Séville, la question donne lieu à de vives controverses à l’intérieur même du chapitre, certains étant partisans d’une indépendance complète de l’évêque, d’autres la limitant au contraire. Le nouveau calendrier de 1624, comme le nouvel exemplaire du propre de 1659 invoquent l’autorité apostolique en exhibant, pour ce dernier, l’approbation romaine de 1590.79 Le contrôle exercé par Rome sur l’écriture des offices propres et sur l’ajout de fêtes aux calendriers liturgiques locaux s’est fait de plus en plus strict au cours du dix-septième siècle. Les principales décisions vont d’un décret du 8 avril 1628 à la constitution d’Urbain VIII de septembre 1642. Elles s’inscrivent dans la réforme de la procédure de canonisation engagée par ce pontife. La Congrégation souligne notamment que l’introduction, l’élévation du rite et l’extension géographique des fêtes liturgiques sont soumises à son approbation préalable.80 Ce contrôle ne remet que progressivement en cause le privilège que Pie V et Grégoire XIII ont accordé aux territoires de la couronne espagnole, du moins pas entièrement. Dès 78 Ruiz Alcoholado, Tractado, 44: «… y que se haga ahora el mesmo Officio doble y proprio, como sea approbado, o se lleve a approbar a la Sancta sede Apostolica, y no basta la approbacion de el Ordinario, sino que es menester de la Sede Apostolica ser approbados y recebidos ahora, o en algun tiempo, y sino, no son Canonicos los Officios, y juntamente han de guardar la forma de este Breviario como se manda en el parenthesis (servata tamen forma huius Breviarii) lo qual se debe entender en todos los Officios proprios y communes, aunque ayan sido antes approbados de la Sede Apostolica, que si no se guarda en ellos la forma de este Breviario, no se puede usar de ellos, si de nuevo no se consulta la mesme Sede Apostolica sobre ellos. Y mucho menos de los nuevos sino se llevan alla, que esto es, recipiendis: lo qual se advierta para algunos Officios que andan impressos, en lo quales no se guarda totalmente èsta forma, ni tienen la auctoridad expressa que conviene, que no se use de ellos, si no rezese de el commun que conviniere.» 79 Voir Berenberg, Petitions and Petitioners, 126, qui cite notamment, pour la première opinion, l’ouvrage du maître des cérémonies de la cathédrale, Vicente Sebastian Villegas, Tractado en forma de question o disputa que prueba que ay bastante facultad, en cada una de las Ygl[esi]as de España, para poder reçar de sus Sanctos Naturales, Patronos, y Reliquias insignes, con Reçados, y Officios proprios, si son del rito Romano; aunque no esten aprobados por la Sede Apostolica, dans Séville, Archivo de la Catedral de Sevilla, Liturgia 36, fol. 63r. Pour l’opinion contraire, voir le texte du chanoine Alonso Serna, Por la Potestad Pontificia en aprovar nuevos Rezados, in Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia, Ms. 9/3679(13), cité par Olds, Forging the past, et la lettre d’un clerc sévillan à la Congrégation des Rites (ACCS, Positiones rescriptorum et decretorum, n° 7208, fol. 1r) qui exprime son indignation devant l’attitude de ceux qui affirment «hardiment» que l’on peut imprimer des nouveaux offices «sans nouvelle autorisation du Saint-Siège». 80 M. Gotor, Chiesa e santità nell’Italia moderna (Rome/Bari: Laterza, 2004), 83–93; Dompnier, «Les calendriers», 14–21.

Réforme tridentine et culte des saints en Espagne

239

1643, un décret confirme au diocèse de Palencia que la bulle de 1573 reste en vigueur malgré la nouvelle législation.81 En revanche, après que, le 11 août 1691, la Congrégation a prescrit de nouveau, dans deux décrets successifs, que les offices propres soient soumis au contrôle du Saint-Siège, qu’ils ne célèbrent que des saints inscrits dans le martyrologe romain et que leurs reliques aient été clairement identifiées comme appartenant à ces mêmes saints, l’exception espagnole n’est qu’en partie confirmée puisque désormais, écrit un consulteur en réponse à une requête en provenance de Grenade, la bulle de Grégoire XIII «comprend seulement les reliques transférées depuis Rome après [la bulle de 1573], et dites vulgairement baptisées».82 Si les conséquences de cette inflexion restent pour une large part à étudier, l’Espagne n’échappe désormais plus entièrement à la romanisation des calendriers qu’une note d’un consulteur du premier tiers du dixhuitième siècle présente comme un des rôles principaux de la Congrégation des Rites.83

Remarques conclusives Le contrôle de la liturgie par les monarques espagnols pourrait confirmer les propos d’un proche de Philippe II selon lequel «il n’y a pas de pape en Espagne».84 Le projet absolutiste de contrôle de l’Église par la Monarchie catholique vise autant à la subordination du clergé au roi qu’à la limitation des ingérences du Saint-Siège. Les privilèges accordés par Pie V et Grégoire XIII s’inscrivent bien dans la constitution d’une «Église nationale». Pour autant l’obédience au pape des 81 L. Gardellini, Decreta authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum (Rome: Bourlié, 1824), 1.368–9, décret de 1643: «An decreto S.C. in principio Breviarii apposito quo prohibetur celebrari per totam civitatem, vel dioecesim etiam de cujuscumque ordinarii auctoritate festum cum officio sanctorum praeter titularis, et habentium insignem Reliquiam, tollatur privilegium particulare Gregorii xiii concessum Regni Hispaniarum sub die 30 decembris 1573 … Privilegium Apostolicum concessum a S.M. Gregorio XIII non fuisse sublatum.» 82 Gardellini, Decreta, 3.184–5: «Officia Sanctorum, ratione Corporis, seu insignis Reliquiae recitanda, intelligi debere de Sanctis dumtaxat in Martyrologio Romano descriptis, et dummodo constet de identitate Corporis, seu Reliquiae insignis illusmet Sancti, ut reperitur in Martyrologio Romano descriptus; de coeteris autem Sanctis in praedicto Martyrologio non descriptis, aut quibus a S. Sede non fuerit specialiter concessum, Officia recitari et Missas celebrari vetuerunt»; ACCS, documents non classés relatifs au diocèse de Grenade: «Che il sudetto decreto non sia derogatorio di detta Bolla di Gregorio XIII ma che comprenda solamente le reliquie dopo di quella da Roma translate, et vulgo dette battezzate.» Pour la procédure de baptême des reliques, voir T. Johnson, «Holy Fabrications: The Catacomb Saints and the Counter-Reformation in Bavaria», The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 47/2 (1996) 274–97. 83 Avis d’un consulteur de la Congrégation de 1729 cité par Dompnier, «Les calendriers», 21: «fare il possibile per ridurre i particolari calendari all’uniformità del Rito romano». 84 Serrano, Correspondencia diplomatica, 1.558.

240

Antoine Mazurek

souverains espagnols n’est pas remise en cause dans le principe mais sujette à tractation. Les livres liturgiques constituent un des instruments de l’affirmation par le Saint-Siège d’un gouvernement universel et leur acceptation par Philippe II n’est jamais contestée. Que la réforme liturgique tridentine ait favorisé l’affirmation d’une conception ‹nationale› de la sainteté qui s’est appuyée, en Espagne, sur l’essor contemporain d’une historiographie nationale n’est pas contradictoire. Malgré la centralisation et l’uniformisation de la liturgie après Trente, Rome accepte d’emblée les spécificités liturgiques locales. Ce projet universaliste s’accompagne en effet d’une redéfinition de la Catholicité en terme de romanité, ce qui laisse de fait un espace pour l’affirmation d’autres pôles de Catholicité dont la constitution historique n’intéressait pas directement le centre romain.85 La liturgie participe ainsi pleinement à la confessionnalisation catholique dans sa fonction de renforcement des identités territoriales.86 Ce qui est spécifique à la péninsule ibérique est l’échelle nationale d’un privilège qui a consacré la catégorie des «saints naturels» d’Espagne et permis la rédaction d’un propre des saints de l’Espagne, premier d’un genre promis à un bel avenir.87 La célébration des figures de saints de la période wisigothique montre qu’il s’agit d’une sainteté hispanique dont les églises étaient les héritières, au premier rang desquelles Tolède, et sur laquelle la monarchie devait fonder sa légitimité. Les différentes échelles de célébration du culte des saints sont ainsi l’expression de la pluralité des identités collectives avec lesquelles la monarchie catholique doit négocier.88 La bulle de 1573 est en outre un témoignage original que la réforme liturgique décidée à Trente a rendu plus organique encore qu’il ne l’était auparavant le lien entre histoire et hagiographie en suscitant une recherche

85 Voir G.A. Guazzelli, «Cesare Baronio and the Roman Catholic Vision of the Early Church», dans Van Liere/Ditchfield/Louthan (éd.), Sacred History, 52–71, aux pp. 60–1. 86 Dans son bref de 1570, Pie V parle de «notre missel» («Missali nostro»). 87 Il existe un précédent pré-tridentin pour le Portugal, les Officios dos santos de Portugal (Lisbonne: Germão Galharde, 1525) dont il n’y a pas cependant d’exemplaire connu. Un ouvrage au titre similaire en langue vernaculaire est imprimé en 1629, Jorge Cordoso, Officio menor dos sanctos de Portugal: tirado de breviarios, et memorias deste reino (Lisbonne: Pedro Cra[e]sbeeck). Le premier recueil d’offices propres d’un royaume à être approuvé après celui de l’Espagne, concerne le royaume de Pologne en 1614. L’histoire de la genèse de ces offices propres est encore à écrire. 88 Les controverses suscitées par le choix de Sainte Thérèse comme patronne de l’Espagne aux côtés de Santiago en sont une illustration éloquente. Voir Rowe, Saint and Nation, 167–92. On notera par ailleurs qu’il existe des livrets d’offices pour les territoires soumis au souverain catholique mais se situant hors de la péninsule: Officia propria sanctorum regnis Hispano monarchae subjectis specialiter concessa, nedum a clero seculari, verum etiam ab omnibus utriusque sexus regni Neapolitani… (s.l.: s.n., [dix-septième siècle]); Officia propria sanctorum pro Regnis Hispaniarum Regi subiectis (Milan: Carlo Giuseppe Quinti, 1690).

Réforme tridentine et culte des saints en Espagne

241

historique aux enjeux à la fois locaux et ‹nationaux› ayant débouché sur un vaste mouvement de falsifications.89 Cette conception ‹nationale› de la sainteté s’est accordée avec la conception universelle défendue par Rome dans le cadre de la double dynamique si bien décrite par Simon Ditchfield. Comme le note Alain Tallon à propos des procès de canonisation en effet, la contradiction apparente entre sainteté ‹nationale› et sainteté universelle s’est avérée féconde en suscitant chez les monarques des demandes d’universalisation de cultes.90 Pour l’Espagne ces demandes se sont inscrites dans un projet de Monarchie universelle à la fois concurrent et soutien de l’universalisme romain.

Bibliographie Sources manuscrites Madrid, Archivo General de Palacio, Patronatos, leg. 1790, Capítulos generales de la Orden de San Gerónimo. Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional de España, Ms. 13830: Index librorum Bibliothecae Sanctae Ecclesiae Toletanae, scriptus anno Domini, Millessimo quingentessimo nonagessimo primo. Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia, Ms. 9/3679(13): Alonso de la Serna, Por la Potestad Pontificia en aprovar nuevos Rezados. Rome, Archivio della Congregazione per le Cause dei Santi (ACCS), Positiones rescriptorum et decretorum, 42, 6462, et 7208. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (BAV), Barb. lat. 398, Vat. lat. 3693, 6171, 6204, et 6278. Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, H5, H10. Séville, Archivo de la Catedral de Sevilla, Liturgia 36: Vicente Sebastian Villegas, Tractado en forma de question o disputa que prueba que ay bastante facultad, en cada una de las Ygl[esi]as de España, para poder reçar de sus Sanctos Naturales, Patronos, y Reliquias insignes, con Reçados, y Officios proprios, si son del rito Romano; aunque no esten aprobados por la Sede Apostolica. Séville, Archivo General del Arzobispado de Sevilla, Sección II, Gobierno-Congregación de Ritos. Simancas, Archivo General de Simancas, Casas y Sitios Reales, dossier 258: Ambrosio de Morales, Copia de apuntamientos que tubo Ambrosio de Morales sobre los liçionarios 89 Selon Olds, le caractère ‹national› de l’Église espagnole explique en grande partie la dimension également nationale des falsifications historiques de Jerónimo Román de la Higuera. Voir Pedro Sainz de Baranda, Clave de la España sagrada (Madrid: Imprenta de la viuda de Calero, 1853) qui signale vingt-deux nouveaux offices qui ont été introduits grâce aux textes d’Higuera. 90 Tallon, «Introduction», 9.

242

Antoine Mazurek

para la orden de Su Magestad y de la repuesta que S Magestad mando hazer a ellos, Mars 1566.

Sources imprimées et éditées Antonio, Nicolás, Bibliotheca Hispana Nova, sive Hispanorum Scriptorum qui ab anno MD ad MDCLXXXIV floruere, notitia, vol. 2 (Madrid: Joaquín Ibarra y Marín, 1788). Breviarium romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilii tridentini restitutum, … iussu editum eiusque permissu, festis & Officiis Sanctorum, maxime Hispanorum, in fine auctum (Anvers: Christophe Plantin, 1572). Gardellini, L., Decreta authentica Congregationis sacrorum rituum … (Rome: Bourlié, 1824–49). Gavanti, Bartholomeo, Thesaurus sacrorum rituum seu commentaria in ribricas breviarii Romani … (Anvers: Balthasar Moretus, 1634). Officia quae in ecclesia Granatensis, dicenda sunt extra illa quae in Breviario novo continentur (Grenade: s.n., 1575). Officia propria sanctorum ovetensis ecclesiae et dioecesis auctoritate apostolica approbata ad officii novi formam redacta (s.l.: s.n., [ca. 1700–18]). Officia propria sanctorum pro Regnis Hispaniarum Regi subiectis (Milan: Carlo Giuseppe Quinti, 1690). Officia propria sanctorum regnis Hispano monarchae subjectis specialiter concessa, nedum a clero seculari, verum etiam ab omnibus utriusque sexus regni Neapolitani … (s.l.: s.n., [dix-septième siècle]). Officios dos santos de Portugal (Lisbonne: Germão Galharde, 1525). Padilla, Francisco de, Historia ecclesiastica de España (Malaga: Claudio Bolan, 1605). Quintanadueñas, Antonio de, Santos de la ciudad de Sevilla y de su arçobispado (Séville: Francisco de Lyra, 1637). Ruiz Alcoholado, Pedro, Calendarium perpetuum et generale breviarii romani ex decreto sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini nuper editi triginta sex tabulis constans, pro tota Hispania cum festis quae generaliter in Hispaniarum regnis celebrantur (Tolède: Ioannes a Plaza, 1577–78). Ruiz Alcoholado, Pedro, Ceremonial romano para misas cantadas y rezadas (Alcalá de Henares: herederos de Iuan Gracian, 1589). Ruiz Alcoholado, Pedro, Declaración de las rúbricas del nuevo rezado (s.l.: s.n., s.d.). Ruiz Alcoholado, Pedro, Tractado muy util y curioso para saber bien rezar el officio romano que divulgo Pio V (Tolède: Pedro López de Haro, 1584).

Sources secondaires Alberigo, G., «Du Concile de Trente au tridentinisme», Irénikon 54 (1981) 192–210. Amiet, R., Missels et bréviaires imprimés (supplément aux catalogues de Weale et Bohatta). Propres des saints (édition princeps) (Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 1990). Baümer, S., Histoire du bréviaire (2 vol.; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1905).

Réforme tridentine et culte des saints en Espagne

243

Baumgarten, P.-M., Hispanica II et III: Einführung der Breviarium Pianum von 1568 in Spanien, Einführung des Gregorianischen Calenders in Spanien (Krumbach: Franz Aker, 1927). Buttay, F./Guillausseau, A. (éd.), Les saints d’État? Politique et sainteté au temps du Concile de Trente (Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris-Sorbonne, 2012). Denzler, G., Kardinal Guglielmo Sirleto (1514–1585): Leben und Werk. Ein Beitrag zur nachtridentischen Reform (Munich: M. Hueber, 1964). Ditchfield, S., «‘Historia magistra sanctitatis’? The Relationship between Historiography and Hagiography in Italy after the Council of Trent (1564–1743 ca.)», dans M. Firpo (éd.), Nunc alia tempora, alii mores. Storici e storia in età postridentina (Florence: Olschki, 2005) 3–23. Ditchfield, S., Liturgy, Sanctity and History in Tridentine Italy: Pietro Maria Campi and the Preservation of the Particular (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Ditchfield, S., «Tridentine Worship and the Cult of Saints», dans R. Po-Chia Hsia (éd.), Reform and Expansion 1500–1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 201– 24. Ditchfield, S., «What Was Sacred History? (Mostly Roman) Catholic Uses of the Christian Past after Trent», dans K. Van Liere/S. Ditchfield/H. Louthan (éd.), Sacred History: Uses of the Christian Past in the Renaissance World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) 72–97. Dompnier, B., «Les calendriers liturgiques entre pie Vet Benoît XIV. Exigence de l’universel et construction du particulier», Sanctorum 8/9 (2011–12) 13–51. Dompnier, B., «Nuovi uffici del santorale. Finalità e metodi dei cambiamenti liturgici nel XVII e XVIII secolo», dans A. Colzani/A. Luppi/M. Padoan (éd.), Barocco Padano 7: Atti del 15. Convegno internazionale sulla musica italiana nei secoli 17.–18. Milano, 14–16 luglio 2009 (Como: A.M.I.S., 2012) 53–90. Edouard, S., «Le débat sur la représentation des saints à San Lorenzo del Escorial après le Concile de Trente», Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 101/1 (2006) 89–116. Fernández Terricabras, I., Philippe II et la Contre-Réforme. L’Église espagnole à l’heure du Concile de Trente (Paris: Publisud, 2001). García Alonso, I., «Edición tridentina del manual toledano y su incorporación al ritual romano», Salmanticensis 6/2 (1959) 323–99. Geldhof, J., «Did the Council of Trent Produce a Liturgical Reform? The Case of the Roman Missal», Questions Liturgiques/Studies in Liturgy 93 (2012) 171–95. Godoy Alcántara, J., Historia crítica de los falsos cronicones (Madrid: Manuel Rivadeneyra, 1868). Gotor, M., Chiesa e santità nell’Italia moderna (Rome/Bari: Laterza, 2004). Gotor, M., I beati del papa: santità, inquisizione e obbedienza in età moderna (Florence: Olschki, 2002). Harris A.K., «‘A known holy body, with an inscription and a name’: Bishop Sancho Dávila y Toledo and the Creation of St. Vitalis», Archiv fu¨r Reformationsgeschichte 104 (2013) 245–71. Harris A.K., From Muslim to Christian Granada: Inventing a City’s Past in Early Modern Spain (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007).

244

Antoine Mazurek

Jedin, H., «Das Konzil von Trient und die Reform der liturgischen Bu¨ cher», dans H. Jedin, Kirche des Glaubens, Kirche der Geschichte. Ausgewählte, Aufsätze und Vorträge (Freiburg i. Br. et al.: Herder, 1966) 499–525. Johnson, T., «Holy Fabrications: The Catacomb Saints and the Counter-Reformation in Bavaria», The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 47/2 (1996) 274–97. Kagan, R., Clio and the Crown: The Politics of History in Medieval and Early Modern Spain (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009). Kamen, H./Gimeno B.F., «Les Heures du roi. Le bréviaire de Philippe II», Franco Maria Ricci 72 (1998) 65–76. Kamen, H., The Phoenix and the Flame: Catalonia and the Counter Reformation (New Haven, CT/Londres: Yale University Press, 1993). Kendrick, Th., Saint James in Spain (Londres: Methuen and Co., 1960). Kingdon, R., «The Plantin Breviaries: A Case Study in the Sixteenth-Century Business Operations of a Publishing House», Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 22/1 (1960) 133–50. Lazure, G., «Posséder le sacré. Monarchie et identité dans la collection de reliques de Philippe II à l’Escorial», dans Ph. Boutry/P.-A. Fabre/D. Julia (éd.), Reliques modernes. Cultes et usages chrétiens des corps saints des Réformes aux révolutions (Paris: Éditions de l’EHESS, 2009) 1. 371–404. Llorente Henar, P., «Los miembros del cabildo de la catedral de Toledo durante el arzobispado de Gaspar de Quiroga (1577–1594)», Hispania Sacra 62/126 (2010) 563–619. Martín Riego, M., «Memorial de los santos del arzobispado de Sevilla a través de las Juntas de 1619 y 1620», dans A. Hevia Ballina (éd.), Memoriae ecclesiae XXIV. Hagiografía y Archivos de la Iglesia, Santoral Hispano-Mozárabe en las Diócesis de España. Actas del XVIII Congreso de la Asociación celebrado en Orense (Oviedo: Asociación de Archiveros de la Iglesia en España, 2004) 283–316. Meunier, C., Le désir de réforme. La liturgie entre tradition et magistère (ca. 1500 – ca. 1620) (Thèse de doctorat, École nationale des Chartes; Paris, 2004). Olds, K., Forging the Past: Invented Histories in Counter-Reformation Spain (Londres/New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015). Olds, K., «The Ambiguities of the Holy: Authenticating Relics in Seventeenth-Century Spain», Renaissance Quarterly 65/1 (2012) 135–84. Olds, K., «The ‘False Chronicles’, Cardinal Baronio, and Sacred History in Counter-Reformation Spain», The Catholic Historical Review 100/1 (2014) 1–26. O’Malley, J.W., Le Concile de Trente: ce qui s’est vraiment passé (Bruxelles: Lessius, 2013). Papa, G., Le cause di canonizzazione nel primo periodo della Congregazione dei Riti (1588– 1634) (Rome: Urbania University Press, 2001). Perrone, S.T., «The Procurator General of the Castilian Assembly of the Clergy, 1592–1741», The Catholic Historical Review 91/1 (2005) 26–59. Prodi, P., «Note sulla genesi del diritto nella Chiesa post-tridentina», dans Legge e vangelo. Discussione su una legge fondamentale per la Chiesa (Brescia: Paideia, 1972) 191–223. Rowe, E., Saints and Nation: Santiago, Teresa of Avila, and Plural Identities in Early Modern Spain (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2011). Schmid, J., «Weitere Beiträge zur Geschichte des römischen Breviers und Missale», Theologisches Quartalschift 68 (1885) 468–87 et 624–37.

Réforme tridentine et culte des saints en Espagne

245

Schmitz, T., «The Spanish Hieronymites and the Reformed Texts of the Council of Trent», The Sixteenth Century Journal 37/2 (2006) 375–99. Serrano, L., Correspondencia diplomatica entre España y la Santa Sede (4 vol.; Rome/ Madrid: Impr. del Instituto Pio IX, 1914). Serrano, L., El obispado de Burgos y Castilla primitiva desde el siglo el siglo Val XIII (2 vol.; Madrid: Estanislao Maestre, 1935–36). Úzquiza Ruiz, T., «El santoral en los misales burgenses», dans A. Hevia Ballina (éd.), Memoriae ecclesiae XXIV. Hagiografía y Archivos de la Iglesia, Santoral Hispano-Mozárabe en las Diócesis de España. Actas del XVIII Congreso de la Asociación celebrado en Orense (Oviedo: Asociación de Archiveros de la Iglesia en España, 2004) 641–69. Van Liere, K.E., «Renaissance Chroniclers and the Apostolic Origins of Spanish Christianity», dans K. Van Liere/S. Ditchfield/H. Louthan (éd.), Sacred History: Uses of the Christian Past in the Renaissance World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) 121–44.

Trent, Evangelism and Protestantism

Camilla Russell

Dangerous Friendships: Girolamo Seripando, Giulia Gonzaga, and the Spirituali in Tridentine Italy

Introduction This essay explores how the Council of Trent – with its innumerable debates, crises, and alliances – was the backdrop for an unlikely epistolary exchange between a man and a woman: Giulia Gonzaga (1513–66) and Girolamo Seripando (1493–1563). Gonzaga was a widow from the famed noble Lombard family, who spent most of her life in a Neapolitan convent (although she never took the veil), while Seripando was a noted theologian and preacher, General of the Augustinian Order, then Cardinal and papal legate to the final sitting of the Council of Trent.1 Both were associated to varying degrees with the religious reforming elements in Italy that sought profound reform of the Church through spiritual renewal, theological rigour, and the renovation of ecclesiastical structures to their original form and function.2 This approach, which also was the hallmark of a loosely 1 For scholarly studies of Gonzaga, see B. Amante, Giulia Gonzaga Contessa di Fondi e il movimento religioso femminile nel secolo XVI (Bologna: N. Zanichelli, 1896); G. Paladino, Giulia Gonzaga e il movimento valdesiano (Naples: F. Sangiovanni, 1909); C. Russell, Giulia Gonzaga and the Religious Controversies of Sixteenth-Century Italy (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006); S. Peyronel Rambaldi, Una gentildonna irrequieta: Giulia Gonzaga fra reti familiari e relazioni eterodosse (Rome: Viella, 2012). For a valuable brief biographical treatment, see G. Dall’Olio, “Gonzaga, Giulia”, Dizionario biografico degli italiani 57 (2001) 783–7. For Seripando, see H. Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent: Cardinal Seripando (London: Herder, 1947); H. Jedin, Girolamo Seripando: sein Leben und Denken im Geisteskampf des 16. Jahrhunderts (Würzburg: Augustinus, 1984); A. Cestaro (ed.), Geronimo Seripando e la Chiesa del suo tempo nel V. centenario della nascita: Atti del Convegno di Salerno, 14–16 ottobre 1994 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1997); M. Cassese, Girolamo Seripando e i vescovi meridionali, 1535–1563 (2 vol.; Naples: Editoriale scientifica, 2002), and the brief entry, G. Alberigo, “Girolamo Seripando”, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation 4 (1996) 82–3. 2 On the origins of reforming currents in sixteenth-century Italy generally, as well as of the spirituali more specifically, see A. Prosperi, Tra evangelismo e controriforma: G. M. Giberti (1495–1543) (Rome: Ed. scientifiche italiane, 1969); P. Simoncelli, Evangelismo italiano del Cinquecento: Questione religiosa e nicodemismo politico (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per l’età moderna e contemporanea, 1979); S. Seidel-Menchi, Erasmo in Italia, 1520–1580 (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1987); R. Bireley, The Refashioning of Catholicism, 1450–1700 (New York:

250

Camilla Russell

formed group known as the spirituali – of which Gonzaga was a patron, and Seripando a protector – contrasted with other reforming elements in Italy that looked to canonical and juridical solutions to solve the Church’s problems, advocating instruments such as the Index of Prohibited Books and the Inquisition. These very tools came to be used against Gonzaga, Seripando, and their networks, to identify and in some cases prosecute their associates for theological views that were considered to correspond to those of the Lutheran and Reformed confessions. This study analyses the correspondence between Seripando, Gonzaga and their network, which spanned much of the Tridentine period, especially the final phase of the Council.3 The letters exchanged between them and their associates reflect their shared noble rank, their common patronage networks and political interests, and their affiliation with the Kingdom of Naples. But what marked much of their epistolary relationship was a religious sensibility and fellowship that, on the one hand partly motivated them to write, and on the other hand inhibited what they could write, on account of the tense religious environment in which they operated. In exploring this aspect of their association, the chapter more broadly aims to shed light on how women and men used their letters in different (including gendered) ways to pursue their relationships and ambitions in a potentially dangerous environment. It considers how, through their regular correspondence, the convent-based Giulia Gonzaga was ‘present’ at the Council of Trent, while from the Council and his many travels Seripando maintained ties with Naples and their mutual friends there.4 The essay shows how, through this Palgrave Macmillan, 1999); M. Firpo, Tra “alumbrados” e “spirituali”. Studi su Juan de Valdes e il valdesianesimo nella crisi religiosa del Cinquecento italiano (Florence: L.S. Olschki, 1990), and S.D. Bowd, Reform before the Reformation: Vincenzo Querini and the Religious Renaissance in Italy (Leiden: Brill, 2002). For recent directions in the history of Early Modern Catholicism, see S. Ditchfield, “Catholic Reformation and Renewal”, in P. Marshall (ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of the Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) 152–85. 3 Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale (hereafter BNN), cod. xiii. In cases where letters from the Epistolario have been reproduced in modern studies (in part or in full, and not always corresponding to the section of the letter quoted in this essay), the relevant bibliographical reference is given after the letter’s archival reference and quotation. 4 There is a rich scholarly literature on epistolary exchange in the Early Modern Period, with particularly valuable studies of women’s letter writing: E.C. Goldsmith (ed.), Writing the Female Voice: Essays on Epistolary Literature (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1989); G. Zarri (ed.), Per Lettera: La scrittura epistolare femminile tra archivio e tipografia secoli xv–xvii (Rome: Viella, 1999); J. Couchman/A. Crabb (ed.), Women’s Letters across Europe, 1400–1700: Form and Persuasion (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004); J.D. Campbell/A. Larsen (ed.), Early Modern Women and Transnational Communities of Letters (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009). An important overview of the Renaissance letter remains: J.M. Najemy, Between Friends: Discourses of Power and Desire in the Macchiavelli-Vettori Letters of 1513–1515 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993); for letter writing and religious friendship,

Girolamo Seripando, Giulia Gonzaga, and the Spirituali in Tridentine Italy

251

epistolary contact, Gonzaga was able to retain the agenda of the spirituali at the heart of the College of Cardinals; Seripando in turn used their exchanges as part of his efforts to keep the spirituali within the fold of the Church, as a force for reform and a bulwark against what he saw as a too-narrow definition of what it meant to be orthodox.

I.

The Religious Milieu of Giulia Gonzaga and Girolamo Seripando

Girolamo Seripando’s association with the spirituali was not as close as that of Giulia Gonzaga, although both shared contacts with the group that formed around a number of charismatic individuals throughout Italy, such as Gasparo Contarini in Venice, the Spanish religious exile Juan de Valdés in Naples, and Vittoria Colonna and Reginald Pole in Viterbo.5 Like the spirituali themselves, the scholarship concerning them is as rich as it is diverse: some studies view them through the lens of their cultural and political traits,6 some as protagonists of reform from within the Catholic Church,7 and others in terms of their role in a see, C.M. Furey, Erasmus, Contarini, and the Religious Republic of Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 5 Key English-language historiographical analyses include, E.M. Jung, “On the Nature of Evangelism in Sixteenth-Century Italy”, Journal of the History of Ideas 14 (1953) 511–27; E. Gleason, “On the Nature of Sixteenth Century Evangelism: Scholarship 1953–1978”, The Sixteenth Century Journal 9 (1978) 3–25; A. Jacobson Schutte, “Periodization of Sixteenth-Century Italian Religious History: The Post-Cantimori Paradigm Shift”, Journal of Modern History 61/2 (1989) 269–84; M. Firpo, “Historiographical Introduction [cap. “I”]”, in J. Tedeschi (ed.), The Italian Reformation of the Sixteenth Century and the Diffusion of Renaissance Culture: A Bibliography of the Secondary Literature, ca. 1750–1997 (Modena: F.C. Panini/Ferrara: ISR, 2000) xviii–xlix; J.W. O’Malley, Trent and All That: Renaming Catholicism in the Early Modern Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 140–3; C. Russell, “Religious Reforming Currents in Sixteenth-Century Italy: The Spirituali and the Tridentine Debates over Church Reform”, Journal of Religious History 38/4 (2014) 457–75. 6 For example, T.F. Mayer, Reginald Pole: Prince and Prophet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); P.V. Murphy, “Between ‘Spirituali’ and ‘Intransigenti’: Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga and Patrician Reform in Sixteenth-Century Italy”, Catholic Historical Review 88/3 (2002) 446–69; R.K. Delph/M.M. Fontaine/J.J. Martin (ed.), Heresy, Culture and Religion in Early Modern Italy: Context and Contestation (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2006); A. Brundin, Vittoria Colonna and the Spiritual Poetics of the Italian Reformation (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008); A. Brundin/M. Treherne (ed.), Forms of Faith in Sixteenth-Century Italy (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009); Rambaldi, Una gentildonna irrequieta. 7 Two classic studies include, Prosperi, Tra evangelismo e controriforma and D. Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy: Cardinal Pole and the Counter Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972); for this aspect of the spirituali in the context of the debates over the reform decrees at Trent, see Russell, “Religious Reforming Currents”, 5–6.

252

Camilla Russell

missed ‘Italian Reformation’ along the lines of those in Northern Europe;8 still others identify in the spirituali a nebulousness that defies definition or even a single name to describe them.9 Yet the tenor of their theological questionings, their adherence to sola fide, their Scripture-centred spirituality, and their insistence on far-reaching ecclesiastical reform, (also at the expense of traditional privileges, including their own,) were sufficiently coherent to elicit in them a shared identity, as well as enmity from some who wished to subdue them. Whatever their unifying characteristics, the spirituali remain distinctive precisely because of their diversity, and because of the variety of ways in which contemporaries chose to associate with them, sympathise with them, or shun them altogether. Many spirituali professed sola fide, others predestination, while some, such as Valdés, and possibly Gonzaga and her friend Pietro Carnesecchi (executed for heresy in 1567), refused to affirm the Church’s sacramental system as essential to the human path to salvation. Seripando, instead, demonstrated firm commitment to a papally governed Catholic Church and to the sacramental role of the Church in the life of the faithful. A distinguished theologian, he had entered the Augustinian Order in 1507 at San Giovanni a Carbonara in his family’s city of Naples, and became Augustinian General in 1539. His predecessor and early mentor, the celebrated theologian Giles of Viterbo, guided his early theological and reforming outlook, while his later patrons were associated with the spirituali to varying degrees: Reginald Pole and Giovanni Morone were leading spirituali, while Marcello Cervini and Ercole Gonzaga (Giulia’s second cousin) maintained a more distant, if sympathetic, rapport with them.10 As General of the Augustinian Order, to which Martin Luther and several confreres belonged before breaking from Rome, Seripando experienced in the most confronting way the consequences of Luther’s actions, and was forced to 8 For example, see M. Firpo, Valdesiani e spirituali: Studi sul Cinquecento religioso italiano (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2013). This theme is the starting point for a wideranging historiographical survey, D. Pirillo, “The Italian Reformation”, Oxford Bibliographies in Renaissance and Reformation, http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/ obo-9780195399301/obo-9780195399301-0285.xml (accessed 4 August 2015). 9 Mayer, Reginald Pole, 8–9, discusses this problem, but chooses spirituali as a preferred term; W.V. Hudon rejects the term’s usefulness: “Religion and Society in Early Modern Italy: Old Questions, New Insights”, The American Historical Review 101 (1996) 783–804, on p. 786. This essay retains the name spirituali, also on account of its use on occasion by those associated with the group itself. See G. Fragnito, “Gli ‘spirituali’ e la fuga di Bernardino Ochino”, Rivista Storica Italiana 84 [1972] 778–813. 10 It is in this context that Benedetto Croce mentions Seripando briefly (Storia dell’età barocca in Italia (Bari: Laterza), 1929, p. 72), observing that Cardinals Contarini and Seripando understood the gravity of the spiritual needs and anxieties of the age, manifested in the appeal across Europe of Luther’s message about grace and salvation, and reaching into their own circles in Italy.

Girolamo Seripando, Giulia Gonzaga, and the Spirituali in Tridentine Italy

253

steer a difficult path through the theological controversies that had erupted so dramatically in his own Order.11 Yet Seripando himself remains a theologically ambiguous figure, whether we observe him from the perspective of his lifetime, immediately after his death, or even today.12 Grounded in the theology of Saint Augustine and the Augustinian tradition, he maintained a deep interest in the question of Justification. At Endimio Calandra’s 1567–68 heresy trial, Calandra testified that several decades earlier at Sant’ Agostino in Rome, “in the presence of Cardinals”, Seripando “preached justification by faith alone, and the entire world ran to hear, because this doctrine was greatly appreciated by all”.13 In fact, Seripando favored a form of justification that accommodated works as part of a scheme that nevertheless gave primacy – but not exclusivity – to faith in the attainment of salvation (even cherishing a double justice doctrine in the sense that he accepted the necessity of both the iustitia inhaerens and the iustitia imputata for being justified).14 Seripando elaborated his views in his many celebrated sermons, which won him praise as one of the leading theologians of the day, as well as suspicion for proximity to Luther’s teachings.15 Nevertheless, Seripando helped formulate the vexed decree on Justification at the first period of the Council of Trent (1545–47), in his capacity as theological advisor to the Council’s papal legate, Marcello Cervini (later Pope Marcellus II, r. 1555). While the final decree failed to integrate his draft or his views, his early background work remained influential:16 grace was defined as the essential and only means to attain salvation, but human agency was given a place in the decree as well.17 With its accompanying canons labelling as “anathema” several theological positions associated with Lutheran and Reformed doctrine,18 many like-

11 On this point, see especially, Jedin, Papal Legate, ch. 13 (“The Fight for Orthodoxy”), 221–39. 12 For the quite wide range of scholarly interpretations concerning Seripando’s theological views, see Cassese’s useful summary, Girolamo Seripando, 1.75–80. 13 “… in presenza di cardinali predicò la giustificatione per la fede sola: et tutto il mondo correva, perché questa dottrina piaceva”, cited in S. Pagano, Il Processo di Endimio Calandra e L’Inquisizioine a Mantova nel 1567–1568 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1991), 333. 14 Jedin, Papal Legate, especially ch. 5 and 12 (“Views on Justification” and “The Decree on Justification”), 76–101 and 348–92. 15 Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, 1.80, observes: “anche dopo la morte, continuava ad essere ricordato come un sospettabile – [quoting Firpo and Marcatto] ‘nonostante la sua salda e indiscutibile fedeltà alla chiesa di Roma’ – tanto che il cardinale Santoro, alta autorità del S. Ufficio, inserì il suo nome nel Compendium del processo Morone”. 16 Jedin, Papal Legate, 391, characterised his role at this time as a “strenuous and dangerous, but silent, battle”. 17 H. Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, E. Graf (trans.) (2 vol.; St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Co., 1957–61), 2.307; J. O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013), 113–14. 18 Session 6 – 13 January 1547 – Decree on Justification, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,

254

Camilla Russell

minded spirituali consequently found themselves in the difficult position of being exposed to the suspicion of heresy. Several were brought to the attention of the increasingly influential Tribunal of the Inquisition, headed by Gian Pietro Carafa, later Pope Paul IV (r. 1555–59). Seripando himself was not immune and the Neapolitan Viceroy, Pedro di Toledo, expressed doubts about his orthodoxy, although he was never charged or imprisoned for his views.19 Unlike many spirituali, Seripando was at pains to demonstrate his full commitment to the ecclesia, writing, for example, a refutation of Luther’s theology of Justification and free will.20 At the same time, and in terms similar to many spirituali, he insisted on a total renovation of the Church’s structures and conduct: he advocated especially episcopal residence as the foundation for a healthy Church, and conducted widespread reform of his own Order in his role as General. He resigned this position in 1551 on the grounds of ill health, only to be thrust back into Church affairs again as Archbishop of Salerno (1553), then Cardinal and legate to the Council of Trent (1561), where he died two years later in 1563, only a few days after taking over as President of the Council on the demise of Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga. His association with the spirituali constitutes a striking element in Seripando’s long career.21 Despite the potentially dangerous consequences, he provided them with patronage, protection, advice, and friendship. One of these friends was Giulia Gonzaga, whom he praised in a letter to a friend the year before his death as possessing “most prudent judgement”.22 The basis for his connection with donna Giulia was his close ties with the Gonzaga family: on the political stage, their interests converged around the affairs of the Kingdom of Naples and their shared imperial affiliations, while at a more intimate level, Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga was

19 20

21 22

N.P. Tanner/G. Alberigo (ed.) (2 vol.; London: Sheed & Ward/Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 2.677–8. Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, 1.79. A. Marranzini, Dibattito Lutero Seripando su ‘Giustizia e libertà del cristiano’ (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1981). Concerning Seripando’s difference from Luther, which became clear in the course of the Council, Jedin, Papal Legate, 391, argued: “He was the representative of a branch of theological tradition that had had its influence on the leader of the German schism as well. Inasmuch as Seripando and the Augustinian school gave a voice to that tradition at the Council, they accentuated the difference between it and Luther’s basic teachings.” Here, we can see how easily, and on what grounds, Seripando could be linked with a Lutheran position. A valuable overview of this association is Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, 1.69–108 (“Seripando e gli ‘spirituali’”). Girolamo Seripando to Camillo Porzio, Trent, 23 March 1562, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 64, fol. 135v; “prudentissimo giuditio”: L. Amabile, Il Santo Officio della Inquisizione in Napoli: Narrazione con molti documenti inediti (2 vol.; Città di Castello: S. Lapi, 1892; repr. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino, 1987), 1.155 n. (partially reproduced). All standard scribal abbreviations have been silently expanded; other abbreviations have been left as in the original.

Girolamo Seripando, Giulia Gonzaga, and the Spirituali in Tridentine Italy

255

Seripando’s patron and supporter.23 As a result of these ties, Seripando entered into close contact with donna Giulia, who was the family’s representative in Naples. Giulia Gonzaga had moved to Naples after the death of her husband, Vespasiano Colonna, Duke of Gaeta and Fondi; she took up residence in the convent of San Francesco delle Monache without professing vows, and from where she became the leading patron of the religious circle that gathered around Juan de Valdés. When the group dispersed after the death of the Spanish exile in 1541, she maintained contact with those who removed themselves to Viterbo under the leadership of Vittoria Colonna and Reginald Pole. Gonzaga continued her role as patron by promoting the writings of Valdés in her capacity as chief custodian of his works; by commissioning new religious works, and – after Pole’s death in 1557 – by working for the publication of his writings, as well as conducting an intense epistolary relationship with the one-time papal protonotary, Pietro Carnesecchi, eventually executed for heresy in 1567, partially on the basis of the contents of their correspondence.24 Gonzaga herself was at risk from the Inquisition: in 1558 she was warned that she should flee Naples or else face capture and trial for heresy; in the same years, Carnesecchi (from the safe haven of Venice) was found guilty of heresy in absentia by the Roman Tribunal, while several close friends were imprisoned on heresy charges, and some left Italy, crossing the Alps into Calvinist Switzerland, consequently casting a shadow of suspicion over the friends they left behind.25 Despite the danger of being associated with such a well-known heterodox figure as Gonzaga, Seripando maintained regular contact with her. The nature of this contact has been preserved partially in their correspondence, to which we now turn.

23 For Ercole Gonzaga, see P.V. Murphy, Ruling Peacefully: Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga and Patrician Reform in Sixteenth-Century Italy (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2007). 24 The Gonzaga-Carnesecchi correspondence is at Vatican City, Archive of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Sanctum Officium, Stanza Storica (“Processo contro Carnesecchi”) (hereafter ACDF, S.O., St. St. [“PC”]), R 5-a. Carnesecchi’s trial records (that include substantial extracts from his correspondence with Gonzaga) are published in I processi inquisitoriali di Pietro Carnesecchi (1557–1567). Edizione critica, M. Firpo/D. Marcatto (ed.) (2 vol; vol. 2 in 3 parts; Vatican City: Archivio segreto vaticano, 1998–2000) (hereafter, I Processi). Their correspondence is analysed in Russell, Giulia Gonzaga. 25 At Carnesecchi’s trial, the Tribunal tried to use the parts in Carnesecchi’s letters that mentioned Seripando and his religious views to demonstrate his unorthodoxy; they did the same with Morone, Pole, and other friends. See, for example, the relevant deposition of 10 January 1567, in I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/2.824–7. See, also, Russell, Giulia Gonzaga, 202–8.

256

II.

Camilla Russell

The Letters of Seripando, Gonzaga, and their Networks

The majority of Girolamo Seripando’s correspondence (and all analysed here) is preserved at the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples. In the twentieth century, scholars used his Epistolario to explore the complex religious and political landscape of the Tridentine period.26 Hubert Jedin analysed and reproduced key letters from the Epistolario, as well as other documents, in his important biographical study of Seripando, while Luigi Amabile enlisted the correspondence as part of his study of the contours of ecclesiastical life in the Tridentine period, which is broader in scope than its title suggests.27 In 1994, Italian scholars in the field assessed Seripando’s significance and legacy on the occasion of the fifth centenary of his birth.28 More recently, Michele Cassese produced a two-volume study of Seripando (volume two is a critical edition of selections from his Epistolario), with particular reference to his links with the bishops of southern Italy, and including a valuable analysis of his ties to the spirituali.29 With the exception of these few studies, in recent decades the theologically ambiguous Seripando has tended to be obscured by a dichotomised historiographical gaze, which has prioritised either subversives or hard-liners as subjects for analysis.30 Seripando’s letters point to a more nuanced terrain compared with that brought into view by his polarised contemporaries: his milieu combined the clerical world of the ecclesia, which he defended, and the reforming ambitions of the spirituali, whom he supported. Herein lies the value of Seripando and his writings, since they contribute valuable insights into how these apparently different currents interacted. The first extant letters between Seripando and Gonzaga are dated from 1560, although donna Giulia is mentioned in a letter from Seripando already in 1554, when both were in Naples. The lack of letters before 1560 needs to take account of the fact that Seripando often was in Naples and therefore would have visited her

26 For historiographical overviews of the Epistolario, see A. Prosperi, “Evangelismo di Seripando?”, in Cestaro (ed.), Geronimo Seripando e la Chiesa, 33–50 and Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, vol. 1, ch 1. On his own visit to the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples, Prosperi notes the irony of discovering, among the list of scholars who had consulted the Epistolario before him, two very different scholars, Benedetto Croce and Hubert Jedin, who however shared an understanding of the importance of this figure for the religious history of Italy and of the Church (p. 33). 27 Amabile, Il Santo Officio; Jedin, Papal Legate. 28 Cestaro (ed.), Geronimo Seripando e la Chiesa. 29 Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, vol. 2 contains Seripando’s correspondence; vol. 1 contains relevant historical essays and biographical profiles of the correspondents. 30 Prosperi notes the penchant for heretics and exiles in post-war Italian scholarship as a cause for Seripando’s relative obscurity in that field: “Evangelismo di Seripando?”, 35.

Girolamo Seripando, Giulia Gonzaga, and the Spirituali in Tridentine Italy

257

personally.31 For example, in a 1554 letter written from that city he advises his correspondent that, as requested, he had sent certain materials on to Gonzaga and would forward news of her reply as soon as he had one.32 The fact that their correspondence included discussion of religious topics, as well as evidence of a certain amount of religious affiliation, is graphically illustrated in the purging that Seripando ordered when he set about arranging his Epistolario. This process of editing Seripando’s correspondence began towards the end of his life, and was undertaken on his request by his secretary Francesco Vopisco.33 Unlike Gonzaga, who preserved her correspondence with Carnesecchi – with fatal consequences – Seripando destroyed many letters both to and from Gonzaga, with some letters physically cut out, leaving just her name as evidence that a letter existed, while other letters disappeared altogether. There is no correspondence from the entire period of the Carafa Pope’s reign in the late 1550s:34 these were the most dangerous years for many, especially the spirituali, and it was during this time that Seripando retreated to the safety of his diocese at Salerno. It was only after the Pope’s demise in 1559, that he resumed an easy and intimate correspondence with Gonzaga.35 The result of Seripando’s careful self-censorship is a very partial record of their epistolary exchanges, with two surviving letters from Giulia Gonzaga and five from Seripando. Despite their lacunae, the letters still can tell us much about the nature of their association, with a flow of information, greetings, and accounts of services rendered, as well as hints of their religious interests. Some of the gaps in their own correspondence can be filled by the many letters written to mutual associates and friends, which were shared around and included warm greetings to others, specific messages, and even gifts.36 This was the case especially with Seripando’s most regular correspondent in Naples, Placido di Sangro, a very close associate of Gonzaga.37 Almost every letter to di Sangro included a 31 Carnesecchi’s letters to Gonzaga mention meetings between Seripando and Gonzaga on several occasions; for example, see those from 1560 reproduced in I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/2.820–4. 32 Seripando to Giulio Cocciano, Naples, 8 September 1554, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 60, fol. 105r; Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.153 n. (partially reproduced). 33 Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, 1.9–10. 34 Interestingly, there are no letters surviving from Giulia Gonzaga to Ercole Gonzaga from those same years either. Their correspondence is at Mantua, Archivio di Stato, Archivio Gonzaga. 35 Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.150; Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, 1.95. 36 For the communal use of correspondence, see A. Weber, “‘Dear Daughter’: Reform and Persuasion in St Teresa’s Letters to her Prioress”, in Couchman et al. (ed.), Women’s Letters across Europe, 241–61, on pp. 245 and 256; for Giulia Gonzaga’s correspondence networks, see C. Russell, “Women, Letters, and Heresy in Sixteenth-Century Italy: Giulia Gonzaga’s Heterodox Epistolary Network”, in Campbell/Larson (ed.), Early Modern Women, 75–93. 37 In his capacity as ambassador of the Neapolitan people after their revolt against the planned

258

Camilla Russell

greeting to Gonzaga: for example, in one letter Seripando concludes by “paying my deepest respects to the Signora Donna Giulia, and I hope that she remains always in good health”.38 Some exchanges included demonstrations of friendship in the form of gifts: Seripando described in a letter to Placido di Sangro how the rose pastries that his friend had sent for him at Trent had “arrived in part broken up into powder and in part in pieces”; “yet I am certain that they cannot fail to bring me the same delightful benefits as did those sent last year by the Lady Donna Giulia”. In a fascinating comment on the postal system, he added: “I believe that they arrived in such bad condition, first because they come from Rome with the post – which travels at high speed – and I also think that they were too fresh.”39 Their correspondence served other purposes as well: Seripando provided news and information from the Council of Trent, and acted as go-between, passing information and messages between Gonzaga and her second cousin, fellowlegate, Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga. He wrote to Placido di Sangro: “I sent him [Cardinal Gonzaga] the Lady Donna Giulia’s letter, and when I see him, if he says anything about it, I will not fail to write to you …”40 Later in the same year, he wrote directly to Giulia Gonzaga the following: “I undertook that task with the most Illustrious Monsignor of Mantua [Ercole Gonzaga] as you requested, doing so in the best way that I knew.”41 Giulia Gonzaga also performed tasks at Seripando’s request during his absence from Naples,42 and, together with di Sangro,

38 39

40

41 42

introduction of the Spanish Inquisition to Naples (for which he paid with a period in prison), di Sangro was part of the first delegation that sought a ruling from Charles V not to allow the Spanish Inquisition into Naples. Seripando himself participated in a later successful delegation with the same aim. See Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.149. Seripando to Placido di Sangro, Trent, 12 January 1562, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 48, fol. 58r: “Recomandome strettamente alla Signora D. Giulia et disidero ch’ella stia sempre sana”; Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.155 n. (partially reproduced). Seripando to di Sangro, Trent, 1 September 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 48, fol. 168r: (the full quotation is,) “Le paste rosate sono gionte parte risolute in polvere, et parte in pezzi … et tengo certo che non potranno se non giovarmi mirabilmente come ferno l’anno passato quelle della Signora D. Giulia, credo che sia gionte sì mal trattate, prima perché da Roma qui venghono con la posta che corre, et poi penso che fossero troppe fresche”; Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.155 n. (partially reproduced). Seripando to di Sangro, Trent, 21 September 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 54, fol. 107r: “li mandai la lettera della Signora D. Giulia et se, quando il vedrò, mi dirà qualche cosa a proposito, non lascierò di scriverla …”; Jedin, Girolamo Seripando, 638 (full letter); Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.155 n. (partially reproduced). Seripando to Gonzaga, Trent, 28 July 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 59, fol. 22r: “Ho fatto con Monsignor Illustrissimo di Mantova tutto quello officio che lei m’ha commandato, con quello miglior modo ch’io ho saputo”; Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.154 n. (partially reproduced). For example, Seripando requested donna Giulia’s help in a matter concerning Cesare Gonzaga (her nephew once removed, and vice-regent of Sicily): she reluctantly reported to him that she could not secure the desired outcome, but reassured him that she would always do everything in her power to be of assistance to him in whatever he should ask: Gonzaga to

Girolamo Seripando, Giulia Gonzaga, and the Spirituali in Tridentine Italy

259

they acted as agents in Naples – for Seripando, but also for Ercole Gonzaga while they were at Trent. On this score, Seripando wrote: His most Illustrious Lord [Ercole Gonzaga] takes great pleasure in being updated occasionally on the things that take place in Naples. For this reason I entreat you as much as I can that you write to me about them, so that I can read him the letters, and in such detail that he is not left in any doubt.43

Seripando’s and Gonzaga’s correspondence brings us several reminders about the limitations of letter writing; indeed, their authors considered letters as poor substitutes for meeting in person. Referring to correspondence that he had read from a member of Reginald Pole’s household, Seripando wrote in 1558: “and furthermore I have ardently desired to be with you, to discuss these matters – that which cannot be written”, referring thus possibly to the risk attendant in doing so.44 In addition, written documents simply could not be relied upon entirely for accuracy: Seripando advised that, “I send you a further copy of certain avvisi sent to me from Rome, and because your proximity to Rome makes it likely that you received them from others, these will be for confirmation”.45 It was not just on sensitive theological matters, then, that the letters of Gonzaga, Seripando, and their associates obscured, rather than revealed, the full extent of their views or of the information they possessed. And yet, while much of the epistolary evidence concerning their religious views appears to have been consciously erased and therefore difficult to recover, the letters can tell us something about how they used their correspondence to pursue their interests, sustain their networks, and exchange their ideas in the Tridentine period.

Seripando, Naples, 24 February 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 59, fol. 18r; Amante, Giulia Gonzaga Contessa di Fondi, 461 (full letter); Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.154 n. (partially reproduced). 43 Seripando to di Sangro, Trent, 19 May 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 48, fol. 60v: “S.S. Illustrissimo piglia gran piacere d’esser alle volte raguagliato delle cose che passano a’ Napoli. Per questo vi priego quanto più posso che me ne scriviate in modo ch’io possa legerli le lettere, et tanto minutamente che non li reste che dubitare”; Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.154 n. (partially reproduced). 44 Seripando refers to close collaborator of Pole, Vincenzo Parpaglia, in his letter to ? (No recipient is given, but Cassese surmises, probably correctly, that Seripando’s correspondent is Galeazzo Florimonte), Salerno, 28 June 1558 (? the date also is uncertain), reproduced in full in Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, 2.240–41: “et ho di più ardentemente desiderato esser con voi, per ragionare sopra questi casi, quel che non può scriverse”. 45 Seripando to di Sangro, Trent, 19 May 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 48, fol. 61r: “Mandovi ancor’una copia di certi avisi mandatemi da Roma perché anchorché come più vicino a’ Roma l’habbiate havuti da altre bande; questi saranno per confermatione”; Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.154 n. (partially reproduced).

260

III.

Camilla Russell

Dangerous Friendships

A remarkable feature of Seripando’s and Gonzaga’s epistolary exchanges is not so much that two members of the nobility exchanged letters, greetings, favours and services, so much as the fact that this contact included a risky religious association. Seripando’s patronage network compromised him deeply. For example, in late 1553, he received a letter from Apollonio Merenda, who two years earlier had abjured in Rome and had been forced to wear the garb of a convicted heretic (he later left Italy for Calvinist Switzerland, in 1557). He wrote to Seripando, who had just been nominated to the archbishopric of Salerno, and whom he knew personally, along with a number of mutual friends, including Giulia Gonzaga (it was in Merenda’s trial that Gonzaga was named for the first time to the Inquisition).46 In his letter, Merenda asked for Seripando’s assistance in restoring to him his benefices, now that he had been absolved by the Inquisition.47 His ecclesiastical offices and income were never reinstated, but it is clear from the hopeful tone of his letter that a heterodox figure such as Merenda saw in Seripando a potential supporter of his cause. This was the case for another of his friends, Donato Antonio Altomare (also “amico et servitore” of donna Giulia48), who was called to appear before the Tribunal in Rome: Seripando secretly interceded on his behalf to halt the progress of a possible trial.49 Giulia Gonzaga acknowledged Seripando’s role. Her first dealings with him that we have in letterform were in her capacity as patron of spirituali interests, especially their writings. In her letter of congratulations to Seripando on his elevation to the cardinalate, she wrote: “I turned to thank God because your election came from him alone, and I begin to hope that you will remember your own, and thus, you will be granted long life and health so that you can see the fulfilment of that promise that you already made to me.”50 The “promise” mentioned in Gonzaga’s letter concerned the publication of Reginald Pole’s writings.51 Pole was one of Seripando’s most admired contemporaries: he saw in the English Cardinal a pivotal figure, who believed in sola fide (and hence drew the support of spirituali like Gonzaga and Carnesecchi), but who also was committed to Church reform from within, in its “head and members”, rather 46 47 48 49 50

Russell, Giulia Gonzaga, 116. Apollonio Merenda to Seripando, Rome, 17 December 1553, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 58, fol. 38r. I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 1.60 n. 9. Jedin, Papal Legate, 439–40. Gonzaga to Seripando, Naples, 28 February 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 59, fol. 20r: “son volta a ringraciar Dio poichè da lui solo è venuta la sua elecione et comincio a sperare ch’el se vorà ricordar de li soi et perciò li concederà longa vita et sanità acciò che veda adimpleta quella promessa che già mi fece”; Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.154 n.; Amante, Giulia Gonzaga Contessa di Fondi, 462 (both partially reproduced). 51 Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.154 n.

Girolamo Seripando, Giulia Gonzaga, and the Spirituali in Tridentine Italy

261

than through schism. He especially admired Pole for his role in steering England back to the Catholic Church under Mary I.52 As evidence of this admiration, when Seripando was entrusted with the task of establishing a new Vatican printing press, he chose Pole’s writings – De concilio and Reformatio Angliae – as the first to be published by the press. This is what Gonzaga wanted. Carnesecchi wrote to her about Seripando’s plans, which, due to his age and infirmity, were to be delegated to Egidio Foscarari, successor to Giovanni Morone as Bishop of Modena, and closely linked to the spirituali.53 Carnesecchi wrote, partially in cipher, of how he begged Foscarari, along with his patron Morone to apprehend “the pious and holy intention of 75 [Seripando] and the ardent desire that oo [donna Giulia] has to see this realised one way or another”.54 He wrote shortly afterwards: “Concerning the 70 [books] of L [Cardinal Pole …] Your Ladyship can be assured that I will not fail to expend every effort to satisfy your pious and holy desire”, adding, “I remain moved by your zeal.”55 Seripando himself kept Gonzaga updated about the obstacles he faced from opponents of the publications, news which she in turn relayed to Carnesecchi, who replied: “Regarding the difficulty that you say you are finding in bringing to perfection [i. e., conclusion] the undertaking begun in relation to L [Pole’s] 70 [books], I am much grieved, more than I am surprised, knowing how much the devil knows and can do when he wishes to disturb a good work like this one.”56 Despite strenuous objections from members of the Tribunal of the Holy Office, Seripando promoted Pole’s writings to them as an effective weapon against the errors of the Protestants. The press finally was established under the stewardship 52 Modern biographies of Pole include, Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience; Mayer, Reginald Pole. For his relationship with Seripando, see also Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, 1.86–92. 53 M.M. Fontaine, “For the Good of the City: The Bishop and the Ruling Elite in Tridentine Modena”, The Sixteenth Century Journal 28/1 (1997) 29–43; L. Felici, “Al crocevia della riforma: Egidio Foscarari nella terza fase del Tridentino”, in M. Firpo/O. Niccoli (ed.), Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e l’ultima fase del Concilio di Trento (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2010) 79–116. 54 Carnesecchi to Gonzaga, Rome, 19 August 1560, quoted in I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/ 2.838: “la pia et santa intentione di 75 [Seripando] et l’ardente desiderio che ha oo [donna Giulia] di vederla effettuar o per una via or per un’altra.” 55 Carnesecchi to Gonzaga, Rome, 26 August 1560, ACDF, S.O., St. St. (“PC”), R 5 a, fol. 849r: “Delli 70 [libri] di L [cardinale Polo] … Vostra Signoria stia sicura che non mancherò di fare ogni mio sforzo perché si adempia il suo pio et santo desiderio … sono acciò mosso ancor io dal medesimo zelo che è essa”; I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/2.841. See also, B. Nicolini, Studi cinquecenteschi. Ideali e passioni nell’Italia religiosa (2 vol.; Bologna: Tamari, 1968), 1.143. 56 Carnesecchi to Gonzaga, 5 October 1562, quoted in I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/2.949: “Della difficultà che dice trovare in dare perfettione all’impresa comminciata circa li 70 [libri] de L [Pole], mi doglio assai più che non mi maraviglio, sapendo quanto sa et può fare il diavolo quando vuole disturbare una buon’opera come è questa.”

262

Camilla Russell

of Paolo Manuzio, who completed the publications in 1562 under Morone’s direction.57 In choosing Pole for his printing press, Seripando made it clear that Pole’s was an example that he wished to follow, and to set before others. In a famous exchange between Reginald Pole and the head of the Inquisition, Gian Pietro Carafa, when asked about donna Giulia’s suspect religious views and affiliations, it was reported that Pole “also said that he wished to try to win her with courtesy, seeing that the alternative path was not good”. Pole replied that it was better to “win her with courtesy since there is no better way”.58 Seripando followed a similar approach, maintaining regular contact with Giulia and their mutual acquaintances, not necessarily as one who subscribed to their more radical views, but as one who shared a similar religious attitude.59 In doing so, like Pole, he was using courtesy to prevent the spirituali from slipping into being defined as heretics – and along with them, potentially much of the theology of his own Augustinian Order. He wanted to direct them towards the Church, not away from it.60 Such an approach seems to have informed his role in the trial of Gonzaga’s close friend, Pietro Carnesecchi, when, in 1561, Seripando was appointed to oversee the one-time papal notary’s trial. Identified as one of Carnesecchi’s “friends and lords” at the latter’s final heresy proceedings in 1567,61 the two clearly knew each other well. Even while Carnesecchi’s earlier 1561 trial was still being heard, they were in close contact: regarding an important letter that the Pope had sent to Gonzaga at that time, Carnesecchi observed ruefully that, “I would not have known anything had Seripando not shown me a copy”.62 In addition, in June 1560, Carnesecchi wrote to Gonzaga about Seripando, who was 57 I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/1.vii. 58 Cosimo Gheri to Ludovico Beccadelli, 29 April 1553, quoted in L. Beccadelli, Monumenti di varia letteratura tratti dai manoscritti di Monsignor Lodovico Beccadelli arcivescovo di Ragusa, G.B. Morandi (ed.) (2 vol. in 3; Bologna: Stampe di S. Tommaso d’Aquino, 1797–1804; repr. Farnborough: Gregg, 1967), 1.351: “[Pole] disse anco di volere provare di guadagnarla con cortesia, vedendo che altra via non ci era bona.” Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, 1.77–8, highlights the risk of simplistically observing in this dynamic, as Jedin does, a dominant male role of guidance and a passive female role of religious discipleship. For the gender implications associated with spiritual guidance (male) and inspiration (female) in this period, see A. Prosperi, “Dalle ‘divine madri’ ai ‘padri spirituali’”, in E. Schulte van Kessel (ed.), Donne e uomini nella cultura spirituale (The Hague: Netherlands Government Publishing Office, 1986) 77–103. 59 Prosperi, “Evangelismo di Seripando?”, 48–9 identifies Seripando’s moderation as constituting an increasingly minority position as the sixteenth century wore on. 60 Prosperi ascribes this role to Pole (“Evangelismo di Seripando?”, 47); it is one that can be extended to Seripando as well. 61 I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/3.1346–47. 62 Carnesecchi to Gonzaga, Rome, 5 September 1561, quoted in I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/2.938: “non harei saputo niente se il Seripando non me ne havesse mostrato la copia.”

Girolamo Seripando, Giulia Gonzaga, and the Spirituali in Tridentine Italy

263

in Naples at the time: “Your Ladyship will be showing me a singular grace and favour – on the occasion of him coming to visit you – by sending him my most affectionate greetings, reassuring him that I love him.”63 The reason for this request was that, as was widely anticipated, in late 1560, Seripando was appointed to the Tribunal of the Inquisition, issuing in a new phase after the difficult years of Gian Pietro Carafa, first as Grand Inquisitor, and then as Paul IV. After some initial scepticism about Seripando’s willingness to help him,64 Carnesecchi remarked (again, partially in cipher): “75 [Seripando] brings much good to the cause of ++ [Carnesecchi].”65 Indeed, on 4 June 1561 Carnesecchi was granted a full pardon from his charges.66 For his part, Seripando wrote a guarded letter of congratulations: “I remind you that it is not enough to be innocent of a given crime, but it is necessary to use every caution in not becoming suspected of it.”67 What happened next must have been the result of a series of misunderstandings (or retrospective re-writes on the part of Seripando). After securing his absolution, Carnesecchi set out to visit Giulia Gonzaga in Naples for the first time in fifteen years.68 He was to stay at Seripando’s old monastery, San Giovanni di Carbonara, and in early October 1562 donna Giulia forwarded Seripando’s letter offering him to take his actual rooms there.69 Seripando had written to di Sangro, too, that he was expecting Carnesecchi to arrive shortly in his old monastery as “hospite mio”. Nevertheless, he appeared to want to avoid receiving any letters from Carnesecchi directly, possibly out of caution, advising that it was sufficient for him to receive updates from di Sangro instead.70 The monks of San Giovanni, however, refused hospitality to the Florentine at their 63 Carnesecchi to Gonzaga, Rome, 17 June 1660, quoted in I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2.2/ 820: “vostra Signoria mi farà singular gratia et favore – occorrendo che egli venga a visitarla – a farli le mie affettuose raccommandationi, faccendoli fede ch’io l’amo.” 64 For example, Carnesecchi to Gonzaga, Rome, 24 July 1560, quoted in I processi, Firpo/ Marcatto (ed.), 1.lxii. 65 Carnesecchi to Gonzaga, 23 January 1561, ACDF, S.O., St. St. (“PC”) R 5 a, fol. 942v; “75 [Seripando] si porta molto bene nella causa di + + [Carnesecchi]”; the rest of the phrase is interesting too: “et promette di portarsi da cavalliero in difesa della verità et della giustizia;” I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/2.920. 66 The sentence is reproduced in I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 1.548–9. 67 Seripando to Carnesecchi, Trent, 4 August 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 48, fol. 57r: “vi ricordo che non basta essere innocente di qual si voglia delitto, ma bisogna usar ogni cautela di non divernirne sospetto,” also quoted in Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, 1.102. 68 See I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/1.vi; Russell, Giulia Gonzaga, 182–4. 69 See Carnesecchi’s letter to Gonzaga, Rome, 5 October 1562, I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/ 2.949. 70 Seripando to di Sangro, Trent, 13 October 1561, in Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, 1.102: “l’Hospite vostro et mio harà detto se gionto tante cose di nuovo che io aspetto che V.S. me ne faccia qualche parte, et sinche egli stara a Napoli o in Paese a me non sara bisogno scrivervi cosa nuova perch’io so quanto sarà con questo mezo ben avvisato.”

264

Camilla Russell

monastery, prompting an embarrassing situation for Seripando, and criticism from Carnesecchi. He wrote archly that he doubted that Seripando’s invitation had been genuine because, he is “a man who is very susceptible to formalities, although frivolous and light ones”.71 Seripando felt compelled to defend himself in a letter to Giulia Gonzaga and assert his innocence in the affair; he wrote of his regret at “having trusted such wicked and evil [terms crossed out] people, with whom I will take care not to have further dealings”.72 Whatever the case may have been (including Seripando exaggerating to donna Giulia his outrage), Carnesecchi eventually was given hospitality by Gonzaga. At his 1567 trial, Carnesecchi maintained the view that he expressed in his letter on the subject (also perhaps to avoid implicating Seripando in the original invitation): “Seripando in effect had not really given them orders [the monks]; I cannot imagine what else happened except that Seripando feared that he might be criticised for having hosted one who had been tried by the Inquisition as recently as I had been.”73 Seripando’s career, and the traces of his correspondence that he left behind, suggest that he consciously steered a middle path, by distancing himself from those who saw the spirituali as heretics (such as Carafa), and equally avoiding those among the spirituali who were Nicodemites (secretly rejecting the ecclesia while outwardly fulfilling its ritual obligations, such as Valdés, with whom Seripando was not close74). But he also was close to some spirituali, risking his career and reputation to associate with them, apparently identifying in them a valid, even necessary, element in a Church in need of spiritual and reforming zeal, which was better kept inside, not outside, its boundaries.75 His letters with them, furthermore, point to a compelling religious milieu that sought to influence the

71 Carnesecchi to Gonzaga, Rome, 19 October 1561, ACDF, S.O., St. St. (“PC”), R 5 a, 1000r–v: “un huomo molto suggetto ai rispetti, ancorché frivoli et leggeri”; I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/2.940. 72 Seripando to Gonzaga, Trent, 27 October 1561, in Cassese, Girolamo Seripando (and discussed in the same), 1.102–3: “di haver confidato di così trista et scelerata [crossed out] fatta gente, con la quale mi guaderò intricarmi più”. 73 Deposition of Carnesecchi, 15 January 1567, I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/2.940: “Il Seripanto in effetto non l’havesse commandato a loro davero, non mi so imaginare che fussino altri se non che il Seripanto dubitasse d’essere ripreso d’havere allogiato un che fusse stato inquisito così di fresco come ero io”; Russell, Giulia Gonzaga, 182. 74 Carnesecchi testified to this in his trial, almost certainly accurately: I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/2.829. 75 Seripando’s methods in some ways prefigured the post-Tridentine Church’s shift to convincere not just vincere (A. Prosperi, Tribunali della coscienza. Inquisitori, confessori, missionari [Einaudi: Turin, 1996], xv and 543), as it moved to a more confident stance, with questions about faith, grace and salvation that had so vexed Seripando’s generation finally settled.

Girolamo Seripando, Giulia Gonzaga, and the Spirituali in Tridentine Italy

265

Church, and attempt to shape the direction that it would take, including at the heart of that century’s most important Council.

IV.

Reform and Letters at the Council of Trent

When Giulia Gonzaga’s second cousin, Ercole Gonzaga, was appointed legate and president of the third and final sitting of the Council of Trent, it was Seripando who sent word of the news to Gonzaga and her friends at Naples.76 When Seripando himself was elevated to the cardinalate a few days later, this time he wrote personally to donna Giulia, and she replied shortly after with her congratulations.77 In his correspondence with Gonzaga on the subject, Carnesecchi was cool in his appraisal of the appointment, deeming it undesirable for him, “not being expedient either to his soul or his body”, referring presumably to his own view of the inevitable compromises that such an office demanded.78 A little more than a week after the appointment, Seripando was made Cardinal legate to the Council of Trent, along with Ercole Gonzaga and Luigi Simonetta, as well as Stanislaus Hosius and Markus Sittich von Hohenems. Seripando’s closest ally at the Council was his old patron, Cardinal Gonzaga, whom he praised variously as “a true Lombard gentleman” and “a rare mirror of virtue”.79 The patrician and worldly Gonzaga depended heavily on Seripando’s theological expertise, and the two worked closely together. Although letters were exchanged between Cardinal Gonzaga and donna Giulia during this period, they mainly concerned family matters, and it was Seripando who passed along in76 Gonzaga to Seripando, Naples, 24 February 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 59, fol. 8r: “Ringratio V. Reverendissima de la bona nova che me diede per la litera del Signor Placito de la legatione di Monsignor Illustrissimo di Mantua”; Amante, Giulia Gonzaga Contessa di Fondi, 461 (full letter); Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.154 n. (partially reproduced). 77 Gonzaga to Seripando, 28 February 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 59, fol. 20r; Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.154 n.; Amante, Giulia Gonzaga Contessa di Fondi, 462 (both partially reproduced). 78 Carnesecchi to Gonzaga, Rome, 19 July 1560, quoted in I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/ 2.825: “non essendo espediente né all’anima né al corpo”. He scoffed, however, at the attempts of Seripando’s detractors to prevent his elevation on the grounds that his previously close relationship with the Carafa family might lead him to take revenge on those who discredited the family after the death of the much-maligned Paul IV. See I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/2.838. Indeed, Carnesecchi used a letter by Gonzaga – in which she defends Seripando against the charge of being pro-Carafa – to “farle [her defence] penetrare all’orechie del papa et togliere via ogni scrupolo che Sua Santità havesse potuto havere circa la promotione di esso Seripando al cardinalato”. See I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/2.866. See also, Jedin, Papal Legate, 565. 79 Seripando to di Sangro, Trent, 18 August 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 51, fol. 16r: “un vero gentiluomo lombardo”; Seripando to di Sangro, 1 September 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 48, fol. 167v; “un raro specchio di virtù”; both in Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.155 n. (partially reproduced).

266

Camilla Russell

formation to the Neapolitan circle concerning the Council, which in turn relayed news from Naples to Cardinal Gonzaga.80 Indeed, he seemed to act in a quasidiplomatic capacity between the two: in one letter to Giulia, he described how Ercole was “speaking especially of the great esteem the Cardinal of Mantua has for her”.81 There were limits to how much Seripando was prepared to write to donna Giulia, however: in his first letter to her from Trent, on 19 June 1561, he explained how Cardinal Gonzaga “keeps me occupied a great deal every day with [so many] worthy services that I would never be able to recount them”.82 Further, he explained that he had not written earlier, in order “not to bore you and also because there is nothing to relay so far that is worthy of you”.83 Nevertheless, the following month, on 27 July, he provided her with a very detailed account of the Council – including the latest arrivals and the important figures there – evidence that, at least in part, the busy legate fulfilled his task of keeping Gonzaga informed.84 It was in his first letter, too, that Seripando revealed a frank and emotional response to the difficulties he was experiencing at the Council, thus infusing the letter with an intimate tone of friendship.85 He wrote that: “this afflicted world needs to be healed by some means, which I maintain must come from heaven, since human works cannot alleviate the effects of what they have done already.”86 This acknowledgment of the limitations of human effort would seem to be an 80 The relationship between donna Giulia and her second-cousin was not always easy. In the previous decade, the Cardinal had sought from donna Giulia a clarification on her theological views, to which request she defended her orthodoxy vehemently (Russell, Giulia Gonzaga, 116–17). See: Giulia Gonzaga to Ercole Gonzaga, Mantua, 18 February 1553, Archivio di Stato, Archivio Gonzaga, busta 1923, fol. 708r, and partly reproduced in D. Marcatto (ed.), Apologia del Beneficio di Christo e altri scritti inediti (Florence: L.S. Olschki, 1996), 8. 81 Seripando to Gonzaga, Trent, 28 July 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 59, fol. 22r: “parlando specialmente della grande stima in cui l’ha il Cardinale di Mantova”; Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.154 n. (partially reproduced). 82 Seripando to Gonzaga, Trent, 19 June 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 58, fol. 156v: (the full phrase is,) “questo signore Illustrissimo Cardinal di Mantua me liga tanto ogni giorno con officii amorevoli ch’io non basterò mai a’ racontarli”; Paladino, Giulia Gonzaga e il movimento valdesiano, 118 (full letter). 83 Seripando to Gonzaga, 19 June 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 58, fol. 156r: “per non darli tedio, et per non haver qui cosa degna di lei sin adesso”; Paladino, Giulia Gonzaga e il movimento valdesiano, 118 (full letter). 84 Seripando to Gonzaga, 28 July 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 59, fol. 22r; Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.154 n.; Paladino, Giulia Gonzaga e il movimento valdesiano, 119 (both partially reproduced). 85 For the intimate style of the unpublished letter compared with its more self-consciously literary published counterpart, see Zarri, Per Lettera, xviii. 86 Seripando to Gonzaga, 19 June 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 58, fol. 156rv: “questo afflitto mondo sia per sustenersi con qualche riparo, del qual gli affermo che bisogna bene che venghi dal cielo, perché l’opere humane non possono altrimente riuscire di quel che sin qui han fatto”; Paladino, Giulia Gonzaga e il movimento valdesiano, 118 (full letter).

Girolamo Seripando, Giulia Gonzaga, and the Spirituali in Tridentine Italy

267

allusion to the doctrine that was so dear to donna Giulia – sola fide – with its echoes from Seripando’s own Augustinian tradition. Seripando’s reference in this particular case to the supremacy of faith over good works perhaps was an indication that he wished to show Gonzaga and their friends that he sympathised with this aspect of their doctrinal position. Six months later, Seripando’s gloomy mood had not lifted: in early 1562, and overwhelmed by his workload and several brewing controversies, he wrote to di Sangro that “the burden that I find on my shoulders gives me no time”.87 Donna Giulia had troubles of her own, in the form of ill health, about which Seripando received regular updates. Again, the intimacy of their friendship is clear in his responses. On one such occasion he wrote to Placido di Sangro after learning that donna Giulia was sick with fever, advising that she should: leave behind the others at the monastery, and she who has been there for such a long time should take a little air. If she does not do so, I promise you that the first thing that will be decreed here [at the Council] will be that the Lady and other women cannot stay in monasteries if they do not wear the nun’s habit.88

Whether or not in direct response to Seripando’s admonition, Gonzaga temporarily vacated her convent rooms for healthier and more comfortable accommodation.89 His humorous threat – that he would steer the course of the Council with the aim of forcing Gonzaga out of her monastery for her health – had some foundation: a decree of enclosure for all religious women was passed, although it was not universally enforced.90 Seripando’s joke stands as a potent reminder of the gendered nature of their roles: the more powerful Gonzaga, in terms of social rank, was subject to the rulings of a Council that she sought to influence indirectly through her contact with Seripando; but she was powerless to institute change in the way that Seripando or her own male relative were able to do. Instead, Gonzaga was dependent on the assistance of men to carry out her wishes; her social position afforded her a great deal of that assistance, but her power remained indirect, and mediated by others. This made letters potentially more important in the life of 87 Seripando to di Sangro, 12 January 1562, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 48, fol. 58r: “il peso che mi ritrovo su le spalle non mi dà tempo”. 88 Seripando to di Sangro, 18 August 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 51, fol. 16r: “lascia star le altre alli Monasterii, et lei che ci è stata tanto tempo pigli un poco d’aere. Se no’l farà, vi prometto che la prima cosa che si decreterà qui sarà che le Signore et altre donne non possono stare ne i Monasterii se non si vestono moniche”; Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, 1.101; Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.155 n. (both partially reproduced). 89 For her move from the convent on this occasion, see Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.155 n. and Amante, 125. 90 C. Russell, “Convent Culture in Early Modern Italy: Laywomen and Religious Subversiveness in a Neapolitan Convent”, in M. Cassidy-Welch/P. Sherlock (ed.), Practices of Gender in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008) 57–76, on pp. 61–2.

268

Camilla Russell

women than they were for men.91 Men could act, but women needed to direct their interests from the more retired environment of the home or the convent. This is why the correspondence of donna Giulia can tell us so much about her religious milieu, since it was through this method that she was most effective. Donna Giulia’s gender also could function to her advantage. Throughout this period, no Italian women of her rank were executed for heresy, whereas a number of men from her religious circle were endangered, imprisoned, tortured and killed for their religious views. This gave Gonzaga a certain liberty and immunity from the consequences of holding heterodox views, which she exploited, for example, as custodian of Valdés’s writings.92 Carnesecchi, too, used Gonzaga’s gender to both of their advantage. In his 1567 trial, he was interrogated about an argument that had taken place in 1561 between Giulia and her Neapolitan friend, Isabella Bonifacio. Carnesecchi responded: “I cannot remember what the cause was, but it must have been for some light and feminine reason.”93 Although it is unclear what the disagreement was about, it is interesting that Carnesecchi characterised it as “feminine”, and by implication unimportant. In the context of the inquisitorial trial, however, it shows us something else: Isabella Bonifacio was a member of the Valdesian circle in Naples and shared donna Giulia’s religious orientation; the fact that Carnesecchi’s inquisitors wanted to know about the disagreement between the two friends, and that Carnesecchi sought to make light of it, suggests that the two women’s interaction may not have been as harmless as it seemed. As the Tribunal rightly suspected, however, Gonzaga’s religious connections were formidable, reaching into the Council itself, where Seripando kept their friends in Naples informed of developments there. He especially wrote about those friends and associates present who supported an agenda of reform (which Jedin named the “Humanist reform movement” or “Reforming party”94), and who had affinities (past and present) with the spirituali.95 Dominated by the Spanish and French delegates, plus a minority of Italians, they were supported by legates Gonzaga and Seripando. The so-called curial party – constituting the majority of Italians at the Council, and led by Cardinal legate Simonetta – em91 Russell, “Women, Letters, and Heresy”, 75–93. 92 Russell, Giulia Gonzaga, esp. 96–8. 93 Deposition of Carnesecchi, I processi, Firpo/Marcatto (ed.), 2/2.940: (the full statement on this point was,) “l’amutinamento della signora Isabella [“di Bonifacia”] con donna Giulia … non mi posso ricordare da quello che fusse causato, ma dovette essere per cause leggere et donneseche.” It is no surprise that the Tribunal’s suspicions were aroused, given that Isabella’s relative, Giovanni Bernardino Bonifacio, was considered a notorious heretic; he left Italy for Basel in 1557: D. Caccamo, “Bonifacio, Giovanni Bernardino”, Dizionario biografico degli italiani 12 (1970) 197–201. 94 Jedin, Papal Legate, 581; Jedin, Council of Trent, 2.323. 95 Russell, “Religious Reforming Currents”, 466, 470–73.

Girolamo Seripando, Giulia Gonzaga, and the Spirituali in Tridentine Italy

269

phasised papal authority, and its delegation through the ecclesiastical hierarchy, rather than through the mechanisms of the Council. Despite these divisions appearing less sharply defined in recent scholarship, the acrimony and tension that characterised much of the proceedings can be traced roughly along them.96 Seripando’s own alignment with the reformist faction was expressed clearly in his comments about the imminent arrival of Neapolitan Tommaso Sanfelice, Bishop of La Cava de’Terrini (south of Rome), who was a vocal proponent of sola fide at the first sitting of the Council:97 “I received a new lease of life from your letter of the second of this month telling me that Monsignor della Cava is to come.”98 He goes on to say that his arrival will go some of the way to restoring that bishop’s “honour” after the disgrace of the previous sitting of the Council, when during the debates on Justification (of which Seripando calls him a “principal author”, representing a view that was the closest to Luther’s at the Council), he was involved in a violent altercation, for which he was censured. The heated fight was the result of a fellow-delegate accusing him – along with Seripando – of being a Lutheran.99 Seripando closes his comments about the Bishop of La Cava on a note of religious solidarity, describing his scheduled arrival as “the most important thing that I have to say in response to your letter, which was very long, the most important, I say, because it touches on the soul, and on the Republic”.100 Seripando’s allegiance to the reform party – which he openly shared with his Neapolitan network – was discernible also in his concerted work to secure the arrival at Trent of Gonzaga’s friend, Giulio Pavesi, Archbishop of Sorrento. Seripando wrote directly to Giulia Gonzaga of the news of his arrival, and of the attempts by the Neapolitan ecclesiastical hierarchy to prevent his departure. I left Naples, as I said … with the intention of working as much as I could to ensure that, in preparing the Council, the Monsignor of Sorrento would be obliged to come in person.

96 Classic modern studies concerned with the Council include: Jedin, Council of Trent; G. Alberigo, I vescovi italiani al concilio di Trento (1545–1547) (Florence: Sansoni, 1959); P. Prodi/W. Reinhard (ed.), Il Concilio di Trento e il moderno (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996); A. Tallon, Le Concile de Trente (Paris: Cerf, 2000); A. Prosperi, Il Concilio di Trento: una introduzione storica (Turin: Einaudi, 2001); O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council. 97 Jedin, Council of Trent, 2.191. 98 Seripando to di Sangro, 18 August 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 51, fol. 16r: “Mi havete dato la vita con la vostra del ii di questo dicendomi che Monsignor della Cava [Tommaso Sanfelice] senne viene”; Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, 1.101; Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.155 n. (both partially reproduced). See also, Jedin, Council of Trent, 2.190–2. 99 Jedin, Council of Trent, 2.181. 100 Seripando to di Sangro, 18 August 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 51, fol. 16r: “la più importante cosa ch’io ho’ a’ rispondere alla vostra lettera, la quale è stata ben lunga, la più importante dico, perché tocca al anima et alla Republica”; Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, 1.101; Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.155 n. (both partially reproduced).

270

Camilla Russell

Angrily, he continues: Having heard then that … from Naples there were many efforts to prevent his coming, and that they were using much force and many favours to impede his coming, I wanted to demonstrate that I still had some sway, and that Neapolitan strength was not enough to do as much harm at this Council, as there would have been with the absence of such a rare and discreet prelate.101

Clearly, the Neapolitan allegiances that connected Seripando, Gonzaga and their friends, did not extend to all of the ecclesiastical hierarchy in that city: theirs was not solely a political affiliation centred on the Kingdom, but also one founded on religious sensibilities and shared views about ecclesiastical reform. Seripando particularly desired Pavesi’s presence at the Council to bolster the efforts of those who advocated episcopal residence as divine law, a proposal supported by both Seripando and Ercole Gonzaga, but bitterly opposed by the curialists and their fellow-legates. The battle over residence was the fiercest of that sitting of the Council, and in 1562 it threatened to bring proceedings to a violent climax or even to a premature close.102 The effort to enforce residence was controversial because it implicitly placed in question the authority of the Pope, identifying jus divinum as superior to papal directives (as the law stood), enforced through the mechanisms of ecclesiastical and canon law. Indeed, the residence proposal shared some characteristics with the great theological controversy of the age, sola fide: both denied the intermediary role of the Church in attainting salvation, the first through canon law and the second through the sacraments.103 It was no coincidence that many spirituali supported both, and it explains the vehemence with which the curialists fought against it: according to the pro-reform bishop Foscarari, their opponents believed jus divinum to be a “repugnant” position that was “scandalous and fruitless”, and which – in a veiled 101 Seripando to Gonzaga, Trent, 8 December 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 59, fol. 24r: “Io ben partì da Napoli, come dissi … con disegno d’operar quanto potea, che prepandosi il Concilio, Monsignor di Surrento fusse astretto a’ venire come persona … Intendendo poi che … da Napoli si faceano tante contramine, acciò che non venesse, et che s’usavano tante forze et tanti favori per impedir la sua venuta, volsi mostrar di poter anchor io qualche cosa, et che non bastavano le forze Napolitane a far tanto danno a’ questo concilio, quanto sarebbe stato l’assentia d’un così raro et discreto Prelato”; Jedin, Girolamo Seripando, 638–9; Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.147 n. (both full letters). Reporting further in the letter that Pavesi had arrived finally at Trent, he closed his correspondence by sending warm greetings to Gonzaga on Pavesi’s behalf. 102 For the residence debate at the final sitting of the Council, see Jedin, Council of Trent, 4; H. Jedin, Crisis and Closure of the Council of Trent: A Retrospective View from the Second Vatican Council (London: Sheed & Ward, 1967); Jedin, Papal Legate; Alberigo, I vescovi italiani; P. Prodi, Il Cardinale Gabriele Paleotti, 1522–1597 (2 vol.; Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1959, 1967), 1, ch. 5. For more recent discussion of Ercole Gonzaga’s role, and some mention of Seripando’s role, see Murphy, Ruling Peacefully, 232. 103 Russell, “Religious Reforming Currents”, esp. 8–11.

Girolamo Seripando, Giulia Gonzaga, and the Spirituali in Tridentine Italy

271

reference to sola fide – threatened to persuade people on “other matters that were even less pious”.104 Seripando was almost overwhelmed by the bitter conflict over episcopal residence and both his and Gonzaga’s loyalty to the papacy were called into question by their curialist colleagues on account of their support for de jure divinum.105 Already some months earlier, when celebrating the news of the forthcoming arrival of Tommaso Sanfelice, Seripando had written to his Neapolitan friends that he had heard that the Bishop of La Cava would arrive, and that he carried in his breast things to alleviate “the great danger in which we find ourselves”. He added, “but as regards me, I do not think that he can extricate me from travail, and from suspicion, unless he brings something that would remove me from this life”.106 Indeed, both legates died within days of each other in March 1563, before they could witness the residence controversy’s resolution in the closing sessions of the Council, overseen by Giovanni Morone, who earlier had refused the role of legate.107 Morone negotiated a path between the reformers and curialists, with residence failing to be established as divine law, thwarting the hopes of the reform party, but granting them some concessions by closing some loopholes in residence laws and instituting many reforms dear to Seripando’s own agenda, such as the introduction of diocesan seminaries.108 Seripando’s perilous journey through the events of the Tridentine Council, seen from the perspective of his correspondence with his friends in Naples, underlines how porous the city of Trent was, and that involvement in the affairs of the Council extended well beyond those who were present. Giulia Gonzaga and her friends managed to be ‘present’ through the regular updates provided by its legate, Seripando. He in turn, together with his patron Ercole Gonzaga, was able to keep up with news from Naples through their associates located in the city. 104 Egidio Foscarari to Giovanni Morone, Trent, 9 May 1562, quoted in Beccadelli, Monumenti di varia letteratura, Morandi (ed.), 2/3.327–40; see also Russell, “Religious Reforming Currents”, 471–72. 105 Jedin, Crisis and Closure, 50–3. 106 Seripando to di Sangro, 18 August 1561, BNN, cod. xiii, AA 59, fol. 16r: “pericolo grande nel qual ci troviamo. Ma quanto tocca a’ me, non penso che possa cavarme da travaglio, et da sospetto se non porta qualche cosa che mi cava di questa vita.” Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, 1.101; Amabile, Il Santo Officio, 1.155 n. (both partially reproduced). 107 That the final legate to the Council, Giovanni Morone, also was so closely associated with the spirituali, is highly significant. As Dermot Fenlon observed, Pietro Carnesecchi may have been executed as part of a wider effort to damage Pole, Morone and the legacy of the spirituali, but Morone’s appointment as legate to the Council and Pole’s own eventual rehabilitation as celebrated defender of the Catholic faith, indicate that this plan did not succeed altogether, vindicating Seripando’s own labours to protect the spirituali from being branded collectively as heretics. D. Fenlon, “Pietro Carnesecchi and Cardinal Pole: New perspectives”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 56/3 (2005) 529–33. 108 H. Jedin, Crisis and Closure.

272

Camilla Russell

Letters provided the means for this to happen: such practice of course is well known if we consider the state correspondence of popes, secretaries, ambassadors and so forth; more remarkable is the fact that letters provided a woman such as Giulia Gonzaga with access to the Council in surprising ways.

Conclusion The letter, and its power to inform, persuade, and cohere, was an important element of the early modern cultural landscape, and it was a key feature of the Tridentine period, including at the Council itself and for those engaging with it from afar. The correspondence under investigation here, much of which was conducted from the Council between a Cardinal legate and his theologically heterodox friends not in attendance, can reveal a great deal about networks and friendships inside and outside the Council. It points to the fluid boundaries and currents that ran beneath the surface of the Council’s proceedings, and beyond its walls – between gender roles, lay and clergy, social ranks, political affiliations, and family allegiances, all of which might otherwise be obscured from view without the insights that these letters provide. The correspondence also brings into focus the enigmatic figure of Girolamo Seripando. Some scholars have argued that the puzzle of his close ties (and those of others like him) to the heterodox circles of Italy might be solved by taking account of the shared noble and political status of his friends, as well as the humanistic training that informed a common approach to ecclesiastical reform, which were visible in his public roles at Trent and elsewhere.109 Yet, this is not a sufficient explanation for the connections that Seripando maintained at some risk to himself, prior to the Council and during it, with figures among the laity and clergy who were reputed to be theologically unorthodox. A shared spiritual and theological turn of mind, and views held in common on organisational Church reform, underpinned a certain fellowship among Seripando and his friends, and distinguished them from others who did not share these views, and indeed on occasion worked against them, often to dramatic effect at Trent and beyond. With these heterodox figures of the Italian elite, Seripando maintained a strong fellowship, while grappling with some of the most pressing theological points and reform issues of the day at the Tridentine Council. Here, and elsewhere, he enlisted a common intellectual heritage and religious outlook to do something bold: he attempted to bring his curialist opponents towards a spiritual 109 W.V. Hudon, Marcello Cervini and Ecclesiastical Government in Tridentine Italy (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1992), esp. 168–9.

Girolamo Seripando, Giulia Gonzaga, and the Spirituali in Tridentine Italy

273

and organisational reformation of the Church, and to lead those suspected heretics and rebels who had remained within the Church and whom he still frequented, to a single, united ecclesia once more.110 As the one-time General of the Augustinian Order that already had lost one of its own – Luther – to the first serious schism in Western Christendom, Seripando conducted his career as one who sensed that, with each step taken by the Church, its very future was at stake. That Seripando attempted to shape its direction can be traced in his actions on the great stages of the Tridentine Church, as head of the Inquisition and legate to the Council of Trent. But it is in the letters that he exchanged with Giulia Gonzaga and their associates from these stages that we may discern something else at play: his concerted efforts to remain close to, and thereby hope to influence still, that enigmatic force for renewal and reform, the spirituali.

Bibliography Archival sources Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale (BNN), cod. xiii. Vatican City, Archive of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (ACDF), Sanctum Officium, Stanza Storica.

Printed and edited sources Apologia del Beneficio di Christo e altri scritti inediti, D. Marcatto (ed.) (Florence: L. S. Olschki, 1996). Beccadelli, L., Monumenti di varia letteratura tratti dai manoscritti di Monsignor Lodovico Beccadelli arcivescovo di Ragusa, G.B. Morandi (ed.) (2 vol. in 3; Bologna: Stampe di S. Tommaso d’Aquino, 1797–1804; repr. Farnborough: Gregg, 1967). I processi inquisitoriali di Pietro Carnesecchi (1557–1567). Edizione critica, M. Firpo/D. Marcatto (ed.) (2 vol.; vol. 2 in 3 parts; Vatican City: Archivio segreto vaticano, 1998– 2000).

Secondary sources Alberigo, G., “Girolamo Seripando”, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation 4 (1996) 82–3. Alberigo, G., I vescovi italiani al concilio di Trento (1545–1547) (Florence: Sansoni, 1959). Amabile, L., Il Santo Officio della Inquisizione in Napoli: Narrazione con molti documenti inediti (2 vol.; Città di Castello: S. Lapi, 1892; repr. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino, 1987). 110 See Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, 1.94.

274

Camilla Russell

Amante, B., Giulia Gonzaga Contessa di Fondi e il movimento religioso femminile nel secolo XVI (Bologna: N. Zanichelli, 1896). Bireley, R., The Refashioning of Catholicism, 1450–1700 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999). Bowd, S.D., Reform before the Reformation: Vincenzo Querini and the Religious Renaissance in Italy (Leiden: Brill, 2002). Brundin, A./Treherne, M. (ed.), Forms of Faith in Sixteenth-Century Italy (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009). Brundin, A., Vittoria Colonna and the Spiritual Poetics of the Italian Reformation (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008). Caccamo, D., “Bonifacio, Giovanni Bernardino”, Dizionario biografico degli italiani 12 (1970) 197–201. Campbell, J.D./Larsen, A. (ed.), Early Modern Women and Transnational Communities of Letters (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009). Cassese, M., Girolamo Seripando e i vescovi meridionali, 1535–1563 (2 vol.; Naples: Editoriale scientifica, 2002). Cestaro, A. (ed.), Geronimo Seripando e la Chiesa del suo tempo nel V. centenario della nascita: Atti del Convegno di Salerno, 14–16 ottobre 1994 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1997). Couchman, J./Crabb, A. (ed.), Women’s Letters across Europe, 1400–1700: Form and Persuasion (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004). Croce, B., Storia dell’eta’ barocca in Italia (Bari: Laterza, 1993). Dall’Olio, G., “Gonzaga, Giuilia”, Dizionario biografico degli italiani 57 (2001) 783–7. Delph, R.K./Fontaine, M.M./Martin, J.J. (ed.), Heresy, Culture and Religion in Early Modern Italy: Context and Contestation (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2006). Ditchfield, S., “Catholic Reformation and Renewal”, in P. Marshall (ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of the Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) 152–85. Felici, L., “Al crocevia della riforma: Egidio Foscarari nella terza fase del Tridentino”, in M. Firpo/O. Niccoli (ed.), Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e l’ultima fase del Concilio di Trento (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2010) 79–116. Fenlon, D., Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy: Cardinal Pole and the Counter Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972). Fenlon, D., “Pietro Carnesecchi and Cardinal Pole: New Perspectives”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 56/3 (2005) 529–33. Firpo, M., “Historiographical Introduction”, in J. Tedeschi (ed.), The Italian Reformation of the Sixteenth Century and the Diffusion of Renaissance Culture: A Bibliography of the Secondary Literature, ca. 1750–1997 (Modena: F.C. Panini/Ferrara: ISR, 2000) xviii–xlix. Firpo, M., Riforma protestante ed eresie nell’ Italia del cinquecento (Rome: Laterza, 1993). Firpo, M., Tra “alumbrados” e “spirituali”. Studi su Juan de Valdes e il valdesianesimo nella crisi religiosa del Cinquecento italiano (Florence: L.S. Olschki, 1990). Firpo, M., Valdesiani e spirituali: Studi sul Cinquecento religioso italiano (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2013). Fontaine, M.M., “For the Good of the City: The Bishop and the Ruling Elite in Tridentine Modena”, The Sixteenth Century Journal 28/1 (1997) 29–43. Fragnito, G., “Gli ‘spirituali’ e la fuga di Bernardino Ochino”, Rivista Storica Italiana 84 (1972) 778–813.

Girolamo Seripando, Giulia Gonzaga, and the Spirituali in Tridentine Italy

275

Furey, C.M., Erasmus, Contarini, and the Religious Republic of Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Gleason, E., “On the Nature of Sixteenth Century Evangelism: Scholarship 1953–1978”, The Sixteenth Century Journal 9 (1978) 3–25. Goldsmith, E.C. (ed.), Writing the Female Voice: Essays on Epistolary Literature (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1989). Hudon, W.V., Marcello Cervini and Ecclesiastical Government in Tridentine Italy (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1992). Hudon, W.V., “Religion and Society in Early Modern Italy: Old Questions, New Insights”, The American Historical Review 101 (1996) 783–804. Jacobson Schutte, A., “Periodization of Sixteenth-Century Italian Religious History: The Post-Cantimori Paradigm Shift”, Journal of Modern History 61/2 (1989) 269–84. Jedin, H., Crisis and Closure of the Council of Trent: A Retrospective View from the Second Vatican Council (London: Sheed & Ward, 1967). Jedin, H., Girolamo Seripando: sein Leben und Denken im Geisteskampf des 16. Jahrhunderts (Würzburg: Augustinus, 1984). Jedin, H., Papal Legate at the Council of Trent: Cardinal Seripando (London: Herder, 1947). Jung, E.M., “On the Nature of Evangelism in Sixteenth-Century Italy”, Journal of the History of Ideas 14 (1953) 511–27. Marranzini, A., Dibattito Lutero Seripando su “Giustizia e libertà del cristiano” (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1981). Mayer, T.F., Reginald Pole: Prince and Prophet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Murphy, P.V., “Between ‘Spirituali’ and ‘Intransigenti’: Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga and Patrician Reform in Sixteenth-Century Italy”, Catholic Historical Review 88/3 (2002) 446–69. Murphy, P.V., Ruling Peacefully: Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga and Patrician Reform in Sixteenth-Century Italy (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 2007). Najemy, J.M., Between Friends: Discourses of Power and Desire in the Macchiavelli-Vettori Letters of 1513–1515 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993). Nicolini, B., Studi cinquecenteschi. Ideali e passioni nell’Italia religiosa (2 vol.; Bologna: Tamari, 1968). O’Malley, J.W., Trent and All That: Renaming Catholicism in the Early Modern Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000). O’Malley, J.W., Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013). Pagano, S., Il Processo di Endimio Calandra e L’Inquisizioine a Mantova nel 1567–1568 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1991). Paladino, G., Giulia Gonzaga e il movimento valdesiano (Naples: F. Sangiovanni, 1909). Peyronel Rambaldi, S., Una gentildonna irrequieta: Giulia Gonzaga fra reti familiari e relazioni eterodosse (Rome: Viella, 2012). Pirillo, D., “The Italian Reformation”, Oxford Bibliographies in Renaissance and Reformation, http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195399301/ obo-9780195399301–0285.xml (accessed 4 May 2015). Prodi, P., Il Cardinale Gabriele Paleotti, 1522–1597 (2 vol.; Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1959 and 1967).

276

Camilla Russell

Prodi, P./Reinhard, W. (ed.), Il Concilio di Trento e il moderno (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996). Prosperi, A., “Dalle ‘divine madri’ ai ‘padri spirituali’”, in E. Schulte van Kessel (ed.), Donne e uomini nella cultura spirituale (The Hague: Netherlands Government Publishing Office, 1986) 77–103. Prosperi, A., “Evangelismo di Seripando?”, in A. Cestaro (ed.), Geronimo Seripando e la Chiesa del suo tempo nel 5. centenario della nascita: Atti del Convegno di Salerno, 14–16 ottobre 1994 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1997) 33–50. Prosperi, A., Il Concilio di Trento: una introduzione storica (Turin: Einaudi, 2001). Prosperi, A., Tra evangelismo e controriforma: G. M. Giberti (1495–1543) (Rome: Ed. scientifiche italiane, 1969). Prosperi, A., Tribunali della coscienza. Inquisitori, confessori, missionari (Einaudi: Turin, 1996). Russell, C., “Convent Culture in Early Modern Italy: Laywomen and Religious Subversiveness in a Neapolitan Convent”, in M. Cassidy-Welch/P. Sherlock (ed.), Practices of Gender in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008) 57–76. Russell, C., Giulia Gonzaga and the Religious Controversies of Sixteenth-Century Italy (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006). Russell, C., “Religious Reforming Currents in Sixteenth-Century Italy: The Spirituali and the Tridentine Debates over Church Reform”, Journal of Religious History 38/4 (2014) 457–75. Russell, C., “Women, Letters, and Heresy in Sixteenth-Century Italy: Giulia Gonzaga’s Heterodox Epistolary Network”, in J.D. Campbell/A. Larsen (ed.), Early Modern Women and Transnational Communities of Letters (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009) 75–93. Seidel-Menchi, S., Erasmo in Italia, 1520–1580 (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1987). Simoncelli, P., Evangelismo italiano del Cinquecento: Questione religiosa e nicodemismo politico (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per l’età moderna e contemporanea, 1979). Tallon, A., Le Concile de Trente (Paris: Cerf, 2000). Weber, A., “‘Dear Daughter’: Reform and Persuasion in St Teresa’s Letters to her Prioress”, in J. Couchman/A. Crabb (ed.), Women’s Letters across Europe, 1400–1700: Form and Persuasion (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004) 241–61. Zarri, G. (ed.), Per Lettera: La scrittura epistolare femminile tra archivio e tipografia secoli xv–xvii (Rome: Viella, 1999).

Emidio Campi

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

Introduction To understand the Council of Trent from a historical perspective requires knowledge not only of the decrees and the debates from which they emerged, but also of the contemporary reactions which they aroused among those Christians who would not accept these texts or the authority of those who promulgated them. From the Holy Roman Empire to the Reformed cities of the Swiss Confederation, from Elizabethan England to the France of Gaspard de Coligny and the Huguenots, Protestants felt compelled to voice their opinion concerning the event as well as to debate the decrees enacted by the Tridentine assembly. Many intriguing examples of their tenacious criticism of the Council’s decrees could be cited, including sermons, pastoral and polemic writings.1 Of incomparable influence on the development of religious identities and confessional relations in the Early Modern Era are the reactions of the ‘two Martins’ of Lutheranism, Martin Luther and Martin Chemnitz, as well as those of the two Fathers of 1 Besides Luther, Chemnitz, Bullinger, and Calvin, see e. g.: Philipp Melanchthon, Acta Concilii Tridentini, Anno M.D.XLVI celebrati, Francisco de Enzinas (ed.) ([Basel]: [Johannes Oporinus], 1546); Stuttgart: Hauptstaatsarchiv: Johannes Brenz, Gutachten zur Konzilsteilnahme, 1551; Martin Bucer, Gutachten der Straßburger Theologen zur Rekusation des Trienter Konzils, in Schriften zur Reichsreligionspolitik der Jahre 1545/1546, S. Haaf/A. de Lange (ed.) (Deutsche Schriften 15; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2011); Bucer, De Concilio et legitime iudicandis controversiis religionis … Confutatio, in Schriften zur Reichsreligionspolitik der Jahre 1545/1546; Bucer, Zwei Decret des Trientischen Concili, in Schriften zur Reichsreligionspolitik der Jahre 1545/1546; Theodor Bibliander, Amplior consideratio decreti synodalis Tridentini ([Basel]: [Johannes Oporinus], 1551); Bibliander, Concilium sacrosanctum Domini nostri Jesu Christi ([Basel]: [Oporinus], 1552); Pier Paolo Vergerio, Concilium Tridentinum fugiendum esse omnibus Pijs (s.l.: s.n., 1551); see also the German edition: Vergerio, Concilium zuo Trient: das daβ allen Glöubigen zuo fliehen und zuo vermyden sye, Heinrich Bullinger (trans.) (s.l.: s.n., 1551). For Anglican reactions, see G.L. White, Anglican Reactions to the Council of Trent in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University; Nashville, TN, 1975); for French reactions, see Charles Dumoulin, Conseil sur le fait du Concile de Trente (Lyon: s.n., 1564).

278

Emidio Campi

Reformed Protestantism, Heinrich Bullinger and John Calvin. Consequently, this essay will focus on the four magisterial reformers, although other viewpoints will also be outlined briefly. Their writings are classic documents and have not been ignored by experts on the historiography of Trent. During the 1960s and 1970s, when renewal and reunion were high on the ecumenical agenda, a few studies paid attention to them, whereas conversely, the general decline of interest in the institutional ecumenical movement during the 1990s and beyond seems to have hampered research, albeit with a few notable exceptions.2 Hence, at least a good case can be made for the opinion that they merit a new and fresh examination.

I.

Lutheran Protestantism

1

Martin Luther

From the beginning of the religious upheavals of the sixteenth century, the appeal by the Protestants to a future general council of the Church both served the nascent movement and threatened it. It served the movement by gaining support from reform-minded Catholics and conciliarist circles for the realization of needed ecclesiastical reforms. The threat was, of course, that it would be answered not with a ‘free Christian Council’, but rather with an assize on the model of the Council of Constance where Jan Hus was declared an obstinate heretic, delivered to the secular power, and burned at the stake. Luther employed a variety of literary forms to meet this challenge: occasional writings, theses for academic disputations, and polemical treatises. Already in November 1518, following his interview in Augsburg with Cardinal Cajetan, he published a subjective account of the encounter, entitled Acta augustana (Proceedings at Augsburg), stating quite flatly that a general council constituted an 2 R.M. Kingdon, “Some French Reactions to the Council of Trent”, Church History 33 (1964) 149–56; R.P. Swierenga, “Calvin and the Council of Trent: A Reappraisal”, The Reformed Journal 16/3 (1966) 35–7, 16/4 (1966) 16–21, and 16/5 (1966) 20–3; Th.W. Casteel, “Calvin and Trent: Calvin’s Reaction to the Council of Trent in the Context of His Conciliar Thought”, Harvard Theological Review 63 (1970) 91–117; W.R. Godfrey, “Calvin and the Council of Trent”, in M. Horton (ed.), Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992) 119–28; E. Koch, “Die deutschen Protestanten und das Konzil von Trient”, in W. Reinhard/H. Schilling (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung. Wissenschaftliches Symposion der Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus Catholicorum und des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte, 1993 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1995) 88–103; C.B. Carpenter, “A Question of Union with Christ? Calvin and Trent on Justification”, Westminster Theological Journal 64 (2002) 363–86; M. Becht, “Pia Synodus. Die Lehre vom Konzil in der Theologie Philipp Melanchthons und Johannes Calvins”, in H.J. Selderhuis/G. Frank (ed.), Melanchthon und der Calvinismus (Melanchthon-Schriften der Stadt Bretten 9; Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2005) 107–33.

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

279

authority superior to that of the papacy.3 Whether or not at that time he held conciliarist views is debated amongst scholars.4 At any rate, since the Leipzig Disputation in the summer of 1519, when he had been forced by Eck to deny the infallibility of Church councils, Luther raised the question of the legitimacy of their deliberations and affirmed repeatedly that their authority depends on the conformity of their decisions with the Word of God in Holy Scripture.5 In August 1520 in the Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation), a treatise that had tremendous influence on European religious life, he challenged the idea that no one can convene a council except the Pope and called on lay power to inaugurate Church reform by a “free Christian Council”. Essentially, he intended a council whose powers were not subordinated to those of the Pope and where the Word of God constituted the supreme law to which one should adhere. Key to Luther’s argument in this writing was his concept of the general priesthood of all believers, that is, all Christians belong in reality to the spiritual estate and there is no difference among them except for that which concerns the office. If the Pope failed to convene a Church council, any Christian assembly under the leadership of its secular authority had the right, and the duty, to do so.6 Meanwhile what had started as theological and academic debate had turned into a political issue.7 At the imperial Diet of Worms in January 1521, in which Luther made his famous appearance, the question of a council was widely discussed, but the papal legate managed to block a joint demand by the secular and clerical estates for the convening of a general council. Even so, the belief that an ecclesiastical reform was needed remained widespread among all the German estates. On February 1523 the Diet of Nuremberg demanded for the first time that 3 D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (henceforth WA) (80 in 73 vol.; Weimar: Böhlau, 1883–2009), 2.6–26; see also Luther’s Works. American Edition, J. Pelikan/H.T. Lehmann (ed.) (henceforth LW) (54 vol.; Philadelphia, PA/St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955–1986), 31.259–92. 4 Cf. e. g. E. Iserloh, “Luther and the Council of Trent”, The Catholic Historical Review 69 (1983) 563–76, on p. 563 and C. Spehr, Luther und das Konzil: Zur Entwicklung eines zentralen Themas in der Reformationszeit (BHTh 153; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 38. Spehr’s monograph is not only the standard work on the subject, but also an enormously useful repository of information based solidly on the sources. The pioneering work of M.U. Edwards Jr., Luther’s Last Battles: Politics and Polemics 1531–1546 (Leiden: Brill, 1983) is still of great value. 5 On the development of Luther’s position on the councils from 1519 to 1520 see Spehr, Luther und das Konzil, 115–254. 6 Luther, An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation (1920), WA 6, 404–69 (LW 44, 123–217). 7 For the history of convocation of the Council the most comprehensive account remains H. Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, E. Graf (trans.) (2 vol.; London et al.: T. Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1957–61), vol. 1. A very useful summary is found in J.W. O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, MA/London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013), 49–75.

280

Emidio Campi

the Pope, with the consent of the Emperor, should convoke within a year if possible a free Christian Council in a city on the German border. The estates renewed their request the next year at another imperial Diet at Nuremberg and once again at the Diet of Speyer in 1526. In the Recess of the 1530 Diet of Augsburg Charles V, newly crowned Emperor by Pope Clement VII, now took a hand in urging him to “announce within six months a general Christian council at a suitable location”. Although the Emperor attempted on repeated occasions to fulfill this promise, dilatory and obstructionist tactics by Pope Clement and by Francis I of France thwarted his plans. With the election of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese as Pope Paul III in 1534, however, the prospects of a council took on new life. In the spring of 1535 the Pope sent the nuntius Pietro Paolo Vergerio to Germany to secure approval from the German princes for a council. In response to this action, Luther penned a growing number of attacks on past councils, especially the Council of Constance, and on the Catholic conception of a council in general. Early in 1536 he held a disputation On the Power of a Council.8 The theses, published immediately in both Latin and German, provide an excellent summary of Luther’s view of a council and anticipate many of the arguments he advanced in his 1539 masterwork on the subject, On the Councils and the Churches. The reformer declares his own respect for Church councils, however maintains that their authority is not ultimate but penultimate as it is subordinate to that of the apostles and prophets who spoke with the authority of the Holy Spirit and exercise it through their writings. Councils are not exempt from subjection to the teaching of Scripture. To place the Church’s authority in the councils on the ground that they are ruled directly by the Holy Spirit, as Rome does, is simply to say that the Church possesses the Holy Spirit. But He is not bound by conciliar decisions. Since articles of faith existed before councils, the latter cannot decree doctrine, but must show that what they say is in harmony with God’s Word. Councils are composed of bishops and bishops may err, and any assembly of them may err as was the case at Constance where two witnesses to the truth, Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague, were condemned by a council to be burned at the stake. Meanwhile, when it came to the actual convocation of the Council that was set for May 1537 in Mantua, the Lutheran elector of Saxony wished to determine what issues could be negotiated with the Roman Catholics and what could not be compromised. He therefore asked Luther to prepare a brief statement of the evangelical position for discussion at such a meeting. Luther set to work immediately and on 3 January 1537 sent the prince the requested document that became known as the Schmalkaldic Articles in which he outlined the points on 8 Luther, Disputatio de potestate concilii (1536), WA 39/1, 184–97. See Spehr, Luther und das Konzil, 449–53.

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

281

which there was agreement, those which could be negotiated, and all the others where the positions were irreconcilable.9 Paying no heed to the expectations of John Frederick, however, the assembly of the Schmalkaldic League not only refused to discuss them but also decided not to participate in the Council. Luther, on the other hand, was in favour of accepting the invitation and had advised the princes to avoid giving a negative reply: “I verily desire”, he wrote in the preface, “to see a truly Christian Council, in order that many matters and persons might be helped”. The Council began its sessions in 1545 in Trent rather than in 1537 in Mantua; nonetheless the challenge of a council evoked Luther’s lengthy and wellarticulated writing on the subject: On the Councils and the Churches.10 There is a fundamental paradox but no contradiction in this highly controversial treatise. Luther had been appealing for twenty years for a free Christian Council, but now that it was about to happen he was genuinely alarmed by the new direction in which he saw Rome heading. In the plain language of the aging reformer, the papal sudden conversion to the cause of the Council after consistently resisting it resembled the strategy that one would use to catch a dog: put a nice, juicy morsel before its nose and then whack it on the head with a stick before it notices. In a similar manner, Protestants were being victimized by the Pope, who had no serious interest in reforming the Church. Despite poignant sarcasm, however, On the Councils and the Churches is a scholarly piece based on the best historical sources then available that carefully analyzes the history of the early Councils, from the Apostles’ Council described in Acts 15 to the four ecumenical Councils Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, the disputed points, as well as the role of the leading Church fathers. Conceding that some of the early councils made remarkable contributions to the understanding of Christian doctrine and did effectively oppose heretical teachings, he also deplores the amount of time that was spent at later councils (and, for that matter also at those first significant ecumenical councils) in creating religious constraints regarding food, clothing, ceremonies, whereas serious issues were often skirted. While the first four councils were better on this score than the rest, Luther notes how unequal and even contradictory were the decrees of those which followed. Hence, the Church cannot depend upon the councils and the Fathers to establish its faith but only on the Holy Scripture. 9 Luther, Die Schmalkaldischen Artikel, WA 50, 160–254; see also Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 132010), 405–68. See K. Breuer, “Schmalkaldische Artikel”, Theologische Realenzyklopädie (henceforth TRE) 30 (1999) 214–21; J. Römer, Profil und Abgrenzung Luthers (vergessenes?) Vermächtnis: 475 Jahre Schmalkaldische Artikel (Monographia Hassiae 27; Kassel: Evangelische Medienverb. Verlag, 2013). 10 Luther, Von den Konziliis und Kirchen (1539), WA 50, 509–653 (LW 41, 9–178). See Edwards, Luther’s Last Battles, 93–6 and Spehr, Luther und das Konzil, 506–39.

282

Emidio Campi

After having treated these matters, Luther addresses two basic questions: what is a council and what is its task? Essentially, Luther understood the council as a consistory, a supreme court, a chamber (Consistorium, Hofgericht, Camergericht), or the like in which the judges pass judgment after hearing the parties, confronting heresies and heretics, keeping the Church safely on Scripture’s sure path. Councils have no power to establish new articles of faith, nor to bind consciences to “new good works” or ceremonies beyond what the Scriptures teach, nor to label as sin or evil works what is not so judged by God’s Word. Nor is it their task or right to interfere in secular affairs. In sum, councils have their place – and a useful one – when, on behalf of the Church they “confess and defend the ancient faith”.11 This presentation leads him finally to define the true nature of the Church and to delineate in exemplary fashion the notate ecclesiae, the external marks of the Church by which it can be recognized. The pure teaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments according to Christ’s institution are essential, but order and polity are by no means matters of indifference. The purpose of the section within the treatise, which could stand on its own as a compendium of Protestant ecclesiology, is not only to assert that withdrawing from the Roman Church does not mean withdrawing from the Church of Christ, but also to defend the continuity between the Reformation and the old Church. The piece shows how Luther had learned to use history and historical documents to reinforce arguments from Scripture and from reason. This new knowledge enriched and enlarged both his polemical arsenal and his theology. The polemic of the older Luther does not add new insights, but is occasionally more violent and abusive, as in the tract Against the Papacy of Rome, Founded by the Devil (1545).12 The German laity, he argues therein, must continue to insist on a free Christian Council and reject a papally steered one for the Pope is acting on behalf of the devil arrogating to himself the very power of God. Luther was not personally at Trent. He died on 18 February 1546, as the Council had just taken up its work in earnest. Reluctantly, or rather because they were forced by the Emperor after their defeat at the battle of Mühlberg, the German Lutherans sent a delegation to participate in the activities of the second period which had begun on 1 May 1551, but which they only joined in January 1552, that is, a few months before the Council was suspended. Their attendance was of no influence at all, none of their demands were met. Yet even if Luther and his closest collaborators, starting with Melanchthon and Johannes Brenz, were 11 Edwards, Luther’s Last Battles, 95 and Spehr, Luther und das Konzil, 530. 12 Luther, Wider das Papsttum zu Rom vom Teufel gestiftet (1545), WA 54, 206–99 (LW 41, 263– 76). See P. Matheson, The Rhetoric of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 199–214 and Spehr, Luther und das Konzil, 553–60.

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

283

not physically present at Trent, they were there in spirit through their theology and their works. What is more, at times they were even at the centre of the debate.13

2

Martin Chemnitz

An appropriate figure to consider next among the Lutheran theologians who wrote about the Council of Trent is Martin Chemnitz (1522–86) who studied under both Luther and Melanchthon in Wittenberg. His credentials as a leading orthodox Lutheran are without blemish, as demonstrated by his extensive publications on Church government, theology, and devotional literature, as well as his formative role in drafting the Formula of Concord in 1577 and compiling the Book of Concord in 1580, seminal documents which settled the many disputes that had plagued Lutheranism after the death of the reformer and collected its doctrinal standards. As early as 1673, it was said that “Si alter Martinus non venisset, prior Martinus non stetisset” – “If the second Martin [Chemnitz] had not come along the first Martin [Luther] would not remain.”14 Chemnitz’s most influential contribution to our topic was his Examen Concilii Tridentini which appeared in four volumes between 1566 and 1573, had sixteen Latin editions until 1707, and was translated entirely or partially into German, English, Hungarian and French.15 It was a critical study of the decrees of the Council of Trent in the light of biblical theology and history. The interpretations of such commentators on Trent as Cardinal Hosius and the Portuguese theologian Diego Andrada de Payva (or Andradius) were also subjected to Chemnitz’s comprehensive in-depth investigation. The goal was to demonstrate that the decrees of Trent represented a departure from the teaching of Scripture and the Apostolic Church. Yet the polemics are, comparatively speaking, quite restrained and much less acrimonious than in analogous Protestant treatises of these years. 13 O’Malley, Trent, chap. 4. 14 Theophil Gottlieb Spi[t]zel, Templum Honoris Reservatum, in quo 50 illustrium ævi hujus orthodoxorum, ac beate defunctorum theologorum philologorumque imagines (Augsburg: Goebel, 1673), 399. On Martin Chemnitz, see Th. Mahlmann, “Chemnitz Martin”, TRE 7 (1981) 714–21 and Mahlmann, “Chemnitz Martin”, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (henceforth RGG) 4/2 (1999) 127–8; J.A.O. Preus, The Second Martin: The Life and Theology of Martin Chemnitz (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1994); Th. Kaufmann, “Martin Chemnitz (1522– 1586): zur Wirkungsgeschichte der theologischen Loci”, in H. Scheible (ed.), Melanchthon in seinen Schülern (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997) 183–254. 15 Martin Chemnitz, Examen Concilii Tridentini, E. Preuss (ed.) (Berlin: Schlawitz, 1861; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972); for an English edition: Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, F. Kramer (trans.) (4 vol.; St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1971–1988).

284

Emidio Campi

Chemnitz’s magnum opus is above all a scholarly piece that reveals his skill in biblical exegesis, his thorough familiarity with ancient and medieval philosophy, and his knowledge of Church history. The book had a tremendous impact, and for generations Roman Catholic controversialists made it their business to refute Chemnitz’s charges and conclusions. Chemnitz follows the sequence of the decrees of the Council of Trent which were in the process of being published and officially commented on by Andrada. He moves accordingly from Scripture and Tradition to Justification (Part I), to the sacraments (Part II), to sexual ethics, Purgatory, and the invocation of the saints (Part III), and finally to the regulation of popular piety, relics, images, indulgences, fasting, and festivals (Part IV). In the course of his work Chemnitz dramatically extended the range of his sources. From the beginning onward, this disciple of Melanchthon demonstrates not only, as expected, a broad grasp of the Greek and Latin Fathers, but also, surprisingly, an intimate knowledge of scholastic authors for which he expresses, on several occasions explicitly, his respect. Less surprising is his indebtedness to the works of Luther, especially his Commentary on the Book of Genesis. In the last two parts, Chemnitz consistently adds to his discussion of all major issues an excursus on the history of their development as it was reflected in conciliar deliberations and papal decretals. A brief review of the debate over the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in Part I of the Examen, will help to illustrate Chemnitz’s arguments, which won him an important position among sixteenth-century theologians.16 He discusses the topic at great length and holds firmly to the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura, but he is not opposed to all tradition. In fact, in his sophisticated analysis the ‘second Martin’ distinguishes between eight different forms of Church tradition, seven of which are affirmed, because they either agree with the teachings of Scripture or at least do not militate against them. It is only the eighth kind, ecclesiastical customs and laws which are of a late date and lack any biblical basis whatsoever that is rejected.17 It is clear, he believes, that this type concerns central rather than adiaphoral matters. 16 Some more specialized studies include: A.L. Olsen, Scripture and Tradition in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University; Boston, MA, 1966) and Olsen, “The Hermeneutical Vision of Martin Chemnitz: The Role of Scripture and Tradition in the Teaching Church”, in K. Hagen (ed.), Augustine, The Harvest, and Theology (1300–1650): Essays Dedicated to Heiko Augustinus Oberman in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday (Leiden: Brill, 1990) 314–32; F. Kramer, “Chemnitz on the Authority of the Sacred Scripture: An Examination of the Council of Trent”, Springfielder 37 (1973) 165–75; M. Karstädter, “Norm(en) der Schriftauslegung bei Martin Chemnitz”, Lutherische Beiträge 17 (2012) 166–80. 17 Chemnitz, Examen, 69–99, esp. p. 99. The seven kinds of tradition that are acceptable are: (1) the oral and written transmission of Scripture by the disciples and evangelists; (2) the transmission of Scripture by the early Church; (3) the formation of early creeds; (4) the

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

285

In working out the scriptural principle he does not assert a mere biblical fundamentalism, as later Protestants often did. He acknowledges overtly that the transmission of divine revelation was carried out firstly in oral forms that antedated Scripture by thousands of years. To help clear up the controversy which was at that time raging between Lutherans and Catholics with respect to the authority of Scripture as opposed to the authority of oral tradition(s), Chemnitz points out that having failed time and time again to secure the content of the doctrina coelestis against deviation and misinterpretation, it was God’s will that little by little his heavenly doctrine was written down and preserved in the Church for the future. Consequently the scriptural tradition has to take precedence over the oral. To support this point, Chemnitz makes use of Irenaeus’ work Against Heresies, for whom the term “apostolic tradition” does not denote something that is independent of Scripture, but is simply that which has been handed over to the apostles and through them given to the Church, that is, nothing less than the Bible itself.18 Hence, the Church plays an important role in his perception of the authority of the Scripture insofar as it has been ab initio usque ad praesens the guarantor of the faithful transmission of the apostolic tradition.19 Its role, according to Chemnitz, however, is a receptive and instrumental one; it does not establish but rather acknowledges the authority of the apostolic tradition. Scripture cannot derive its authority from the Church, but has in itself its own authority and validity. The Church as bearer of the apostolic tradition is subject to the critique of that truth which it bears.20 Chemnitz goes on to address subjects such as the Tridentine arguments about the insufficiency or unclarity of Scripture that for this reason needs to be supplemented by oral tradition(s). He argues here for the clarity of Scripture and emphasizes in the spirit of Augustine the importance of the rules of interpretation.21 Finally, like the major reformers, Chemnitz, while recognizing the apocryphal or deuterocanonical books as edifying reading, rejects them because they had been used, for instance, to justify Purgatory and offering prayers for the dead. The Council’s adoption of the Vulgate as the authentic official Bible of the Church for use in lectures, disputations, and sermons is a sure sign of the ignorance of his opponents, but above all, from his particular point of view, sweeps away the need for studying

18 19 20 21

apostolic interpretation of Scripture; (5) the doctrines derived from Scripture; (6) the Catholic consensus of the Fathers; (7) the rites and customs of apostolic origin. The eighth type of tradition, unacceptable, is ecclesiastical law without biblical basis. Chemnitz, Examen, 74: “Et recte tunc dixit Irenaeus, Etiamsi nulla relicta fuisset ab Apostolis Scriptura, ex illa tamen traditione, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis acceptam, ad illa usque tempora sinceram conservarat, potuisse cognosci, quae esset vera doctrina Apostolica.” Chemnitz, Examen, 18–21. Chemnitz, Examen, 54–61. Chemnitz, Examen, 6–8.

286

Emidio Campi

Greek and Hebrew, the original languages to which God’s inspiration is confined; for the faithful disciple of Melanchthon this is, of course, intolerable in the Church (“Hoc verum non est tolerandum in Ecclesia”).22 Also worthy of attention is Chemnitz’s treatment of the Tridentine decree on Justification.23 He notes that the term has two fundamental meanings in Greek and biblical Hebrew, neither of which have anything to do with the Latin expression “iustum facere”, “making righteous”. The latter interprets justification as the infusion of righteousness and affirms the transformational character of justification (in the words of the decree: “non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis”) in the sense of human performance by the reconciled sinners. This interpretation, argues the second Martin, corresponds to that of Augustine and subsequently to the Tridentine decree. Many books have been written trying to understand whether the explanation is correct. In any case, this meaning Chemnitz discards completely as “sychophantica calumnia” to hide behind the words sanctification and renewal the syncretism of the righteousness of good works. He admits instead the two other meanings: “to judge or to pronounce something just” (“justum aliquid censere seu pronuntiare”), and “to inflict punishment, not by private penalty but chiefly when someone is, so to say, ‘judicially’ punished after the case has been judged” (“supplicio afficere, non privata poena, sed praecipue cum causa judicata, judicialiter [ut ita dicam] aliquis punitur”).24 Both definitions are forensic, for the righteousness on the basis of which the sinner is justified is not his own, the judge alone pronounces his verdict. This approach to the doctrine of Justification gives rise to the term ‘forensic justification’. In general, Chemnitz follows Luther in his teaching on Justification, which can be summarized in this way: firstly, the sinners are counted or pronounced to be righteous because the merits of Christ’s atoning work are ‘imputed’ to them and the guilt of their sins, which deserve God’s anger and punishment, is unconditionally forgiven. Secondly, the pardoned sinners are simultaneously renewed from inside by the Holy Spirit and step-by-step begin to act rightly. The first stage occurs outside the sinners, as an extrinsic or alien process, the second, generally known as sanctification, is the outcome not the cause, the consequence not the 22 Chemnitz, Examen, 57–65. 23 Chemnitz, Examen, 144–99. See R. Kolb, “Human Performance and Righteousness of Faith: Martin Chemnitz’s Anti-Roman Polemic in Formula of Concord III”, in J.A. Burgess/M. Kolden (ed.), By Faith Alone: Essays on Justification in Honor of Gerhard O. Forde (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 2004) 125–39, esp. on pp. 131–3; M. Beutel, “Gewissensnot und Glaubenstrost. Der Locus ‘De iustificatione’ in Martin Chemnitz’ ‘Examen concilii Tridentinae’”, in Beutel, Reflektierte Religion: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Protestantismus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) 47–65. 24 Chemnitz, Examen, 149.

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

287

precondition of the first. In his refutation of the Tridentine decree Chemnitz, after a brief sarcastic mocking of his opponents, presents this balanced understanding of Justification, albeit with a subtle but discernible change: So also we by no means teach that justifying faith is alone, that is, that it is such a persuasion which is without repentance, and that it does not bring forth any good works at all. But we say that a faith which is without works, idle, and dead is not that true and living faith which works through love (Gal 5:6). But let the reader consider what the consequence of the argument of the men of Trent is. Living faith is not alone, without love, therefore it does not justify alone, but together with love (Fides viva non est solitaria, sine charitate, ergo non sola, sed una cum charitate justificat). Do therefore the things which are present at the same time, which hang together and are connected, have one office, and one and the same function? In that case we shall hear with our ears and with our feet and see with our eyes and with our hands. There will, therefore, be no distinction either of the sense or the powers of the soul because a man receives and possesses them at one and the same time. As therefore these and many similar things, even when they are present at the same time, are rightly and necessarily distinguished, so we do not tear apart reconciliation and renewal, faith and love, in such a manner that we remove and deny one of them, but we give to each its place, its function, and its peculiar nature, with the Scripture, which teaches that this is the peculiar function of faith alone that it apprehends and accepts Christ in the promise of the Gospel for righteousness before God to life eternal (solius fidei hoc proprium esse … apprehendere et accipere in promissione Evangelii, Christum ad justitiam coram Deo ad vitam aeternam). Faith does not divide this righteousness between Christ and our newness, or love, but it ascribes it entirely to the merit of Christ (Et illam justitiam fides non partitur inter Christum et nostram novitatem seu charitatem, sed in solidum eam tribuit merito Christi).25

Like Luther, Chemnitz also draws a distinction between justification and sanctification without separating them. He does not, however, reproduce Luther’s understanding of justification exactly and ultimately defines justification in a perceptibly extrinsic manner. Often in responding to the Tridentine fathers, Chemnitz uses Abraham as the best example that imputed righteousness alone is the basis of justification and makes it clear that it is not faith which is reckoned as justifying righteousness, but the righteousness of Christ imputed to us.26 Indeed the second Martin emphatically defines justification in forensic terms and emphasizes the fact that the action of sinners has nothing to do with saving righteousness, a position which was later endorsed by the third article of the Formula of Concord.27 In the endless controversy over the relation between extrinsic and intrinsic righteousness, faith and works Chemnitz thus missed the opportunity to work out the understanding of sanctification as an indispensable part of a bal25 Chemnitz, Examination, 1.580–1; see also Chemnitz, Examen, 187–8. 26 Chemnitz, Examen, 154, 169, 171, 173, and 186. 27 Kolb, “Human Performance and Righteousness of Faith”, 132–3 and 135–6.

288

Emidio Campi

anced scheme of salvation instead of a stumbling-block. This particular approach to the question, as we shall see, was developed in an original manner by John Calvin. Probably owing to the theologically more substantial content of Parts I and II on the Scripture, Justification and sacraments, not much attention has been paid until now to Parts III and IV of the Examination which may be regarded as “the first Protestant history of dogma”.28 Chemnitz brings up the thorny issues, for example, of the veneration of the saints, indulgences, relics, images, fasting, and festivals, drawing on an enormous number of sources and with a greater precision than that which would become typical of later Protestant presentations. Fortunately for those who are interested in the social history of the Reformation, Chemnitz has a very broad understanding of ‘dogma’ and of ‘theology’. He refers again and again to contemporary pamphlets and events which are now almost inaccessible. For example, Chemnitz quotes from a tract ‘recently’ (1572?) published by Martin Eisengrein, a Lutheran from Stuttgart who converted to Roman Catholicism and became priest and rector of the University of Ingolstadt. Eisengrein vividly describes the exorcism performed by Petrus Canisius on a young maid from Altotting (Bavaria) who was possessed by a devil who went out as soon as a precious wooden image of the Virgin Mary was laid on her head leaving a foul smell behind him. Chemnitz, of course, does not doubt the power of the devil, but the antidote applied is for him additional evidence that the Roman Catholic hierarchy is not serious in its Tridentine claim to campaign against superstition.29

II.

Reformed Protestantism

1

Zwingli and Bullinger

Zwingli appears to have initially supported the conciliarist thesis of the subordination of the Pope to the council.30 His thought on the councils was slightly different than that of Luther. He did not call for a “free and Christian” general Council for the reform of the Church, neither did he rack his brains on the nature 28 H.A. Oberman, “Book review of Examination of the Council of Trent, F. Kramer (trans.)”, The Sixteenth Century Journal 19 (1988) 251–3. 29 Chemnitz, Examen, 695–6, on p. 696: “Atque hinc manifestum est, Pontificios quicquid vel simulent vel dissimulent, omnino tamen velle ipsos nervos veteris idolomaniae in invocatione Sanctorum, retinere et in theatrum reducere.” 30 F. Schmidt-Clausing, “Zwinglis Stellung zum Konzil”, Zwingliana 11 (1962) 479–98; I. Backus, “Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, and the Church Fathers”, in I. Backus (ed.), The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists (2 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 2.627–60; B. Müller, “Zwingli und das Konzil von Gangra”, Zwingliana 33 (2006) 29–50.

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

289

and jurisdiction of ecumenical, provincial and regional councils. For him the Church was not a hierarchical structure, at the apex of which ruled the Pope in union with the bishops and at the base of which knelt an obedient people, but rather the community of those who put their trust and hope for salvation in Christ whom they know through the preaching of the Gospel.31 That ecclesiological concept took shape in the form of the first Reformed synod of Zurich assembled in April 1528, the oldest ecclesiastical organization of Protestantism constituted by clergy and laymen for spiritual discernment and collegial government of the Church.32 This particular approach to the question explains why Zwingli was deeply sceptical that a council called by the Pope could resolve the current crisis in Western Christianity. Instead, he relied on the synodal practice of individual local churches.33 Zwingli died long before the convocation of the Council of Trent. The responsibility for advising the Reformed churches of the Swiss Confederation to take a stand on the controversial assembly rested in large part with his successor at the head of the Zurich Church, Heinrich Bullinger (1504–75).34 His first utterance on the Council since his election to the office of antistes or chief pastor can be found in a memorandum of 1532, Conditions for Consenting to Participate

31 Huldrych Zwingli, Auslegen und Gründe der Schlußreden (1523), in Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, E. Egli et al. (ed.) (henceforth Z) (Berlin: Schwetschke/Leipzig: Heinsius/ Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1905–), 2.57–8; De vera et falsa religione (1525), Z 3, 741–57. See G.W. Locher, Sign of the Advent: A Study in Protestant Ecclesiology (Fribourg: Academic Press/Paulusverlag, 2004), 52–68. 32 The text of the ordinance of the city council is in Zürcher Kirchenordnungen 1520–1675, E. Campi/Ph. Wälchli (ed.) (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2011), 54–5. 33 Proceedings of Zwingli, Second Zurich Disputation (October 1523), Z 2, 688 l. 6–11: “Man sage von den conciliis, was man welle, sy söllind gschehen lang oder über kurtz, so sag ich das und weiß es ouch wol, das keiner ietzt einen sun hat, der erst erborn sye, der erleben möge, das ein concilium versammelt werd, darin man das wort gottes meister lasse sin. Oder wer kumpt in ein concilium? Niemant dann die unnützen und ungelerten bischoff und bäpst.” 34 On Bullinger, the standard biography is F. Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger. Leben, Werk und Wirkung (2 vol.; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004–2005); some recent studies as point of departure are: B. Gordon/E. Campi (ed.), Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger 1504–1575 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004); E. Campi, (ed.), “Heinrich Bullinger und seine Zeit: eine Vorlesungsreihe”, Zwingliana 31 (2004) 7–35; E. Campi/P. Opitz (ed.), Heinrich Bullinger: Life – Thought – Influence (2 vol.; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007); C. Moser, Die Dignität des Ereignisses: Studien zu Heinrich Bullingers Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung (2 vol.; Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2012). There are no general studies on Bullinger and the Council of Trent. The most useful article is R. Pfister, “Zu Bullingers Beurteilung des Konzils von Trient”, in U. Gäbler/E. Herkenrath (ed.), Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag (2 vol.; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975) 1.123–40. See also K. Mader, Die Via Media in der Schweizerischen Reformation. Studien zum Problem der Kontinuität im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1970), 209–23.

290

Emidio Campi

in a Council.35 The piece seems to be more under the influence of Luther rather than of Zwingli. Bullinger did suggest accepting the invitation, but at the same time requested a “free and Christian Council” to be held on German soil and restated the Protestant principle of the supremacy of Scripture in matters of faith. It is noteworthy that here, as in all of his writings, Bullinger’s unbending affirmation of sola Scriptura does not despise Church authority nor does he repudiate Church councils as having no value. Just a few months later, however, in a letter to Ambrosius Blarer and Johannes Zwick, the reformers of the city of Constance, he expressed the fear that Pope and Emperor might use the Council to suppress the new faith (“evangelicam veritatem opprimant”).36 When, in June 1536, Pope Paul III issued the bull Ad dominici gregis curam, summoning a general council to meet at Mantua in May the following year, the event provoked a flurry of reactions in the Protestant world. Bullinger, while not taking a too optimistic view, did not exclude the possibility of participating. Indeed, he played a crucial role in drafting the First Helvetic Confession of 1536 which was primarily an attempt to reconcile Lutheran and Zwinglian teaching on the Lord’s Supper, but it expressed also the desire of the Swiss Reformed churches to speak with one theological voice on all issues relating to the upcoming Council. Still, various events delayed the opening till December 1545. In the meantime Pope Paul III waged a vigorous campaign to ensure Swiss participation. The two papal legates Girolamo Franco and Albert Rosin sought to persuade the Catholic and Reformed diets, meeting separately in Lucern and Baden, that the gathering was a true general council for the sake of the whole Church.37 The Swiss hesitated, but although the confessional divisions within the Confederation precluded a unified response, there was genuine support. The magistrates in Zurich put the invitation before the ministers and requested their opinion. Bullinger readily took up the task and wrote on 16 August 1546 the Response of the Zurich Preachers to the Invitation of the Pope to the Council of Trent.38 The Response did not mince words in refusing the invitation. From Leo X to Paul III, Bullinger argued, the Popes had all condemned the evangelical doctrine as heresy, just as the bull of convocation itself was doing. The promise of issuing safe-conducts, under mutually agreed conditions, for those attending the 35 Zurich: Zentralbibliothek: Heinrich Bullinger, Wie man in ein Concilium einwillgen mögen, 1532. 36 Bullinger to Blarer and Zwicker, 25 July 1533, in Heinrich Bullinger Werke. Briefwechsel, U. Gäbler et al. (ed.) (henceforth HBBW) (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1973–), 3.159–60, No. 246. 37 B. Gordon, The Swiss Reformation (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 164; M.W. Bruening, Calvinism’s First Battleground: Conflict and Reform in the Pays de Vaud, 1528–1559 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2005), 48–9. 38 Bullinger, Antworten der Kirchendiener zu Zuerich uff des Papst Laden in das Concilium zu Trient (1546).

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

291

Church gathering is by no means sufficient; the Council of Constance acknowledged that protection was given by Emperor Sigismund to Jan Hus, but nevertheless he was tried as heretic and burned at the stake. Neither is there any assurance that the Council’s purpose is the pursuit of truth because the Word of God will not be its supreme authority. On the contrary, it is to be feared that its function will be that of an inquisitorial tribunal to try and uproot the new faith as is already the case in many countries. Finally, the Response strikes a positive note expressing the willingness of the Swiss Protestants to give a detailed account of the fundamental articles of their religion as stated in Confessio helvetica prior. Following Bullinger’s moderate yet firm Response, the magistrates of Zurich and the other Reformed cities, Basel, Bern, and Schaffhausen, replied to the Catholic Confederates that they could not accept the invitation and at the federal Diet in Baden it was decided that the Swiss would not send representatives to the first period of the Council. The opening of the second period (May 1551–52), to which Swiss Protestants were once again invited to send representatives, reignited the debate on the subject. This time Bullinger had to scramble even harder to persuade the Reformed cantons to refuse the invitation. But he could draw on the expertise of a person widely recognized as knowledgeable about the Curia, the former papal legate and Bishop of Capodistria Pier Paolo Vergerio, who lived from 1549 until 1553 in the territories of the Swiss Confederation and of the Three Leagues from where he staged a true psychological warfare against Rome and the Council of Trent. Admittedly, at this time Bullinger’s anti-Catholic attitude was influenced by the political context of the Augsburg Interim and fear for the future of Protestantism. Yet, one cannot deny the impact that Vergerio’s numerous letters and frequent visits to Zurich had on him.39 On 28 January 1551, on the occasion of the annual festival commemorating Charlemagne’s original endowment of the Grossmunster, the Dies Caroli, the antistes delivered a fulminating speech against the Council of Trent and the papacy: Concilium Tridentinum non institutum esse ad inquirendam illustrandamque ex Scripturis Veritatem. The oration was never printed, but Vergerio received from the author a copy of the manuscript which he rendered into Italian and published with copious observations and additions of his own.40 Bullinger seems to have returned the favour translating into German 39 E. Campi, “Pier Paolo Vergerio und sein Briefwechsel mit Heinrich Bullinger”, in S. Lekebusch/H.G. Ulrichs (ed.), Historische Horizonte. Vorträge der dritten Emder Tagung zur Geschichte des reformierten Protestantismus (Wuppertal: Foedus, 2002) 19–37. 40 Heinrich Bullinger, Concilium Tridentinum: non institutum esse ad inquirendam illustrandamque ex Scripturis veritatem, sed ad subvertendam, stabiliendosque Rom. Ecclesiae errores: demonstratio, Zurich: Dies Caroli M.DLI [1551], in Heinrich Bullinger Werke. Bibliographie, J. Staedtke/E. Herkenrath et al. (ed.) (henceforth HBBibl) (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972–2004), 1.230; Autograph in Zurich, Zentralbibliothek, Msc A 127, 545–75

292

Emidio Campi

Vergerio’s pamphlet Concilium Tridentinum fugiendum esse ab omnibus Pijs.41 The focus of the oration, however, is not, as one would expect from the title, on the theological content of the Council’s pronouncements: the decree concerning the canonical Scriptures, the unwritten traditions, and the edition and the use of the Sacred Books is not properly discussed but simply referred to as an example of doctrinal errors which have emanated from Trent, while any reference to the decree on Justification is lacking. The main purpose of the oration is to elicit rejection and indignation toward the primacy of the Roman Pontiff in the Church. Echoing Luther’s Schmalkaldic Articles and Melanchthon’s Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Bullinger emphatically rejects the papal claim to primacy by divine right and the consequences that have been derived from it: the papal exemption from all criticism, even that of Scripture; the authority to establish new and binding laws and doctrines; the pretension that salvation depends on submission to him as Vicar of Christ. The lecture reaches a climax in the assertion, based on 2 Thess 2:4, that the Roman Pontiff is the Antichrist. He maintained this absolute attitude until his death.42 After citing further examples of false teachings and practices of Rome, Bullinger concludes the oration recommending that the “goodly magistrates” reject without further consideration the invitation to participate in the Tridentine assembly. Despite the sanguine counsel of the antistes, the Zurich city council intended to ponder all the alternatives before acting and therefore asked the ministers to provide a written document. On 5 June 1551 Bullinger submitted yet another Response of the Zurich Preachers to the Invitation of the Pope to the Council of Trent.43 With unveiled irony the head pastor reassures the Councilmen that a response seems an unnecessary quibble, since relations with the Holy See had been interrupted for more than thirty years. He then launches an angry tirade against the papal aspiration to a renewed submission of all the Confederates to the Roman Pontiff. When it comes to the question of how one should deal with the invitation, the memorandum is essentially a rehash of previous ideas. The (No. 17). For an Italian translation: Demostratione del Bullingero, che il Concilio di Trento non sia ordinato per haver a cercare et illustrare la verità con la Sacra Scrittura, ma per sovvertirla et istabilire gli errori della sedia Romana, P.P. Vergerio (trans.) (s.l.: s.n., s.d.); also in HBBibl 1, 228. See Bullinger’s remarks in Heinrich Bullingers Diarium (Annales vitae) der Jahre 1504– 1574, E. Egli (ed.) (henceforth HBD) (Basel: Basler Buch- und Antiquariatshandlung, 1904), 39.30–40.2. 41 Vergerio, Concilium Tridentinum fugiendum esse omnibus Pijs and Vergerio, Concilium zuo Trient: das daβ allen Glöubigen zuo fliehen und zuo vermyden sye. See HBBibl 1.709. 42 C. Moser, “‘Papam essem Antichristum’: Grundzüge von Heinrich Bullingers Antichristkonzeption”, Zwingliana 30 (2003) 65–101. 43 Heinrich Bullinger, Antwort der Kirchendienern zu Zürich auf des Papsts Laden in das Concilium zu Trient (1551), HBBibl 1.229; also in Miscellanea Tigurina 1/4 (Zurich: s.n., 1722) 100–18. See J. Gauss, “Etappen zur Ablösung der reformierten Schweiz vom Reich”, Zwingliana 18 (1990) 234–55, on pp. 244–6.

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

293

Council is not searching for the truth but rather seeking to legitimate old and new errors, and to secure the Pope’s dominion. Moreover, it is not universal because not all countries are represented, and finally, it is neither free nor Christian. Ignoring the plurality of theological views in part reflected in the formulation of the decree on the canonical Scriptures and the unwritten traditions, Bullinger trenchantly criticizes the Council fathers for betraying the primacy of scriptural authority. Once more, using a combination of moral suasion and political action, Bullinger succeeded in preventing Zurich’s and the other Swiss Reformed cities’ participation in the Tridentine assembly. Meanwhile military events – the revolt of the Lutheran princes in 1552 against the Emperor and the fear that the army led by Elector Maurice of Saxony and backed by King Henry II of France was approaching Trent – forced an adjournment of the Council. The work was resumed only a decade later, when the Council fathers were convoked for the third time at Trent, from 18 January 1562 to 4 December 1563. Shortly before the opening of the last period, Bullinger published a treatise of 182 leaves in octavo entitled De conciliis, soon after to be translated into German and Dutch.44 Although there was already a remarkable body of Protestant works on the subject,45 the piece is important because it certainly adds to the understanding of some of the key issues regarding the Council of Trent which Bullinger and the other reformers had been grappling with, but above all because it reflects the strengths and weaknesses of his historiography. The book consists of two parts. The first begins with a careful analysis of the account of the Apostles’ Council described in Acts 15 and regarded by Bullinger as “regula conciliorum sempiterna” to resolve certain types of crises in the Church46; it is followed by an examination of the main pronouncements of the seven general Councils of the early Church.47 Bullinger accepts the teachings of the first six, from Nicaea I (325) to Constantinople III (680) because they had adhered to Scripture, but questions the seventh, Nicaea II (787), for the extrabiblical proofs that were adduced in support of the use of icons in the church. The second and most crucial part deals with the medieval Church assemblies, as for Bullinger they have proven themselves to be not only fallible but also 44 Heinrich Bullinger, De conciliis: quomodo apostoli Christi domini in primitiva ecclesia suum illud Hierosolymis concilium celebraverint & quanto cum fructu, quantaque pace: quomodo item Romani Pontifices in extrema mundi senecta, a quingentis & amplius annis, sua illa concilia celebraverint, et quanto cum damno perturbationeque fidelium, brevis ex historiis commemoratio, in duos distincta libros (Zurich: Christopher (i) Froschauer, 1561); also HBBibl 1.402–15. 45 See note 1. 46 Bullinger, De conciliis, 6–86, here 86. 47 Bullinger, De conciliis, 86–164.

294

Emidio Campi

contradictory.48 For instance, he comments on the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) that it did not possess the authority to impose new articles of faith such as the dogma of transubstantiation and papal primacy, or on the Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517) that repudiated declarations of the Councils of Constance and Basel, and also on the Church of his day with the Council of Trent that declared Scripture and Tradition to be of equal authority. The teachings of such assemblies, he argues, have no discernible basis in Scripture and cannot be considered binding. The Church needs a true reform and he yearns for a free, general, and Christian Council (“liberum, generale, christianum concilium”), but he sees no hope coming from a “concilium papisticum”. He is confident, however, that God, as always, will hear the prayers of the faithful and preserve his Church.49 Bullinger’s De conciliis reveals a basic tension. On the one hand, there exists a longing for objectivity, for laying bare the logic of how councils came to take the form they do. On the other hand, this scholarly approach is cramped by the overt confessional partisanship that tends to over-emphasise the negative effects of errors and shortcomings of the councils in order to underpin the thesis of fallibility. De conciliis did not fail to elicit feisty, indignant reactions from Swiss Catholics.50 At the Diet of Baden on 14 April 1561 the always latent confessional tension with the Protestants resurfaced as the Catholic members denounced Bullinger’s book as seriously defamatory and agreed to prepare a rebuttal. The request was made to the papal legate Giovanni Antonio Volpe as well as to Carlo Borromeo, the protector of the Swiss Catholics, and to Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, one of the five papal legates who presided over the Council of Trent. The three prelates, however, favoured a diplomatic solution rather than engaging in direct confrontation with the influential Zurich antistes. Thus, a response came about, albeit through a somewhat circumlocutory route. In 1562 was printed in Rome a manuscript of the late Cardinal Reginald Pole, a work that the English prelate and papal legate at Trent composed in the spring of 1545 to outline the purposes of a council: De concilio liber.51 In conjunction with these events the Swiss Catholics agreed to send a delegation to the Council for the first time. Meanwhile the Reformed cities had also received an invitation to attend the third and final period of the Council. Following a well-established tradition, Bullinger was requested to give his advice, which he submitted in March 1562: Response of the Zurich Preachers to the Third Invitation of the Pope to the Council of Trent.52 Essentially, he laid out the reasons expressed in his previous memo48 49 50 51 52

Bullinger, De conciliis, 164–80. Bullinger, De conciliis, 179–80. Pfister, “Zu Bullingers Beurteilung des Konzils von Trient”, 136–8. Reginald Pole, De concilio liber (Rome: Paolo Manuzio, 1562). Heinrich Bullinger, Antwort der Kirchendieneren zu Zuerich auf des Pabst drittes Einladen auf das Concilium zu Triento (1562), HBBibl 1.736; also in Miscellanea Tigurina 1/6 (Zurich: s.n.

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

295

randum of 1551 arriving at the same conclusion. And once more he was able to rally the Reformed cities against participation. In the following decade the bulk of what Bullinger produced is commentaries, doctrinal and controversial treatises, historical works, sermons, and letters. He did not pen anything addressed to the Pope, or any appraisal of the documents of the Council of Trent. Nevertheless it may be argued that the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), the most widely received among Reformed Confessions and a concentrated exposition of his theology, was crafted with a strong awareness of the importance of the Tridentine decrees for the definition of the identity of Reformed Protestantism.

2

John Calvin

John Calvin joined Luther, Bucer, Melanchthon, and Bullinger in the wider assault of Protestantism on the Council of Trent with an intransigence that forbade any compromise with his Catholic opponents.53 However, it is noteworthy to recall that there are two strands in Calvin’s thought which must be clearly distinguished. The first strand placed him in the avant-garde of mediating and moderate theologians of his time. This is evident in his early writings such as the dedicatory address to Francis I in the Institutes of 1536, the Deux discours au colloque de Lausanne (1536), or the Reply to Sadolet of 1539. Despite his critical attitude toward the Roman Church during the years 1539 to 1541, he was active with other leading reformers and urban politicians in efforts to reach the greatest possible degree of agreement with the old Church. He attended the religious colloquies held at Frankfurt (1539), Hagenau (1540), Worms (1540), and Regensburg (1541) taking every opportunity to work through the controversy about the true Church. In Regensburg the participants succeeded even in working out a joint statement on the doctrine of “double justification” that in the end both Luther and the Pope rejected. In the treatise Supplex exhortatio ad Carolum quintum of 1543, Calvin gave a glimpse of his conciliar thought, urging Charles V to convene a provincial synod of the Empire.54 The Protestants had hopes that the 1722) 37–54 and in Heinrich Bullinger, Schriften zum Tage, H.U. Bächtold et al. (ed.) (Zug: Achius, 2006), 387–403. 53 On Calvin and the Council of Trent, see Kingdon, “Some French Reactions to the Council of Trent”; Swierenga, “Calvin and the Council of Trent”; Casteel, “Calvin and Trent”; Godfrey, “Calvin and the Council of Trent”; Koch, “Die deutschen Protestanten und das Konzil von Trient”, 88–103; Carpenter, “A Question of Union with Christ?” 54 John Calvin, Supplex exhortatio ad Carolum quintum (1543), in Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, G. Baum/E. Cunitz/E. Reuss (ed.) (henceforth CO) (Braunschweig/Berlin: C. A. Schwetschke, 1863–1900), 6.525–34. See J.J. Steenkamp, “Calvin’s Exhortation to Charles V

296

Emidio Campi

Emperor would honour the promise he made at the Diet of Speyer on 10 June 1544 to convene a “general, free, Christian Council”. But already on 24 August Pope Paul III responded to that promise with an Admonitio paterna, a Fatherly Admonition directed at the Emperor, reproaching him for reaching a temporary settlement with Protestants and reminding him that it befits an Emperor to refrain from encroaching on the ecclesiastical sphere. Calvin published the Admonitio Paterna in 1545 cum scholiis of his own in which he showed that general councils as well as the provincial synods were diversely called, sometimes by the Pope sometimes by the Emperor, and renewed his plea to Charles for a council.55 With the beginning of the Council of Trent in 1545 and the subsequent process of confessionalization, the fronts became entrenched, and it became increasingly clear that no consensus would be possible. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that this evolution modified Calvin’s view both of the Roman Church and the Council. His writings from 1545 onward reveal a second strand of his thought characterized by pessimism and polemics.56 He knew, of course, that the most traditional way of mending the Church was the institute of the Council. In his 1543 edition of the Institutes, book four, chapter nine, writing about the authority of provincial and general councils, Calvin professed: “I venerate them from my heart, and I desire that they be honored by all.” Four years later, in the Acta Synodi Tridentinae. Cum antidoto (1547), the tone had changed. He was no longer prepared to accept any pronouncement of a synod or a conciliar assembly unless it is supported by Scripture: The name of Sacred Council is held in such reverence in the Christian Church, that the very mention of it produces an immediate effect not only on the ignorant but on men of gravity and sound judgment. And doubtless, as the usual remedy which God employed from the beginning in curing the diseases of his Church was for pious and holy pastors to meet, and, after invoking his aid, to determine what the Holy Spirit dictated, Councils are deservedly honored by all the godly. There is this difference, however, – the vulgar, stupified with excessive admiration, do not afterwards make any use of their judgment, whereas those of sounder sense allow themselves, step by step, and modestly, indeed, but still allow themselves to inquire before they absolutely assent. And so it ought to be, in order that our faith, instead of rashly subscribing to the naked decisions of men, may submit to God only.57

(1543)”, in W.H. Neueser/B.G. Armstrong (ed.), Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1997) 309–14. 55 Calvin, Admonitio paterna Pauli IIIc (1545), CO 7, 249–88. 56 J. Balserak, Establishing the Remnant Church in France: Calvin’s Lectures on the Minor Prophets, 1556–1559 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 47–64. 57 John Calvin, Acta Synodi Tridentinae. Cum antidoto (1547) (henceforth Acta), CO 7, 379; For an English edition: Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent with Antidote, H. Beveridge (trans.) (henceforth Acts, Beveridge [trans.]) (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1851), 3.30.

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

297

The Acta Synodi Tridentinae. Cum antidoto is Calvin’s most significant work on the Council of Trent and therefore requires closer examination. In a letter to Pierre Viret from 11 August 1547 Calvin says that he had been asked “by many and different people” to respond in writing to the decrees of the Council of Trent, and on 21 August announces to Farel that he was currently at work on the manuscript, but slowly moving forward.58 He did not follow, however, Farel’s advice to use the sting of satire to demolish the deliberations of the Tridentine assembly, because he feared being misunderstood by readers. The Antidotum took the form of a full reprint of the Admonitio of the legates of the Apostolic See read before the Council fathers at the opening session as well as the texts of the decrees and the canons of the first seven sessions to which he juxtaposed his commentary. Of course, sharp and often satirical utterances do not fail, but in general the reformer follows the rules of a school disputation, answering the dogmas chapter by chapter, canon by canon, meticulously and tirelessly. It was published in November 1547, after the first seven sessions of the Council had been completed. It was soon reissued in a French translation, which was somewhat longer and earthier than the Latin original.59 The piece quickly provoked a spirited retort by the German Catholic controversialist Johann Cochlaeus.60 Unlike Melanchthon and Chemnitz, who drew heavily upon the Confessio augustana to reject the Council’s decrees, Calvin depends above all upon Scripture, insists generally upon plain or literal readings of Scripture, and occasionally even keeps dwelling on such fine points as the grammatical constructions of specific scriptural passages. As a guide to authoritative interpretation of Scripture, Calvin is frequently willing to rely on such early Church fathers as Augustine. He makes particularly great use of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian tracts. Occasionally Calvin refers to a medieval figure like Saint Bernard or a contemporary scholar like Erasmus. But he never depends very heavily upon their authority. Despite the harsh-sounding language, particularly in the French version,61 the central chapters dealing with Scripture and the doctrine of Justification reveal an agreement that is surprising in such a polemical tract. To some of the decrees his only comment is simply “Amen” – a theological accolade he accords, for example, to a number of canons anathematizing Pelagian and Antinomian views. 58 Calvin to Viret, 11 August 1547, CO 12, 568–9, No. 934; Calvin to Farel, 21 August 1547, CO 12, 580–1, No. 940. 59 Calvin, Les actes du Concile de Trente: avec le remede contre la poison ([Geneva]: [Jean Girard], 1548). 60 Johannes Cochlaeus, Joannis Calvini in acta Synodi Tridentinae censura et eiusdem brevis confutatio, circa duas praecipue calumnias (Mainz: Franz Behem, 1548). 61 For example, the comparison of the Council of Trent with a “painted whore” and the frequent reference to the Tridentine Fathers as “horned fathers” or “hireling monks”.

298

Emidio Campi

To others he registers a partial assent or he objects to details of wording. He even makes some concessions which have far-reaching implications. In the following we will pay special attention to his commentary on the decrees of Session 4 and 6. Calvin sums up his understanding of the fundamentally divisive decrees on Scripture adopted at Session 4 in these words: There are four heads: First, they ordain that in doctrine we are not to stand on Scripture alone, but also on things handed down by tradition. Secondly, in forming a catalogue of Scripture, they mark all the books with the same chalk, and insist on placing the Apocrypha in the same rank with the others. Thirdly, repudiating all other versions whatsoever, they retain the Vulgate only, and order it to be authentic. Lastly, in all passages either dark or doubtful, they claim the right of interpretation without challenge.62

Calvin then responds to the decrees point by point. Concerning the relationship of Scripture and Tradition, he grants some authority to unwritten apostolic traditions, although not as much as Trent did. The reformer admits that the ancient writers made frequent mention of them. Indeed, he is willing to honour tradition in its proper place; tradition can have a measure of authority in matters dealing with “external rites subservient to decency and discipline, but only if it is proved to be part of the apostolic tradition”. The Romanists, however, have overstepped their bounds, confusing two different spheres of authority, doctrinal and judicial, making the latter an independent authority, one that the papacy employs to its advantage “to miserably destroy consciences and to cloak superstitions”. He especially repudiates their desire “to make certainty of doctrine depend not less on what they call agrafa (unwritten), than on the Scriptures”. When it comes to doctrine, Calvin insists, sola Scriptura is the final and authoritative norm.63 Moving to what Protestants call Apocryphal and Roman-Catholics Deuterocanonical Books, which in Trent were declared canonical and authoritative, I imagine many Protestants will find it surprising that Calvin did not reject them entirely, but remained somewhat reserved in his critique. He wants to remove the 62 Calvin, Acta, 411; Acts, Beveridge (trans.), 67–8. 63 Calvin, Acta, 412–13, 416; Acts, Beveridge (trans.), 70: “Therefore, though we grant that the Apostles of the Lord handed down to posterity some customs which they never committed to writing; still, first, this has nothing to do with the doctrine of faith, (as to it we cannot extract one iota from them,) but only with external rites subservient to decency or discipline; and secondly, it is still necessary for them to prove that everything to which they give the name is truly an apostolical tradition. Accordingly they cannot, as they suppose, find anything here to countenance them either in establishing the tyranny of their laws, by which they miserably destroy consciences, or to cloak their superstitions, which are evidently a farrago gathered from the vicious rites of all ages and nations. We especially repudiate their desire to make certainty of doctrine depend not less on what they call agrafa (unwritten), than on the Scriptures. We must ever adhere to Augustine’s rule, ‘Faith is conceived from the Scriptures’.”

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

299

Apocryphal writings because they supported some of the Roman Catholic Church doctrines and practices that are not taught in the Bible, for example Purgatory, praying for the dead, worship of ‘saints’, and ‘alms giving’ to atone for sins. Yet, he admits that the “same view on which the Fathers of Trent now insist was held by the Council of Carthage. The same, too, was followed by Augustine in his Treatise on Christian Doctrine; but as he testifies that all of his age did not take the same view, let us assume that the point was then undecided”.64 He even declares candidly: “I am not one of those … who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books.” Calvin disputes, however, the validity of the decision to give them an “authority which they never had before”.65 A grosser error still, in Calvin’s mind, was the choosing of the Latin Vulgate as the authoritative version of the Bible instead of going to the original Hebrew and Greek texts. For him, the Tridentine decree is a sure sign of the Catholic Church’s ignorance and arrogance: But as the Hebrew or Greek original often serves to expose their ignorance in quoting Scripture, to check their presumption, and so keep down their thrasonic boasting (thrasonica iactantia), they ingeniously meet this difficulty also by determining that the Vulgate translation only is to be held authentic. Farewell, then, to those who have spent much time and labor in the study of languages, that they might search for the genuine sense of Scripture at the fountainhead! (Eant nunc qui multum operae temporisque consumpserunt in linguarum studio, ut genuinum scripturae sensum ex fontibus ipsis peterent) … What! are they not ashamed to make the Vulgate version of the New Testament authoritative, while the writings of Valla, Faber, and Erasmus, which are in everybody’s hands, demonstrate with the finger, even to children, that it is vitiated in innumerable places?66

The disappointment of the trained humanist is evident. Yet, Calvin, a man with a great talent for sober and elegant writing and interpretation (as the use of the word “thrasonic” shows, which echoes Terence’s comedy Eunuchus67), has probably read more into the decree than the decree really declares. Trent nowhere forbids the use of the original languages, as if Jerome had not used them to make his own translation. One may add that, like most reformers of his day, with the exception of Tremellius,68 he was perhaps overly optimistic about the Hebrew

64 65 66 67 68

Calvin, Acta, 413; Acts, Beveridge (trans.), 70. Calvin, Acta, 411; Acts, Beveridge (trans.), 68. Calvin, Acta , 411, 416; Acts, Beveridge (trans.), 68 and 74. From Thraso, a braggart soldier in the play Eunuchus by Terence. E. Campi, “Immanuel Tremellius. Eine Fallstudie zur Reformation der Flüchtlinge”, in W. Kreutz/W. Kühlmann/H. Wiegand (ed.), Die Wittelsbacher und die Kurpfalz in der Neuzeit zwischen Reformation und Revolution (Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2013) 205–26, on pp. 221–2.

300

Emidio Campi

text or even about the manuscripts of the New Testament which they currently had in their possession. The last point of contention to be grasped is of supreme importance. After having given to the dubious entity ‘tradition’ and the Apocrypha a place alongside Scripture, and determined the error-filled Vulgate to be infallible, the Council fathers – Calvin vigorously contends – have further arrogated to the Church the right of interpreting Scripture whenever the meaning is doubtful. Such blasphemous conduct Calvin could not let go unnoticed: “The sum is, that the spirit of Trent wished, by this decree, that Scripture should only signify to us whatever dreaming monks might choose.”69 For Calvin, it was exactly the other way around: the Bible is the very touchstone of truth, by which the Church, the Fathers, and all traditions must be tested and judged. In particular, Scripture is not dependent on the pronouncements of the Church for its authentication, for it is authenticated to every believer by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. For the reformer, who had proved for himself the vitality and faithfulness of God’s Word in the midst of fierce testing, the priority of Scripture above the Church or a council was not a ‘formal’ principle, nor a prolegomenon of dogmatics, but a question of faith in which the Church was constantly shown its place: under the Word. Of the seven Sessions upon which Calvin comments in the Antidote, the one which absorbed by far the greatest amount of his attention was Session 6, at which the decree on Justification and thirty-three related canons were adopted. Analysis of them occupies more than a third of the entire book. This should not be surprising, since this section lies at the heart of the tract and indeed at the focal point of Reformation theology. Calvin sums up the core contention on the point in dispute with the following words: The whole dispute is as to the cause of Justification. The Fathers of Trent pretend that it is twofold, as if we were justified partly by forgiveness of sins and partly by spiritual regeneration; or, to express their view in other words, as if our righteousness were composed partly of imputation, partly of quality. I maintain that it is one, and simple, and is wholly included in the gratuitous acceptance of God. I besides hold that it is without us, because we are righteous in Christ only (quia in solo Christo iusti sumus).70

In its teaching on Justification the Council reaffirms the unique role of Christ in the forgiveness of sins, a point with which Calvin is in total agreement. However, Calvin upholds the view that the Council goes on expounding the nature of justification according to the doctrine of duplex iustitia, twofold righteousness. The term has many different meanings and it is important to be clear in which 69 Calvin, Acta, 417–18; Acts, trans. Beveridge, 76. 70 Calvin, Acta, 448; Acts, trans. Beveridge, 116.

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

301

sense it is used in the decree – at least in Calvin’s reading of it.71 Justification requires a twofold righteousness: an imputed righteousness which comes from Christ’s righteousness being reckoned or imputed to our account, and an inherent or infused righteousness (iustitia inhaerens or infusa).72 In a word, justification is not solely by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the Christian, but by the infusion of Christ’s righteousness into the believers so that they actually become righteous in themselves. At any rate, justification is a process of “sanctification and renovation of the inward man through the voluntary reception of grace and gifts of grace”, a matter of degrees, and something capable of being increased or diminished.73 Moreover, this process of infusion of grace is accomplished by the merit of good works and priestly blessings – all of this is viewed by Trent as the necessary preparation for, the requisite disposition prior to, receiving the righteousness of justification.74 Calvin takes the term justification to mean something quite different: I say that it is owing to free imputation that we are considered righteous before God; I say that from this also another benefit proceeds, viz., that our works have the name of righteousness, though they are far from having the reality of righteousness. In short, I affirm, that not by our own merit but by faith alone, are both our persons and works justified (non proprio merito, sed fide sola, tam personam quam opera iustificari); and that the justification of works depends on the justification of the person, as the effect on the cause. Therefore, it is necessary that the righteousness of faith alone so precede in order, and be so pre-eminent in degree, that nothing can go before it or obscure it.75

71 On the Tridentine understanding of duplex iustitia, see A.E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (2 vol.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 2.54–97. 72 Ch. 7 of the decree, in Calvin, Acta, 433; Acts, Beveridge (trans.), 96: “For, although no one can be righteous unless the merits of Christ’s passion are communicated to him, that takes place in this Justification of the ungodly, when, by the merit of the same holy passion, the love of God is diffused by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those who are justified, and inheres in them. Hence, in Justification itself, along with the remission of sins, man receives, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, all these things infused at the same time, viz., faith, hope, and charity.” See A.N.S. Lane, “Calvin and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy”, in H.J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae. Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, Princeton, August 20–24, 2002 (Geneva: Droz, 2004) 233–63. 73 Ch. 7 of the decree, in Acts, 95. See H. Denzinger/P. Hünermann (ed.), Enchiridion symbolorum (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2001), 1528: “iustificatio … non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum, unde homo ex iniusto fit iustus et ex inimico amicus …” 74 K. Lehmann, “Das Dekret des Konzils von Trient über die Rechtfertigung: Historisches Verständnis und theologische Bedeutung in ökumenischer Sicht. Bibliographie”, in Lehman (ed.), Lehrverurteilungen-kirchentrennend?, vol. 2: Materialien zu den Lehrverurteilungen und zur Theologie der Rechtfertigung (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1989) 368–72. 75 Calvin, Acta, 458; Acts, Beveridge (trans.), 128.

302

Emidio Campi

The theological relevance of this brief statement must not be missed. The term “free imputation” makes explicit Calvin’s forensic view of justification, which is quite incompatible with the conception of the Tridentine fathers of iustitia inhaerens, or new qualities bestowed upon the believer. Calvin identifies justification with the act of God wherein he forgives the sins of believers and accepts them as righteous, not on account of their own righteousness, but on account of the righteousness of Christ located outside them. Justification is, in other words, that aspect of salvation that declares believers to be once and for all in a right relationship with God. At the same time, Calvin refers here – as he does throughout all of his writings – to a twofold justification (not twofold justice!), which makes not only our person, but also our works acceptable to God.76 They are accepted and justified not through the sacrament of baptism and subsequently, after the “shipwreck” of sin, through the sacrament of penance,77 nor because they possess an inherent righteousness that partly contributes to salvation, but because God pardons their imperfections and reckons them righteous on the basis of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Salvation includes not only the believer’s free acceptance with God but also the believer’s renewal in sanctification: It is not to be denied – he argues –, that the two things, Justification and Sanctification, are constantly conjoined and cohere; but from this it is erroneously inferred that they are one and the same. For example: The light of the sun, though never unaccompanied with heat, is not to be considered heat. Where is the man so undiscerning as not to distinguish the one from the other? We acknowledge, then, that as soon as anyone is justified, renewal [i. e., progressive sanctification] also necessarily follows: and there is no dispute as to whether or not Christ sanctifies all whom he justifies.78

Thus, the burden and at the same time the genius of Calvin’s doctrine of twofold justification is to hold these two benefits – justification of the person and justification of the works – together as distinct yet inseparable consequences of the believer’s union with Christ through the office of the Spirit. He and the Council fathers did understand the meaning of Justification differently and have different conceptions of the divine-human relationship. That is the reason for the division on this chief article of Christian doctrine. The final pages of the Antidotum reveal anguish and worry about that situation. Calvin still 76 On this important distinction, see C.P. Venema, Accepted and Renewed in Christ: The “Twofold Grace of God” and the Interpretation of Calvin’s Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 262–74. 77 The term is used by Tertullian to present the sacrament of penance as the second plank of salvation after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace, see Tertullian, De Poenit. 7, in Patrologia Latina, J.P. Migne (ed.) (Paris: Garnier Fratres, 1844–90), 1.1241ff. and also in the Council’s Decree on Justification, Chapt. 14, “De lapsis et eorum reparatione”. 78 Calvin, Acta, 448; Acts, Beveridge (trans.), 115–16.

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

303

favours a conciliar solution to the schism in the Church, but above all puts his unshakable trust in the power of the One who in the greatest of adversity remains and will remain victor: It were indeed most desirable that the dissensions by which the Church is now disturbed be settled by a pious Council, but as matters are we cannot yet hope for it … Churches are scattered in a dreadful manner, and no hope of gathering them together appears … In regard to the whole body of the Church, we commend it to the care of its Lord. Meanwhile, let us not be either slothful or secure … Let us contribute whatever in us is of counsel, learning, and abilities to build up the ruins of the Church. But, in affairs so desperate, let us be sustained and animated by the promise that … the Lord, armed with His own justice and with the weight of His own arm, will Himself perform all things.79

This and the aforementioned passages lead to the conclusion that the Antidotum, far from being a malignant and unsubstantiated calumny proffered against the Council of Trent, as Cochlaeus claimed, is a remarkably lucid exposition of the main theological points at issue between Rome and Reformed Protestantism.

Conclusion Analysis has made it clear that the magisterial reformers understood the attacks launched against the Council of Trent as defiance against the Roman ministerial orders and not as defiance of, much less a separation from the Una Sancta. They did not intend to found a new Church but rather to purify the Church that was before them and restore its apostolic form that had become distorted during the course of history. They saw the best instrument for that restorative process in a truly “free, general, and Christian Council” where the watchwords sola Scriptura, solus Christus, sola fide, were to act as a kind of theological compass, a touchstone against error – a project which they championed relentlessly throughout their lives. Yet they were under no illusion that such an assembly could be convened. The impatience that we have detected in their writings indicates not only that they saw no possibility of any reconciliation with Rome, but gives some idea of the inner struggle that the break must have cost them. It is striking that despite the harshness of certain judgments, some of which should be modified nowadays in the light of partial but real changes which took place in post-Tridentine Catholicism, almost all pieces surveyed conclude in the form of a prayer stating that ultimately “God himself will perform all things”. To say so is not to oversimplify, or to forget the earthly political and social matters, nor is to flee history for some abstract theological paradigm. It is rather to recognize the due importance of the theological factor in schism that took place at that time in the Western Church. 79 Acts, Beveridge (trans.), 187–8.

304

Emidio Campi

Recognizing this problem is the first step to be taken in order to leave behind confessional boundaries and move towards a truly ecumenical dialogue. It would certainly not be realistic to ignore the large obstacles there are in the way to true reconciliation. Yet the latter half of the twentieth century certainly reaped positive results of doctrinal convergence between the Roman Catholic Church, Anglicans, and the Protestant churches.80 The greatest progress has probably been made in the area of biblical studies where the differences among exegetical schools cut across confessional boundaries. Broad agreements have been achieved on sacraments and ministry as well as on the doctrine of Justification. It is encouraging to see that on the occasion of the 450th anniversary of the closing of the Council of Trent and during the Reformation Jubilee of 2017, scholars and Church leaders were looking back with renewed energy at the two historical events for a fresh re-examination of the origins of those beliefs, doctrines, and practices that divided and continue to divide the Christian churches. A seed has been sown and has grown, even amidst so many trials and tribulations. It is in the name of this hope that I would like to conclude this survey of the attitude of the reformers towards the Council. It is a slender hope, but it is real enough to enable us to seek true unity – something that would have been impossible to imagine in past times.

Bibliography Archival sources Stuttgart, Hauptstaatsarchiv, A63 Bü 26, fol. 23–51: Johannes Brenz, Gutachten zur Konzilsteilnahme, 1551. Zurich, Zentralbibliothek, Msc A 127, 545–7, No. 17: Heinrich Bullinger, Wie man in ein Concilium einwillgen mögen, 1532.

80 The literature is extensive. Here are some relevant suggestions: K. Lehmann/W. Pannenberg (ed.), Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide? (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990); The Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000); From Conflict to Communion: Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017. Report of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt/Bonifatius, 2013); J. Bush/P. Cooney, Journey in Faith: Forty Years of ReformedCatholic Dialogue: 1965–2005, http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-andinterreligious/ecumenical/reformed/journey-in-faith.cfm (accessed 26 October 2014); S. Timmer, Receptive Ecumenism and Justification: Roman Catholic and Reformed Doctrine in Contemporary Context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Marquette University; Milwaukee, 2014).

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

305

Printed and edited sources Bibliander, Theodor, Amplior consideratio decreti synodalis Tridentini ([Basel]: [Johannes Oporinus], 1551). Bibliander, Theodor, Concilium sacrosanctum Domini nostri Jesu Christi ([Basel]: [Johannes Oporinus], 1552). Bucer, Martin, Gutachten der Straßburger Theologen zur Rekusation des Trienter Konzils (1545), in Schriften zur Reichsreligionspolitik der Jahre 1545/1546, S. Haaf/A. de Lange (ed.) (Deutsche Schriften 15; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2011). Bucer, Martin, De Concilio et legitime iudicandis controversiis religionis … Confutatio (1545), in Schriften zur Reichsreligionspolitik der Jahre 1545/1546, S. Haaf/A. de Lange (ed.) (Deutsche Schriften 15; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2011). Bucer, Martin, Zwei Decret des Trientischen Concili (1546), in Schriften zur Reichsreligionspolitik der Jahre 1545/1546, S. Haaf/A. de Lange (ed.) (Deutsche Schriften 15; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2011). Bullinger, Heinrich, Antwort der Kirchendieneren zu Zuerich auf des Pabst drittes Einladen auf das Concilium zu Triento (1562), in Heinrich Bullinger Werke. Bibliographie, J. Staedtke/E. Herkenrath et al. (ed.) (henceforth HBBibl) (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972–2004) 1.736; also in Miscellanea Tigurina 1/6 (Zurich: s.n., 1722) 37–54. Bullinger, Heinrich, Antwort der Kirchendienern zu Zürich auf des Papsts Laden in das Concilium zu Trient (1551), HBBibl 1.229; also in Miscellanea Tigurina 1/4 (Zurich: s.n., 1722) 100–18. Bullinger, Heinrich, Antworten der Kirchendiener zu Zuerich uff des Papst Laden in das Concilium zu Trient (1546), HBBibl 1.733; also in Miscellanea Tigurina 1/3 (Zurich: s.n., 1722) 26–38. Bullinger, Heinrich, Demostratione del Bullingero, che il Concilio di Trento non sia ordinato per haver a cercare et illustrare la verità con la Sacra Scrittura, ma per sovvertirla et istabilire gli errori della sedia Romana, P.P. Vergerio (trans.) (s.l.: s.n., s.d.); also in HBBibl 1.228. Bullinger, Heinrich, Concilium Tridentinum: non institutum esse ad inquirendam illustrandamque ex Scripturis veritatem, sed ad subvertendam, stabiliendosque Rom. Ecclesiae errores: demonstratio (Zurich: Dies Caroli M.DLI [1551]); also in HBBibl 1.230. Bullinger, Heinrich, De conciliis: quomodo apostoli Christi domini in primitiva ecclesia suum illud Hierosolymis concilium celebraverint & quanto cum fructu, quantaque pace: quomodo item Romani Pontifices in extrema mundi senecta, a quingentis & amplius annis, sua illa concilia celebraverint, et quanto cum damno perturbationeque fidelium, brevis ex historiis commemoratio, in duos distincta libros (Zurich: Christopher (i) Froschauer, 1561); also in HBBibl 1.402–15. Bullinger, Heinrich, Schriften zum Tage, H.U. Bächtold et. al. (ed.) (Zug: Achius, 2006). Calvin, John, Admonitio paterna Pauli III (1545), Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, G. Baum/E. Cunitz/E. Reuss (ed.) (henceforth CO) (Braunschweig/Berlin: C. A. Schwetschke, 1863–1900), 7.249–88. Calvin, John, Acta Synodi Tridentinae cum Antidoto (1547), CO 7, 365–506; English edition: Acts of the Council of Trent with Antidote, in Calvin’s tracts, H. Beveridge (trans.) (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1851), vol. 3.

306

Emidio Campi

Calvin, John, Les actes du Concile de Trente: avec le remede contre la poison ([Genève]: [Jean Girard], 1548). Calvin, John, Supplex exhortatio ad Carolum quintum (1543), CO 6, 525–34. Chemnitz, Martin, Examen Concilii Tridentini, E. Preuss (ed.) (Berlin: Schlawitz, 1861; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972). Chemnitz, Martin, Examination of the Council of Trent, F. Kramer (trans.) (4 vol.; St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1971–1988). Cochlaeus, Johannes, Joannis Calvini in acta Synodi Tridentinae censura et eiusdem brevis confutatio, circa duas praecipue calumnias (Mainz: Franz Behem, 1548). Dumoulin, Charles, Conseil sur le fait du Concile de Trente (Lyon: s.n., 1564). Heinrich Bullingers Diarium (Annales vitae) der Jahre 1504–1574, E. Egli (ed.) (Basel: Basler Buch- und Antiquariatshandlung, 1904). Melanchthon, Philipp, Acta Concilii Tridentini, Anno M.D.XLVI celebrati, Francisco de Enzinas (ed.) ([Basel]: [Johannes Oporinus], 1546). Pole, Reginald, De concilio liber (Rome: Paolo Manuzio, 1562). Spi[t]zel, Theophil Gottlieb, Templum Honoris Reservatum, in quo 50 illustrium ævi hujus orthodoxorum, ac beate defunctorum theologorum philologorumque imagines (Augsburg: Goebel, 1673). Vergerio, Pier Paolo, Concilium Tridentinum fugiendum esse omnibus Pijs (s.l.: s.n., 1551). Vergerio, Pier Paolo, Concilium zuo Trient: das daβ allen Glöubigen zuo fliehen und zuo vermyden sye, Heinrich Bullinger (trans.) (s.l.: s.n., 1551). Zürcher Kirchenordnungen 1520–1675, E. Campi/Ph. Wälchli (ed.) (2 vol.; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2011).

Secondary sources Backus, I., “Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, and the Church Fathers”, in I. Backus (ed.), The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists (2 vol.; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 2.627–60. Balserak, J., Establishing the Remnant Church in France: Calvin’s Lectures on the Minor Prophets, 1556–1559 (Leiden: Brill, 2011). Becht, M., “Pia Synodus. Die Lehre vom Konzil in der Theologie Philipp Melanchthons und Johannes Calvins”, in H.J. Selderhuis/G. Frank (ed.), Melanchthon und der Calvinismus (Melanchthon-Schriften der Stadt Bretten 9; Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: FrommannHolzboog, 2005) 107–33. Beutel, M., “Gewissensnot und Glaubenstrost. Der Locus ‘De iustificatione’ in Martin Chemnitz’ ‘Examen concilii Tridentinae’”, in M. Beutel, Reflektierte Religion: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Protestantismus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) 47–65. Breuer, K., “Schmalkaldische Artikel”, TRE 30 (1999) 214–21. Bruening, M.W., Calvinism’s First Battleground: Conflict and Reform in the Pays de Vaud, 1528–1559 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2005). Büsser, F., Heinrich Bullinger. Leben, Werk und Wirkung (2 vol.; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004–2005).

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

307

Bush, J./Cooney, P., Journey in Faith: Forty Years of Reformed-Catholic Dialogue: 1965– 2005, http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/reformed/journey-in-faith.cfm (accessed 26 October 2014). Campi, E., “Pier Paolo Vergerio und sein Briefwechsel mit Heinrich Bullinger”, in S. Lekebusch/H.G. Ulrichs (ed.), Historische Horizonte. Vorträge der dritten Emder Tagung zur Geschichte des reformierten Protestantismus (Wuppertal: Foedus, 2002) 19–37. Campi, E. (ed.), “Heinrich Bullinger und seine Zeit: eine Vorlesungsreihe”, Zwingliana 31 (2004). Campi, E./Opitz, P. (ed.), Heinrich Bullinger: Life – Thought – Influence (2 vol.; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2007). Campi, E., “Immanuel Tremellius. Eine Fallstudie zur Reformation der Flüchtlinge”, in W. Kreutz/W. Kühlmann/H. Wiegand (ed.), Die Wittelsbacher und die Kurpfalz in der Neuzeit zwischen Reformation und Revolution (Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2013) 205–26. Carpenter, C.B., “A Question of Union with Christ? Calvin and Trent on Justification”, Westminster Theological Journal 64 (2002) 363–86. Casteel, Th.W., “Calvin and Trent: Calvin’s Reaction to the Council of Trent in the Context of His Conciliar Thought”, Harvard Theological Review 63 (1970) 91–117. Edwards, M.U., Jr., Luther’s Last Battles: Politics and Polemics 1531–1546 (Leiden: Brill, 1983). From Conflict to Communion: Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017. Report of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt/Bonifatius, 2013). Gauss, J., “Etappen zur Ablösung der reformierten Schweiz vom Reich”, Zwingliana 18 (1990) 234–55. Godfrey, W.R., “Calvin and the Council of Trent”, in M. Horton (ed.), Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992) 119–28. Gordon, B., The Swiss Reformation (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002). Gordon, B./Campi, E. (ed.), Architect of Reformation: An Introduction to Heinrich Bullinger 1504–1575 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004). Iserloh, E., “Luther and the Council of Trent”, The Catholic Historical Review 69 (1983) 563–76. Karstädter, M., “Norm(en) der Schriftauslegung bei Martin Chemnitz”, Lutherische Beiträge 17 (2012) 166–80. Kaufmann, Th., “Martin Chemnitz (1522–1586): zur Wirkungsgeschichte der theologischen Loci”, in H. Scheible (ed.), Melanchthon in seinen Schülern (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1997) 183–254. Kingdon, R.M., “Some French Reactions to the Council of Trent”, Church History 33 (1964) 149–56. Koch, E., “Die deutschen Protestanten und das Konzil von Trient”, in W. Reinhard/H. Schilling (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung. Wissenschaftliches Symposion der Gesellschaft zur Herausgabe des Corpus Catholicorum und des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte, 1993 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1995) 88–103. Kolb, R., “Human Performance and Righteousness of Faith: Martin Chemnitz’s AntiRoman Polemic in Formula of Concord III”, in J.A. Burgess/M. Kolden (ed.), By Faith

308

Emidio Campi

Alone: Essays on Justification in Honor of Gerhard O. Forde (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 2004) 125–39. Kramer, F., “Chemnitz on the Authority of the Sacred Scripture: An Examination of the Council of Trent”, Springfielder 37 (1973) 165–75. Lane, A.N.S., “Calvin and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy”, in H.J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae. Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, Princeton, August 20–24, 2002 (Geneva: Droz, 2004) 233–63. Lehmann, K., “Das Dekret des Konzils von Trient über die Rechtfertigung: Historisches Verständnis und theologische Bedeutung in ökumenischer Sicht. Bibliographie”, in K. Lehman (ed.), Lehrverurteilungen-kirchentrennend?, vol. 2: Materialien zu den Lehrverurteilungen und zur Theologie der Rechtfertigung (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1989) 368–72. Lehmann, K./Pannenberg, W. (ed.), Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide? (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990). Locher, G.W., Sign of the Advent: A Study in Protestant Ecclesiology (Fribourg: Academic Press/Paulusverlag, 2004). Mader, K., Die Via Media in der Schweizerischen Reformation. Studien zum Problem der Kontinuität im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1970). McGrath, A.E., Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (2 vol.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Mahlmann, Th., Article “Chemnitz Martin”, TRE 7 (1981) 714–21. Mahlmann, Th., Article “Chemnitz Martin”, RGG 4/2 (1999) 127–8. Matheson, P., The Rhetoric of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998). Moser, C., “‘Papam essem Antichristum’: Grundzüge von Heinrich Bullingers Antichristkonzeption”, Zwingliana 30 (2003) 65–101. Moser, C., Die Dignität des Ereignisses: Studien zu Heinrich Bullingers Reformationsgeschichtsschreibung (2 vol.; Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2012). Müller, B., “Zwingli und das Konzil von Gangra”, Zwingliana 33 (2006) 29–50. Oberman, H.A., “Book review of “Examination of the Council of Trent, F. Kramer (trans.)”, The Sixteenth Century Journal 19 (1988) 251–3. Olsen, A.L., Scripture and Tradition in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University; Boston, MA, 1966). Olsen, A.L., “The Hermeneutical Vision of Martin Chemnitz: The Role of Scripture and Tradition in the Teaching Church”, in K. Hagen (ed.), Augustine, The Harvest, and Theology (1300–1650). Essays dedicated to Heiko Augustinus Oberman in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday (Leiden: Brill, 1990) 314–32. Pestalozzi, C., Heinrich Bullinger: Leben und ausgewählte Schriften nach handschriftlichen und gleichzeitigen Quellen (Elberfeld: Friderichs, 1858). Preus, J.A.O., The Second Martin: The Life and Theology of Martin Chemnitz (St. Louis, MO: CPH, 1994). Pfister, R., “Zu Bullingers Beurteilung des Konzils von Trient”, in U. Gäbler/E. Herkenrath (ed.), Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag (2 vol.; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975) 1.123–40. Römer, J., Profil und Abgrenzung Luthers (vergessenes?) Vermächtnis: 475 Jahre Schmalkaldische Artikel (Monographia Hassiae 27; Kassel: Evangelische Medienverb. Verlag, 2013).

The Council of Trent and the Magisterial Reformers

309

Schmidt-Clausing, F., “Zwinglis Stellung zum Konzil”, Zwingliana 11 (1962) 479–98. Spehr, C., Luther und das Konzil: Zur Entwicklung eines zentralen Themas in der Reformationszeit (BHTh 153; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). Steenkamp, J.J., “Calvin’s Exhortation to Charles V (1543)”, in W.H. Neueser/B.G. Armstrong (ed.), Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1997) 309–14. Swierenga, R.P., “Calvin and the Council of Trent: A Reappraisal”, The Reformed Journal 16/3 (1966) 35–7; 16/4 (1966) 16–21; 16/5 (1966) 20–3. The Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000). Timmer, S., Receptive Ecumenism And Justification: Roman Catholic And Reformed Doctrine in Contemporary Context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Marquette University; Milwaukee, 2014). Venema, C.P., Accepted and Renewed in Christ: The “Twofold Grace of God” and the Interpretation of Calvin’s Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). White, G.L., Anglican Reactions to the Council of Trent in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth I (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University; Nashville, TN, 1975).

Günter Frank

Melanchthon und das Konzil von Trient

I. Am 16. März 1517, rund acht Monate vor der Veröffentlichung von Luthers 95 Thesen zum Ablasshandel, wurde das V. Laterankonzil beendet. Zwar lagen diesem Konzil zwei durchaus ernste Reformprogramme zur Überwindung der allenthalben sichtbaren Missstände der Kirche vor, wie sie im späten Mittelalter angemahnt waren: die Pläne der beiden italienischen Mönche Tommaso Giustiniani und Vincenzo Quirini sowie der spanischen Bischöfe.1 Aufs Ganze gesehen, war dieses Konzil jedoch – wie Marc Venard festhielt – „misslungen“, weil die Gleichgültigkeit des Papstes in der Durchführung der Beschlüsse und der fehlende Reformwille der Kurie das Konzil um seine mögliche, wenn auch nur geringe Wirkung beraubten. Am 28. November 1518, nach dem sog. „Augsburger Verhör“, das vom 12.– 14. Oktober im Stadtpalast der Fugger stattfand und auf dem Kardinallegat Cajetan Luther vergeblich aufgefordert hatte, seine 95 Thesen zu widerrufen, appellierte Luther erstmals vom Papst an ein allgemeines Konzil.2 Luther bediente sich damit bekanntlich eines Instruments, das von Päpsten des 15. Jahrhunderts wie Martin V. und Pius II, aber auch des beginnenden 16. Jahrhunderts wie Papst Julius II. verboten worden war, weil eine Konzilsappellation unverkennbar deren Autorität über diejenige des Papsttums stellte. Von diesem Zeitpunkt an sollte der Ruf nach einem neuen, allgemeinen, freien und christlichen Konzil in der werdenden Reformation nicht mehr verstummen. 1 M. Venard, „Das fünfte Laterankonzil (1512–1517) und das Konzil von Trient (1545–1563)“, in G. Alberigo (Hg.), Geschichte der Konzilien. Vom Nicaenum bis zum Vaticanum II (Wiesbaden: Fourier-Verl., 1998) 333–9, hier S. 334. Ausführlich auch: H. Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient (4 vol.; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 31977), 1.93–110. 2 Luthers Konzilsverständnis ist in jüngster Zeit umfassend dargestellt worden durch C. Spehr, Luther und das Konzil: Zur Entwicklung eines zentralen Themas in der Reformationszeit (BHTh 153; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). Zu den Hintergründen der Konzilsappellation, siehe Spehr, Luther und das Konzil, 92–114.

312

Günter Frank

Luther verstarb am 18. Februar 1546, als das Konzil, nachdem es am 3. Adventssonntag, dem 13. 12. 1545 in Trient eröffnet worden war, gerade wenige Wochen dauerte. Luther konnte daher kaum unmittelbar Stellung beziehen zum tatsächlich dann stattfindenden Konzil. Anders war dies bei dem anderen Wittenberger Reformator Melanchthon. Zwar erlebte auch er nicht mehr den Abschluss des Konzils im Jahr 1565. Aber als theologischer und politischer Berater des sächsischen Kurfürsts war er vor allem in die beiden ersten Konzilsperioden 1545–47 und 1550–52 tief involiert.3

II Melanchthon war spätestens seit der Leipziger Disputation des Sommers 1519 mit der durch Luther neuerlich angeregten Konzilsthematik vertraut.4 In seiner sog. Schutzrede, der Determinatio theologicae facultatis Parisiensis super doctrina Lutheriana vom Sommer 1521,5 einer Verteidigungsschrift Luthers gegen die Pariser theologische Fakultät der Sorbonne, hatte Melanchthon auch sein Konzilsverständnis entfaltet. Wie Christopher Spehr Untersuchung dargelegt hatte, setzten Luther und Melanchthon etwa in der Bewertung altkirchlicher Konzilien durchaus einen anderen Schwerpunkt. Während Luther kaum schriftgemäße Konzilien gelten lassen wollte (mit Ausnahme des Apostelkonzils und des Konzils von Nicaea), habe Melanchthon die altkirchlichen Konzilien und Kirchenväter insgesamt freundlicher beurteilt.6 In eine neue Phase geriet der öffentliche und politische Diskurs über ein mögliches Konzil durch die päpstliche Initiative bei der Zusammenkunft von Kaiser Karl V. und Papst Clemens VII. im Winter 1532/33 in Bologna, bei der der 3 Melanchthons umfangreiche Beschäftigung mit der Konzilsthematik, gerade auch im Blick auf das Konzil von Trient, stellt noch immer ein Desiderat der Forschung dar. Auch in diesem Beitrag kann es nur um eine einführende Darlegung der wichtigsten Schriften Melanchthons gehen. Immer noch hilfreich ist: R. Stupperich, „Die Reformatoren und das Tridentinum“, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 47/1 (1956) 20–63; einige Hinweise finden sich auch bei: R. Stupperich, „Kirche und Synode bei Melanchthon“, in W. Hubatsch (Hg.), Wirkungen der deutschen Reformation bis 1555 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchges., 1967) 114–33; M. Becht, „Pia Synodus. Die Lehre vom Konzil in der Theologie Philipp Melanchthons und Johannes Calvins“, in F. Günter/J.H. Selderhuis (Hg.), Melanchthon und der Calvinismus (Melanchthon-Schriften der Stadt Bretten 9; Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2005) 107–34. 4 Am 21. 7. 1519 berichtete Melanchthon über die Konzilsthematik während der Leipziger Disputation ausführlich an Oekolampad. Vgl. Melanchthons Briefwechsel (MBW), H. Scheible/Ch. Mundhenk (Hg.) (Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1977–), T 1.59. 5 Melanchthon, Determinatio theologicae facultatis Parisiensis super doctrina Lutheriana, in Corpus Reformatorum (CR) (101 vol.; Berlin: Schwetschke, 1934–1963), 1.366–88. 6 Spehr, Luther und das Konzil, 333–8.

Melanchthon und das Konzil von Trient

313

Papst gegen seinen Willen dem Drängen des Kaisers nach einem neuen Konzil nachgeben musste.7 Zur Verkündung des Konzils wurde der Nuntius nach Deutschland gesandt und auch vom sächsischen Kurfürsten Johann Friedrich in Empfang genommen. Der Konzilseinberufung waren gleichzeitig acht Bedingungen auferlegt, von denen vor allem die erste Bedingung auf heftigen Widerspruch unter Wittenberger Theologen trafen. In dieser wurde von einem freien Konzil gesprochen, wie es dem Brauch allgemeiner Konzilien von Anbeginn bis in die gegenwärtige Zeit entspreche.8 Die Konzilseinberufung stellte die Wittenberger Theologen jedoch insgesamt vor das Dilemma, einerseits ein solches Konzil, nach dem sie selbst gefordert hatten, nicht schlechthin ablehnen zu können. Andererseits war die Skepsis doch weit verbreitet, ob mit den Konzilsbedingungen insgesamt die Voraussetzungen gegeben seien, die es den Evangelischen erlaubten, an einem solchen Konzil teilzunehmen. Insbesondere stieß hierbei die erste Bedingung auf heftige Kritik Luthers, der in zwei Gutachten im Juni 1533 den Grund für die kursächsische Konzilsantwort legte.9 Denn die päpstliche Formulierung des gewohnten Brauchs der Kirche „ante seculis ab inicio usque … ad haec tempora“ legte die Annahme nahe, dass der Papst auch die letzten Konzilien wie das Konstanzer, Basler und das V. Laterankonzil mit einschließen wollte – eine Position, die für die Evangelischen unannehmbar schien. Vor allem wurden die Stellung und die Rolle des Papstes im Konzil zum Hauptkritikpunkt Luthers. Der Papst müsse Religionspartei und nicht Richter im Konzil sein, zumal das Konzil ja gerade wegen der Praxis des Papsttums gefordert wurde. Melanchthon empfahl in seinem Gutachten vom 10. Juni 1533,10 das wie dasjenige Luthers und anderer Wittenberger Theologen dann in das kursächsische Kollektivgutachten Eingang finden sollte, über Luther hinaus, um sich nicht dem Verdacht auszusetzen, ein Konzil verhindern zu wollen, unter der Bedingung dieses Konzil zu besuchen, dass eine Verpflichtung auf diese erste Bedingung unterbliebe.11 Außerdem solle der Kaiser die Verantwortung für das Konzil übernehmen.12 Die offizielle Antwort des Schmalkaldischen Bundes vom 30. Juni 1533 fiel dann gleichwohl weit ablehnender aus, als dies die Wittenberger Theologen empfohlen hatten. Alle Bedingungen zur Konzilseinberufung wurden vorbehaltslos zurückgewiesen. Jedoch scheiterte das Konzil nicht an der Antwort 7 Über die politisch-historischen Hintergründe der Ereignisse sei auf die Konzilsstudien von Jedin und Alberigo (wie Anm. 1) sowie – von Wittenberger Perspektive – auf Spehr (wie Anm. 2) verwiesen. 8 D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Briefwechsel (henceforth WA Br) (18 vol.; Weimar: Böhlau, 1883–2009), 6.480; vgl. hierzu auch Spehr, Luther und das Konzil, 430–3. 9 WA Br 6, 483–5 (1. Gutachten); WA Br 6, 485–7 (2. Gutachten). 10 MBW T 5, 1334. 11 So vor allem in dem von Luther und Spalatin mitgetragenen Gutachten vom 10. Juni 1533, MBW T 5, 1333, 15–17. 12 MBW T 5, 1334, 30–5.

314

Günter Frank

des Schmalkaldischen Bundes, sondern an der Uneinigkeit der Anhänger Roms und am französischen König Franz I. Im März 1534 wurde das Konzil auf unbestimmte Zeit verschoben.

III. Eine neue Situation war freilich gegeben, als am 2. Juni 1536 der neue Papst Paul III. mit der Bulle Ad dominici gregis curam ein ökumenisches, universales und allgemeines Konzil für den 23. Mai 1537 nach Mantua einberief. Hier standen nun insbesondere die evangelischen Reichsstände vor dem Problem, wie sie mit der Konzilseinladung umgehen sollten, weil alle bisher erreichten reichsrechtlichen Regelungen nur bis zu einem künftigen Konzil in Geltung bleiben sollten und damit der Bestand der evangelischen Lehre in Gefahr geriet.13 Erneut wurden die Wittenberger Theologen vom sächsischen Kurfürsten um ein Gutachten gebeten,14 das jedoch ohne politische Folgen blieb, weil im Sommer 1536 der Kaiser einen Kriegszug gegen Frankreich führte und sich die Konzilseinladung erneut verzögerte. Allerdings suchte der sächsische Kurfürst insgesamt eine Klärung in der Konzilsfrage und hatte zu dieser Frage auch zu einer Bundesversammlung nach Schmalkalden eingeladen, auf der Luther seine Schmalkaldischen Artikel verfaßt hatte, deren Charakter – so Christopher Spehr – zwischen einem gutachterlichen Lehrdokument für das Konzil und einem persönlichen Glaubensbekenntnis oszilliert.15 Formal bestanden die Schmalkaldischen Artikel, die Luther Ende 1536 vorlegte, aus drei Teilen: der erste Teil enthielt jene Artikel, über die zwischen den Parteien kein Streit bestand, der zweite Teil beschrieb jene Artikel, in denen nach Luther nicht nachgegeben werden könne, während der dritte Teil jene Punkte auflistete, in denen man eine Verständigung finden könnte. Die anwesenden Theologen in Schmalkalden berieten über die einzelnen Artikel. Mit der Abfassung einer eigenständigen Schrift über die päpstliche Gewalt wurde Melanchthon beauftragt. Diese Schrift erhielt den Titel Tractatus de potestate et primatu papae und wurde – mit Ausnahme des erkrankten Luthers – von allen anwesenden Theologen unterzeichnet.16 13 14 15 16

Zu den Hintergründen, Spehr, Luther und das Konzil, 454–67. Gutachten vom 6. August 1536, MBW T 7, 1769. Spehr, Luther und das Konzil, 471. Melanchthon, Tractatus de potestate et primatu papae, CR 3, 271–87. Vgl. neben den Hinweisen bei Spehr auch H. Volz, Luthers Schmalkaldische Artikel und Melanchthons „Tractatus de potestate papae“. Ihre Geschichte von der Entstehung bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts (Gotha: Klotz, 1931); W. Klausnitzer, Der Primat des Bischofs von Rom. Entwicklung. Dogma. Ökumenische Zukunft (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2004), 284–90. Mit einem 1559 an Kurfürst August verfaßten Bedenken über den päpstlichen Jurisdiktionsprimat wurde der Tractatus später zusammen gedruckt: Philipp Melanchthon, Bedenken von Kayserlicher und Päpstlicher

Melanchthon und das Konzil von Trient

315

Melanchthon entfaltete hier unter einer dreifachen Fragestellung seine und die Wittenberger Theologen wiedergebende Auffassung des päpstlichen Primats im Zusammenhang der Konzilsthematik: (1) Der römische Bischof beanspruche für sich, „iure divino“ über allen Bischöfen und Pastoren zu stehen; (2) Darüber hinaus beansprucht er „beide Schwerter iure divino“; (3) Schließlich sage er, dies zu glauben sei heilsnotwendig. Diese drei Artikel – so Melanchthon – würden wir (die Wittenberger) als falsch, tyrannisch und gefährlich für die Kirche ansehen.17 Zum Artikel 1 ergänzt Melanchthon, dass hierzu auch der Anspruch gehöre, dass der römische Bischof auch Autorität beanspruche, Gesetze sowie kultische und doktrinäre Artikel als (heilsnotwendige) Glaubensartikel („articuli fidei“) aufzustellen. In mehreren Argumentationsgängen versucht Melanchthon, diese Artikel zu widerlegen, zunächst biblisch: so zeige Luk 22:24 f, dass Christus eine Herrschaft unter den Aposteln verbiete, Joh 20:21 zeige, dass Christus die Apostel ohne Unterschied ausgesandt habe, während Paulus in Gal 2:2, 6 betonte, dass ihm das Evangelium nicht von Petrus anvertraut worden sei, die Autorität des Dienstes also allein vom Wort Gottes abhänge. Im 1. Korintherbrief schließlich (1. Kor 3:22ff.) werde jeglicher Dienst in der Kirche auf Christus zurückgeführt. In einem zweiten Gedankengang zum ersten Artikel eines päpstlichen Jurisdiktionsprimats „iure divino“ argumentiert Melanchthon historisch (ex historiis). Um nur drei Argumente zu benennen: so zeige bereits das Konzil von Nicaea, dass der römische Bischof von der Synode „iure humano“ eingesetzt wurde,18 daneben hätten viele Kirchen im Osten ihre Legitimität nicht vom römischen Bischof, so dass dessen Primat unmöglich sei; schließlich zeige die Tatsache, dass die römischen Bischöfe von den Herrschern bestätigt werden mussten, dass ihnen kein Primat „iure divino“ über die ganze Kirche zukomme.19 Im zweiten Artikel, dem Anspruch der „beiden Schwerter“ „iure divino“, dem geistlichen und dem weltlichen, betont Melanchthon, dass die von Christus eingesetzte Kirche ein „ministerium Evangelii“ sei und den Aposteln allein eine „potestas spiritualis“ gegeben sei. Deshalb sei die von Bonifaz VIII. erlassene Gewalt nebst einer historischen Einleitung von Veranlassung dieser Schrift (Frankfurt/Leipzig: [s.n.], 1784). 17 Melanchthon, De potestate et primatu papae, CR 3, 272: „Romanus Pontifex arrogat sibi, quod iure divino sit supra omnes Episcopos et Pastores. Deinde addit etiam, quod iure divino habeat utrumque gladium, hoc est, autoritatem regna conferendi et transferendi. Et tertio dicit, quod haec credere sit de necessitate salutis … Hoc tres articulos sentimus et profitemur falsos, tyrannicos, et perniciosos Ecclesiae esse.“ 18 Melanchthon, De potestate et primatu papae, CR 3, 274. 19 Melanchthon, De potestate et primatu papae, CR 3, 274–7.

316

Günter Frank

Bulle falsch und gottlos, die dem Papsttum die Herrschaft auch über den weltlichen Bereich „iure divino“ zuspricht.20 Bonifaz – so ist hier zu ergänzen – hatte bekanntlich in seiner am 18. November 1302 erlassenen Bulle „Unam sanctam“ den universalen Herrschaftsanspruch des Papsttums auch im weltlichen Bereich zu begründen versucht. Im Blick auf den dritten Artikel, der die Heilsnotwendigkeit der vom Papst aufgestellten, in den heiligen Schriften aber nicht enthaltenen „articuli fidei“21 betrifft, betont Melanchthon, dass – selbst wenn dem römischen Bischof ein Primat „iure divino“ zukomme – diesem nicht zu folgen sei, wenn er einen gottlosen Kult, Idolatrie und eine Lehre vertrete, die mit dem Evangelium im Widerstreit liegt. Zunächst ist es der Papst selbst, dem der Gehorsam verweigert werden müsse, wie die heilige Schrift und die „canones“ des Rechts22 darlegten, weil dieser häretisch sei.23 Die Häresie des Papstes, der also in vielfältiger Weise im Widerstreit mit dem Evangelium liege und für sich eine göttliche Autorität beanspruche, sieht er vor allem in drei Umständen gegeben. Einerseits beanspruche er das Recht, die Lehre Christi und den von Gott eingerichteten Kult zu verändern und seine Lehre und Kultvorschriften gewissermaßen als göttlich einzuhalten ansieht. Daneben beanspruche er – im Blick auf den Ablass – Macht über die Seelen nicht nur im irdischen, sondern auch im ewigen Leben. Da sich schließlich der Papst – so das dritte, konziliaristische Argument – nicht von der Kirche oder jemand anderen urteilen lassen wolle, stelle er seine Autorität über das Urteil der Konzilien und der ganzen Kirche, was für Melanchthon nichts anderes bedeutet, als sich selbst zu Gott machen.24 Unter den Beispielen der Idolatrie, in denen der Papst also eine Lehre als heilsnotwendig vertrete, die im Widerstreit mit dem Evangelium steht, nennt Melanchthon: Werkgerechtigkeit, Rechtfertigung, Ablass, Heiligenanrufung, Zölibat und Mönchsgelübde. Selbst wenn also der römische Bischof, wie Melanchthon zuspitzt, einen Primat „iure 20 Melanchthon, De potestate et primatu papae, CR 3, 277ff. Die Kritik am universalen Machtanspruch des Papsttums, wie er insbesondere in dieser Bulle Bonifaz VIII. zum Ausdruck kommt, ist ein durchgehendes Motiv Melanchthons. Es findet sich auch in seinen Bearbeitungen der aristotelischen Ethik. Vgl. hierzu etwa: P. Melanchthon, Grundbegriffe der Ethik: Ethicae Doctrinae Elementa et Enarratio Libri quinti Ethicorum, G. Frank (Hg.) (Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2008), 188–95. 21 Vgl. hierzu auch insgesamt den Beitrag des Vf., „Die ‚articuli fidei‘ als Grund des Glaubens und der Theologie – Genese und Kritik eines Grundbegriffs der Ekklesiologie“, in G. Frank/V. Leppin (Hg.), Die Reformation und ihr Mittelalter (Melanchthon Schriften der Stadt Bretten 14; Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2016) 135–52. 22 Decretum Gratianum, P. II C. 2 q. 7 c. 13. 23 Melanchthon, De potestate et primatu papae, CR 3, 278: „… sicut Paulus clare docet: ‘Si Angelus de coelo aliud Evangelium doceret, praeter id, quod vos docui, anathema sit’. Et in Actis: ‘Oportet Deo magis obedire, quam hominibus’. Item et Canones clare docent, haeretico Papae non esse obediendum.“ 24 Melanchthon, De potestate et primatu papae, CR 3, 279.

Melanchthon und das Konzil von Trient

317

divino“ hätte, gleichzeitig aber gottlose Kultvorschriften und eine Lehre vertrete, die im Widerstreit mit dem Evanglium liege, sei ihm kein Gehorsam entgegenzubringen, weil es geradezu notwendig sei, diesem als Antichristen zu widerstehen.25 Melanchthons Argumentationsabsicht ist deutlich: da in der frühen Kirche ein Primat des römischen Bischofs nicht ausgeübt worden sei, könne dieser nicht auf eine Stiftung durch Christus („iure divino“) zurückgeführt werden, sondern könne allenfalls „iure humano“ sein. Darüber hinaus trägt das zeitgenössische Papsttum in den Augen auch Melanchthons deutlich antichristliche Züge. Melanchthons Traktat über den päpstlichen Jurisdiktionsprimat wurde von den beteiligten Theologen in Schmalkalden offiziell angenommen und im Bundesabschied vom 6. März 1537 ausdrücklich genannt. Auch wenn die politische Entwicklung diesen neuerlichen Konzilsdiskurs in Schmalkalden bald in den Hintergrund drängte – das Konzil wurde erneut mehrmals verschoben, so erhielten sowohl die Schmalkaldischen Artikel wie auch Melanchthons Traktat über den päpstlichen Jurisdiktionsprimat durch die Aufnahme in das lutherische Konkordienbuch von 1580 bleibende theologische Bedeutung.

IV. 1539 hatte Martin Luther seine bedeutende reformatorische Schrift Von den Konziliis und Kirchen veröffentlicht, über die zu handeln hier nicht der Ort ist.26 Auch in den beginnenden 40-er Jahren des 16. Jahrhunderts blieb natürlich das Konzilsthema lebendig. Mit der neuerlichen Konzilseinberufung durch die Bulle Laetare Jerusalem vom 30. November 1544, die das Konzil für den 15. März 1545 nach Trient einberief, trat dieses jedoch in eine neue Phase. Zur Beurteilung dieses neu ausgeschriebenen Konzils legten die Wittenberger Theologen ein von Melanchthon verfasstes Kollektivgutachten am 14. Januar vor.27 In dieser politisch aufgeheizten Situation erschien Luthers Schrift Wider das Papsttum zu Rom, vom Teufel gestiftet, in der er polemischer als bisher dieses Konzil kritisierte und den Papst als Erzfeind Christi angriff.28 Dass das Konzil dann tatsächlich am 13. Dezember 1545 eröffnet wurde, erfuhr er, mit Krankheit gezeichnet, in Eisleben. 25 Melanchthon, De potestate et primatu papae, CR 3, 282: „Itaque etiamsi Romanus Episcopus iure divino haberet primatum, tamen postquem defendit impios cultus et doctrinam pugnantem cum Evangelio, non debetur ei obedientia, imo necesse est ei tanquam Antichristo adversari.“ 26 Ausführlich hierzu Spehr, Luther und das Konzil, 506–40. 27 Die deutsche Fassung findet sich im CR 5, 578–606, die lateinische Fassung, CR 5, 607–43. 28 Ausführlich hierzu Spehr, Luther und das Konzil, 553–60.

318

Günter Frank

Melanchthon befasste sich fortlaufend mit der Konzilsthematik und verfasste eine Reihe von „Bedenken“.29 Als sich in Wittenberg die Nachricht verbreitete, das Konzil sei in Trient eröffnet worden, erhielt Melanchthon im Januar 1546 den Auftrag, die sächsische Recusation, also die Ablehnung des Konzils auszuführen, die am 3. Juni vollendet war.30 In dieser Schrift stellte er in drei umfangreichen Gedankengängen noch einmal seine und die Position der Wittenberger Theologen zum Konzil zusammen, um zu begründen, weshalb der Kurfürst und die Protestanten nicht gebunden seien, dieses Konzil zu besuchen: (1) Papsttum: Papst hat nicht die Legitimität, ein Konzil einzuberufen; Ablehnung des Primats des römischen Bischofs; das Papstamt selbst könne nicht Richter sein, sondern ist Partei; (2) Bedingungen eines rechtmäßigen Konzils: das Konzil von Trient liege nicht in Deutschland, sei, da nur Kardinäle und Prälaten, aber keine anderen Stände oder auch Laien zugelassen sind, weder ein universales, noch ein freies Konzil; da den Evangelischen die Gefahr droht, verurteilt, exkommuniziert und verfolgt zu werden; Trient sei auch kein christliches Konzil, „Denn dem ewigen Götlichen wort sollen billich alle menschliche satzungen und sünde weichen“. 29 Stupperich, „Die Reformatoren“, 36–8. 30 Ausführlich zur Genese dieser sog. Recusations-Schrift, MBW T 15, 4336. Nach dieser Erklärung gab es eine ursprünglich von Melanchthon verfasste lateinische Ausgabe und zwei deutsche Übersetzungen, die völlig unabhängig voneinander sind (eine Fassung in Melanchthon Studienausgabe (MSA), R. Stupperich (Hg.) (7 vol.; Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1951– 1975) 1.411–48, die andere deutsche Fassung, die mir vorliegt, trägt den Titel: Recusationsschrift in welcher alle protestierende Religions und Eynungsverwandte Stende Rechtmessige und ergründete ursach anzeigen warumb jre Chur und F.G. und sie das vermeint von Bapst Paulo dem dritten zu Trient angesetzt Concilium zubesuchen nit schuldig noch auch dasselbe dem Babst des orts uber die auffgerichte Rechsabschied unnd beschehenen vertröstungen anzustellen gebürt habe (Nürnberg: Johann von Berg/Ulrich Neuber, 1546) [Bretten, Melanchthonhaus, L 299] [diese Schrift wurde 6 Jahre später noch einmal von Matthias Flacius Illyricus bei Melchior Lotter in Magdeburg herausgegeben: Bretten, Melanchthonhaus, M 179]; die lateinische Fassung bei P. Melanchthon, Epistolae, iudicia, consilia, testimonia aliorumque ad eum epistolae quae in Corpore Reformatorum desiderantur, H.E. Bindseil (Hg.) (Halle: Schwetschke, 1874; unveränderter Nachdruck Hildesheim: Olms, 1975), 239–65. Die lateinische Fassung erhielt im Druck den das positive Anliegen ausdrückenden Titel Causae, quare et amplexae sint, et retinendam ducant doctrinam, quam profitentur, Ecclesiae, quae confessionem Augustae exhibitam Imperatori sequuntur, et quare iniquis iudicibus, collectis in Synodo Tridentina, ut vocant, non sit adsentiendum (Wittenberg: Josef Klug, 1546). Diese Fassung findet sich auch in dem Druck, Acta Concilii Tridentini, Anno M.D.XLVI celebrati: Una cum Annotationibus piis, & lectu dignissimis. Item, Ratio, cur qui Confessionem Augustanam profitentur, Francisco de Enzinas (Hg.) (Basel: Johannes Oporinus, 1546) 234– 301, die der spanische Humanist und Melanchthonschüler Francisco de Enzinas (Dryander), mit Anmerkungen versehen, herausgegeben hatte. Für wertvolle Hinweise zu dieser komplexen Überlieferungsgeschichte danke ich Frau Dr. Christine Mundhenk von der Melanchthon-Forschungsstelle in Heidelberg.

Melanchthon und das Konzil von Trient

319

(3) Werden – ähnlich wie im Traktat über den päpstlichen Jurisdiktionsprimat – die einzelnen Missstände aufgelistet sowie, da eine Erkenntnis in Religionssachen nicht an die Stände gebunden sei, das allgemeine Priestertum betont. Die Nachrichten über den Verlauf des Trienter Konzils gelangten nur spärlich nach Wittenberg. Melanchthon ahnte bei allen spärlichen Hinweisen nichts Gutes.31 Viele Überlegungen und Argumentationen, die er in seinen verschiedenen Gutachten und Bedenken entwickelt hatte, griff er erneut in seinen Vorlesungen zum Konzil von Nicaea auf, die 1550 publiziert wurde, z. B. dass kein Papst neue „articuli fidei“ aufstellen könne.32 Am 11. März 1547 wurde jedoch beschlossen, das Konzil nach Bologna zu verlegen.

V. Als mit der Bulle Cum ad tollenda vom 14. November 1550 das Konzil durch Papst Julius III. erneut nach Trient einberufen wurde, wo es am 1. Mai 1551 eröffnet wurde, sprach der Papst die Erwartung aus, dass die evangelischen Stände nicht fern bleiben würden. Kurfürst Moritz von Sachsen, der nach Beratungen mit den Theologen und Juristen entschlossen war, Gesandte zum Konzil zu entsenden und gegen die bisherigen Dekrete zu protestieren, wandte sich erneut an die Wittenberger Theologen mit der Bitte um eine Stellungnahme. Melanchthon verfasste daraufhin sein Bedenken Von den Conciliis,33 in dem er eine allgemeine Legitimität von Konzilien anerkennt und diese als „ordentliche Gericht(e)“ bezeichnet.34 Das Konzil von Trient würde jedoch die Fürsten und Stände verpflichten, das zu halten, was auf diesem beschlossen werde. Als falsch erachtet er das Dekret über die Erbsünde, vor allem aber über die Rechtfertigung.35 In einem weiteren Gutachten an den Kurfürsten mahnt Melanchthon zwei weitere Kritikpunkte an diesem Konzil an: die Frage, ob die Neueinberufung nach Trient als Fortsetzung der bisherigen Sessionen und damit als Fortschreibung der bisher gefassten Beschlüsse zu verstehen sei und – zweitens – die darin falschen Lehrauffassungen Bestand haben, unter denen er hier neben anderem 31 Melanchthon an der Bürgermeister und Rat von Amberg, 1 Dezember 1547, CR 6, 740; Melanchthon an Johann Stigel, die Brumae [12 Dezember 1547], CR 6, 745; Melanchthon an Nikolaus Medler, 25 Dezember 1547, CR 6, 755. 32 Ausführlich hierzu der Vf. (wie Anm. 21). 33 Melanchthon, Von den Conciliis, CR 6, 795–9. 34 Melanchthon, Von den Conciliis, CR 6, 795: „Daß man ganz alle Concilia fliehen und recusiren will, das kann nicht seyn. Denn es müssen Kirchengericht bleiben.“ 35 Melanchthon, Von den Conciliis, CR 6, 797.

320

Günter Frank

die mit der Rechtfertigungslehre verbundene Heilsgewissheit ausdrücklich hervorhebt,36 die für Melanchthon ebenso wichtig war wie für Luther, die das Konzil jedoch in seinem Rechtfertigungsdekret für „eitel“37 hielt. Die Annahme der neuerlichen Konzilseinladung würde also voraussetzen, dass die Fürsten vorher gegen bislang verabschiedete Dekrete, vor allem wie erwähnt in der Rechtfertigungslehre, protestierten. Im Frühjahr 1551 erteilte der Kurfürst Melanchthon den Auftrag, für das Konzil, falls es zusammentritt und von den Protestanten beschickt werden sollte,38 eine Erklärung zu verfassen, die Melanchthons letzte große Stellungnahme zum Konzil von Trient werden sollte: die Confessio Saxonica.39 Diese Bekenntnisschrift war mehr als eine Repetition der Confessio Augustana, sondern sie sollte auch die falschen Meinungen über die evangelische Lehre zurückweisen und die Irrtümer der römischen Kirche entschieden ablehnen. Vor allem übte Melanchthon auch hier heftige Kritik an der mangelnden Heilsgewissheit, wie sie der Artikel 7 des 6. tridentinischen Dekrets über die Rechtfertigungslehre dargelegt hatte.40 Am 13. Januar 1552 ließ Kurfürst Moritz von Sachsen das Trienter Konzil wissen, dass er eine Gesandtschaft abordnen werde, unter ihnen Erasmus Sarcerius, Valentin Paceus und Melanchthon.41 Die Gesandtschaft sollte allerdings in

36 Melanchthon, Von den Conciliis, CR 7, 738: „Secundo, quia haec congregatio nominatur continuatio Synodi, necessaria est protestatio, quod non velimus approbare decreta iam facta, quia manifestum est in Synodo Tridentina falsum et impium decretum factum esse: quod homo debeat manere in dubitatione, an sit in gratia. Sunt et alia errata in illis articulis.“ 37 Bei dieser für die Wittenberger Theologen so zentralen Heilsgewissheit handelt es sich um zwei Aspekte des Rechtfertigungsgeschehens, die zwar aufeinander bezogen, aber nicht identisch sind. Luther und Melanchthon betonten immer wieder, dass der Glaube aufgrund der Zusage Gottes Gewissheit des Heils, der Gnade und der Sündenvergebung bewirke. Eine so verstandene Heilsgewissheit gründet damit nicht im Tun des Menschen, sondern im Glauben und festen Vertrauen (Fiduzialglauben). Das Konzil von Trient hingegen hatte mit Blick auf Phil 2:12 darauf bestanden, dass der Christ „sein Heil in Furcht und Zittern wirken“ müsse und folglich eine Heilsgewissheit „eitel“ sei (H. Denzinger/P. Hünermann [Hg.], Enchiridion symbolorum [Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2001], 1533). Vgl. hierzu ausführlich: A. Stakemeier, Das Konzil von Trient über die Heilsgewissheit (Heidelberg: Kerle, 1947); L. Ullrich, „Heilsgewissheit; ein Grundthema lutherischer Theologie in katholischer Sicht“, in W. Ernst et al. (Hg.), Theologisches Jahrbuch (Leipzig: Benno-Vlg., 1985) 381–401; J. Wohlmuth, „Heilsgewissheit“, LThK 4/3 (1995) 1344–6. 38 M. an Georg von Komerstadt, 11. Mai 1551, CR 7, 788; vgl. MBW 6080. 39 Confessio Saxonica, CR 28, 339–457; MSA 6, 80–166. 40 Confessio Saxonica, MSA 6, 103 l.16–18: „Absurdum est etiam, quod dicunt nostrae indignitatis causa dubitandum esse“; MSA 6, 104 l.3–5: Denique error de dubitatione prorsus Ethnica imaginatio est, ac Evangelium abolet, et in conversione veram consolationem iis, qui iram Dei sentiunt, adimit.“ MSA 6, 104 l.13–15: „Hinc perspicuum est, quare decretum Tridentinae Synodi, quod confirmat errorem de dubitatione, taxari necesse sit.“ 41 Moritz von Sachsen an das Trienter Konzil, 13. Januar 1552, MBW 6308.

Melanchthon und das Konzil von Trient

321

Augsburg Station machen und auf weitere Instruktionen warten.42 Gleichzeitig bereitete der mit Frankreich verbündete Kurfürst Moritz von Sachsen einen Feldzug gegen den Kaiser vor. Als erste Gerüchte über die Aufrüstung und einen drohenden Krieg auch in Nürnberg eintrafen, wo Melanchthon am 22. Januar angekommen war,43 entschied er sich – vielleicht aufgrund des Ratschlages seines Freundes Joachim Camerarius44 – nicht weiter nach Trient zu reisen, sondern nach Wittenberg zurückzukehren. Im April 1552 schlug die Fürstenopposition los und zwang den Kaiser zur Flucht aus Innsbruck. Für das Konzil in Trient bedeutete dies, dass während der Sessio 16 am 28. April beschlossen wurde, das Konzil erneut auf unbestimmte Zeit zu vertagen.

VI. Resigniert sind Melanchthons letzte Äußerungen über das Trienter Konzil. Sie stehen im Zusammenhang mit dem Regensburger Reichstag der Jahre 1556–57, auf dem u. a. die Frage diskutiert werden sollte, ob anstelle eines allgemeinen Konzils ein Nationalkonzil vorzuziehen sei.45 Für Kurfürst August von Sachsen verfasste er zwei Gutachten am 5. und 6. Juni 1556.46 Nach den Erfahrungen von Trient ist nach Melanchthon ein allgemeines Konzil abzulehnen. Ein Nationalkonzil wäre jedoch noch schlechter, wie er durch verschiedene Argumente deutlich zu machen versucht: in einem allgemeinen Konzil gebe es wenigstens viele „gelehrte Männer aus fremden Nationen“.47 Auch werde der Papst nicht auf den Vorsitz über ein Nationalkonzil verzichten mit der Folge, dass einige (Glaubens-) Artikel noch schlechter ausfielen als von einer gelehrten Konzilsversammlung. Daneben hätten die Bischöfe alleiniges Stimmrecht und würden so die Evangelischen überstimmen. Der Kaiser und andere Anhänger des Papstes würden darüber hinaus zur Exekution der Beschlüsse verpflichtet. Dies ist – wie Melanchthon beschließt – „im Grunde die bittre Wahrheit“, weshalb auch ein Nationalkonzil abzulehnen sei.

42 Die angespannte Situation schildert der Melanchthon-Biograph J. Camerarius, Das Leben Philipp Melanchthons, V. Werner (trans.) und H. Scheible (Einf. und Anm.) (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 2010) 225–9. 43 Melanchthon an Fürst Georg von Anhalt, 1. Februar 1552, MBW 6323. 44 Joachim Camerarius an Melanchthon, 2. Februar 1552, MBW 6325; Melanchthon an Joachim Camerarius, 27. Februar 1552, MBW 6364. Am 8. März 1552 teilte Melanchthon Franz Kram in Leipzig mit, dass er nach Hause zurückkehre (MBW 6378). 45 J. Leeb (Hg.), Der Reichstag zu Regensburg 1556/57. Deutsche Reichstagakten. Reichsversammlungen 1556–1662 (München: Oldenbourg, 2013). 46 Gutachten für Kurfürst August von Sachsen, 5./6. Juni 1556, MBW 7855; 7856 (CR 8, 778ff.) 47 Gutachten für Kurfürst August von Sachsen, 5./6. Juni 1556, CR 8, 778.

322

Günter Frank

Vor allem aber fanden die in Trient formulierte Rechtfertigungslehre und die fehlende Heilsgewissheit die schärfste Kritik Melanchthons. Auf diesen Hauptkritikpunkt kommt Melanchthon noch einmal in seiner Antwort auf die gottlosen Artikel der bayrischen Inquisition aus den Jahren 1558–59 zu sprechen.48 Denn der Zweifel an der Heilsgewißheit, wie ihn das Konzil von Trient gelehrt habe, führe dazu „dass man immer im Zweifel sein müsse … Wenn aber der Zweifel siegt, folgen im Herzen Gottesflucht, Hadern und Gotteshass. Oder es folgen furchtbare Gottlosigkeit und Verzweiflung“.49 Zwar kam Melanchthon in den kommenden zwei Jahren wiederholt auf das Trienter Konzil zu sprechen50 und beobachtete auch die Bemühungen um dessen neuerliche Einberufung.51 Das Konzilsthema blieb folglich präsent bis zu seinem Lebensende. Die neuerliche Konzilsausschreibung durch die Bulle „Ad ecclesiae regimen“ vom 29. November 1560 erlebte Melanchthon schon nicht mehr. Die Situation war aber ohnehin eine ganz andere als bei den ersten beiden Sessionen. Die Einladung wurde von den Fürsten entschieden abgelehnt und man beschloss, gegen das Konzil zu protestieren.

Bibliographie Gedruckte und herausgegeben Quellen Corpus Reformatorum (CR) (101 vol.; Berlin: Schwetschke, 1934–1963). D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Schriften (henceforth WA) (80 in 73 vol.; Weimar: Böhlau, 1883–2009). D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Briefwechsel (henceforth WA Br) (18 vol.; Weimar: Böhlau, 1883–2009). 48 Melanchthon, Responsiones ad impios articulos Bavaricae inquisitionis, MSA 6, 278–364; deutsch: Antwort auf die gottlosen Artikel der bayerischen Inquisition, in M. Beyer/A. Kohnle/ V. Leppin (Hg.), Melanchthon deutsch, Band 4: Melanchthon, die Universität und ihre Fakultäten (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012) 185–287. 49 Beyer/Kohnle/Leppin (Hg.), Melanchthon deutsch, 4.230. 50 In einem Entwurf seiner Rede in der Sessio I des Religionsgesprächs zu Worms vom 9./ 10. September 1557 (MBW 8334; CR 9, 279–81) betonte Melanchthon nochmals die Irrtümer der Papstkirche, äußerte aber gleichzeitig auch seinen Schmerz aufgrund der Zwietracht („dolor propter discordiam“). In einer weiteren Denkschrift für das Wormser Religionsgespräch vom 15./16. September 1557 (MBW 8350; CR 9, 337–40) betonte er die Ablehnung des tridentinischen Sündenverständnisses, sofern die Evangelischen im Gegensatz zum Trienter Konzil selbst die böse Begierde („concupiscentia mala“) als Sünde erachten. 51 Am 20. April 1559 teilte Melanchthon an Albert Hardenberg in Bremen seine Beobachtung mit, Frankreich und Spanien würden nach einem neuen Konzil verlangen (MBW 8929; CR 9, 806ff.). Schwer von seiner Krankheit (Katarrh) gezeichnet und in Todeserwartung teilte er schließlich Jakob Runge in Greifswald am 14. April 1560 mit, dass Papst Pius IV. wegen des Trienter Konzils in Verhandlungen stehe (MBW 9296; CR 9, 1094–5).

Melanchthon und das Konzil von Trient

323

Melanchthons Briefwechsel (MBW), H. Scheible/Ch. Mundhenk (Hg.) (Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1977–). Melanchthon, Philipp, Bedenken von Kayserlicher und Päpstlicher Gewalt nebst einer historischen Einleitung von Veranlassung dieser Schrift (Leipzig, [s.n.], 1784). Melanchthon, Philipp, Grundbegriffe der Ethik: Ethicae Doctrinae Elementa et Enarratio Libri quinti Ethicorum, G. Frank (Hg.) (Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2008). Melanchthon, Philipp, Epistolae, iudicia, consilia, testimonia aliorumque ad eum epistolae quae in Corpore Reformatorum desiderantur, H.E. Bindseil (Hg.) (Halle: Schwetschke, 1874). Melanchthon Studienausgabe (MSA), R. Stupperich (Hg.) (7 vol.; Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1951–1975).

Literatur Becht, M., „Pia Synodus. Die Lehre vom Konzil in der Theologie Philipp Melanchthons und Johannes Calvins“, in F. Günter/J.H. Selderhuis (Hg.) Melanchthon und der Calvinismus (Melanchthon-Schriften der Stadt Bretten 9; Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: FrommannHolzboog, 2005) 107–34. Beyer, M./Kohnle, A./Leppin, V. (Hg.), Melanchthon deutsch, Band 4: Melanchthon, die Universität und ihre Fakultäten (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2012). Camerarius, J., Das Leben Philipp Melanchthons, V. Werner (trans.) und H. Scheible (Einf. und Anm.) (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 2010). Denzinger, H./Hünermann P. (Hg.), Enchiridion symbolorum (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2001). Frank, G., „Die ‚articuli fidei‘ als Grund des Glaubens und der Theologie – Genese und Kritik eines Grundbegriffs der Ekklesiologie“, in G. Frank/V. Leppin (Hg.), Die Reformation und ihr Mittelalter (Melanchthon Schriften der Stadt Bretten 14; Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 2016) 135–52. Klausnitzer, W., Der Primat des Bischofs von Rom. Entwicklung. Dogma. Ökumenische Zukunft (Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2004). Leeb, J. (Hg.), Der Reichstag zu Regensburg 1556/57. Deutsche Reichstagakten Reichsversammlungen 1556–1662 (München: Oldenbourg, 2013). Spehr, C., Luther und das Konzil: Zur Entwicklung eines zentralen Themas in der Reformationszeit (BHTh 153; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). Stakemeier, A., Das Konzil von Trient über die Heilsgewissheit (Heidelberg: Kerle, 1947). Stupperich, R., „Kirche und Synode bei Melanchthon“, in W. Hubatsch (Hg.), Wirkungen der deutschen Reformation bis 1555 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchges., 1967) 114–33. Ullrich, L., „Heilsgewissheit; ein Grundthema lutherischer Theologie in katholischer Sicht“, in W. Ernst et al. (Hg.), Theologisches Jahrbuch (Leipzig: Benno-Vlg., 1985) 381– 401. Venard, M., „Das fünfte Laterankonzil (1512–1517) und das Konzil von Trient (1545– 1563)“, in G. Alberigo (Hg.), Geschichte der Konzilien. Vom Nicaenum bis zum Vaticanum II (Wiesbaden: Fourier-Verl., 1998) 333–9.

324

Günter Frank

Volz, H., Luthers Schmalkaldische Artikel und Melanchthons „Tractatus de potestate papae“. Ihre Geschichte von der Entstehung bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts (Gotha: Klotz, 1931). Wohlmuth, J., „Heilsgewissheit“, LThK 4/3 (1995) 1344–6.

Gerald MacDonald

Martin Chemnitz’ Examen Decretorum Concilii Tridentini (1566–1573): A Cornerstone in the Construction of Confessional Europe

The following article is not intended as a comprehensive analysis of Martin Chemnitz’ monumental examination of the conclusions reached at the Council of Trent. It is merely an attempt to highlight the importance of Chemnitz’ work and its role in the creation of the confessional Europe that emerged in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. Chemnitz’ Examen deserves a thorough investigation, such as on the scale of a doctoral dissertation. The main actors in the drama surrounding the publication of the Examen are barely known, and scholarship has scarcely touched the Examen itself. If this article provides an impetus for more research into the Examen and its impact on the process of the confessionalisation of Europe, then it will have served its purpose.

I.

Introduction

Martin Chemnitz is frequently referred to as the ‘second Martin’ of the Lutheran Church.1 In fact, ‘alter Martinus’ is a name used not only by Lutherans, but by Catholic theologians as well for Chemnitz in recognition of the fundamental role he played in building the Lutheran Church.2 Chemnitz was co-author of the 1 For a brief summary of Chemnitz’ biography, a bibliography of his works and works about him, see T. Mahlmann, “Chemnitz, Martin (1522–1586)”, Theologische Realenzyklopädie Online (Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter, http://www.degruyter.com/view/TRE/TRE.07_714_ 31, retrieved 12 May 2014) and T. Mahlmann, “Chemnitz, Martin”, Religion Past and Present (Brill Online, 2014, http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/religion–past–and–present/ chemnitz–martin–SIM_02877, retrieved 13 May 2014). J.A.O. Preus, The Second Martin: The Life and Theology of Martin Chemnitz (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1994) is the most comprehensive biography available on Chemnitz. Typical for the state of research on the Examen, it does not devote significant attention to the work. 2 R. Mumm, Die Polemik des Martin Chemnitz gegen das Konzil von Trient (Naumburg: Lippert & Co., 1905), 54. His list of polemical works against the Council, which is appended to the dissertation, while useful, urgently needs updating; see on pp. 79–104. After H. Hachfeld, Martin Chemnitz nach seinem Leben und Wirken, insbesondere nach seinem Verhältnisse zum

326

Gerald MacDonald

Formula of Concord of 1577, which unified Lutheranism and ensured Lutheranism’s survival. His most significant contribution is his development and articulation of the Lutheran position in questions of doctrine. If the Formula of Concord is a clear and concise statement of Lutheran doctrine, it is in the fourvolume Examen concilii tridentini that Chemnitz develops and articulates his understanding of Lutheran doctrine most fully. In fact, by affirming that the central doctrine of the Christian faith is that of Justification, and that the Roman Catholic and Lutheran teachings on Justification were divergent,3 Chemnitz virtually ensured that there could be no reconciliation between them. Chemnitz’s importance for the survival of Lutheranism was acknowledged quite early, and already at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the aphorism was coined which stated that had Martin Chemnitz not come, the first Martin would not have endured.4 As recently as 1905, the Examen has been described as having “vitalized and strengthened the Protestant consciousness like no other work”.5

II.

Publishing history

In 1566, two years after the conclusion of the Council of Trent, Chemnitz published the first volume of his Examen.6 Seven years later, in 1573, the fourth and final volume was published. Chemnitz’ Examen was the first comprehensive response by a Protestant theologian to the canons and decrees of the Council.7 In fact, no work has been published since, which is so comprehensive in its review of the Council’s decisions. Even today, it is unsurpassed in the breadth and depth of

3

4 5 6

7

Tridentinum (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1857), Mumm’s doctoral dissertation remains the most extensive treatment of the Examen to date. All treatments of the Examen since Mumm rely heavily on his analysis. G. Hoffmann, “Die Rechtfertigung des Sünders vor Gott nach dem Examen Concilii Tridentini von Martin Chemnitz”, in W.A. Jünke (ed.), Der Zweite Martin der Lutherischen Kirche. Festschrift zum 400. Todestag von Martin Chemnitz (Braunschweig: Ev.–luth. Stadtkirchenverband und Propstei Braunscheig, 1986) 60–92. Hoffmann sees the divergence between Lutherans and Roman Catholics on the doctrine of justification primarily in the Catholic Church’s combination of Justification with sanctification, wheras the Lutheran Church sees them as two separate steps. See especially pp. 63–6, 70–7. “Si alter Martinus non venisset, prior Martinus non stetisset.” Mahlmann cites Anton Reiser as the first instance of the aphorism. T. Mahlmann, “Chemnitz”. Mumm, Polemik, 52. Martin Chemnitz, Examen Decretorum Concilii Tridentini. In Quo Ex Sacrae Scripturae norma, collatis etiam orthodoxis uerae & puriorus Antiquitatis testimonijs ostenditur, qualia sint illa Decreta, & quo artificio sint composita (4 vol.; Frankfurt am Main, Georg Rab/Sigmund Feyerabend/Simon Hüter, 1566–1573). This is the universal consensus. See for instance H. Jedin, Das Konzil von Trient: Ein Überblick über die Erforschung seiner Geschichte (Rome: Libreria Orbis Catholicus, 1948), 61.

Martin Chemnitz’ Examen Decretorum Concilii Tridentini (1566–1573)

327

its analysis. As it was written in Latin, the lingua franca of its day, the Examen was received and read throughout Europe. The Examen has frequently been reprinted. Including the first edition, an incredible eleven Latin editions already appeared by the close of the sixteenth century.8 In addition, an unabridged German edition was already published in 1576.9 A partial English translation was printed in 1582,10 and two excerpts in French in 1599.11 By 1650, ten additional Latin editions followed, all printed in Germany, and by 1707 four more Latin editions were published.12 For the subsequent 154 years, no further editions appeared until the Berlin edition of 1861, edited by Eduard Preuß,13 who later converted to the Catholic Church in 1871. It is no accident that after 1707 there was a 150-year pause in the republication of the Examen. By then, Lutheranism had long established itself, and its relationship to Roman Catholicism was by that time well defined. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the immediate challenge for Lutheranism was the Pietist movement, a new reformation within and parallel to Orthodox Lutheranism. In the second half of the eighteenth century the challenge for Lutheranism then shifted from Pietism to Rationalism. Chemnitz, his Examen and Trent were by the mid-eighteenth century not of paramount importance in the Lutheran consciousness. This led Johann Georg Walch, the great eighteenth century Lutheran theologian to observe about his own time that the Examen was “vortreflich gelobet, aber nicht fleissig gelesen…”14 8 See the list of editions in the appendix to Mumm, Polemik, 90–1. 9 Martin Chemnitz, Examen, das ist, Erörterung Deß Trientischen Concilii darinn eine starcke vollkommene Widerlegung der fürnemmen Häuptpuncten der gantzen Papistischen Lehre, beyde auß dem Grunde der H. Schrifft, und dem Consens und Einhelligkeit der rechtlehrende Vätter, zusammen getragen, und in ein Buch verfaßt ist. Sehr nütz, dienlich und nothwendiglich zum Erkenntnuß der Christlichen Warheit und auch der Antichristischen Fälscherey. Aus dem Latein auffs treuwlichste verteuschet durch Georgium Nigrinum, Pfarrherrn zu Giessen (4 vol.; Frankfurt: s.n., 1576). 10 A Discoverie and Batterie of the Great Fort of Unwritten Traditions: Otherwise, An Examination of the Counsell of Trent Touching the Decree of Traditions, done by Martinus Chemnitius in Latine and translated into Englishe (London: Thomas Purfoot/William Pounsonbie, 1582). 11 The section in Part IV dealing with relics was published in an appendix to John Calvin, Traitté des reliqves: ou, Advertissement tres–utile du grand profit qui reuiendroit à la Chre–stienté, s’il se faisoit inuentaire de tous les Corps Saincts & Reliques, qui sont tant en Italie, qu’en France, Alemagne, Espagne, & autres Royau–mes & pays (Geneva: Pierre de la Rouiere, 1599); The section in Part IV dealing with indulgences was published in an appendix to John Calvin, Traitté des indvlgences, contre le decret du Concile de Trente. Briefve consideration sur l’an du Ivbilé. Le vrai & grand Pardon General de pleniere remission des pechés (Geneva: Iaques Choüet, 1599). 12 Mumm, Polemik, 91. 13 E. Preuß, Examen Concilii Tridentini per Martinum Chemnitium… (Berlin: Gustav Schwawitz, 1861). 14 J.G. Walch, Historische und Theologische Einleitung in die Religionsstreitigkeiten Welche

328

III.

Gerald MacDonald

Background: Protestant Polemic During the Council

In the years between 1546 and 1563/64, that is to say the years during which the Council was held, a virtual flood of anti-Tridentine polemic was published. There were at least 87 such works written in that period,15 a number that does not include general works of polemic that merely include the Council as just one of their topics. The immediate background to Chemnitz’s engagement with the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent was his 350-page defence from 156216 of a catechism that had been written by Johannes Monheim of Düsseldorf 17 in 1560. It was the third catechism with which Monheim was involved. The first two from 154718 and 155119 were strongly influenced by Erasmus, and the third catechism was strongly influenced by Calvinism, which is why it became the target of attacks by Jesuits in Cologne.20 Chemnitz’s defence of Monheim and his catechism were really a warning about and attack against the new order of the Jesuits. Its title in English is: The Chief Tenets of the Theology of the Jesuits, Taken from an Evaluation of Them and Annotated. Although it was written toward the end of the

15 16 17

18 19 20

sonderlich ausser der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche entstanden… (2 vol.; Jena: Johann Meyers Wittwe, 1734; repr. Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1986), 795. See the list of works in Mumm, Polemik, 79–90. Martin Chemnitz, Theologiae Jesuitarum praecipua Capita ex quadam ipsorum censura, annotate per Martinum Kemniocium… (Leipzig: n.p., 1562; repr. 1601, 1602). J. Monheim, Catechismus, in quo christianae religionis elementa synceré simpliciterque, explicantur (Düsseldorf: Johann Oridryus/Albertus Busius, 1560; repr. with German transl. Düsseldorf: Gesamtverband Evangelischer Kirchengemeinden in Düsseldorf, 1987). On Monheim, see H. Ackermann, Johannes Monheim Katechismus 1560. Faksimile–Ausgabe mit deutscher Übersetzung (Düsseldorf: Gesamtverband Evangelischer Kirchengemeinden in Düsseldorf, 1987), 423–47; H. Jedin, “Der Plan eine Universitätsgründung in Duisburg 1555– 1564”, in G. von Roden, Die Universität Duisburg (Duisburg: Braun, 1968) 1–32; J. Kuckhoff, Der Sieg des Humanismus in den katholischen Gelehrtenschulen des Niederrheins (Münster: Aschendorff, 1929), 26–32; H. Willemsen, “Aus der Geschichte des Düsseldorfer Gymnasiums”, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Niederrheins 23 (1911) 221–56, 313–25. C. Hegendorff, Catechismus puerorum. A Joanne Monhemio nunc auctus & in plerisque locis emendatus ad usum novae scholae Duisseldorpensis (Vuesaliae: Plateanus, 1547). D. Erasmus/J. Monheim, Dilucida et pia explanatio symboli, quod apostolorum dicitur et decalogi praeceptorum autore D. Erasmo Roterod. Nunc in compendium per Joannem Monhemius (Cologne: Gymnasium, 1551). [Anonymous], Censura et docta explicatio errorum catechismi Joannis Monhemii, grammatici Duesseldorpensis, in qua tum s[acrae] scripturae atq[ue] vetustiss[imorum] patrum testimoniis, tum evidentiss[imis] rationibus veritas catholicae religionis defenditur, per deputatos a sacra theologica facultate universitatis Coloniensis (Cologne: Maternus Cholinus, 1560); Mumm, Polemik, 17–31; A.C. Piepkorn, “Martin Chemnitz’ Views on Trent: The Genesis and the Genius of the Examen Concilii Tridentini”, Concordia Theological Monthly 37/1 (1966) 5–37, on pp. 11–12.

Martin Chemnitz’ Examen Decretorum Concilii Tridentini (1566–1573)

329

Council of Trent, Chemnitz’s treatise takes little notice of the Council. That soon changed.

IV.

Andrada as Mediator of the Council’s Decisions

Chemnitz turned his attention to the Council after Diogo Paiva de Andrada21 (1528–75) entered into the controversy about Monheim’s catechism, the Jesuit response to it and Chemnitz’s response to them. In 1561, Andrada had been sent to the Council by King Sebastian of Portugal, and had participated in the last three years of the Council. While in Trent, he came across Chemnitz’s treatise of 1562.22 In 1564, immediately following the Council’s conclusion, Andrada published a 900-page rebuff of Chemnitz, titled: Ten Books of Orthodox Explanations against Martin Chemnitz.23 The title is, however, somewhat misleading, as the work was not just a refutation of Chemnitz, but a refutation based upon an elaboration of the dogmatic statements made at the Council. In other words, it was a combination of a response to Chemnitz and a commentary on the Council’s decisions. Andrada concludes each refutation with a pertinent dogmatic statement made at the Council. Andrada’s work is a contemporary Catholic exegesis of the Council, made by an eye-witness of the Council’s proceedings.24 When Chemnitz responded two years later with the first volume of the Examen, it was apparent that his focus had shifted from the controversy on the Lower Rhine between Monheim and the new order of the Jesuits to the much weightier subject of the Council. At this point, merely refuting Andrada would not be enough. Andrada had based his arguments on the decisions reached at the Council, making it necessary for Chemnitz to deal with the doctrinal statements of the Council itself. By writing about the decrees and canons of the Council, Chemnitz was dealing with the entire Roman Catholic Church and the most recent articulation of its official dogma. One difficulty for any interpreter of the decrees and canons of the Council is that they are essentially just dogmatic statements. The reasoning behind the 21 There are several alternative spellings of his name, including Diogo de Paiva de Andrada and Diogo de Payva de Andrada. Andrada is also often spelled Andrade. Research on him is urgently needed. 22 Piepkorn, “Genesis”, 16. 23 Diogo de Paiva de Andrada, Orthodoxarum explicationum libri decem, in quibus omnia ferè de religione capita, quae his temporibus ab haereticis in controversiam vocantur, apertè et dilucidè explicantur: praesertim contra Martini Kemnicij (Cologne: Maternus Cholinus/ Venice: Giordano Ziletti, 1564); Andrada’s work covered the Council up to Session 22. See also Jedin, Überblick, 61. 24 It deserves mentioning that Andrada’s work was published in both Venice and Cologne, where the controversy surrounding Monheim’s catechism had begun. See preceeding footnote.

330

Gerald MacDonald

statements is not given. Andrada’s Explicationum filled this void, giving Chemnitz more information to which to respond. Consequently, the Examen is not just a response to the Council, but to Andrada’s interpretation of the Council, a decidedly conservative interpretation, a fact that Josse Ravesteyn or Judocus Tiletanus (ca. 1506–70) of the University of Louvain emphasized in his own rebuttal of the Examen in 1568.25 Aside from Andrada’s Explicationum, little information was available to Chemnitz regarding the decision-making process at the Council. Objective reports on the Council’s proceedings were virtually non-existent. Protestants had boycotted the Council, precluding the availability of first-hand reports from them. From the Catholic Church there were also no substantive commentaries published on the proceedings or rationale behind the Council’s proclamations until 1874.26

V.

Methods of the Examen

The method employed in the Examen could be described as softly scholastic,27 or the loci-method employed since Melanchthon. Chemnitz quotes the decrees in full length and presents the arguments supporting and against their conclusions. While his ultimate authority is Scripture, Chemnitz makes what at first glance seems like a surprisingly extensive use of the Church fathers in supporting his arguments. In point of fact, Chemnitz was extraordinarily well equipped to do so. Between 1550 and 1553, during his tenure as ducal librarian in Königsberg, Chemnitz had dedicated himself to an intensive study of the works of the Church fathers.28 Thus he was able to draw on those studies in his analysis of the Council’s decisions. Contemporary Catholic theologians even acknowledged this fact and credited Chemnitz with having possessed the most thorough knowledge of the 25 Josse Ravesteyn, Apologiae sev Defensionis decretorvm Concilii Tridentini, quae quidem ad religionem & doctrinam Christianam pertinent, aduersus Censuras & Examen Martini Kemnitij, Ministri Ecclesiae Brunsuicensis (2 vol.; Leuven: Petrus Zangrius, 1568–70). A second edition was published in Cologne in 1608. See Piepkorn, “Genesis”, 18–19. On Ravesteyn, see: J. Forget, “Josse Ravesteyn”, The Catholic Encyclopedia 12 (1911) (http:// www.newadvent.org/cathen/12667a.htm, retrieved 13 May 2014). Research on Ravesteyn is urgently needed. 26 Acta genuina ss. oecumenici concilii Tridentini sub Paulo III. Julio III. et Pio IV. pp. mm. ab Angelo Massarello episcopo Thelesino ejusdem concilii secretario conscripta nunc primum integra edita ab Augustino Theiner … Accedunt Acta ejusdem Concilii sub Pio IV. a Cardinale Gabriele Paleotto, archiepiscopo Bononensi digesta, secundis curis expolitiora (2 vol.; Zagreb: Societas Bibliophila, 1874). 27 Piepkorn, “Genesis”, 28. 28 T. Mahlmann, “Martin Chemnitz”, in: Gestalten der Kirchengeschichte, vol. 6: Die Reformationszeit II (Stuttgart/Berlin/Cologne/Mainz: Kohlhammer, 1981) 315–33, on p. 315.

Martin Chemnitz’ Examen Decretorum Concilii Tridentini (1566–1573)

331

early Church of any Protestant of his generation, and with having examined the individual decrees of the Council with great “exegetischem, historischem und dogmatischem” acumen.29 Chemnitz’s extensive use of the Fathers has, however, been interpreted in two different ways: (1) As evidence of his “ecumenical” desire to “speak effectively to the whole Church”,30 or, (2) as an attempt by Chemnitz to disarm the Catholic theologians of their primary weapon, the authority of tradition.31

VI.

Focus of the Examen

Chemnitz limits his examination almost exclusively to the canons and decrees pertaining to doctrine (decreta de fide). For Chemnitz, doctrine defines the Church and there can be no true ecclesiastical reform without true doctrine. Consequently, the reform canons (decreta de reformatione) do not interest him. It is no surprise that for Chemnitz, the central doctrinal issue of contention between the Lutherans and Catholics was the doctrine of Justification. This was also recognized by the Council itself and the doctrine of Justification was accordingly central at Trent. Chemnitz’s understanding of Justification was forensic. God, the judge, declares the sinner righteous. The area, the realm in which Justification takes place, is in the relationship between God and the human being. The good works that the regenerate are able to perform are necessary. They necessarily follow from the human’s state of regeneration. They do not, however, belong to the process of regeneration. They are its result. When a human being performs good works they are not just inadequate, they are irrelevant.32 Chemnitz’s starting point in his exposition on Justification in the Examen is not surprisingly the Bible. Terminology plays a crucial role, as his analysis of the Latin verb justificare illustrates. In his arguments from the Old and New Testaments he analyses the Hebrew and Greek verbs, tsadaq33 and dikaioó,34 which are translated as justificare and notes that facere has no place in either of them. Chemnitz recognizes two usages of the word justificatio in Scripture: the first is that a person is judged or pronounced to be just, not made just. The second 29 Mumm, Polemik, 54. 30 R. Kolb, “Human Performance and the Righteousness of Faith: Martin Chemnitz’s Anti– Roman Polemic in Formula of Concord III”, in J.A. Burgess/M. Kolden (ed.), By Faith Alone: Essays on Justification in Honor of Gerhard O. Forde (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004) 125–39, on p. 126. 31 Mumm, Polemik, 36. 32 Kolb, “Human Performance”, 139. 33 To be just, to be put right, to declare righteous. 34 To set right, hold or deem right, pronounce as righteous.

332

Gerald MacDonald

meaning refers to the punishment meted out by a judge in a court of law. Both meanings are exclusively forensic.35

VII.

The Catholic Response to the Examen

Catholic polemic against the Examen is instructive in understanding the work’s role in not just forming Lutheran opinion, but Catholic opinion as well. From the publication of the first edition of the Examen until the year 1717, there were at least twelve works written by Catholic theologians, which dealt with the Examen as their primary subject.36 The first such work was the aforementioned rebuttal by Josse Ravesteyn, which was printed in Louvain in 1568, two years after the publication of the first volume of the Examen. Ravesteyn’s Apology of the Decrees of the Council of Trent … Against Martin Chemnitz is a 400-page refutation of Chemnitz’s analysis of the decrees of Session 4–6.37 Those decrees included teachings on Scripture, original sin, Justification and the sacraments. Ravesteyn’s work was republished in Cologne in 1608.38 The second Catholic response to Chemnitz was also penned in the Low Countries. In 1575, Willem Damaszoon van der Lindt or Wilhelmus Lindanus, the Dutch theologian and Bishop of Roermond (1561) and later Ghent (1588) published his Stromata39 defending the decrees of the Council again against Chemnitz. The most-vigorous response, however, was by Andrada himself, and was published in 1578, three years after his death. The work was titled Defence of the Perfect Tridentine Catholic Faith. Against the Detestable False Charges of the Heretics, Especially the German Martin Chemnitz.40 Andrada vehemently denies that he had written the work under orders of the Tridentine fathers.41 In the volume, Andrada discusses only the first five sessions of the Council, and had planned a second volume for the remainder. His death prevented him from 35 36 37 38 39

Kolb, “Human Performance”, 132. Mumm, Polemik, 92–4. Josse Ravesteyn, Apologia. Forget, “Josse Ravesteyn”. Wilhelmus Damasi Lindanus, Stromatum libri tres pro variis sacrosancti concilii Tridentini decretis ac potissimum de suscipiendis una cum divina scriptura etiam apostolicis traditionibus et pro panopliae suae evangelicae atque apologetici defensione contra Martinum Chemnitium et alios Momos (Cologne: Maternus Cholinus, 1575–77). The 1575 edition comprises just the first part, the 1577 edition is the complete work. 40 Diogo de Paiva de Andrada, Defensio tridentinae fidei catholicae et integerrimae quinque libris compraehensa. Aduersus Haereticorum detestabiles calumnias & praesertim Martini Kemnicij Germani (Lisbon: António Ribeiro, 1578). 41 Piepkorn, “Genesis”, 31.

Martin Chemnitz’ Examen Decretorum Concilii Tridentini (1566–1573)

333

completing the project. He deals primarily with the authority of Councils, Scripture, Tradition, the canonical books, the Vulgata and original sin.

VIII. The Protestant Response to the Examen The Protestant reaction to the Examen came swiftly. Some of the first responses came as early as 1566 in the form of polemical poems extolling Chemnitz’s prowess in out-arguing his opponent.42 In 1568, the Theological Faculty of the University of Rostock praised the half finished work and mentioned explicitly Chemnitz’s use of the Church fathers in his argumentation. Even the devotional tradition of Lutheranism made use of Chemnitz’s Examen. By 1596, Johann Arndt, the father of Lutheran devotional literature, had made use of Chemnitz’s critique of Andrada’s explanation of the use of icons to defend the language of images in his dealings with Calvinists.43 Johann Franz Buddeus, a Lutheran theologian known for his moderation wrote in 1727 that “among Lutheran polemical writings against Roman Catholic error, Chemnitz is as important as all the rest put together”.44 And in spite of the waning relevance of the Examen for his time, Johann Georg Walch still could write in 1734 that the Examen “außer Streit vor das principalste Werck wieder die Papisten anzusehen ist, daß wenn wir sonst keine andere Schrift wieder das Pabstthum hätten, so könnten wir damit hinlänglich auskommen”.45 In spite of the lull in interest during the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, the Examen has never truly been forgotten. A recent survey of the libraries of Lutheran pastors in Germany has revealed that a vast majority of

42 Piepkorn, “Genesis”, 34–5. 43 H. Schneider, Der Fremde Arndt: Studien zu Leben, Werk und Wirkung Johann Arndts (1555– 1621) (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Pietismus 48; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 58–9; Thomas Kaufmann also makes use of the Examen in his treatment of the question of images in early modern Lutheranism; see T. Kaufmann, Konfession und Kultur. Lutherischer Protestantismus in der zweiten Hälfte des Reformationsjahrhunderts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 164–73. See footnote 20 on page 164 for general references on Chemnitz. The article by Ernst Koch cited there is indicative of the general tendency in research on the Examen. Koch mentions Chemnitz only two times in passing. E. Koch, “Die deutschen Protestanten und das Konzil von Trient”, in W. Reinhard/H. Schilling (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 198; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus/Münster: Aschendorff, 1995) 88–103, on pp. 96, 102. 44 Piepkorn, “Genesis”, 35; Johann Franz Buddeus, Isagoge Historico–Theologica ad Theologiam Vniversam Singulasqve Eivs Partes (2 vol.; Leipzig: Thomas Fritsch, 1727), 1.498. 45 Walch, Historische und Theologische Einleitung, 813; Walch’s father-in–law, Johann Franz Buddeus is of a similar opinion. Buddeus, Isagoge, 1.446.

334

Gerald MacDonald

them have Chemnitz’s Examen on their shelves.46 It even appears that interest in the Examen may be growing. In 1971, Concordia Publishing House began publishing the Examen in an English translation. In response to my inquiry, Concordia responded that they have sold in excess of 15.000 copies of each volume of their English edition. I cannot say whether these volumes are being read, or are just sitting on shelves, but 15.000 copies is a considerable number. And the number of scholars recognizing the significance of Chemnitz’ Examen continues to grow, and includes Hubert Jedin, who, writing in 1975, described Martin Chemnitz’s Examen as “the arsenal, from which Protestant theology got its weapons into the 19th century”47 in its war of words with the Roman Catholic Church.

Conclusion Martin Chemnitz’ Examen Concilii Tridentini is still today the most exhaustive analysis of the Council of Trent and the conclusions reached there written by a non–Catholic. Unfortunately, the obvious significance of the Examen stands in stark contrast to the relatively scant amount of research that has done on it. It is hoped that modern scholars will pick up the gauntlet that has been thrown down and dedicate significant energy in understanding the Examen, the context of its origins and its impact on the creation of a confessional Europe. Modern ecumenicism demands a better understanding of the Council of Trent and the Protestant response to it, a drama in which Chemnitz’ Examen clearly plays a leading role.

Bibliography Printed and edited sources A Discoverie and Batterie of the Great Fort of Unwritten Traditions: Otherwise, An Examination of the Counsell of Trent Touching the Decree of Traditions, done by Martinus Chemnitius in Latine and translated into Englishe (London: Thomas Purfoot/William Pounsonbie, 1582). 46 W. Reinhard, “Was ist Konfessionalisierung?”, in Reinhard/Schilling (ed.), Die Katholische Konfessionalisierung, 419–52, on p. 429. 47 H. Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient (4 vol.; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1949–1975), 4/2.245. Jedin possibly borrowed this image from Mumm, Polemik, 38. Again characteristic of the treatment of the Examen in general, Jedin does not go into any detail in explaining his judgment.

Martin Chemnitz’ Examen Decretorum Concilii Tridentini (1566–1573)

335

Andrada de, Diogo de Paiva, Defensio tridentinae fidei catholicae et integerrimae quinque libris compraehensa. Aduersus Haereticorum detestabiles calumnias & praesertim Martini Kemnicij Germani (Lisbon: António Ribeiro, 1578). Andrada de, Diogo de Paiva, Orthodoxarum explicationum libri decem, in quibus omnia ferè de religione capita, quae his temporibus ab haereticis in controversiam vocantur, apertè et dilucidè explicantur: Praesertim contra Martini Kemnicij petulantem audaciam, qui Coloniensem Censuram, quam à uiris Societatis Iesu compositam esse ait, unà cum eiusdem Sanctiß. Societatis uitae ratione, temerè calumniandam suscepit (Cologne: Maternus Colinus/Venice: Giordano Ziletti, 1564). Breithaupt, J.J., Institutionum Theologicarum Libri Duo. Priore Credenda seu Articuli Fidei, Posteriore Agenda seu Moralia, unà cum Usu practico atqve experimentali, è Sacrâ Scripturâ demonstrantur… ([Halle]: Zeitler, 1694). Buddeus, Johann Franz, Isagoge Historico–Theologica ad Theologiam Vniversam Singulasqve Eivs Partes (2 vol.; Leipzig: Thomas Fritsch, 1727). Calvin, John, Traitté des indvlgences, contre le decret du Concile de Trente. Briefve consideration sur l’an du Ivbilé. Le vrai & grand Pardon General de pleniere remission des pechés (Geneva: Iaques Choüet, 1599). Calvin, John, Traitté des reliqves: ou, Advertissement tres–utile du grand profit qui reuiendroit à la Chrestienté, s’il se faisoit inuentaire de tous les Corps Saincts & Reliques, qui sont tant en Italie, qu’en France, Alemagne, Espagne, & autres Royau–mes & pays (Geneva: Pierre de la Rouiere, 1599) Chemnitz, Martin, Examen Concilii Tridentini, d. h. Prüfung des Konzils von Trient von Dr. Martin Chemnitz, aus dem Lateinischen aufs Neue ins Deutsche übertragen von etlichen lutherischen Pastoren (St. Louis, MO: v.L. Volkening, 1875), part 1. Chemnitz, Martin, Examen Concilii Tridentini per Martinum Chemnicium, E. Preuß (ed.) (Berlin: Gustav Schlawitz, 1861). Chemnitz, Martin, Examen, das ist, Erörterung Deß Trientischen Concilii darinn eine starcke vollkommene Widerlegung der fürnemmen Häuptpuncten der gantzen Papistischen Lehre, beyde auß dem Grunde der H. Schrifft, und dem Consens und Einhelligkeit der rechtlehrende Vätter, zusammen getragen, und in ein Buch verfaßt ist. Sehr nütz, dienlich und nothwendiglich zum Erkenntnuß der Christlichen Warheit und auch der Antichristischen Fälscherey. Aus dem Latein auffs treuwlichste verteuschet durch Georgium Nigrinum, Pfarrherrn zu Giessen (4 vol.; Frankfurt: s.n., 1576). Chemnitz, Martin, Examen Decretorum Concilii Tridentini. In Quo Ex Sacrae Scripturae norma, collatis etiam orthodoxis uerae & puriorus Antiquitatis testimonijs ostenditur, qualia sint illa Decreta, & quo artificio sint composita (4 vol.; Frankfurt am Main: Georg Rab/Sigmund Feyerabend/Simon Hüter, 1566–1573). Lindanus, Wilhelmus Damasi, Stromatum libri tres pro variis sacrosancti concilii Tridentini decretis ac potissimum de suscipiendis una cum divina scriptura etiam apostolicis traditionibus et pro panopliae suae evangelicae atque apologetici defensione contra Martinum Chemnitium et alios Momos (Cologne: Maternus Cholinus, 1575–1577). Monheim, Johannes, Catechismus, in quo christianae religionis elementa synceré simpliciterque, explicantur (Düsseldorf: Johann Oridryus/Albertus Busius, 1560). Ravesteyn, Josse, Apologiae sev Defensionis decretorvm Concilii Tridentini, quae quidem ad religionem & doctrinam Christianam pertinent, aduersus Censuras & Examen

336

Gerald MacDonald

Martini Kemnitij, Ministri Ecclesiae Brunsuicensis (2 vol.; Leuven: Petrus Zangrius, 1568–70). Walch, Johann Georg, Historische und Theologische Einleitung in die Religions=Streitigkeiten, Welche sonderlich ausser der Evangelisch=Lutherischen Kirche entstanden … (2 vol.; Jena: Johann Meyers Wittwe, 1734; repr. Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: FrommannHolzboog, 1986).

Secondary sources Forget, J., “Josse Ravesteyn”, The Catholic Encyclopedia 12 (1911), http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12667a.htm (retrieved 13 May 2014). Hachfeld, H., Martin Chemnitz nach seinem Leben und Wirken, insbesondere nach seinem Verhältnisse zum Tridentinum (Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel, 1867). Hoffmann, G., “Die Rechtfertigung des Sünders vor Gott nach dem Examen Concilii Tridentini von Martin Chemnitz”, in W.A. Jünke (ed.), Der Zweite Martin der Lutherischen Kirche. Festschrift zum 400. Todestag von Martin Chemnitz (Braunschweig: Ev.–luth. Stadtkirchenverband und Propstei Braunscheig, 1986) 60–92. Jedin, H., Das Konzil von Trient: Ein Überblick über die Erforschung seiner Geschichte (Rome: Libreria Orbis Catholicus, 1948). Kaufmann, T., Konfession und Kultur: Lutherischer Protestantismus in der zweiten Hälfte des Reformationsjahrhunderts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Koch, E., “Die deutschen Protestanten und das Konzil von Trient”, in W. Reinhard/H. Schilling (ed.), Die katholische Konfessionalisierung (Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte 198; Münster: Aschendorff/Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1995) 88–103. Kolb, R., “Human Performance and the Righteousness of Faith: Martin Chemnitz’s Anti– Roman Polemic in Formula of Concord III”, in J.A. Burgess/M. Kolden (ed.), By Faith Alone, Essays on Justification in Honor of Gerhard O. Forde (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004) 125–39. Kramer, F., “Foreword”, in Examination of the Council of Trent by Martin Chemnitz (1522–1586) (4 vol.; St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1971–1986). Mahlmann, T., “Chemnitz, Martin”, Religion Past and Present (Brill Online, 2014), http:// referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/religion–past–and–present/chemnitz–martin– SIM_02877 (retrieved 13 May 2014). Mahlmann, T., “Chemnitz, Martin (1522–1586)”, Theologische Realenzyklopädie Online (Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter), http://www.degruyter.com/view/TRE/TRE.07_ 714_31 (retrieved 13 May 2014). Mahlmann, T., “Martin Chemnitz”, in: Gestalten der Kirchengeschichte, vol. 6: Die Reformationszeit II (Stuttgart/Berlin/Cologne/Mainz: Kohlhammer, 1981) 315–33. Mumm, R., Die Polemik des Martin Chemnitz gegen das Konzil von Trient (Naumburg: Lippert & Co, 1905). Piepkorn, A.C., “Martin Chemnitz’ Views on Trent: The Genesis and the Genius of the Examen Concilii Tridentini”, Concordia Theological Monthly 37/1 (1966) 5–37. Preus, J.A.O., The Second Martin: The Life and Theology of Martin Chemnitz (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1994).

Martin Chemnitz’ Examen Decretorum Concilii Tridentini (1566–1573)

337

Reinhard, W., “Was ist Konfessionalisierung?”, in W. Reinhard/H. Schilling (ed.), Die Katholische Konfessionalisierung, 419–52. Roensch, M., “Die kontroverstheologische Bedeutung des Examen Concilii Tridentini von Martin Chemnitz”, in W.A. Jünke (ed.), Der zweite Martin der Lutherischen Kirche. Festschrift zum 400. Todestag von Martin Chemnitz (Braunschweig: Ev.–luth. Stadtkirchenverband und Propstei Braunschweig, 1986) 190–200. Schneider, H., Der Fremde Arndt: Studien zu Leben, Werk und Wirkung Johann Arndts (1555–1621) (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Pietismus 48; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006).

The Roman Centre and the Implementation of the Council of Trent

Paolo Sachet*

Privilege of Rome: The Catholic Church’s Attempt to Control the Printed Legacy of the Council of Trent

In the early spring of 1564, Paolo Manuzio, the official printer of the papacy in Rome, signed the prefatory letter of his latest publication, just as he had done many times before in the course of his publishing career. The book was the first edition of the Tridentine decrees, which had taken several weeks to prepare. Not much scholarly attention has been paid to the history of this editio princeps, despite its vital importance in defining and disseminating the results of the Council of Trent.1 No information is provided in the modern editions of the decrees issued by Stefan Ehses for the Görres-Gesellschaft or by the FSCIRE team under the directorship of Giuseppe Alberigo.2 Ludwig von Pastor, in his history of the Popes, and Hubert Jedin, in his history of the Council, briefly sketched the events which led Manuzio to work on the Decreta, but neither delved into the * My sincere thanks go to Matteo Al Kalak, Emidio Campi, Claudia Daniotti, Gigliola Fragnito, Jill Kraye, Ian Maclean, Angela Nuovo and Adriano Prosperi, for helping me to cope with the many challenging aspects of this article. 1 See J. Le Plat (ed.), Canones, et decreta … Concilii Tridentini … juxta exemplar authenticum Romae M. D. LXIIII. editum … (Antwerp: Architypographia Plantiniana, 1779), xxii–xxx. The only scholarly treatments are G. Calenzio, Esame critico-letterario delle opere riguardanti la storia del Concilio di Trento (Rome: Sinimberghi/Turin: Tipografia Pontificia, 1869), 137–8, and G.G. Calenzio, “Delle rarità e preziosità tipografiche del Tridentino”, in Calenzio, Documenti inediti e nuovi lavori sul Concilio di Trento (Rome: Sinimberghi, 1874) 437–574, on pp. 439–82. Relevant data are displayed in Decreta septem priorum sessionum Concilii Tridentini sub Paulo III Pont. Max. ex autographo Angeli Massarelli (codice Morganiano ms. A.225 A Neo-Eboracensi) hic phototypice recuso, S. Kuttner (ed.) (Washington: Catholic University of America, 1945), xvii–xxi, and Kuttner, “Addenda to the Catholic University Edition of the Decrees of the Council of Trent”, Seminar: An Annual Extraordinary Number of The Jurist 6 (1948) 72–6. 2 S. Ehses, “Introductio”, in Concilium Tridentinum: Diariorum, actorum, epistularum, tractatuum nova collectio (13 vol.; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1901–2001, henceforth CT), 5.xxxiii, esp. n. 4; Ehses focuses mainly on the attempt to publish the Tridentine acts, see xxvi–xxxviii. G. Alberigo et al. (ed.), Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta (Bologna: Istituto per le Scienze Religiose, 1973), does not offer an account of the earlier editorial history, nor does the more recent Corpus Christianorum. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta. Editio critica: The Oecumenical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church, K.Ganzer/G. Alberigo/A. Melloni (ed.) (3 vol. in 4 published; Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), vol. 3.

342

Paolo Sachet

details.3 As a result, this is only hinted at in the valuable accounts of the Tridentine Council which have recently appeared.4 This crucial publication, however, provides an illustrative case study of the Catholic use of printed propaganda, since it was the first time the establishment of the Roman Church attempted to implement a long-term strategy towards printing by intervening in the European book trade. There is a large amount of available material for the study of this publication; and its many remarkable features raise broader historiographical questions, some of which I shall analyse in this essay.

Multiple Editions of a Princeps To begin with, there is a bibliographical puzzle. According to Antoine Augustin Renouard’s Annales de l’imprimerie des Alde – published in the nineteenth century, but still the standard reference work on the Manuzio family press – in 1564 Paolo Manuzio brought out three different folio editions of the decrees in Rome, followed by several further editions in smaller formats: Renouard mentions a quarto and six octavos.5 Since his day, the picture has begun to alter and it now seems likely that there was probably a fourth folio and a second quarto edition.6 In order to progress further, a systematic investigation of all surviving 3 L. von Pastor, Storia dei papi dalla fine del medioevo (16 vol.; Rome: Desclée, 1950), 7.276–8 and H. Jedin, Storia del Concilio di Trento, G. Cecchi et al. (trans.) (4 vol. in 5; Brescia: Morcelliana, 2–4 2010), 4/2.324–30, esp. on p. 327, n. 3. 4 A. Prosperi, Il Concilio di Trento: una introduzione storica (Turin: Einaudi, 2001), 90–1 and J.W. O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge MA/London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2013), 267. A. Tallon, Le Concile de Trente (Paris: CERF, 2000) does not mention the first edition of the decrees. 5 A. A. Renouard, Annales de l’imprimerie des Alde: ou Histoire des trois Manuce et de leurs éditions (Paris: J. Renouard, 1834), 190–4 and 348, also provides useful information on remarkable copies scattered in libraries at the time, either public or private. Renouard also considers a quarto edition based on the second folio edition as doubtful. The bibliographical entries in F. Barberi, Paolo Manuzio e la Stamperia del popolo romano (1561–1570): con documenti inediti (Rome: Cuggiani, 1942), 130–3 and The Aldine Press: Catalogue of the Ahmanson-Murphy Collection … Incorporating Works Recorded Elsewhere (Berkeley, CA/Los Angeles, CA/London: University of California Press, 2001), 359–62 and 720–9, rely on Renouard’s account. In A. A. Renouard, Catalogue de la bibliothèque d’un amateur (4 vol.; Paris: A. A. Renouard, 1819), 1.47, the French scholar describes two volumes from his own library, both containing the same account of the Council of Trent up to 1547 by its secretary, Angelo Massarelli. The codices – now in the Pierpont Morgan Library together with other highlights from Renouard’s Aldine collection – are edited in Decreta Septem, Kuttner (ed.). 6 This was first suggested by Le Plat, Canones, et decreta, xxvii–xxviii, who mentioned an annotated exemplar (possibly by Angelo Massarelli) held in the Corsiniana Library in Rome and referred to in the Roman reprints of the Decreta by Girolamo Mainardi in 1732 and 1733 (the latter erroneously dated 1763). Le Plat described it as paginated with Roman and Arabic numerals, and missing the phrases “Index dogmatum et reformationis” and “In aedibus

Privilege of Rome

343

copies of the Decreta is needed. For the time being, however, I shall consider only the three well-known folio editions, asking, firstly: what changed from one edition to another? Very little, at least superficially. The first folio edition contained just the text, introduced by the papal privilege given to Manuzio’s Roman publications in 1562 and a short address to the pious reader by Manuzio himself. In the second folio edition, indexes of dogmas and reforms were added, while the general papal privilege was replaced with one specifically promulgated for this edition. The third folio edition provided a more accurate text and reproduced the famous papal bull Benedictus Deus confirming the decisions taken by the Council.

The Context of a Pioneering Enterprise My second question is: why were so many different editions issued within the space of a single year? To answer this, we have to take into account the unusual circumstances in which the book was produced, as a publication of the first papal press in history. In 1561, Paolo Manuzio was hired by Pius IV to establish and manage a publishing house in the service solely of the Catholic Church. In the same year, a committee of cardinals was entrusted with selecting the books to be published and supervising the press’s output. In recognition of their extensive knowledge and experience, the Cardinals Giovanni Morone, Marco Antonio da Mula, Gian Bernardino Scotti and Vitellozzo Vitelli were charged with this task. The experiment of a papal press worked for a decade, before collapsing due to lack of funds and of entrepreneurial expertise, exacerbated by Rome’s overwhelming bureaucracy. During the first three years of the press’s activity, remarkable critical editions of the Church fathers were published; but 1564 marked an important watershed. The firm was affected by the growing quarrel between the Roman Commune and Paolo Manuzio over the right of ownership, which the Pope had ambiguously granted to both parties. Besides, the closure of the Council of Trent meant that the efforts of the press were largely devoted to publishing the ‘Tridentine books’ such as the Decreta, the new Index of Forbidden Books, the Catechism and the Breviary. As the first example of this new

Populi Romani” in the title. Copies in the British Library and in the Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana in Venice apparently match this description. Also, Calenzio, “Delle rarità”, 459, saw at least one copy with Arabic numerals from page 84 to 96; in addition, he mentions (Calenzio, “Delle rarità”, 460) a quarto exemplar based on the second folio edition and held in the library of Barberini family, now Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Stamp. Barb. CCC, V, 30. Renouard, Annales des Alde, 348, regarded the latter edition as doubtful, since he was unable to identify any copy of it.

344

Paolo Sachet

trend, the publication of the Council’s decrees was a pioneering project within the context of a pioneering (and troubled) enterprise.7 The book’s production was also caught up in curial politics over the first months of 1564. On the one hand, a large part of Pius IV’s Curia was determined to delay the publication of the papal confirmation of the decrees, because they were opposed to the compulsory residence for prelates holding benefices.8 The changes made to successive editions of the decrees reflected, to some extent, the Pope’s increasing ability to impose his will on the Curia. Therefore, the first folio, completed on 18 March, contained only a final declaration by the vice–chancellor Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, reporting the oral approval of the Pope. A month later, the Pope was able to promulgate a restrictive privilege to safeguard Manuzio’s second edition. Finally, on 1 July, the third folio edition was printed, including the bulla of confirmation, which had been approved on 26 February but postponed until 30 June.9 On the other hand, control over the papal press became tighter, as the progress of the edition had to be reported not only to the committee of cardinals but also to a specific supervisory board, which was charged with making all decisions related to the text and the final proof-reading. The identity of the supervisors remains obscure, except for Gabriele Paleotti.10 Angelo Massarelli, Bishop of Telese, almost certainly took part in his capacity as secretary of the Council of Trent during all three periods, as well as having responsibility for preserving the original documentation. For the rest, it is likely that the committee resembled those in charge of preparing the papal confirmation of the Council and the publication of the conciliar acts. The juridical and theological skills required were very similar. The first of these committees was made up of the president legate of the Council, Cardinal Girolamo Morone, along with Ludovico Simonetta, Carlo Borromeo, Giovan Battista Cicada, Vi7 On the history of this press, see Barberi, Paolo Manuzio, along with L. Baldacchini, “Il mercato e la corte: Paolo Manuzio e la Stamperia del Popolo Romano”, in A. Quondam (ed.), Il libro a corte (Rome: Bulzoni, 1994) 285–93 and M. Lowry, Facing the Responsibility of Paulus Manutius (Los Angeles, CA: Department of Special Collections, University Research Library, University of California, 1995). I have discussed the agreement between Manuzio and the Apostolic Chamber in “Il contratto tra Paolo Manuzio e la Camera apostolica (2 maggio 1561): la creazione della prima stamperia vaticana privilegiata”, La Bibliofilía 115 (2013) 245– 61. 8 Jedin, Storia del Concilio, 4/2.330–2, and Prosperi, Il Concilio di Trento, 88–91. We need to bear in mind that the decisions taken in the first and the second period were not officially ratified by Paul III and Julius III. 9 Pastor, Storia dei papi, 7.276–7, to be integrated with P. Prodi, Il cardinale Gabriele Paleotti (1522–1597) (2 vol.; Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1959), 1.191–9. 10 Prodi, Il cardinale Gabriele Paleotti, 1.198–9 and Barberi, Paolo Manuzio, 131–2. Despite the extensive and very detailed correspondence of Paolo Manuzio, only one letter by him concerning the final stage of the editorial work for the Decreta has so far come to light. The copy found by Barberi is in Vatican City, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Conc. Trid. 97, fol. 161r.

Privilege of Rome

345

tellozzo Vitelli and Francesco Alciati, as well as Gabriele Paleotti and Ugo Boncompagni, serving as consultants.11 The second included Cardinals Simonetta, Vitelli, Paleotti, Marco Antonio Da Mula and Guglielmo Sirleto.12 Apart from the composition of the board supervising the Decreta, it is noteworthy that this was the first time in which curial officials were directly involved in the activities of a publishing house – a clear indication of the crucial importance attributed to this publication by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Notwithstanding, the first two folio editions were marred by several mistakes and errors in the pagination, which had to be corrected in the third edition.13 Manuzio’s publication of three folio editions of the Decreta, one right after the other, was thus due to struggles within the Curia and dissatisfaction with the performance of the papal press and (possibly) with the supervisory board.

Motives and Strategies My third (and most important) question is: why did the papacy embark on such an ambitious project as preparing and carrying out a publication by its own? Three main motives can be detected: firstly, to provide an official and accurate text of the decrees as soon as possible, in contrast to their earlier circulation; secondly, to safeguard the text in the form approved by the Roman Curia; thirdly, to gain better control over the distribution of the edition and of reprints both in Italy and throughout Europe. In January 1564, the papacy had to tackle the difficult issue of dealing with the entire corpus of the Council’s decrees. Missing the ratification by earlier Popes, all the conciliar decisions from 1545 on needed to be approved by Pius IV and then published in an official version. This had to be done quickly, moreover, since strenuous diplomatic efforts were afoot to get Catholic countries to accept the Tridentine pronouncements.14 The main obstacle to the publication of an official papal edition was that material related to the Council, from speeches to decrees, had been circulating unofficially since the late 1540s. This is hardly surprising if we consider the lively contemporary interest in news, especially when it concerned such an international and multi-faceted event as the Council of Trent. Recently, Simon Ditchfield has pointed out the need to look into the reception of 11 12 13 14

Jedin, Storia del Concilio, 4/2.326. Ehses, “Introductio”, in CT 5, xxix and xxxiii. For a list of errata, see Calenzio, “Delle rarità”, 460–77. On the political issues surrounding the immediate reception of the Tridentine Decrees by France and the Holy Roman Empire, see Jedin, Storia del Concilio, 4/2.328 and 365–7 as well as O’Malley, Trent, 250–1.

346

Paolo Sachet

the Council, analysing the circulation of printed news at the time.15 Rather than trying to examine the vast number of publications of individual decrees,16 summae conciliorum17 or Protestant commentaries,18 I shall focus on collections of the Tridentine decisions. Among those which had already appeared before 15 S. Ditchfield, “Trent Revisited”, in G. Dall’Olio/A. Malena/P. Scaramella (ed.), Per Adriano Prosperi, vol. 1: La fede degli Italiani (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2011) 357–70, on p. 365. 16 See the records in L. Fè D’Ostiani, “Bibliografia degli opuscoli relativi al Concilio di Trento e stampati in Brescia durante lo stesso Concilio: appendice seconda al Muzio Calini”, Archivio Veneto 24 (1882) 235–48; L. Borrelli, “La collezione delle Cinquecentine relative al Concilio Ecumenico Tridentino della Biblioteca comunale di Trento”, Annali dell’Istituto storico italogermanico in Trento 6 (1980) 447–545; and E. Ferraglio, Il Concilio di Trento e l’editoria del sec. XVI: bibliografia delle edizioni cinquecentesche (Trent: Civis, 2002). 17 Sixteenth-century interest in Councils as a means to restore Christian unity led to the production of two historical accounts of all the ecumenical assemblies. The first collection, which went up to Pope Eugenius IV, was the work of the Franciscan scholar Pierre Crabbe: Concilia omnia, tam generalia quam particularia ab Apostolorum temporibus in hunc usque diem … (2 vol.; Cologne: Peter Quentel, 1538); a third volume was published in 1551, including the early Tridentine decrees. See Calenzio, Esame critico-letterario, 125–31 for a detailed list of the contents. The work by Crabbe was the basis for the famous summa by Lorenz Surius issued in 1567. The second collection was compiled by the Dominican friar and later Archbishop of Toledo, Bartolomé Carranza: Summa conciliorum et pontificum a Petro usque ad Paulum tertium succincte complectens omnia, quae alibi sparsim tradita sunt… (Venice: Ad signum Spei, 1546). An immediate best-seller, it was issued a hundred times throughout Europe until the eighteenth century and was updated by various contributors, so that it went up to (usque ad) the current Pope. The 1564 Lyon edition claimed to be the first to reproduce all the Tridentine acts and the decrees: Summa conciliorum … usque ad Pium IV: adjecta sunt etiam acta et canones generalis concilii Tridentini, qua ante non habebantur (Lyon: Giacomo Giunta’s heirs, 1564). 18 Virtually every spiritual leader of the Reformation – from John Calvin and Philipp Melanchthon to Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, Theodor Bibliander, Matthias Flacius Illyricus and Pier Paolo Vergerio the Younger – wrote on specific Tridentine decrees. Some Catholic controversialists such as Johannes Cochlaeus and Willem van der Lindt (Lindanus) tried to refute their arguments. To the best of my knowledge, there is no thorough study of this literature, nor of the textual sources employed by these authors. How the news from Trent circulated in Europe during the conciliar period is still a challenging question. For a general analysis of Reformed and Catholic publications in Germany on the Council of Trent, see T. Brockmann, “Il Concilio di Trento nella pubblicistica dell’area di lingua tedesca 1545–1563”, in G. Alberigo/I. Rogger (ed.), Il concilio di Trento nella prospettiva del terzo millenio: Atti del Convegno, Trento 25–28 settembre 1995 (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1997) 185–212, esp. pp. 207–10, and Brockmann, Die Konzilsfrage in den Flug- und Streitschriften des deutschen Sprachraumes (1518–1563) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), together with S. Ozment, “Pamphlets Literature of the German Reformation”, in S. Ozment (ed.), Reformation in Europe: A Guide to Research (St Louis, MO: Center for Reformation Research, 1982) 85–105; R.A. Crofts, “Printing, Reform, and the Catholic Reformation in Germany (1521–1545)”, The Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985) 369–81; M.U. Edwards Jr., “Catholic Controversial Literature (1518–1555): Some Statistics”, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 79 (1988) 189–205. For an overview of the major Reformed pamphlets, see G. Caravale, “La polemica protestante contro il Tridentino”, in R. Pancheri/D. Primerano (ed.), L’uomo del concilio: Il cardinale Giovanni Morone tra Roma e Trento nell’età di Michelangelo (Trent: Temi, 2009) 47–61.

Privilege of Rome

347

1564, the first was published in Paris in 1546. This volume, which exerted considerable influence on the early circulation of the first conciliar decisions, was reprinted in Antwerp in the same year and the year after, while expanded editions were issued in 1550 and 1551 in Paris.19 An official edition containing the pronouncements of the first conciliar period was published in Bologna in 1548, under the supervision of the papal legates, Cardinals Cervini and Del Monte.20 The same year, a partial collection of these decrees appeared in Milan, also containing some religious and diplomatic orations delivered at the Council (acta). It is unclear whether or not the conciliar secretary Massarelli supervised this publication.21 In 1552, a reprint of the Milanese edition was issued in Venice by the ‘Ad signum Spei’ firm, including speeches delivered during the second 19 Acta Concilii Tridentini quorum catalogus in proxima inest pagina (Paris: Regnault and Claude Chaudière, 1546); Acta Tridentini Concilii quorum catalogus in sequentibus habetur paginis (Antwerp: Martin Nutius, 1546); Tridentini Concilii Acta, quorum catalogus … accessit iam recens quinta sessio facta XIII. Ianuarii 1547 (Antwerp: Martin Nutius, 1547); In hoc libello contenta: Concordata inter Leonem X, … Sacrosancti oecumenici Concilii tridentini sessionis primae, secundae, tertiae, quartae, quintae et sextae decreta. Omnia recens diligenter et accurate emendata … (Paris: Galliot Du Pré, 1550). The 1551 edition was issued under the same title by the same printer. On these and similar contemporary French publications, see A. Tallon, La France et le Concile de Trente (1518–1563) (Rome: École française de Rome, 1997), 533–47. 20 Decreta sacro sancti oecumenici et generalis Concilii Tridentini (Bologna: Anselmo Giaccarelli, 1548). Ehses, “Introductio”, in CT 5, xiii–xxvi, includes the original documentation between Massarelli and Cervini concerning this edition. The cost of printing, charged to the Apostolic Chamber, was 50 gold scuti: see Calenzio, “Delle rarità”, 441. According to Cervini’s will, the Translatio sacri Concilii ex Tridento ad civitatem Bononiae (Bologna: Anselmo Giaccarelli, 1548), was printed separately and funded by the Apostolic Chamber: Calenzio, “Delle rarità”, 445. 21 Acta ac decreta sacrosanctae Tridentinae Synodi ann. MDXLVI et XLVII: una cum admonitione legatorum Sedis Apostolicae, ad patres lecta, in prima sessione ac orationibus tribus per diversos praelatos ibidem habitis (Milan: Innocenzo Cicognara, 1548). At the end of the book on fol. [Kiiv], we read: “Et quia ego Angelus Massarellus Sanctoseverinas U. I. Doctor, et prothonotarius apostolicus, ac sacri Tridentini concilii secretarius, publicationi suprascriptorum decretorum, manu aliena, mihi fida, scriptorum, interfui, et ea cum originalibus, quae penes me sunt, collationata sunt, et cum eis concordant, ideo suprascripta decreta singula, manu mea propria obsignavi, ac de eis, omnibus, ad quorum manus pervenerint, fidem facio indubitatam.” Massarelli’s signature is indeed printed at the end of each session. On this basis, Calenzio argued that the edition was printed from Massarelli’s diary and therefore revised by him: Calenzio, Esame critico-letterario, 131–2; Calenzio, Saggio di storia del Concilio generale di Trento sotto Paolo III (Rome: 1869), 331; and Calenzio, “Delle rarità”, 440. Calenzio’s assumption seems to be confirmed by the colophon (fol. [Kiir]), which states: “Horum decretorum impressioni, Mediolani, suprema manus imposita fuit, Mediolani, calendis Martii 1548.” This publication might have been a first attempt by Massarelli and Cervini in preparation for the official and complete edition printed in Bologna in the same year. Many doubts, however, remain: e. g., there is no mention of the Milanese edition in the correspondence between the two prelates; and in many copies, the printer’s name is missing from the title-page. The matter deserves further investigation. See also the interpretation in Decreta Septem, Kuttner (ed.), xxii–xxiii.

348

Paolo Sachet

period. The volume was intended to be the first in a series of collections of documents from ecumenical Councils, as advertised on the title-page: “Cito habebis (Deo favente) candide lector concilia omnia hac forma impressa, quibus haec commode annecti poterunt.”22 The decrees from the second period were published in Zaragoza and reprinted in various Spanish editions,23 as part of the attempts made by local bishops to apply the Tridentine reforms independently of Rome.24 It was with the reopening of the Council in 1561, however, that publications really began to spring up, mainly due to the bookseller Giovan Battista Bozzola.25 On the suggestion of the Bishop of Brescia, his hometown, Bozzola moved to Trent, with the specific purpose of acting as publisher for the Council.26 Since there was no press in Trent, Bozzola employed the Hebrew printer Giacobbe Marcaria in Riva di Trento, as well as Ludovico Nicolini da Sabbio and Damiano Turlino in Brescia. It is also likely that he was in a partnership with the Paduan bookseller Pietro Antonio Alciati. Thanks to his political and commercial connections, Bozzola had a conciliar decree printed in the form of a pocket-sized leaflet as soon as it was officially approved.27 In early November 1563, he was able to publish an almost complete collection, entitled Universum sacrosanctum Concilium Tridentinum, which included his own publications, as well as earlier ones.28 This edition was not entirely complete because the Council was still ongoing. Yet, within a few weeks, Bozzola managed to publish the decrees of the final two sessions, in a format which enabled them to be easily bound in with his

22 Generale Concilium Tridentinum continens omnia quae ab initio usquae [sic] ad finem in eo gesta sunt (Venice: Ad signum Spei, 1552). This edition appears in three variants (var. A: f. [56]; var. B: f. [58]; var. C: f. [62]), depending on the inclusion of one or two additional orations. A reprint of 1554 is in the library of Trinity College Cambridge. 23 Generale concilium Tridentinum continens omnia quae ab eius reductione per Iulium tertium … usque ad finem in eo gesta sunt (Zaragoza: Agustín Millán, 1553); see C. Gutiérrez, “Una edición española en 1553 de los decretos conciliares tridentinos”, Estudios Eclesiásticos 28 (1954) 73–105. 24 Jedin, Storia del Concilio, 4/1.21–4 and J. Goñi Gaztambide, “Los cabidolos españoles y la confirmacion del Concilio de Trento”, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 7 (1975) 425–58. 25 See A. Cioni, “Bozzola, Giovan Battista”, Dizionario biografico degli italiani 13 (1971) 589–91; F. Fanizza, “Bozzola, Giovan Battista”, Dizionario dei tipografi e degli stampatori italiani: Il Cinquecento 1 (1997) 190–1; E. Ferraglio, “Giovanni Battista Bozzola, un editore per il Concilio di Trento”, Civis 23 (1999) 109–21. 26 Bozzola’s relationship with the Bishop of Brescia and reformer, Domenico Bollani, apparently escaped the notice of C. Cairns, Domenico Bollani, Bishop of Brescia: Devotion to Church and State in the Republic of Venice in the Sixteenth Century (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1976). 27 On these rare publications, see the literature cited in n. 16 above. 28 Universum sacrosanctum Concilium Tridentinum, oecumenicum, ac generale, legitime tum indictum, tum congregatum … Nunc recens, multo quam antea limatius, emendatiusque, in lucem prodit (Brescia: Giovan Battista Bozzola, 1563).

Privilege of Rome

349

Universum Concilium.29 In the introductory letter to the reader in the main collection, Bozzola claimed that he had been asked by the bishops in Trent to publish the decrees and that the text had been thoroughly revised by trustworthy theologians.30 There is no reason to doubt him, though publication of conciliar deliberations was strongly discouraged in the last period of the assembly. As early as 17 February 1562, significantly during discussions to formulate the decree on the Index of Forbidden Books, Massarelli firmly forbade the participants at the Council to disseminate drafts of the decrees, even among their families.31 Bozzola, who seems to have been the unspoken target of Massarelli’s reproach, was probably able to side-step this regulation on the account of the protection which he enjoyed: he could take advantage of the authority not only of Bollani, who was at the Council in 1561 and continuously from 1562, but also of the Prince-Bishop of Trent, Cristoforo Madruzzo, the main patron of the press of his collaborator Giacobbe Marcaria. Whatever the case, Bozzola carried out and distributed a semi-official Catholic edition of the decrees as early as December 1563. The following year, there were six reprints of this edition: one in Turin, another in Lyon, two in Cologne and three in Antwerp.32 In addition, a curious leaflet was published in Padua by Cristoforo Griffio summarising the decrees approved in 29 Decreta de sacramento matrimonii, et de reformatione, publicata in sessione octava … die XI Nouemb. MDLXIII (Brescia: Giovan Battista Bozzola, 1563); Decreta, publicata in sessione nona et ultima … diebus III et IIIII Decemb. MDLXIII (Brescia: Giovan Battista Bozzola, 1563). 30 Universum sacrosanctum Concilium (Brescia: Giovan Battista Bozzola, 1563), fol. +ivr: “Cum a nonnulis [sic], qui Concilio interfuerunt, et a quamplurimis, qui non adfuerunt, rogatus fuerim, ut cunctas, Sacrosanctae Tridentinae Synodi quae a fel. re. Paulo III P. M. ad Pium quartum usque Sessiones celebratae fuerunt, corrogarem, atque prelo committerem, uti studiosorum omnium desiderio facerem satis, atque ut opus ipsum, undiquaque perfectum, ac consummatum efficerem, tum priscas, tum novissimas Sessiones collegi, utque sessionum accessoria, ac contingentia, mihi suppeditarentur, omnem diligentiam adhibui … Insuper, eruditos Theologos, atque in corrigendi munere exactissimos, accersivi, qui e diversarum impressionum exemplaribus, atque novissimarum Sessionum prototypis, ipsis, nostra has, quam expurgatissimas perficerent … Quam sparsim alias, nunc collectim. Quod per partes dissectum erat, nunc impressum totum benigne habes lector.” 31 The rebuke (Admonitio ad patres, ne evulgent decreta et alia, quae examinanda proponuntur, antequam firmentur) is in CT 8, 329–30. See Jedin, Storia del Concilio, 4/2.298 for related complaints within the circle of Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga. 32 Universum sacrosanctum Concilium Tridentinum… (Turin: Giovan Antonio Strobino and Francesco Dolce, 1564); two editions, with the same title, were published in Cologne by Maternus Cholinus (the second one bearing the imperial privilege), as well as two reprints in Antwerp by Joannes Steelsius and Martin Nutius’s widow. A third reprint in Antwerp was issued with a title resembling the Roman edition: Canones et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici et generalis Concilii Tridentini … cum Pii IIII Pontificis Max. confirmatione quam ad calcem reperies… (Antwerp: Willem Silvius, 1564). An extremely rare Lyon edition, also probably printed in 1564, is held in the Zurich Zentralbibliothek: Universum sacrosanctum Concilium Tridentinum … acc. catalogus legatorum, patrum, oratorum et theologorum… (Lyon: s.n., [1564]).

350

Paolo Sachet

the last period with the title Omnia acta in sacro Concilio Tridentino sub s.d.n. pp. Pio IIII in novem sessiones digestae. The Roman Curia had not been quick enough in issuing an official text. Even worse, Bozzola included in his book unrevised versions of the decrees, drawing from earlier corrupted editions for those from the period prior to 1561. By the second half of 1564, however, Bozzola’s collection had been displaced by Manuzio’s Roman edition. The primary concern of the papacy – to have a single, official Roman Catholic text in print – was now successfully accomplished.33 The text of Manuzio’s Roman edition, nevertheless, needed to be safeguarded as it circulated throughout Europe. To achieve this aim, the papacy employed the traditional legal means at its disposal, the privilegio or privilege. By means of a privilege, an authority gave exclusive rights over an edition, in the territory under its jurisdiction and for a certain number of years, to a printer, publisher or author. Recent studies have dwelt on the distinctive use which Popes, in their capacity as both temporal and spiritual authorities, made of this legal instrument.34 Typically, Popes promulgated a motu proprio, threatening printers outside the Church’s domain who failed to respect the privilege with immediate excommunication; inhabitants of the Papal States were additionally liable to monetary penalties. This two-fold strategy was increasingly used from the early decades of the Cinquecento; and, later on, when the papacy began to publish its own books, a new form of privilege was introduced, aimed at protecting inside and outside the Papal States the edition far more than the interests of the printer. The motu proprio given by Pius V to the Roman edition of the Catechism in 1566 is generally regarded as the first instance of this change.35 Evidence suggests, 33 According to Le Plat, Canones, et decreta, xxii–xiii, Bozzola’s edition differs from the Roman publication only in minor respects. Since, however, the conventional wisdom from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century held that Bozzola’s text was closer than the Roman edition to the original deliberations at the Council, Le Plat’s claim needs to be verified. For a collation of the first decrees, see Kuttner, Decreta Septem. 34 V. Romani, “Per una storia dell’editoria romana tra Cinque e Seicento: note e documenti”, Annali della Scuola speciale per archivisti e bibliotecari dell’Università di Roma 15–16 (1975– 76) 23–64 and Romani, “Luoghi editoriali in Roma e nello Stato della Chiesa”, in M. Santoro (ed.), La stampa in Italia nel Cinquecento: Atti del Convegno, Roma 17–21 ottobre 1989 (Rome: Bulzoni, 1992) 515–32; P.F. Grendler, The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press (1540–1605) (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977), 169–81; M.G. Blasio, ‘Cum gratia et privilegio’: programmi editoriali e politica pontificia (Roma, 1487–1527) (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 1988); B. Richardson, Printing, Writers and Readers in Renaissance Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 40; C.L.C.E. Witcombe, Copyright in the Renaissance: Prints and the ‘privilegio’ in Sixteenth-century Venice and Rome (Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2004), 45–50 and 73–4; V. Frajese, Nascita dell’Indice: La censura ecclesiastica dal Rinascimento alla Controriforma (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2006), 391–401; A. Nuovo, The Book Trade in the Italian Renaissance (Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2013), 231–57. 35 Grendler, The Roman Inquisition, 170; Frajese, Nascita dell’Indice, 396; Nuovo, The Book Trade, 251.

Privilege of Rome

351

however, that the earliest example is the 1564 editio princeps of the Tridentine decrees. As we have seen, two privileges appeared in the Roman editions of this book. The first folio edition reproduced the general concession given to Manuzio in 1562,36 which was directed at printers and booksellers inside and outside of Italy and which protected, for five years, all the works in Greek, Latin and the Italian vernacular published by him in Rome.37 Although this was initially considered valid for the Tridentine decrees as well, within weeks the Pope changed his mind and promulgated a new privilege, which was, very unusually, more limited than the earlier one: Since we desire that the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent can be conveniently possessed by everyone, we command, with a similar [second] motu proprio, for the benefit and utility of the Christian Republic, that the act of excommunication and the other penalties imposed by us in the said [first] motu proprio will not affect and include booksellers and whoever else prints, commissions or profits from the book of the canons and decrees outside our ecclesiastical state, provided that the volumes printed by them at the time do not differ in any respect from those which have been printed in our illustrious city by the previously mentioned Paolo.38

Manuzio’s papal press could have made enormous profits from such an important publication, had it been covered by the first universal privilegio. Far from protecting the interests of the firm, however, this second, restricted, privilege was entirely to its disadvantage. It legitimated reprints of Manuzio’s edition outside the Papal States and exposed his Roman press to powerful competition from larger European printing centres, especially Venice. The papacy seems to have been aware that entrusting the entire production and distribution to its own small publishing house was unrealistic. Its priority was to ensure that the Council’s decrees were distributed as widely as possible. Yet, the text, as edited by the Curia and printed by Manuzio, had to be preserved intact while circulating.39 36 Canones, et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici, et generalis Concilii Tridentini … (Rome: Paolo Manuzio, 11564), ii. 37 For the first appearance of this privilege, see Thomas Aquinas, In librum b. Iob expositio … cum privilegio Pii IIII. Pont. Max. (Rome: Paolo Manuzio, 1562), [2]. It concerned “… universis, et singulis librorum impressoribus, et bibliopolis tam extra, quam intra Italiam”. 38 Canones, et decreta … Index dogmatum, & reformationis (Rome: Paolo Manuzio, 21564), ii: “Nos … volentes quos Canones et Decreta … Concilii Tridentini, … ab omnibus commode haberi possint, motu simili etc. quod excommunicationis, et aliae poenae … in dicto motu proprio nostro per nos inflictae, bibliopolas, et alios quoscumque volumen Canonum et Decretorum … extra statum nostrum Ecclesiasticum … imprimentes, aut imprimi facientes, venalesve tenentes, dummodo illi sic ab eis pro tempore impressi, a codicibus, qui in alma Urbe nostra per Paulum praedictum impressi sunt, in aliquo non discordent, minime afficiant, aut eos comprehendant, … ad Reipublicae Christianae commudum, et utilitatem statuimus…” 39 That this was the contemporary understanding of the second privilege is supported by a letter from Tullio Albonese to Carlo Borromeo. The document is dated 19 April 1564, soon after the

352

Paolo Sachet

This constant concern to safeguard the official text extended to other elements in the edition; in particular, a statement of concordantia cum originalibus was printed at the end of the decrees, before Farnese’s final confirmation of the Pope’s approval, and signed by the secretary of the Council of Trent, Angelo Massarelli, and his fellow notaries Marco Antonio Peregrino and Cinzio Pamphili.40 Moreover, a hand-written statement and the autograph signatures of the three notaries can be found on the last leaf of several copies of both the first and second folio editions, guaranteeing the textual authenticity of that very exemplar (“in presenti volumine”) even after it was in print.41 These autograph additions delighted collectors in the past, since they were thought to appear in only twelve or thirty copies;42 it is quite evident, however, that there were far more signed copies, which gives them a broader historical significance: it is very likely that the autographs signatures were added throughout the initial press runs of the first and second editions, serving as the final certification of authenticity.43 The reason behind this concern for textual conformity was, no doubt, the desire to avoid the risk of interpolation, especially of derogatory comments. This possibility was particularly feared by the papacy on the basis of earlier experience

40

41

42 43

publication of the second edition. Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MS F. 104 inf., fol. 110r: “Ho datt’ordine che qua si stamparà il Concilio Tridentino conforme al testo del Manutio come Vostra Signoria Illustrissima scrisse i potrà far havendo Sua Santità levate sopra ciò le prohibitioni che vi erano. Il che è piacciuto molto a questa città sendo che se ne potrà haver con miglior comodità. Ho fatto elettione d’una bella stampa che sarà ben corretta, et spero con l’ordinario seguente mandargline un’ foglio o duoi perché veda se ne restarà sodisfatta, né mancarò far che il Vicario et padre Inquisitore confrontino quello si stamparà con il detto testo del Manutio secondo l’ordine di Vostra Signoria Illustrissima.” Canones, et decreta (11564), ccxxviii [recte: ccxxxviii]: “Concordat cum originalibus in cuius fide subscripsimus: Ego Angelus Massarellus … Ego Marcus Antonius Peregrinus … Ego Cynthius Pamphilus…” The statement is to be found on the same page in the second edition and on p. 238 of the third edition. Canones, et decreta, [ccxl]: “Nos sacri oecumenici, et generalis Concilii Tridentini Secretarius, et Notari infrascripti decreta ipsius sacri Concilii in praesenti volumine contenta cum originalibus contulimus et quia cum eis concordare reperimus ideo hic in fidem manu propria subscripsimus: Ego Angelus Massarellus … Ego Marcus Antonius Peregrinus … Ego Cynthius Pamphilus…”, cited from the copy in London, British Library, Gen. Ref. Coll. C.73.e.4. Renouard, Annales des Alde, 191. Authenticated copies of the first and second edition have been located in the following libraries: Biblioteca Angelica, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Biblioteca Casanatense, Biblioteca Corsiniana, Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Biblioteca della Pontificia Università Gregoriana, Biblioteca Queriniana, Biblioteca dell’Università degli Studi di Cagliari, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, Bibliothèque Municipale de Dôle, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, British Library, Cambridge Libraries (University, Selwyn and Trinity), Pierpont Morgan Library, John Rylands Library, UCLA Library, University of Illinois Library. Le Plat used as his base text the autograph exemplar of the first edition formerly in the Moretus’s library, which he claimed contained annotations by Marco Antonio Peregrino: Le Plat, Canones, et decreta, xxiv. A wider-ranging first-hand investigation should be undertaken, especially in Roman, German and Spanish libraries.

Privilege of Rome

353

of secret documents and decisions being published without authorization and leading to disastrous consequences. For instance, the text of Consilium de emendanda ecclesia, a curial report of 1536–37 on Church reforms to be urgently undertaken, circulated widely in Europe in editions with commentaries by Reformed scholars.44 The document, openly lamenting a large number of abuses, was not intended for dissemination. Nevertheless, it was immediately published in Rome by Antonio Blado and in Milan by the ‘Belgian’ printer Gothard Van der Bruggen, perhaps with the good intention of demonstrating the concrete efforts being made by the Curia.45 Protestants immediately picked it up and reprinted it with hostile annotations: first Johannes Sturm and soon after Luther himself.46 As a result, an early attempt at Catholic renewal was turned into a propagandistic tool in the hands of Protestants. The apologetic attempts by Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto and Johannes Cochlaeus could not halt the polemical use of the text,47 so that Paul IV resolved to include it in his Index of Forbidden Books.48 A decade 44 On this memorial, see Jedin, Storia del Concilio, I.473–83 and G. Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini: Un magistrato veneziano al servizio della cristianità (Florence: Olschki, 1988), 42–7. For the text and earlier bibliography, see CT 12, 131–45. On its circulation, see W. Friedensburg, “Das Consilium de emendanda ecclesia, Kard. Sadolet und Johann Sturm von Strassburg”, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 33 (1936) 1–69. 45 Consilium delectorum cardinalium et aliorum praelatorum de emendanda Ecclesia (Rome: Antonio Blado, 1538). Given Blado’s connections in the curia, it seems plausible that he received the text from a disappointed supporter of internal reformation who wanted it to circulate even after its rejection by the papacy in late 1537. The pamphlet was, in fact, presented as an official publication, with Paul III’s coat of arms appearing in the two woodcuts on the recto and verso of the title-page. It was quickly prohibited from being printed or sold: Jedin, Storia del Concilio, 1.480–3, esp. n. 70. The contemporary Milanese edition “Per Gotardum de Ponte” was published with the same title. There was also an edition printed in 1537 (1538 in the colophon), sine loco et nomine, which can perhaps be assigned to an Italian printer on the basis of the font. There is a large papal coat of arms on the title-page. This might be the supposed edition printed “Cesenae apud Constantinum Bauere 1538”, on which Schweitzer, Concilium Tridentinum, 12.131. A further Catholic edition appeared in 1538 in Cologne by Melchior von Nuess. 46 Consilium delectorum cardinalium et aliorum praelatorum, de emendanda Ecclesia: epistola Ioannis Sturmii de eadem re … ([Strasbourg]: Kraft Müller, 1538); Ratschlag von der Kirchen eins ausschus etlicher Cardinel … Mit einer vorrede D. Mart. Luth. (Wittenberg: Hans Lufft, 1538). The latter edition was frequently reprinted. 47 While Sadoleto corresponded merely with Sturm on the subject (see Friedensburg, “Das Consilium”, 28–68), Cochlaeus wrote a pamphlet: Aequitatis discussio super consilio delectorum cardinalium &c. ad tollendam per generale concilium inter germanos in religione discordiam (Leipzig: Nikolaus Wolrab, 1538). A year later, this work was reprinted twice as appendix of De emendanda ecclesia, the one in Antwerp by Steelsius and the other with neither location nor printer’s name. 48 Only the 1555 reprint by Vergerio was, in fact, put on the Index. Vergerio, very subtly, attributed the text to the newly elected Pope, Paul IV (Gian Pietro Carafa), who had been a member of the committee entrusted with drafting the reforms; so, Paul, as the supposed author of the Consilium, could be said to have prohibited his own publication – one of the many paradoxes of his severe Index. See J.M. de Bujanda (ed.), Index de Rome 1557, 1559,

354

Paolo Sachet

later, other Catholic documents suffered a similar fate: a commented edition of a confidential letter from Pope Paul III to Emperor Charles V concerning the Council of Trent was published anonymously by Calvin,49 while Tridentine deliberations and related papal pronouncements were issued with commentaries by Melanchthon, Calvin and Vergerio.50 Vergerio was particularly keen to mock an official Catholic document by republishing it with caustic notes, as he also did, for instance, with the Venetian Index of 1549 and some papers from the trial of Cardinal Giovanni Morone.51 These and many other examples show how effectively Reformed authors were able to employ annotated editions in their controversies with the Catholic Church. This was a shrewd tactic, displaying the confident use which Protestants made of the medium of printing. On the Catholic side, German controversialists adopted, though to little effect, the same methods, publishing extensive annotated excerpts from works by the Reformers.52 Moreover, Catholic editions of Church documents sometimes included unauthorized alterations. A version of the Tridentine decree on original sin, omitting the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, had circulated for years in the 1546 Parisian collection and related French publications;53 and

49

50

51

52

53

1564: Les premiers index romains et l’Index du Concile de Trente (Index des livres interdits 8; Geneva: Droz/Sherbrooke: Université de Sherbrooke. Centre d’études de la Renaissance, 1990), 586–7, n. 670. According to Jedin, Storia del Concilio, 1.483, n. 70, the concise and ambiguous prohibition ended up affecting all editions of the Consilium, which continued to be used by Protestants to attack the papacy until the eighteenth century. Admonitio paterna … ad invictiss. Caesarem Carolum V … cum scholiis ([Mainz: Ivo Schöffer], 1545) and ([Basel: Robert Winter], 1545). The letter had been translated into German, presumably a year before: Vätterliche Ermanung Pauli III … zum .. Keyßer Carolo den fünfften (s.l.: s. n., 1544). Acta Concilii Tridentini, anno MDXLVI celebrati una cum annotationibus piis et lectu dignissimis: Item Ratio …, per Philippum Melanchthonem ([Basel: Johann Oporinus], 1546). Acta synodi Tridentinae cum antidoto per Ioann. Calvinum ([Geneva: Jean Gérard], 1547); Calvin made a French translation a year later. Among other conciliar documentation, Vergerio published and commented on Pope Julius III’s Bolla della indittione, & convocatione del concilio che si ha da incominciare in Trento… ([Poschiavo: Dolfino Landolfi, 1550]) and later translated it into Latin: Bulla Iulii Tertii … Petrus Paulus Vergerius commentariolum … fecerat (Tübingen: Ulrich Morhart, 1553). Il catalogo de libri … condannati, & scomunicati per heretici, da m. Giovan della Casa legato di Vinetia & d’alcuni frati. E aggiunto sopra il medesimo catalogo un iudicio, & discorso del Vergerio ([Poschiavo: Dolfino Landolfi, 1549]) and Articuli contra cardinalem Moronum … cum scholiis (Tübingen: Ulrich Morhart, 1558) transcribed in P. Simoncelli, Il caso Reginald Pole: Eresia e santità nelle polemiche religiose del Cinquecento (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1977), 253–62. Johannes Cochlaeus was especially engaged in such publications; see the exhaustive list of his works in M. Samuel-Scheyder, Johannes Cochlaeus: Humaniste et adversaire de Luther (Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy, 1993), 717–29. On Catholic controversialist texts, see the account by W. Klaiber (ed.), Katholische Kontroverstheologen und Reformer des 16. Jahrhunderts: ein Werkverzeichnis (Münster: Aschendorff, 1978). See Calenzio, Esame critico-letterario, 123–5, for the omission of Mary at the end of the decree

Privilege of Rome

355

during the 1550s, in unofficial collections of conciliar decrees published in Spain, certain passages were modified in accordance with the claims of the Spanish bishops in Trent.54 The Curia gradually became aware of the risk entailed by the leak of sensitive administrative and legal documents in the era of the Reformation, the vast expansion of printing and the rapid circulation of information. The notions of state secrets and state archives became ever stronger in the palaces of Popes and cardinals. The closing of the Council of Trent played a pivotal role in this. The first measures to create a separate and efficient central archive were taken by Pius IV and Pius V in connection with the recovery of documentation from the Council.55 This development was complementary to the growth of papal bureaucracy, which became one of the most forward-looking and centralised state systems of the sixteenth century.56 In 1574, a curial memo reported that official Church documents, which should be stored in the papal archives, were instead lying scattered in private hands and were being widely traded. Not only did foreign princes and many other people hold papal papers in their collections, but even heretics had copies of them, from which they had been printing forgeries with damaging annotations.57 In order to prevent this from happening to the official Roman edition of the Tridentine decrees, the papacy decided to exploit the propagandistic potential of

54 55

56

57

on original sin (“Declarat tamen”) and other failings of the Paris edition. I agree with Decreta Septem, Kuttner (ed.), xxiv and Tallon, La France et le Concile, 535–7 that this omission was intentional. On the much debated question of whether the Council should or not pronounce on the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, see esp. J. Sagüés, “Trent y la Inmaculada Naturaleza del Dogma Mariano”, Estudios Eclesiásticos 18 (1954) 323–67 and Jedin, Storia del Concilio, 2.163–4, 177–8, 182–5, and 189, esp. p. 187, n. 31. Gutierrez, “Una edición española”, 74–5, 83–5 and Jedin, Storia del Concilio, 4/1.21–2, n. 13. See the account provided in CT 1, xix–xx and G. Gualdo, “L’Archivio Segreto Vaticano da Paolo V (1605–1621) a Leone XIII (1878–1903): Caratteri e limiti degli strumenti di ricerca messi a disposizione tra il 1880 e il 1903”, in G. Gualdo/R. Cosma, Diplomatica pontificia e umanesimo curiale: Con altri saggi sull’Archivio Vaticano, tra medioevo ed età moderna (Rome: Herder, 2005) 561–91, on pp. 562–4. See the influential interpretation by P. Prodi, Il sovrano pontefice: un corpo e due anime: La monarchia papale nella prima età moderna (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2006), along with the remarks and modifications by other scholars recently collected together by S. Ditchfield, “Tridentine Catholicism”, in A. Bamji/G.H. Janssen/M. Laven (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to the Counter-Reformation (Farnham/Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013) 15–31, on pp. 24–8. Merkle, “Prolegomena”, in CT 1, xix: “… raccogliere scritture appartenenti a negotii di secretaria, non gia quelle che vivono nella penna e nelle mani del secretario secreto, ma tutti gli altri registri et lettere di papi, di legati, di nuntii, di governatori et di altre persone che hanno servito la sede apostolica, le quali memorie o sono restate in mano d’heredi o vanno disperse et si comprano e vendono publicamente, e li principi forestieri et molte persone private ne fanno archivii in Roma, e sino li heretici ne hanno havute copie et falsificatole et con postille pernitiosissime stampate.”

356

Paolo Sachet

printing to the maximum and to exert as tight a control as possible over it. While attempting to take an active part in the international book trade with a trusted publishing house, it also sought to forestall the risks of large-scale media exposure. This is why all three folio editions contained only the plain text of the decrees, as Manuzio stressed in his letter to the pious reader.58 No marginal indications of biblical passages were inserted, nor was there, initially, an index. The inconvenience which this might cause to readers was clearly not a concern of either the Curia or the Pope. In the eyes of curial officials, publishing the bare text would discourage any interventions by either Protestant or Catholic scholars and made them easily recognisable if inserted. That this was the intention is openly stated in Pius IV’s bull Benedictus Deus confirming the conciliar decrees, in which any addition to the printed text was forbidden, unless it had received prior approval by the papacy. To avoid the corruption and confusion which could arise if everyone were permitted to publish his own expositions and interpretations of the Council’s decrees, we, by apostolic authority and under the threat of immediate excommunication, prohibit anyone – whether a prelate or a layman – from daring to publish without our consent any comment, gloss, annotation, marginal note or any kind of interpretation at all of these conciliar decrees in any way or to take any decision, under whatever authority, not even with the excuse of reinforcing and improving the execution of the decrees or for any other reason.59

Instead, the Pope arrogated to himself alone the right to resolve all interpretative issues, laying the foundation for future restrictive actions concerning the Council’s legacy such as creating a dedicated committee of cardinals to supervise its implementation (the Congregatio Concilii), suspending the further publication of the Tridentine acts and, ultimately, storing them in the Vatican Archives.60 Employing a subtle and unprecedented policy of centralized pro58 Canones, et decreta (Rome: Paolo Manuzio, 11564), iii: “Hoc benefiium disseminari quamprimum, ac distribui per orbem terrarum, ad propoganda veritatem, et divulgandam Ecclesiae Catholicae sententiam, necesse est. Itaque nunc eduntur puri Canones, et ipsa Decreta, cum appendice nulla.” The quotation occurs on the same page in the second edition and on p. 3 in the third. 59 Canones, et decreta … Index dogmatum, & reformationis (Rome: Paolo Manuzio, 1564), [243]: “Ad vitandum … perversionem, et confusionem, quae oriri posset, si unicuique liceret … in Decreta Concilii commentarios, et interpretationes suas edere; Apostolica auctoritate inhibemus omnibus, tam ecclesiasticis personis, … quam laicis, … sub excommunicationis latae sententia poenis, ne quis sine auctoritate nostra audeat ullos commentarios, glossa, annotationes, scholia, ullumve omnino interpretationis genus super ipsius Concilii decretis quocumque modo edere, aut quidquam quocumque nomine, etiam sub praetextu maioris decretorum corroborationis, aut executionis, aliove quaesito colore, statuere.” 60 See the thorough accounts by Ehses, “Introductio”, in CT 5, xxvi–xxxviii and by H. Jedin, Das Konzil von Trient: Ein Überblick über die Erforschung seiner Geschichte (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1948). New details concerning the relocation of the Tridentine do-

Privilege of Rome

357

motion, with the use of bans and privilegi, access to the Tridentine legacy became, so to speak, the privilege of Rome, as I have suggested in the title of this chapter. Exacerbated by Paolo Sarpi’s embarrassingly satirical account of events at the Council, this situation lasted until 1881, when Pope Leo XIII finally opened the Vatican Archives to qualified scholars, enabling the Catholic German GörresGesellschaft to embark on the publication of the original documents, especially the Tridentine acts. This policy seemed to be directed against Catholics even more than Protestants, so that for a long time even those Catholic scholars eager to defend the Roman Church and the Tridentine Council were not encouraged to study the original papers.61 The primary aim of the papacy was to safeguard from criticism the corpus of Tridentine rulings, which provided new guidelines for the Church’s internal reform and disciplinary procedures, established the boundaries of Catholic orthodoxy and anathematized heretics. The first edition of the decrees can therefore be regarded as an early attempt on the part of the papacy to handle the potentially divisive legacy of the Council of Trent. The plain text and uncluttered mise en page of the Decreta conveyed a monolithic and unproblematic account of the work accomplished by the Council and also promoted an image of total harmony between papacy and Curia, on the one hand, and the universal Church of Catholic believers, as represented by the bishops assembled in Trent, on the other. Polemics at the Council and the opposing interpretations of the decrees put forward by the participants and later in the Catholic monarchies, notably in Spain, France and the Holy Empire, were entirely absent from the book. The readership of the edition was offered a uniform and homogeneous picture of the Tridentine Catholicism as the sole true faith.62

cumentation in C.M. Grafinger, “Der Transport von Konzilsakten von der Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana in Das Vatikanische Archiv und ihre Benützung im 17. Jahrhundert”, Römische historische Mitteilungen 34/35 (1992–93) 139–46. 61 An exemplary case concerns the Jesuit Terenzio Alciati, who was asked by the Pope to write a refutation of Sarpi’s conciliar history but was not allowed to have personal copies of the official documentation (Jedin, Das Konzil von Trient, 98–104). As late as the mid-nineteenth century, Augustin Theiner encountered Pius IX’s fierce opposition to his project of publishing the Tridentine acts (Jedin, Das Konzil von Trient, 179–82 and 185–7). 62 For useful remarks on the overlap between the Council and the papacy in the aftermath of Trent, see J.W. O’Malley, “The Council of Trent: Myths, Misunderstandings, and Misinformation”, in T. Lucas (ed.), Spirit, Style, Story: Essays Honoring John W. Padburg, S.J. (Chicago, IL: Jesuit Way Loyola Press, 2002) 205–26.

358

Paolo Sachet

Impact of the Papacy’s Restrictive and Centralized Policy of Promotion Whether all these stratagems were effective in controlling the circulation of reprints of the Tridentine decrees is another question. The papal press’s limited capacity to issue large press runs and the inexperience of Manuzio in this sort of mass distribution raises a number of doubts. Preliminary results indicate, nevertheless, that, at least in 1564, the official text was maintained, and the book’s circulation, though far from being controlled, was made more orderly by the privilege. A few months after Manuzio’s Roman editions, the Tridentine decrees were reprinted, according to the officially established text, once in Florence, Naples, Milan and Padua, twice in Novara and four times in Venice, with two of the reprints issued by the Manuzio family press.63 So, each of the major states of the Italian peninsula had its own official publication of the decrees. The circulation outside of Italy was more complex. In the Low Countries and the Catholic areas of Germany, official editions published in Louvain and Dillingen replaced Bozzola’s earlier collection.64 A Lisbon edition, sponsored by Cardinal Dom Henrique de Portugal and printed by Francisco Correia, met the demand in Portugal and its domains overseas. Problems arose in Spain and France, however, because of the relative independence of their national churches from Rome and the resistance of both countries to the socio-political invasiveness of the Tridentine pronouncements with respect to royal prerogatives. In both countries, the reprints based on Manuzio’s editions co-existed for a time with other editions. In the Spanish Kingdom, as we have seen, a slightly modified text had begun to circulate soon after the second conciliar period, so that the official publication struggled to impose itself.65 This was due to the ten-year fight – involving the papacy, Charles

63 The Decreta were published in Florence by the Giunta press, in Naples by Giovan Maria Scotti, in Milan by Giovanni Antonio degli Antoni and in Padua by Giovanni Griffio the Elder. Both Novara editions were printed by Francesco Sesalli, the second explicitly for Giovanni Mondella. Two of the four Venetian editions were published by Paolo’s son, Aldo Manuzio the Younger; a third was issued by Girolamo Cavalcalupo; and Domenico Farri published an undated Canones et decreta, which can however be assigned to 1564, since it did not contain Pius IV’s bull of confirmation. 64 Three official editions appeared in Louvain, printed by Merten Verhasselt, Petrus Zangrius and Jean Bogard. Sebald Meyer, the official printer of the Prince-Bishop of Augsburg, Otto Truchsess von Waldburg, issued the decrees in Dillingen. 65 In 1564, the decrees were issued in Zaragoza (Miguel de Suelves and Bartolomé de Nágera’s widow), Salamanca (Juan de Cánova), Granada (Antonio de Nebrija and García Briones for Juan Díaz and Martín de Salvatierra), Barcelona (Claudio Bornat), Valencia (Juan Mey) Valladolid (Adrián Ghemart) and three times in Madrid (one by Andrés de Angulo and two other printings in the summer and fall of 1564 by Pedro de Robles and Francisco de Cormellas

Privilege of Rome

359

V and later Philip II – between the Spanish bishops and local chapters over the expansion of episcopal authority. Philip put particular effort into the implementation of the Tridentine pronouncements, which he introduced into his Kingdom on 12 July 1564 after receiving the third folio edition from Rome.66 In September, he prohibited any of the altered summaries of the conciliar decrees from circulating in the Spanish vernacular and imposed Manuzio’s edition as the only official text, in line with the papal privilege.67 In 1564, France was on the verge of civil and religious war once again. The initial conflict between Catholics and Huguenots had been resolved to some extent, but the nobility was split into two confessional parties, both attempting to pressurize the young King Charles IX and his powerful mother Catherine de’ Medici. Approval of the Tridentine decrees by the Crown was out of question in such a delicate situation, as it would exacerbate the growing conflict. The conciliar deliberations were to be confirmed as late as 1615, solely by an assembly of French bishops and without being ratified either by the King or the Estates General.68 Yet, Cardinal Charles de Lorraine – the French legate to the Council of Trent and a key member of the leading Catholic House of Guise – encouraged the Count-Bishop of Verdun, Nicolas Psaume, to publish the conciliar decrees in 1564. A priest of exemplary reputation, Psaume participated in the second and third periods of the Council, keeping diaries of the events.69 Although it had probably been conceived two years earlier, his edition of the Tridentine decrees was issued as soon as he was back in Lorraine in 1564. Significantly, the book, intended for a French readership, was first printed in Verdun, Psaume’s fief and a formerly free imperial city occupied by Henry II in 1552 but not officially part of France.70 Psaume presented his edition as pre-

66

67 68 69 70

for Juan de Escobedo and Alonso Gomez). The Granada edition seems to differ significantly from the official text, relying extensively on Bozzola’s collection. J.I. Tellechea Idígoras, “Filippo II e il Concilio di Trento”, in H. Jedin/P. Prodi (ed.), Il Concilio di Trento come crocevia della politica europea (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979) 109–35. In the Real Cédula (Tellechea Idígoras, “Filippo II e il Concilio di Trento”, 134–5), Philip II ratified the Tridentine decrees “habiéndonos S. S. enviado los decretos del dicho santo Concilio impresos en forma auténtica…”. B. Llorca Vives, “Aceptatión en España de los decretos del Concilio de Trento”, Estudios Eclesiásticos 39 (1964) 341–60 and 459–82, on p. 460. See H. Weber, “L’accettazione in Francia del Concilio di Trento”, in Jedin/Prodi, Il Concilio di Trento, 85–107. On this distinguished figure in Counter-Reformation France, see B. Ardura, Nicolas Psaume (1518–1575): évêque et comte de Verdun (Paris: CERF, 1990) and Tallon, La France et le Concile, ad indicem. N. Psaume (ed.), Canones et decreta … Concilii Tridentini … nunc primum revocata in artem et ordinem, et in rubricas, certaque capita convenienti methodo digesta … additus est et sub finem index rubricarum, decretorum et capitum totius operis … ad illustr. princ. Reverend. Card. a Lotharingia (Verdun: Nicolas Bacquenois, 1564). This edition was simultaneously issued in Rheims by Joan de Foigny, son-in–law of Bacquenois, and another was published by Nicolas Chesneau in Paris in the same year. Psaume apparently had planned the publication

360

Paolo Sachet

paratory to the Synod which he was about to convene for the immediate application of the Tridentine decrees in his bishopric. The collection was deliberately divided into three parts: the first dealing with the canons for compulsory provincial councils to be held in every diocese; the second with the doctrinal pronouncements; and the third with the decisions concerning internal reform.71 The decrees were therefore not presented in chronological order, but rather by subject. Psaume’s sources were the earlier published collections, together with his own personal notes. The closing acts of the Council and Cardinal Farnese’s confirmation were, however, copied from Manuzio’s edition; thus the printed statement of concordantia cum originalibus by Massarelli and the other two notaries was included by Psaume, even though this was certainly not the case.72 Psaume’s edition, which was reprinted twice, was initially in competition with an edition based on the official Roman text, published, probably a few months later, in Lyon by Guillaume Rouillé. The majority of complete editions of the Tridentine decrees published in 1564 contained the Roman official text. These publications often included the privilege given to Manuzio’s second edition and/or his dedicatory letter to the pious reader. Some publishers – such as Guillaume Rouillé in Lyon, Merten Verhasselt in Louvain and Sebald Meyer in Dillingen – scrupulously claimed on the titlepage that their editions conformed to the authorized text.73 None of them, however, dared to issue a folio edition, all opting instead for smaller formats. Apart from any respect they might have felt for Manuzio’s majestic folios, marketing reasons came into play. It is likely that the folio editions issued in Rome by Manuzio circulated in sufficient number to accommodate the needs of the wealthy and of local authorities. The official text of the Tridentine decrees was spread throughout the continent in quarto and octavo volumes, which may have earlier, since the royal privilege requested by de Foigny is dated 30 October 1562: N. Psaume (ed.), Canones et decreta… (Paris: Nicolas Chesneau, 1564), fol. +1v. See the remarks in Tallon, La France et le Concile, 544–7. 71 See Psaume’s dedicatory letter to the Cardinal of Lorraine, in N. Psaume (ed.), Canones et decreta (Paris, 1564), fol. +2r-+3v. 72 Psaume (ed.), Canones et decreta, fol. 237. 73 Canones, et decreta … cum prototypis et originalibus a Secretario et notariis dicti concilii collati, qui in operis fine subscripserunt, summa fide et diligentia nunc postremo excusi… (Lyon: Guillaume Rouillé, 1564); Canones et decreta … opus nunc primum in Germania excusum integre, et ad fidem autographi Venetique exemplaris, quod a prioribus editionibus variat saepe… (Dillingen: Sebald Meyer, 1564); Canones et decreta … omnia sanctae Sedis Apostolicae autoritate confirmata: in hac nostra editione Romanum exemplar, cum ipso originali summa fide collatum, ac Pii IIII … autoritate in lucem editum, fideliter sumus in omnibus secuti… (Leuven: Merten Verhasselt, 1564). In 1566, also Willem Silvius claimed on the title-page that his edition was “in forma authentica uti a summo Pontifice missum est”. He may have done so because he had previously published the Decreta from Bozzola’s text, even though using Manuzio’s title.

Privilege of Rome

361

been based on the widely diffused Venetian reprints, as Meyer made clear on the title-page of his edition.74 No evidence has as yet come to light regarding agreements between Manuzio and other printers, though this was the policy adopted when he published Pius V’s breviary three years later.75 The plans for disseminating the Roman edition of the Tridentine decrees had come directly from the Curia, especially the cardinale nipote Carlo Borromeo. An astute politician, Borromeo was wary about making official material unlimitedly available, particularly in relation to the Council of Trent.76 As the first prefect of the Congregation of the Council established in August 1564, he fully understood the need to reduce the risk of both misinterpretation and negative annotation by exercising a monopoly on the text of this crucial publication. Indeed, he took great care to send original (and handwritten authenticated) copies of the book to bishops, nuncios and secular authorities to be printed locally. As soon as the decrees were published on 18 March 1564, Borromeo shipped to Zaccaria Delfino, the nuncio in Germany, six exemplars to be distributed to, among others, Emperor Ferdinand and his successor Maximilian. He did the same after the publication of Manuzio’s second edition.77 In his own diocese, he looked after the publication of the Milanese reprint,78 while, on 29 August 1564, he sent to the Archbishop of Bremen an authentic exemplar explicitly to replace the other faulty editions.79 On 29 January 1565, the Archbishop of Zaragoza – where the first modified Spanish edition was issued in 1553 – was provided with an official copy, this time by the newly instituted Congregatio Concilii.80 Further information could certainly be uncovered by reading systematically through the correspondence between papal nuncios, Carlo Borromeo and the Congregation of the Council. 74 See n. 71 above. 75 Barberi, Paolo Manuzio, 71–81 and F. Barberi, “Paolo Manuzio e Cristoforo Plantin”, in F. Barberi, Per una storia del libro: Profili, note, ricerche (Rome: Bulzoni, 1981) 289–305. 76 In 1570 Borromeo corresponded with Niccolò Ormanetto about recovering and storing in Rome the official documentation of earlier cardinali nipoti, including himself. Borromeo was rather reluctant to deliver his papers to Pope Pius V, fearing that “capitassero a diverse mani curiose o che havessero altri fini diversi da quello di N. Signore, il che non le sarebbe di servitio, essendovi pur molte cose d’importanza, quali non è forse espediente che si risappino da molti per la qualità de maneggi et negotii, che passarono in quel pontificato, massime al tempo del concilio di Trento”. See Merkle, “Prolegomena”, in CT 1, xix–xx. 77 S. Steinherz (ed.), Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland nebst ergänzenden Aktenstücken. Zweite Abteilung (1560–1572), vol 4: Nuntius Delfino 1564–1565 (Vienna: Hölder, 1914), 73, 129 and 149. 78 See the letter from Tullio Albonese cited in n. 39 above. 79 E. Baluze/G.D. Mansi, Miscellanea novo ordine digesta (4 vol.; Lucca: Vincenzo Giuntino, 1761–64), 3.517. 80 See the letter from the secretary of the committee, Giulio Poggiani, to the Archbishop of Zaragoza, in G. Poggiani, Epistolae et orationes, A.M. Graziani/G. Lagomarsini (ed.) (4 vol.; Rome: Genoroso Salomoni, 1762) 1.344–5.

362

Paolo Sachet

Conclusion As we would expect, this form of control over the thriving European book trade did not last for very long. In a couple of years, the first commented editions were published, new speeches and documents were released and the decrees were translated into the vernacular.81 Yet, even though the strategy was short lived and not particularly effective, what is important, from our perspective, is the monopolistic idea underpinning it. A similar scheme was adopted for other Tridentine books, from the revised Breviary and the Missal, up to the Sixto-Clementine edition of the Vulgate. Able Popes such as Pius V, Gregory XIII and Sixtus V further developed the policy inaugurated by Pius IV with Manuzio’s edition of the Tridentine decrees. Sixtus V was the most audacious in using printing as a means of propaganda. He undertook a restoration of the Vatican Library, which involved the construction of a well-funded Vatican press. In his extensive reformation of the Curia in 1588, he created a specific committee to supervise the new Typographia Vaticana and even acted as the editor of the revised version of the Vulgate, linking the authority of his philological work to his spiritual authority as Pope: anyone who refused to adopt his edition, which was of little scholarly value and was promptly withdrawn at his death, was threatened with excommunication.82 The monopolistic tendency of the sixteenth-century Catholic Church with regard to information and the printed word found little practical application. Yet, it perfectly paralleled and complemented the idea of restricting access to the Bible to clergymen and proficient readers of Latin by prohibiting vernacular translations of the Sacred Scriptures, as well as of controlling the entire production and circulation of printed works by means of an Index of Prohibited Books.83 It is no coincidence that the Tridentine Index was sometimes added to early editions of the conciliar decrees, forming the second part of a compendium which not only completed the Tridentine regulations, but also provided a clear expression of the contemporary 81 As early as 1566, Orazio Luzi provided readers of his edition with biblical and juridical references: Canones, et decreta … cum citationibus ex utroque Testamento, et iuris pontificij constitutionibus … collectis … ab Horatio Lutio (Venice: Giordano Ziletti, 1566). The conciliar acta were published in 1566 by Rouillé and in the remarkable collection by Zangrius a year later. By that time, vernacular editions had already appeared in Spain, France, German and the Low Countries, but, significantly, not in the Italian peninsula. 82 On the Sixtine Vulgate, see P. Godman, The Saint as Censor: Robert Bellarmine between Inquisition and Index (Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2000), 139–47, with earlier bibliography. Relevant remarks are in V. Baroni, La Contre-Réforme devant la Bible: La question biblique (Lausanne: Éditions la Concorde, 1943), 218–22. 83 See G. Fragnito, La Bibbia al rogo: La censura ecclesiastica e i volgarizzamenti della Scrittura (1471–1605) (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1997); Fragnito, Proibito capire: la Chiesa e il volgare nella prima età moderna (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2005); Frajese, Nascita dell’Indice.

Privilege of Rome

363

cultural attitude of Catholicism.84 On the one hand, there were prohibitions and bans, expurgations and inquisitorial trials, casting suspicion on printed books and private reading in general; on the other, more sophisticated attempts were made to gain control over the means of publication, distribution and communication. These were the two sides of the cultural policy of the Catholic Church in relation to printing during the sixteenth century, and both were closely connected to each other, to the growing notion of absolute papal supremacy and to the empowerment of the Church Domain as a state system. The first edition of the Tridentine decrees was a crucial turning-point in the development of this policy.

Bibliography Archival sources London, British Library, Gen. Ref. Coll. Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MS. F. 104 inf. Vatican City, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Conc. Trid. 97. Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Stamp. Barb. CCC.

Printed and edited sources Acta ac decreta sacrosanctae Tridentinae Synodi ann. MDXLVI et XLVII: una cum admonitione legatorum Sedis Apostolicae, ad patres lecta, in prima sessione ac orationibus tribus per diversos praelatos ibidem habitis (Milan: Innocenzo Cicognara, 1548). Acta Concilii Tridentini, anno MDXLVI celebrati una cum annotationibus piis et lectu dignissimis: Item Ratio cur qui Confessionem Augustanam profitentur, non esse assentiendum iniquis Concilii Tridentini sententiis iudicarunt: per Philippum Melanchthonem… ([Basel: Johann Oporinus], 1546). Acta Concilii Tridentini quorum catalogus in proxima inest pagina (Paris: Regnault and Claude Chaudière, 1546). Acta synodi Tridentinae cum antidoto per Ioann. Calvinum ([Geneva: Jean Gérard], 1547). Acta Tridentini Concilii quorum catalogus in sequentibus habetur paginis (Antwerp: Martin Nutius, 1546). Admonitio paterna Pauli III. Romani Pontificis ad invictiss. Caesarem Carolum V. qua eum castigat quod se Lutheranis praebuerit nimis facilem: deinde quod tum in cogenda synodo, tum in definiendis fidei controuersiis aliquid potestatis sibi sumpserit: cum scholiis ([Basel: Robert Winter], 1545). Admonitio paterna Pauli III. Romani Pontificis ad invictiss. Caesarem Carolum V. qua eum castigat quod se Lutheranis praebuerit nimis facilem: deinde quod tum in cogenda 84 E. g., the editions of the decrees by Rouillé and Mayer; see n. 71 above.

364

Paolo Sachet

synodo, tum in definiendis fidei controversiis aliquid potestatis sibi sumpserit: cum scholiis ([Mainz: Ivo Schöffer], 1545). Articuli contra cardinalem Moronum, de Luteranismo accusatum, et in carcerem coniectum a Procuratore Fisci, & Camerae Apostolicae, & nomine officii sanctae Inquisitionis instituti: cum scholiis (Tübingen: Ulrich Morhart, 1558). Baluze, E./Mansi, G.D., Miscellanea novo ordine digesta (4 vol.; Lucca: Vincenzo Giuntino, 1761–64), vol. 3. Bolla della indittione, & convocatione del concilio che si ha da incominciare in Trento al primo di maggio, nell’anno MDLI ([Poschiavo: Dolfino Landolfi, 1550]). Bulla Iulii Tertii Rom. Episcopi, qua Concilium ad kal. Maii rursus fuit convocatum Tridentum: cum commentariolo D. Vidae Iurec. Iustinopolitani: edito Anno Domini D.M.LI. Mense Iulio: (D. Petrus Paulus Vergerius commentariolum hunc Italice scripserat, at D. Ottonellus Vida latinum fecerat (Tübingen: Ulrich Morhart, 1553). Canones et decreta, sacrosancti et generalis concilii Tridentini. sub Paulo III. Iulio III. Pio IIII. Pontificibus omnia sanctae Sedis Apostolicae autoritate confirmata: in hac nostra editione Romanum exemplar, cum ipso originali summa fide collatum, ac Pii IIII … autoritate in lucem editum, fideliter sumus in omnibus secuti… (Leuven: Merten Verhasselt, 1564). Canones, et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici, et generalis Concilii Tridentini sub Paulo III, Iulio III, Pio IIII pontificibus max. (Rome: Paolo Manuzio, 11564). Canones, et decreta sacrosanti oecumenici, et generalis Concilii Tridentini sub Paulo III, Iulio III, Pio IIII, pontificibus max. Index dogmatum, & reformationis (Rome: Paolo Manuzio, 21564). Canones, et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici, et generalis Concilii Tridentini sub Paulo III, Iulio III, Pio IIII, pontificibus max. Index dogmatum, & reformationis (Rome: Paolo Manutio, 31564). Canones et decreta sacrosanti oecumenici et generalis Concilii Tridentini. sub Paulo III. Iulio III. Pio IIII. Pont. max.: opus nunc primum in Germania excusum integre, et ad fidem autographi Venetique exemplaris, quod a prioribus editionibus variat saepe: adiectus est Index Librorum prohibitorum, cum Regulis confectis per Patres a Tridentina Synodo delectos, authoritate sanctiss. D. N. Pii IIII. Pont. max. comprobatus (Dillingen: Sebald Meyer, 1564). Canones et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici et generalis Concilii Tridentini sub Paulo III, Iulio III, Pio IIII, Pontificibus Max.: cum Pii IIII Pontificis Max. confirmatione quam ad calcem reperies: cui accessit index locupletissimus (Antwerp: Willem Silvius, 1564). Canones, et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici, et generalis Concilii Tridentini sub Paulo III, Iulio III, et Pio IIII, … cum citationibus ex utroque Testamento, & iuris pontificii constitutionibus, … collectis ab Horatio Lutio Calliensi … additis PII IIII. pont. max. bullis, triplicique indice & aliis multis rebus ad rem in primis facientibus (Venice: Giordano Ziletti, 1566). Canones, et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici, et generalis Concilii Tridentini, sub Paulo III. Iulio III. Pio IIII. Pontificibus Max: cum prototypis et originalibus a Secretario et notariis dicti concilii collati, qui in operis fine subscripserunt, summa fide et diligentia nunc postremo excusi… (Lyon: Guillaume Rouillé, 1564). Carranza, B., Summa conciliorum et pontificum a Petro usque ad Paulum tertium succincte complectens omnia, quae alibi sparsim tradita sunt… (Venice: Ad signum Spei, 1546).

Privilege of Rome

365

Carranza, B., Summa conciliorum et pontificum a Petro usque ad Pium quartum … adiecta sunt etiam acta et canones generalis concilii Tridentini, qua ante non habebantur (Lyon: Giacomo Giunta’s heirs, 1564). Cochlaeus, J., Aequitatis discussio super consilio delectorum cardinalium &c. ad tollendam per generale concilium inter germanos in religione discordiam (Leipzig: Nikolaus Wolrab, 1538). Consilium delectorum cardinalium et aliorum praelatorum de emendanda Ecclesia (Rome: Antonio Blado, 1538). Consilium delectorum cardinalium et aliorum praelatorum, de emendanda Ecclesia: epistola Ioannis Sturmii de eadem re… ([Strasbourg]: Kraft Müller, 1538). Crabbe, P., Concilia omnia, tam generalia quam particularia ab Apostolorum temporibus in hunc usque diem… (3 vol.; Cologne: Peter and Johann Quentel, 1538–1551). Decreta de sacramento matrimonii, et de reformatione, publicata in sessione octava sacri Concilii Tridentini sub beatiss. N. Pio IIII pont. max. die XI Nouemb. MDLXIII (Brescia: Giovan Battista Bozzola, 1563). Decreta, publicata in sessione nona et ultima sacri Concilii Tridentini sub sanctiss. d.n. Pio IIII pon. max. diebus III et IIIII Decemb. MDLXIII (Brescia: Giovan Battista Bozzola, 1563). Decreta sacro sancti oecumenici et generalis Concilii Tridentini (Bologna: Anselmo Giaccarelli, 1548). Generale Concilium Tridentinum continens omnia quae ab initio usquae [sic] ad finem in eo gesta sunt (Venice: Ad signum Spei, 1552). Generale concilium Tridentinum continens omnia quae ab eius reductione per Iulium tertium … usque ad finem in eo gesta sunt (Zaragoza: Agustín Millán, 1553). Il catalogo de libri, li quali nuovamente nel mese di maggio nell’anno presente MDXLVIIII sono stati condannati, & scomunicati per heretici, da m. Giovan della Casa legato di Vinetia & d’alcuni frati: e aggiunto sopra il medesimo catalogo un iudicio, & discorso del Vergerio ([Poschiavo: Dolfino Landolfi, 1549]). In hoc libello contenta: Concordata inter Leonem X, Pont. Maximum, et Franciscum I, Francorum regem … super sacerdotiorum Gallicarum negocio: textus Pragmaticae sanctionis, opera M. Cosmae Guymier emendatus et marginalibus scholiis illustratus: regulae, ordinationes et constitutiones cancellariae romanae curiae communes et generales: Sacrosancti oecumenici Concilii tridentini sessionis primae, secundae, tertiae, quartae, quintae et sextae decreta. Omnia recens diligenter et accurate emendata… (Paris: Galliot Du Pré, 1550). Le Plat, J. (ed.), Canones, et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici, et generalis Concilii Tridentini sub Paulo III., Iulio III., Pio IV. pontificibus max. celebrati, juxta exemplar authenticum Romae M. D. LXIIII. editum… (Antwerp: Architypographia Plantiniana, 1779). Poggiani, G., Epistolae et orationes, A.M. Graziani/G. Lagomarsini (ed.) (4 vol.; Rome: Genoroso Salomoni, 1762), vol. 1. Psaume, N. (ed.), Canones et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici et generalis Concilii Tridentini, quae antea sparsim et absque ullo ordine, prout occurrebant negotia, fuere diversis temporibus proposita sub Paulo III. Iulio III et Pio IIII, pontificib. Max. nunc primum revocata in artem et ordinem, et in rubricas, certaque capita convenienti methodo digesta … additus est et sub finem index rubricarum, decretorum et capitum

366

Paolo Sachet

totius operis … ad illustr. princ. Reverend. Card. a Lotharingia (Verdun: Nicolas Bacquenois, 1564). Psaume, N. (ed.), Canones et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici et generalis Concilii Tridentini, quae antea sparsim et absque ullo ordine, prout occurrebant negotia, fuere diversis temporibus proposita sub Paulo III. Iulio III et Pio IIII, pontificib. Max. nunc primum revocata in artem et ordinem, et in rubricas, certaque capita convenienti methodo digesta … additus est et sub finem index rubricarum, decretorum et capitum totius operis … ad illustr. princ. Reverend. Card. a Lotharingia (Paris: Nicolas Chesneau, 1564). Ratschlag von der Kirchen eins ausschus etlicher Cardinel Bapst Paulo des namens dem dritten auff seinen befelh geschrieben und uberantwortet: mit einer vorrede D. Mart. Luth. (Wittenberg: Hans Lufft, 1538). Thomas Aquinas, In librum b. Iob expositio, cum indice rerum memorabilium: cum privilegio Pii IIII. Pont. Max. (Rome: Paolo Manuzio, 1562). Translatio sacri Concilii ex Tridento ad civitatem Bononiae (Bologna: Anselmo Giaccarelli, 1548). Tridentini Concilii Acta, quorum catalogus in sequentibus habetur paginis: accessit iam recens quinta sessio facta XIII. Ianuarii 1547 (Antwerp: Martin Nutius, 1547). Universum sacrosanctum Concilium Tridentinum, oecumenicum, ac generale, legitime tum indictum, tum congregatum: sub s.d.n. pont. max. Paulo III anno 1545 1546 et 1547: et sub Iulio III anno 1551 et 1552: et sub sanctiss. d.n. papa Pio quarto. Anno, 1562 et 1563: nunc recens, multo quam antea limatius, emendatiusque, in lucem prodit (Brescia: Giovan Battista Bozzola, 1563). Universum sacrosanctum Concilium Tridentinum, oecumenicum, ac generale, legitime tum indictum, tum congregatum: sub s.d.n. pont. max. Paulo III anno 1545, 1546, et 1547, et sub Iulio III anno 1551, et 1552: et sub sanctiss. d.n. papa Pio quarto, anno, 1562, et 1563: nunc recens, multo quam antea limatius, emendatiusque, in lucem prodit (Turin: Giovan Antonio Strobino and Francesco Dolce, 1564). Universum sacrosanctum Concilium Tridentinum … acc. catalogus legatorum, patrum, oratorum et theologorum omnium qui ad S. Synodum Tridentinam convenerunt (Lyon: s. n., [1564]). Vätterliche Ermanung Pauli III Roemischen Vatters des Bapsts zum dem aller unüberwindtlichsten Keyßer Carolo den fünfften: In welcher er ihn das er sich der Lutrischen Secten zum tieff eyngelassen und ein zumkünfftig Concilium (s.l.: s.n., 1544).

Secondary sources Alberigo, G., et al. (ed.), Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta (Bologna: Istituto per le Scienze Religiose, 1973). Ardura, B., Nicolas Psaume (1518–1575): Évêque et comte de Verdun (Paris: CERF, 1990). Baldacchini, L., “Il mercato e la corte: Paolo Manuzio e la Stamperia del Popolo Romano”, in A. Quondam (ed.), Il libro a corte (Rome: Bulzoni, 1994) 285–93. Barberi, F., “Paolo Manuzio e Cristoforo Plantin”, in F. Barberi (ed.), Per una storia del libro: Profili, note, ricerche (Rome: Bulzoni, 1981) 289–305.

Privilege of Rome

367

Barberi, F., Paolo Manuzio e la Stamperia del popolo romano (1561–1570): Con documenti inediti (Rome: Cuggiani, 1942). Baroni, V., La Contre-Réforme devant la Bible: La question biblique (Lausanne: Éditions la Concorde, 1943). Blasio, M.G., ‘Cum gratia et privilegio’: programmi editoriali e politica pontificia (Roma, 1487–1527) (Rome: Roma nel Rinascimento, 1988). Borrelli, L., “La collezione delle Cinquecentine relative al Concilio Ecumenico Tridentino della Biblioteca comunale di Trento”, Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 6 (1980) 447–545. Brockmann, T., “Il Concilio di Trento nella pubblicistica dell’area di lingua tedesca 1545– 1563”, in G. Alberigo/I. Rogger (ed.), Il concilio di Trento nella prospettiva del terzo millenio: Atti del Convegno, Trento 25–28 settembre 1995 (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1997) 185–212. Brockmann, T., Die Konzilsfrage in den Flug- und Streitschriften des deutschen Sprachraumes (1518–1563) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). Bujanda de, J.M. (ed.), Index de Rome 1557, 1559, 1564: Les premiers index romains et l’Index du Concile de Trente (Index des livres interdits 8; Geneva: Droz/Sherbrooke: Université de Sherbrooke. Centre d’études de la Renaissance, 1990). Cairns, C., Domenico Bollani, Bishop of Brescia: Devotion to Church and State in the Republic of Venice in the Sixteenth Century (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1976). Calenzio, G., “Delle rarità e preziosità tipografiche del Tridentino”, in Calenzio, Documenti inediti e nuovi lavori sul Concilio di Trento (Rome: Sinimberghi, 1874) 437–574. Calenzio, G., Esame critico-letterario delle opere riguardanti la storia del Concilio di Trento (Rome: Sinimberghi/Turin: Tipografia Pontificia, 1869). Calenzio, G., Saggio di storia del Concilio generale di Trento sotto Paolo III (Rome: 1869). Caravale, G., “La polemica protestante contro il Tridentino”, in R. Pancheri/D. Primerano (ed.), L’uomo del concilio: Il cardinale Giovanni Morone tra Roma e Trento nell’età di Michelangelo (Trent: Temi, 2009) 47–61. Cioni, A., “Bozzola, Giovan Battista”, Dizionario biografico degli italiani 13 (1971) 589–91. Crofts, R.A., “Printing, Reform, and the Catholic Reformation in Germany (1521–1545)”, The Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985) 369–81. Dicthfield, S., “Trent Revisited”, in G. Dall’Olio/A. Malena/P. Scaramella (ed.), Per Adriano Prosperi, vol. 1: La fede degli Italiani (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2011) 357–70. Ditchfield, S., “Tridentine Catholicism”, in A. Bamji/G.H. Janssen/M. Laven (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to the Counter-Reformation (Farnham/Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013) 15–31. Edwards, M.U. Jr., “Catholic Controversial Literature (1518–1555): Some Statistics”, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 79 (1988) 189–205. Fanizza, F., “Bozzola, Giovan Battista”, in M. Menato/E. Sandal/G. Zappella (ed.), Dizionario dei tipografi e degli stampatori italiani: Il Cinquecento 1 (1997) 190–1. Fè D’Ostiani, L., “Bibliografia degli opuscoli relativi al Concilio di Trento e stampati in Brescia durante lo stesso Concilio: appendice seconda al Muzio Calini”, Archivio Veneto 24 (1882) 235–48. Ferraglio, E., “Giovanni Battista Bozzola, un editore per il Concilio di Trento”, Civis 23 (1999) 109–21.

368

Paolo Sachet

Ferraglio, E., Il Concilio di Trento e l’editoria del sec. XVI: Bibliografia delle edizioni cinquecentesche (Trent: Civis, 2002). Fragnito, G., Gasparo Contarini: Un magistrato veneziano al servizio della cristianità (Florence: Olschki, 1988). Fragnito, G., La Bibbia al rogo: La censura ecclesiastica e i volgarizzamenti della Scrittura (1471–1605) (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1997). Fragnito, G., Proibito capire: La Chiesa e il volgare nella prima età moderna (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2005). Frajese, V., Nascita dell’Indice: La censura ecclesiastica dal Rinascimento alla Controriforma (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2006). Friedensburg, W., “Das Consilium de emendanda ecclesia, Kard. Sadolet und Johann Sturm von Strassburg”, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 33 (1936) 1–69. Godman, P., The Saint as Censor: Robert Bellarmine between Inquisition and Index (Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2000). Goñi Gaztambide, J., “Los cabidolos españoles y la confirmacion del Concilio de Trento”, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 7 (1975) 425–58. Grafinger, C.M., “Der Transport von Konzilsakten von der Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana in Das Vatikanische Archiv und ihre Benützung im 17. Jahrhundert”, Römische historische Mitteilungen 34/35 (1992–93) 139–46. Grendler, P.F., The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press (1540–1605) (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977). Gualdo, G., “L’Archivio Segreto Vaticano da Paolo V (1605–1621) a Leone XIII (1878– 1903): caratteri e limiti degli strumenti di ricerca messi a disposizione tra il 1880 e il 1903”, in G. Gualdo/R. Cosma, Diplomatica pontificia e umanesimo curiale: Con altri saggi sull’Archivio Vaticano, tra medioevo ed età moderna (Rome: Herder, 2005) 561–91. Gutiérrez, C., “Una edición española en 1553 de los decretos conciliares tridentinos”, Estudios Eclesiásticos 28 (1954) 73–105. Jedin, H., Das Konzil von Trient: Ein Überblick über die Erforschung seiner Geschichte (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1948). Jedin, H., Storia del Concilio di Trento, G. Cecchi et al. (trad.) (4 vol. in 5; Brescia: Morcelliana, 2–42009–10). Klaiber, W. (ed.), Katolische Kontroverstheologen und Reformer des 16. Jahrhunderts: ein Werkverzeichnis (Münster: Aschendorff, 1978). Kuttner, S., “Addenda to the Catholic University Edition of the Decrees of the Council of Trent”, Seminar: An Annual Extraordinary Number of The Jurist 6 (1948) 72–6. Kuttner, S. (ed.), Decreta septem priorum sessionum Concilii Tridentini sub Paulo III Pont. Max. ex autographo Angeli Massarelli (codice Morganiano ms. A.225 A Neo-Eboracensi) hic phototypice recuso (Washington: Catholic University of America, 1945). Llorca Vives, B., “Aceptatión en España de los decretos del Concilio de Trento”, Estudios Eclesiásticos 39 (1964) 341–60 and 459–82. Lowry, M., Facing the Responsibility of Paulus Manutius (Los Angeles, CA: Department of Special Collections, University Research Library, University of California, 1995). Nuovo, A., The Book Trade in the Italian Renaissance (Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2013). O’Malley, J.W., “The Council of Trent: Myths, Misunderstandings, and Misinformation,” in T. Lucas (ed.), Spirit, Style, Story: Essays Honoring John W. Padburg, S.J. (Chicago, IL: Jesuit Way Loyola Press, 2002) 205–26.

Privilege of Rome

369

Ozment, S., “Pamphlets Literature of the German Reformation”, in S. Ozment (ed.), Reformation in Europe: A Guide to Research (St Louis, MO: Center for Reformation Research, 1982) 85–105. Pastor, L. von, Storia dei papi dalla fine del medioevo (16 vol.; Rome: Desclée, 1950), vol. 7. Prodi, P., Il cardinale Gabriele Paleotti (1522–1597) (2 vol.; Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1959–1567). Prodi, P., Il sovrano pontefice: un corpo e due anime: La monarchia papale nella prima età moderna (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2006). Prosperi, A., Il Concilio di Trento: una introduzione storica (Turin: Einaudi, 2001). Renouard, A. A., Annales de l’imprimerie des Alde: ou Histoire des trois Manuce et de leurs éditions (Paris: J. Renouard, 1834). Renouard, A. A., Catalogue de la bibliothèque d’un amateur (4 vol.; Paris: A. A. Renouard, 1819), vol. 1. Richardson, B., Printing, Writers and Readers in Renaissance Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Romani, V., “Luoghi editoriali in Roma e nello Stato della Chiesa”, in M. Santoro (ed.), La stampa in Italia nel Cinquecento: Atti del Convegno, Roma 17–21 ottobre 1989 (Rome: Bulzoni, 1992) 515–32. Romani, V., “Per una storia dell’editoria romana tra Cinque e Seicento: note e documenti”, Annali della Scuola speciale per archivisti e bibliotecari dell’Università di Roma 15/16 (1975–76) 23–64. Sachet, P., “Il contratto tra Paolo Manuzio e la Camera apostolica (2 maggio 1561): la creazione della prima stamperia vaticana privilegiata”, La Bibliofilía 115 (2013) 245–61. Sagüés, J., “Trent y la Inmaculada Naturaleza del Dogma Mariano”, Estudios Eclesiásticos 18 (1954) 323–67. Samuel-Scheyder, M., Johannes Cochlaeus: Humaniste et adversaire de Luther (Nancy: Presses universitaires de Nancy, 1993). Simoncelli, P., Il caso Reginald Pole: eresia e santità nelle polemiche religiose del Cinquecento (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1977). Steinherz, S. (ed.), Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland nebst ergänzenden Aktenstücken. Zweite Abteilung (1560–1572), vol. 4: Nuntius Delfino 1564–1565 (Vienna: Hölder, 1914). Tallon, A., La France et le Concile de Trente (1518–1563) (Rome: École française de Rome, 1997). Tallon, A., Le Concilie de Trente (Paris: CERF, 2000). Tellechea Idígoras, J.I., “Filippo II e il Concilio di Trento”, in H. Jedin/P. Prodi (ed.), Il Concilio di Trento come crocevia della politica europea (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979) 109– 35. The Aldine Press: Catalogue of the Ahmanson-Murphy Collection … Incorporating Works Recorded Elsewhere (Berkeley, CA/Los Angeles, CA/London: University of California Press, 2001). Weber, H., “L’accettazione in Francia del Concilio di Trento”, in H. Jedin/P. Prodi (ed.), Il Concilio di Trento come crocevia della politica europea (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1979) 85– 107. Witcombe, C.L.C.E., Copyright in the Renaissance: Prints and the ‘privilegio’ in Sixteenthcentury Venice and Rome (Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2004).

Federica Meloni

Le rôle de la Sacrée Congrégation du Concile dans l’interprétation de la réforme tridentine

Hubert Jedin a parlé du Concile de Trente comme du «Concile réformateur par excellence»:1 les décrets qui, tantôt dans l’incertitude et l’inquiétude, tantôt dans l’espoir et l’enthousiasme, furent adoptés par l’assemblée des pères conciliaires de 1545 à 1563, représentent l’élément le plus novateur dans le domaine des institutions ecclésiastiques et du droit canonique depuis les décrétales de Grégoire IX jusqu’au Code de droit canonique du vingtième siècle. Dans son essai Riforma cattolica o Controriforma?, Jedin, retraçant l’histoire des concepts de Réforme Catholique et de Contre-Réforme, proposa une nouvelle voie pour dépasser l’opposition de l’un avec l’autre, et sortir de l’impasse historiographique à laquelle avait conduit l’antinomie entre l’œuvre polémique de Paolo Sarpi et celle, apologétique, de Pallavicino Sforza.2 En effet, au moyen d’un examen scrupuleux et systématique des sources, l’historien allemand non seulement fut le premier à restituer à l’histoire un Concile qui, depuis des siècles, en avait été soustrait, mais il eut encore le mérite d’instiller une sève nouvelle dans les études historiographiques autour de l’objet tridentin, les faisant ainsi quitter le territoire stérile dans lequel elles avaient fini par s’enfermer. C’est en adoptant les mêmes termes, mais en opérant entre eux une distinction précise, qu’il y parvint. Il employa le terme de Contre-Réforme pour désigner la réaction aux accusations de Luther, c’est à dire en tant que réponse d’autodéfense au déchirement qu’elles généraient; et il adopta en revanche le terme de Réforme Catholique pour déterminer un arc de temps plus long et durable, caractérisé par un élan créatif et original, qui «avance et se déploie, selon des forces internes et sous la pression de la fracture religieuse»; une pression qui, ainsi, «ouvrait la voie à des forces substantiellement déjà là, à l’état latent, à l’époque de l’autoréforme, indépendamment de la fracture religieuse».3 Dans cet essai, Jedin relevait donc la nécessité de séparer les deux 1 Cf. l’édition italienne, H. Jedin, Riforma Cattolica o Controriforma? Tentativo di chiarimento dei concetti con riflessioni sul concilio di Trento (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1957), 67. 2 Cf. A. Prosperi, Il Concilio di Trento: Una introduzione storica (Turin: Einaudi, 2001), 169. 3 Jedin, Riforma Cattolica, 33.

372

Federica Meloni

concepts si l’on voulait tenir compte des développements historiques de l’Église au seizième siècle, d’abord refermée sur l’autoaffirmation de soi dans la guerre faite à Luther, puis réveillant et libérant des forces en quelque sorte accumulées pour les fortifier et les propager. Jedin identifiait le point de jonction entre ces deux temps, dans la papauté,4 qui d’un côté avait conduit avec fermeté la réaction au luthéranisme en convoquant le Concile de Trente puis en l’orientant, et de l’autre avait maintenu un contrôle décisif sur ce mouvement complexe de réforme. Ce qui détermina la longue vitalité du Concile fut l’adhésion à deux critères d’organisation sociale que Giuseppe Alberigo a défini comme «assetto monarchico» e «virtù dell’obbedienza» qui faisaient de Rome «il filtro indispensabile e unico per l’attuazione del Tridentino mediante il controllo accentrato sull’interpretazione».5 La Sacra Congregatio Concilii Tridentini Interpretum fut instituée dans ce but. Jedin, dans sa réflexion sur le Concile de Trente, sur sa signification dans l’histoire des Conciles et sur la portée de ses décrets, reconnaissait qu’il avait eu une influence vaste et profonde sur la vie des fidèles, mais il invitait aussi à se garder de le considérer comme mu par un «deus ex machina».6 La valeur du Tridentino, son succès et son «mythe»7 provenaient d’autres éléments, au premier rang desquels ce dirigisme romain qui fit de la papauté la principal gardienne de la réforme. Patronne de l’héritage tridentin, la Congrégation du Concile s’en servit avec une grande flexibilité et un esprit d’adaptation. Par ses décisions, elle contribua à faire de Rome ce centre de commandement à vocation universelle, capable d’intégrer les lois universelles comme les lois particulières, de mettre en rapport constant la norme abstraite et synthétique exprimée par le Concile avec une myriade de cas spécifiques, en se constituant elle-même comme le point de raccord stratégique entre Église universelle et églises locales.8 Le présent article vise à vérifier cette idée, en regardant plus particulièrement comment la Curie romaine, à travers l’institution de la Congrégation du Concile, a pris en charge le travail des pères tridentins. Loin de proposer une synthèse complète de la question, cet article naît en réalité dans la phase initiale d’une 4 Jedin, Riforma Cattolica, 36–44. 5 G. Alberigo, «Concezioni della Chiesa al Concilio di Trento e nell’età moderna», dans M. Marcocchi/C. Scarpati/A. Acerbi/G. Alberigo (éd.), Il Concilio di Trento: Istanze di riforma e aspetti dottrinali (Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1997) 117–53, aux pp. 132 et 134. 6 Jedin, Riforma Cattolica, 67. 7 Pour le concept de «mythe», voir par exemple J.W. O’Malley, Le Concile de Trente. Ce qui s’est vraiment passé, M.-R. de Hemptinne/I. Hoorickx-Raucq/P. Tihon (trans.) (Bruxelles: Éditions Lessius, 2013); J.W. Reinhard, «Il concilio di Trento e la modernizzazione della Chiesa. Introduzione», dans P. Prodi/J.W. Reinhard (éd.), Il concilio di Trento e il moderno (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996) 27–54; G. Alberigo, «Du Concile de Trente au tridentinisme», Irenikon 54 (1981) 192–210; P. Prodi, Il paradigma tridentino: Un’epoca della storia della Chiesa (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2010). 8 Voir C. Fantappié, «La Santa Sede e il mondo in prospettiva storico-giuridica», Rechtsgeschichte – Legal History 20 (2012) 332–8.

La Sacrée Congrégation du Concile et l’interprétation de la réforme tridentine

373

recherche doctorale qui aspire à une biographie plus exhaustive de la Congrégation. Nous n’approfondirons donc ici que quelques aspects, qui regardent le fonctionnement du dicastère à partir du dix-septième siècle, c’est à dire dans une période déjà avancée de son histoire. Ce bref panorama, construit essentiellement sur les traités des dix-septième et dix-huitième siècles et sur les informations d’ordre général qu’ils fournissent sur la Congrégation, doit servir ainsi de point de départ de la recherche que nous entamons, centrée davantage sur le fond archivistique particulièrement vaste que l’institution a laissé à l’histoire, un fond riche mais qui n’attire l’attention des chercheurs que depuis peu.

I.

Interpréter le Concile

1

Le destin du Concile de Trente

À la clôture des travaux conciliaires, au consistoire du 30 décembre 1563, Pie IV forma une députation de cardinaux pour examiner et élaborer la bulle de confirmation des décrets tridentins. En janvier suivant, la question de leur interprétation suscita d’intenses débats: il y avait ceux qui jugeaient opportun de confier aux nonces la tâche de surveiller leur juste application, et ceux qui au contraire en attribuaient le devoir au pape. On se demandait s’il fallait énoncer des normes transitoires en attendant les bulles de confirmation, et on s’interrogeait sur la manière d’intégrer le corpus normatif de Trente au droit canonique en vigueur. Importante aussi était la question de savoir si la confirmation pontificale devait intervenir avant ou après l’acceptation de la législation tridentine par les puissances européennes. Les problèmes étaient donc multiples, mais le pape, dans sa détermination, confirma solennellement toute l’œuvre tridentine, même si seulement de manière orale, le 26 janvier 1564. L’opposition des canonistes et de nombreux cardinaux entraîna un retard considérable sur la rédaction et la publication de la bulle, qui n’advint que le 30 juin. Benedictus Deus contenait la formule de confirmation déjà exprimée oralement en janvier – on remarquera la continuité et la validité juridique contraignante de l’approbation donnée verbalement par le pape – mais le document incluait aussi une clause significative, l’interdiction explicite de commenter, d’interpréter et de publier les décrets tridentins: le moindre doute, la moindre difficulté ou controverse, devaient être soumis au Siège apostolique, seul autorisé à se prononcer. .9 On en revient donc au point de départ: la papauté, comme point d’intersection entre Réforme et Contre-Réforme, empêcha l’œuvre conciliaire de devenir partie 9 H. Jedin, Storia del Concilio di Trento, G. Cecchi et al. (trad.) (4 vol. in 5; Brescia: Morcelliana, 2–42009–10), 4.325–34.

374

Federica Meloni

intégrante du Corpus Iuris Canonici. Cet isolement juridique, d’un côté, offrait la garantie de maintenir intacte et inviolée l’hérédité de Trente, mais de l’autre, il soustrayait aussi celle-ci à l’évènement qui l’avait produite, le Concile en tant que tel.10 De fait, l’événement conciliaire fut privé de la possibilité d’être connu: la mise à l’Index de l’Istoria de Paolo Sarpi, et la constitution par Pie V du Fondo Concilio, jalousement gardé dans les Archives Vaticanes, retiraient en quelque sorte l’événement de l’histoire, lui ôtaient de possibles analyses, visions ou enquêtes pour au moins quatre cents ans, jusqu’à l’ouverture des Archives par Léon XIII en 1880.11 Pour garantir le monopole sur la connaissance et sur le droit de parole au sujet de l’événement ainsi retiré à l’histoire, les pontifes surent créer un instrument inopposable, une congrégation cardinalice chargée de manière exclusive de se prononcer sur les décrets tridentins de réforme, et qui fonctionna quatre siècles durant. Jusqu’à quel point ses résolutions correspondirent à l’esprit du Concile et à ce qu’il avait tenté d’établir, il reste encore à l’étudier. Il n’en demeure pas moins vrai, quoi qu’il en soit, que celles-ci furent bien quelque chose de différent que le Concile en lui-même. Comme l’observe John O’Malley: Avec cette congrégation, la papauté affirmait sa prétention au droit de contrôler les trajectoires post-conciliaires et de ne pas les laisser glisser sans supervision entre les mains des évêques et des monarques. À vrai dire, trop de forces étaient en jeu dans le monde politico-ecclésial complexe du début de l’ère moderne pour que cette congrégation fût capable de gérer parfaitement ces trajectoires. Malgré cela, les décisions de la congrégation donnèrent l’impression que le Concile avait fourni les réponses à toutes les questions possibles … Cette impression devint un élément constitutif des mythes concernant le Concile.12

2

La naissance de la Sacrée Congrégation du Concile

Le 2 août 1564, la bulle Alias nos nonnullas institua la Sacra Congregatio super executione et observantia sacri Concilii Tridentini et aliarum reformationum, qui venait définir le processus d’affirmation de la supériorité du Siège romain sur les églises locales dans la gestion et dans la résolution des questions touchant au Concile de Trente.13 Le Siège apostolique était reconnu comme la seule autorité 10 G. Alberigo, «Il significato del concilio di Trento nella storia dei concili», dans G. Alberigo/I. Rogger (éd.), Il Concilio di Trento nella prospettiva del terzo millennio (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1997) 35–55, à la p. 45. 11 O’Malley, Le Concile, 320 ss. 12 O’Malley, Le Concile, 321. 13 «Committamus et mandamus, quatenus ipsi seu eorum maior pars, coniunctim vel divisim, eorum arbitrio, etiam tanquam executores dictorum Litterarum, Constitutionum et Decretorum praedictorum, Constitutiones et Ordines ac Decreta praefata, iuxta tenores eorum al litterarum desuper confectarum, per quosque Poenitentiariae, Vicariae, et Camerae ac

La Sacrée Congrégation du Concile et l’interprétation de la réforme tridentine

375

dépositaire de l’héritage du Concile, comme son expression unique, et comme le garant tout aussi unique de l’esprit et des intentions du Tridentino. ll devenait ainsi le seul organe du monde chrétien autorisé à référer sur les décrets conciliaires. Les cardinaux nommés pour faire partie de la Congrégation avaient tous été des hommes du Concile, acteurs majeurs de la Curie, engagés depuis le pontificat de Paul III dans l’œuvre de renouveau de l’Église, dans la réforme des mœurs du clergé et dans la réouverture des travaux du Concile. Il s’agissait de Giambattista Cicada, Vitellozzo Vitelli, Carlo Borromeo, Ludovico Simonetta, Gian Michele Saraceni, Michele Ghislieri, Clemente Bolera et Giovanni Morone. Le texte de la bulle les désignait comme des executores: le terme autorise à croire que dans cette première phase, le pape leur avait attribué des fonctions consultatives et exécutives14 pour ce qui touchait aux décrets de réforme et non aux canons, délimitant ainsi leur domaine d’action à la seule discipline et non pas au dogme.15 Les huit membres de la Congrégation, qui devinrent douze au mois de mai suivant, ne furent pas investis par Pie IV du pouvoir d’émettre de libres interprétations des décrets, mais plutôt de les faire appliquer. En réalité, comme le démontrent les documents d’archive,16 les cardinaux furent sollicités dès le début pour donner des opinions explicatives sur les normes tridentines qui pouvaient être l’objet de doutes de la part des évêques s’en enquérant à Rome. Inévitablement, la commission cardinalice finit par élaborer des déclarations interprétatives, sans se passer toutefois de la consultation du pape dans les cas plus délicats ou complexes. Cependant, tandis que la commission avançait dans la tâche pour laquelle elle avait été constituée, apparaissait le problème de l’insuffisance de son pouvoir: pour la plupart, les lettres envoyées par les évêques ou les nonces, italiens et européens, contenaient surtout des demandes d’explication, d’éclaircissement de doutes quant à l’interprétation ou l’opportunité d’appliquer un décret dans tel ou tel cas. La lacune de Alias Nos Nonnullas fut comblée par Pie V, lequel précisa que l’interdit relatif à l’interprétation des décrets tridentins, contenu dans la bulle Rotae Curiarum, ac tribunalium praedictorum iudices et officiales … firmiter observari faciant», dans Bullarium Romanum diplomatum et privilegiorum sanctorum romanorum pontificum, Taurinensis Editio, Aloysius Tomassetti (éd.) (24 vol.; Turin: Seb. Franco et Henrico Dalmazzo editoribus, 1857–72), 7, pars V, 300. 14 Voyez sur cette question G.B. De Luca, «Adnotationes practicae ad Sacrum Concilium Tridentinum», in Theatrum veritatis et iustitiae, G.B. De Luca et al. (éd.) (15 vol.; Venise: Paolo Balleoni, 1698), 9, liber XIV, pars IV, disceptatio I, 4; G.F. Zamboni, Collectio declarationum Sacrae Congregationis Concilii tridentini interpretum (4 vol.; Arras: Rousseau-Leroy, 1860–68 [1° éd. Vienne, 1812–16]), 1.XXIX. 15 Cf. P. Fagnani, Ius canonicum sive Commentaria in quinque libros decretalium (4 vol.; Cologne: Wilhelm Metternich, 1704), 130; R. Parayre, La S. Congrégation du Concile: son histoire, sa procedure, son autorité (Paris: Lathielleux, 1897), 22 ss. 16 Voir par exemple les séries des Libri Litterarum, Libri Decretorum et Positiones aux Cité du Vatican, Archivio segreto Vaticano (désormais ASV), dans le fond Congrégation du Concile.

376

Federica Meloni

Benedictus Deus, visait seulement ceux qui avaient prétendu le faire «proprio ausu»,17 et il accorda de fait à la Congrégation la faculté de décider, sans autre intermédiaire, sur tous les cas particulièrement évidents et sans gravité, tandis que les cas plus controversés continueraient à être soumis à l’examen du pape.18 On constate enfin, sous le pontificat de Pie V, le changement de nom de la commission en «Congrégation des cardinaux interprètes du Concile de Trente». À partir de 1565, il est possible de retrouver dans la documentation produite par la commission des formules réclamant l’obtention de la nouvelle faculté,19 celle qui, dès lors, devait permettre que s’exprimât dans toute sa force le pouvoir de la nouvelle congrégation. En 1588, les pouvoirs de la Congrégation du Concile furent définis et précisés de manière stable dans la bulle Immensa aeterni Dei, émanée le 22 janvier. Sixte V renforçait cette tendance qui s’était développée depuis Paul III pour la gestion des affaires de curie, et qui avait vu l’institution de commissions cardinalices, au départ temporaires, auxquelles on confiait, sans passer par le collège cardinalice, la résolution de questions mineures relatives aux réformes internes ainsi qu’aux affaires d’administration et de gouvernement de l’Église. La perte d’influence du consistoire, d’un côté, et la consolidation du système des congrégations, de l’autre, s’étaient renforcées sous les pontificats suivants, jusqu’à celui de Sixte V, qui, avec la bulle de 1588, porta le processus à son achèvement. En effet, la bulle Immensa aeterni Dei institua un système de gouvernement fondé sur quinze congrégations permanentes, qui devinrent dès lors des organes centraux et de liaison entre politique et administration, des dicastères spécialisés dans les différents secteurs du gouvernement de l’Église au service du pontife.20 Il n’est pas 17 Cf. Zamboni, Collectio declarationum, 1.XV. 18 C. Lefebvre, «La S. Congrégation du Concile et le tribunal de la S. Rote Romaine à la fin du XVIe siècle», dans La Sacra Congregazione del Concilio: Quarto Centenario dalla Fondazione (1564–1964). Studi e ricerche (Cité du Vatican: s.n., 1964) 163–77. 19 Dans la série des Libri Litterarum, contenant les lettres expédiées par le secrétaire aux évêques, nonces et cardinaux, avec les résolutions prises en congrégation, la dénomination de «interpretes» apparaît pour la première fois dans la missive du 15 août 1565, adressée à l’évêque de l’ancien diocèse de Suelli: «Relatum est in congregatione ill.morum cardinalium, quos ad sacri tridentini Concilii interpretationem S.mus D. N. in consilium assumpsit…» (ASV, Lib. I. Litter. et Decret. S. Congr. Concilii, fol. 41v). À partir de ce moment, le pouvoir d’interprétation des décrets conciliaires devint une forme quasi fixe, reportée dans tous les documents produits. Dans la missive adressée à l’évêque de Coimbra en août 1565 on peut lire: «Quas sui ordinis constitutiones ad Ill.mos cardinales, quorum consilio utitur S.mus D. N. ad explicationem dubitationum, quae in decretis Tridentini Concili possint accidere…» (ASV, Lib. I. Litter. et Decret. S. Congr. Concilii, fol. 41r–42v); et dans cette envoyée à l’evêque de Castellaneta, le même mois: «Episcopus Castellanetae petiit ab Ill.mis Cardinalibus, quos ad interpretandas dificultates sacri tridentini Concilii S.mus D. N. in consilium assumpsit…» (ASV, Lib. I. Litter. et Decret. S. Congr. Concilii, fol. 43v). 20 P. Prodi, Il sovrano pontefice: Un corpo e due anime. La monarchia papale nella prima età moderna (Turin: Il Mulino, 2006), 167–205 and 180–1; M.T. Fattori, Clemente VIII e il Sacro

La Sacrée Congrégation du Concile et l’interprétation de la réforme tridentine

377

possible d’affronter ici les problématiques liées à la réforme sixtine. Soulignons seulement l’un de ses effets qui regarde de près la Congrégation du Concile: car le système des congrégations marqua une nouveauté considérable dans le gouvernement pontifical, non seulement en raison d’une division plus moderne et fonctionnelle des tâches entre des organes indépendants mais étroitement liés l’un à l’autre, mais encore et surtout parce que ceux-ci perdirent progressivement leur poids politique, pour se trouver réduits au rang d’organes bureaucratiques; ils suivaient ainsi la crise traversée auparavant par le consistoire, en laissant dans les mains du seul pontife la responsabilité politique, le centre des décisions et des directives. Dans les quinze congrégations établies par Immensa, la huitième était la Congregatio pro executione et interpretatione Concilii Tridentini, dont la bulle précisait soigneusement le profil, les règles et les fonctions.21 Le pontife lui garantissait les pouvoirs exécutif et interprétatif, bien que ceux-ci semblèrent aussi soumis pour la première fois à une limite explicite dans l’incise «nobis tamen consultis»; celle-ci soulève effectivement le doute et conduit à supposer que la Congrégation aurait dû recourir à l’examen du pape pour tous les cas, y compris ordinaires. Selon l’avis de l’abbé Parayre, l’expression, au contraire, n’impliquait pas de restriction majeure à celles prévues par les bulles précédentes: elle se limitait à réaffirmer le devoir de consulter le pape dans les questions plus importantes, non pas tant pour en obtenir la résolution mais plutôt un conseil. Sur ce point, il serait plus prudent d’effectuer une enquête typologique sur la nature et le nombre de cas pour lesquels on recourut au pontife, avant et après la publication d’Immensa Aeterni Dei. Une fois déclaré le pouvoir général d’interpréter et d’exécuter les décrets du Concile, la bulle sixtine énumérait les compétences de la Congrégation, à exercer sans restriction territoriale: faire respecter la célébration des synodes provinciaux tous les trois ans et diocésains une fois l’an, en examiner les actes et vérifier l’application de leurs statuts; veiller à l’accomplissement des visites ad limina par les ordinaires diocésains, recevoir les relations pastorales et garantir le respect de l’obligation de résidence; rénover, enfin, la discipline ecclésiastique, et raviver le culte, dans le but de réveiller la piété et la dévotion, unifier les mœurs du peuple sur les prescriptions du Concile de Trente «nedum in Urbe et Statu ecclesiastico Collegio, 1592–1605. Meccanismi istituzionali e accentramento di governo (Päpste und Papsttum, 33; Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 2004); G.P. Carocci, Lo stato della chiesa nella seconda metà del sec. XVI (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1961), 103–12; F. Romita, «Le origini della Sacra Congregazione del Concilio», dans La Sacra Congregazione del Concilio, 13–50. 21 «Cardinalibus vero praefectis interpretationi, et executioni Concilii Tridentini, si quando in his, quae de morum reformatione, disciplina ac moderatione, et ecclesiasticis judiciis, aliisque huiusmodi statuta sunt, dubietas aut difficultas emerserint, interpretandi facultatem, Nobis tamen consultis, impartimur» (Bullarium Romanum, 4, pars IV, 396, par. 1).

378

Federica Meloni

temporali sed etiam in universo christiano orbe».22 Dans le paragraphe introductif Deo Autem Patri, on énonçait que la source et le principe de tout pouvoir que la Congrégation aurait à exercer provenait du pape: «ad singularem Romani Pontificis auctoritatem tantummodo spect[at] generalia concilia indicere, confirmare, interpretari, et curare ac praecipere».23 Le pontife établissait le nombre, les fonctions et le rôle des cardinaux membres. En août 1564, au moment de son acte de naissance, la Congrégation était formée de huit et l’année suivante de douze cardinaux, des personnalités en vue de la Curie, appartenant au parti réformateur dans lequel Pie IV gardait confiance. Il s’agissait en majorité de cardinaux italiens24 et seul un faible pourcentage, plutôt variable,25 était d’origine étrangère. Ceux qui ne résidaient pas à Rome étaient occupés davantage à l’administration des diocèses dont ils avaient la charge, et ne participaient pas de manière assidue aux séances de la Congrégation. Anne Jacobson Schutte a relevé, par exemple, que l’Espagnol Luis Manuel Fernández de Portocarrero-Bocanegra y Moscoso-Ossorio assista à huit réunions en 1672, mais après avoir été nommé en 1677 évêque de Tolède, un diocèse impliqué dans la politique du pays sous le règne de Charles II, il ne prit part à aucune session de la Congrégation. César d’Estrées fut présent à quatre réunions en 1672, à quatorze en 1683, mais à aucune en 1702 et en 1711.26

3

Quelques uns de ses hommes: préfets et secrétaires

Les séances des cardinaux étaient dirigées et coordonnées par deux figures importantes: le cardinal préfet et le secrétaire. En conclusion de la bulle Immensa aeterni Dei, Sixte V établit que tout cardinal devait disposer d’un secrétaire «personnel» pour le travail quotidien, et de canonistes et théologiens pour la résolution des dubia qui de temps en temps leur étaient soumis.27 Avec le temps, cependant, ces fonctions de consultation comme celle de secrétaire furent incorporées à l’organe même de la Congrégation sans n’être plus associées à des professionnels au service privé de chaque cardinal.

22 Bullarium Romanum, 4, pars IV, 396, par. 1. 23 Bullarium Romanum, 4, pars IV, 396, par. 1. 24 A. Jacobson Schutte, By Force and Fear: Taking and Breaking Monastic Vows in Early Modern Europe (Ithaca, NY/London: Cornell University Press, 2011), 106 ss. 25 Jacobson Schutte, By Force and Fear. Jacobson Schutte rapporte que, pour les années prises comme mesure, la représentation des cardinaux non italiens passa d’un minimum de 4 % en 1761, c’est à dire d’un seul cardinal étranger présent à la Congrégation, à un maximum de 45 % en 1741, soit vingt cardinaux. 26 Jacobson Schutte, By Force and Fear, 108–9. 27 Bullarium Romanum, 4, pars IV, 400; cf. aussi Parayre, La S. Congrégation du Concile, 41 ss. et Jacobson Schutte, By Force and Fear, 110 ss.

La Sacrée Congrégation du Concile et l’interprétation de la réforme tridentine

379

La charge de préfet est faiblement documentée pour la période initiale: on sait qu’elle était à vie, de nomination papale, et qu’en 1564 elle fut occupée par le cardinal Giovanni Morone avec le devoir de présider aux réunions des cardinaux.28 Le profil du secrétaire, en revanche, est mieux renseigné. Cet office n’avait pas été formellement établi dans la bulle de Pie IV, mais dans la pratique, le rôle de secrétaire fut au moins rempli par Giulio Poggiani, peut-être à la demande orale du pape, de 1564 à 1568.29 On présume que dans les premiers temps, la fonction se limitait à écrire les lettres de réponse à transmettre aux requérants. Comme l’a observé Jacobson Schutte,30 cette figure acquit avec le temps un rôle toujours plus actif, et probablement plus influent que celui même de cardinal préfet. Il était choisi parmi les canonistes de la Curie les plus expérimentés, il recevait habituellement les ordres sacerdotaux nécessaires au lancement de sa carrière au sein de l’administration curiale, il obtenait sa licence in utroque iure, et il était généralement placé à la tête d’un diocèse in partibus infidelium, c’est à dire d’un diocèse «factice» qui lui garantissait une rente sans lui demander un investissement pastoral.31 Déjà avant la réforme de Sixte V, le secrétaire était chargé de recueillir et d’écrire les lettres et les réponses; par la suite lui furent transmises toutes les suppliques qui, surtout dans les premiers temps, étaient adressées directement au pape ou à des cardinaux en particulier. Il collectait les informations sur le cas en question, et en rédigeait le mémoire. Il notifiait par ailleurs à tous les cardinaux le jour et le lieu des sessions, cela aussi parce qu’à l’origine la Congrégation n’avait pas de siège fixe ni de jours établis pour ses propres réunions. Avec le temps et avec la normalisation progressive des procédures, le secrétaire devint un des principaux protagonistes du dicastère. Il était rapporteur et coordinateur des travaux de la Congrégation. À partir du dix-septième siècle, les libelles des requérants lui furent directement adressés, un aspect qui mériterait d’ailleurs d’être approfondi en raison de ses implications: être le premier destinataire des lettres de supplique faisait effectivement de lui leur premier référent, vraisemblablement aussi leur premier lecteur et en même temps le principal connaisseur des questions à soumettre aux cardinaux.32 L’accroissement de son rôle fut confirmé dans la seconde moitié du dix-septième siècle, quand il devint responsable de la rédaction des sommaires de chacun des cas. Dans ces brefs 28 Cf. Zamboni, Collectio declarationum, 1.XXXVI. 29 Dans une lettre adressée à Annibale Minalis le 25 décembre 1564, Giulio Poggiani écrivait: «… premor praeterea onere scribendarum epistolarum octo cardinalium nomine, quibus pontifex max. tridentini concilii cognitionem dedit …», dans Iulii Pogiani Sunensis Epistolae et orationes…, Antonio Maria Gratiano/Hieronymo Lagomarsinio (éd.) (4 vol.; Rome: Generoso Salomon, 1757), 3.448–9. 30 Jacobson Schutte, By Force and Fear, 110 ss. 31 Jacobson Schutte, By Force and Fear, 111. 32 Parayre, La S. Congrégation du Concile, 93 ss.

380

Federica Meloni

résumés, bases de discussion pour les membres de la Congrégation, il mettait en relief les éléments essentiels de la question et il en identifiait les précédents juridiques; de cette manière, il déterminait et orientait la discussion des cardinaux en séance plénière, consentant éventuellement ainsi à l’ébauche d’une résolution.33 Le secrétaire participait lui-même activement à la session, en exprimant un voto qui, selon Zamboni, était tout aussi décisif que celui des autres cardinaux,34 alors que selon d’autres sources,35 parmi lesquelles Moroni,36 il n’était que consultatif. Jacobson Schutte soutient qu’il n’était pas un membre votant, plutôt un administrateur; par ailleurs inférieur de rang aux cardinaux, il est improbable qu’il ait pu diriger la discussion et lui donner de quelque manière une orientation décisive.37 C’est encore l’idée qui émerge de la lecture du Thesaurus Resolutionum pour ce qui regarde la période du dix-huitième siècle.38 La collection, lancée par le pape Benoît XIV,39 reporte pour certains cas outre le bref regeste, la discussion correspondante. Celle-ci montre comment les cardinaux affirmaient expressément une opinion propre, pour ou contre la demande de la supplique, alors que le discours du secrétaire était limité à l’exposition et au résumé des thèses des canonistes et des précédents juridiques favorables ou contraires.40 Il manque encore une étude plus spécifique pour illustrer l’influence des orientations du secrétaire sur les débats des cardinaux. Parmi les hommes qui assurèrent la charge, on connaît de célèbres canonistes comme Prospero Fagnani et Prospero Lambertini, ce dernier étant monté ensuite sur le trône pontifical. Du reste, Benoît XIV ne fut pas le seul pape issu des rangs de la Congrégation du Concile. Avant lui, deux anciens de ses cardinaux préfets s’étaient assis sur le trône de Pierre: Giovanni Battista Pamphili, futur Innocent X, et Benoît XIII, dans le siècle Vincenzo Maria Orsini. Après la restructuration générale mise en œuvre par Sixte V le 22 février 1591, Grégoire XIV, avec le bref Ut Securitati, confirma à la Congrégation le pouvoir d’interpréter toutes les dispositions tridentines, la tâche de traiter les causes 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

40

Parayre, La S. Congrégation du Concile, 93. Zamboni, Collectio declarationum, 1.XXXVII. Par exemple, Pratica della Curia romana (Rome: Francesco Burlié, 1815 [1° éd. 1781]), 65. G. Moroni, «Congregazione del Concilio», Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica 15 (1842) 170–9, à la p. 177. Jacobson Schutte, By Force and Fear, 205. Thesaurus Resolutionum Sacrae Congregationis Concilii (Urbino: Girolamo Mainardi, 1741– 60; Rome: Bernabò & Lazzarini, 1761–76; Rome: Reverenda Camera Apostolica, 1777–1908). Le Thesaurus Resolutionum reporte les cas de 1718, année où Prospero Lambertini devint secrétaire de la Congrégation du Concile. Sa publication, en 167 volumes, commença en 1740, et fut l’œuvre au moyen de lequel, pour la première fois, on publia officiellement les décisions du dicastère romain. C’est ce qui arriva pour un cas matrimonial du diocèse de Boiano où un veuf demanda l’autorisation d’épouser la femme du beau-fils, lui aussi décédé. Cf. Thesaurus Resolutionum, 1.325, 350, 352–62 et 2.22–3, 26–31.

La Sacrée Congrégation du Concile et l’interprétation de la réforme tridentine

381

relatives aux matières comprises dans ces mêmes dispositions, et la faculté de publier ses propres décrets nomine Pontificis. Urbain VIII, en revanche, opéra une première restriction dans le champ d’action de la Congrégation, en la privant du pouvoir de décision sur la matière inhérente à l’obligation de résidence des évêques, confiée à une congrégation instituée spécifiquement: la Congregatio super residentia episcoporum, chargée de contrôler que les évêques respectent bien le principe de résidence, et qu’ils n’abandonnent pas leur diocèse sans un motif valide. Entre la fin du dix-septième et le début du dix-huitième siècle, Innocent XIII et Benoît XIII restreignirent la potestas iudiciale de la Congrégation, qui fut limitée encore par la Congrégation super statu ecclesiarum instituée par Benoît XIVavec la constitution Decet romanum pontificem du 23 novembre 1740.41 Cette dernière avait pour fonction de contrôler les relations sur l’état des diocèses envoyées par les évêques au terme de leurs visites pastorales. Toutefois, avec la bulle Dei miseratione du 3 novembre 1741, le pape confia à la Congrégation du Concile toutes les causes de nullité matrimoniale avec le tribunal de la Sacrée Rote, puis, avec la constitution Si datam hominibus fidem du 4 mars 1748, toutes les causes de nullité de la profession religieuse avec la Congrégation des Évêques et des Réguliers, dans les deux cas en laissant aux parties la liberté de choisir le dicastère auquel adresser le recours. En 1849, Pie IX priva la Congrégation de la faculté d’examiner les actes des conciles provinciaux, ce qu’il confia à la Congrégation spéciale pour la révision des conciles provinciaux. En 1879, Léon XIII unit à la Congrégation du Concile celle de l’Immunité Ecclésiastique dont elle assuma successivement les pouvoirs.42

II.

En appeler à Rome

1

Suppliques

La Congrégation du Concile, comme une grande partie des congrégations romaines, agissait ad instantiam, c’est à dire qu’elle n’exerçait son rôle que sur la base de sollicitations requérant d’elle une décision. Les cardinaux de la Congrégation ne disposaient pas d’un appareil administratif périphérique pour veiller au respect des décrets tridentins et à leur juste application, mais seulement de la curie locale, laissée à l’action plus ou moins zélée des Ordinaires. 41 G.I. Varsànyi, «De competentia et procedura Sacrae Congregationis Concilii ab origine ad haec usque nostra tempora», dans La Sacra Congregazione del Concilio, 51–161, aux pp. 113– 14. 42 Ph. Boutry, Souverain et pontife: Recherches prosopographiques sur la curie romaine à l’âge de la restauration. 1814–1846 (Rome: École française de Rome, 2002), 33 ss.

382

Federica Meloni

Les cardinaux ne procédaient pas ex officio: c’étaient plutôt des fidèles, des laïcs, des ecclésiastiques qui, librement, interpellaient l’institution romaine, recherchant la légitimité de la plus haute autorité pour garantir la reconnaissance d’un privilège ou d’un bénéfice, pour conforter un statut ou une condition. Or, le meilleur moyen d’obtenir l’approbation ecclésiastique et romaine passait par la supplique. L’étude précieuse d’Anne Jacobson Schutte sur les vocations forcées est basée en grande partie sur les fonds d’archives de la Congrégation du Concile. C’est ainsi l’une des premières à avoir mis en lumière le fonctionnement concret du dicastère entre la seconde moitié du dix-septième et la fin du dix-huitième siècle, relativement aux suppliques d’annulation des vœux de la part de religieuses et de religieux. Ainsi, ce volume contribue à fournir un cadre plus précis aux pratiques de la Congrégation, pratiques qui ne se normalisèrent qu’au cours du dix-huitième siècle, quand se confirma également l’usage de confier les mémoires à des tiers. Avocats, procurateurs et notaires devinrent effectivement des figures privilégiées d’intermédiaire entre la Curie et les requérants, chargés par ces derniers de rédiger la supplique, de l’envoyer à Rome et de gérer en leurs noms les rapports avec le secrétaire de la Congrégation. À partir de la seconde moitié du dix-septième siècle, et cela de manière officielle, comme on l’a vu, l’office du secrétaire devint un passage obligé pour tous les dossiers que la Congrégation devait traiter. À la différence des autres congrégations, les cardinaux membres n’avaient pas la faculté de soumettre personnellement des cas à étudier:43 c’est au secrétaire qu’incombait la tâche de parcourir les suppliques et d’opérer une première sélection, puis de les envoyer à l’évêque dans le cas où de nouvelles informations s’avéraient nécessaires ou pour lever quelque doute sur l’affaire. L’évêque devait vérifier les faits rapportés dans le libelle, en demandant si nécessaire aux requérants et à leurs avocats de présenter une liste de témoins et une liste de questions à leur poser.44 Après avoir recueilli les éléments jugés suffisants, l’évêque faisait parvenir le dossier à Rome, adjoint bien souvent de son avis propre.45 Il ne faut pas penser à la Congrégation, dans sa manière de traiter le cas, comme à un tribunal moderne, souligne Jacobson Schutte:46 les parties, dites oratores et non actores, n’étaient jamais convoquées personnellement devant les juges, ni pour déposer un témoignage, ni pour raconter sa propre version des faits, ni non plus pour subir un interrogatoire. On ne demandait pas non plus aux témoins une déclaration sous serment, rédigée et attestée par notaire, de même les avocats n’avaient aucun rôle à séance ouverte. La 43 44 45 46

Zamboni, Collectio declarationum, 1.XLIII. Jacobson Schutte, By Force and Fear, 93. Jacobson Schutte, By Force and Fear, 95. Jacobson Schutte, By Force and Fear, 89 ss. Cf. aussi Parayre, La S. Congrégation du Concile, 161.

La Sacrée Congrégation du Concile et l’interprétation de la réforme tridentine

383

procédure légale se déroulait presque entièrement sur le papier et bien avant la discussion des cardinaux. C’est donc dans la rédaction du mémoire qu’il y avait quelque chose à jouer; une opération aussi décisive que coûteuse. Jacobson Schutte reporte les sommes versées par une religieuse pour faire plaider sa cause à la Congrégation. Des frais variés apparaissent: pour la rédaction de documents, pour la copie d’originaux, pour des communications orales au secrétaire, pour l’impression de mémoires et pour la correction des épreuves, pour l’expédition des lettres et des citations de témoins, jusqu’au paiement au domestique du préfet de la Congrégation.47 La liste en question ici enregistre les frais engagés sur une période de quinze mois seulement, mais les causes duraient souvent plusieurs années. Cette élévation sensible des coûts conduisait fréquemment le requérant à abandonner la cause pour des raisons financières. Toutefois, avec le temps,48 la Congrégation adopta une procédure spéciale, ex officio ou economice, pour traiter les cas au moyen d’une procédure abrégée, réalisée devant le secrétaire et par des consulteurs gratuits pour les parties. On éliminait de cette manière la séance plénière des cardinaux, tandis que la discussion était confiée entièrement au secrétaire, lequel pouvait recourir à l’opinion de canonistes et de théologiens. Une fois les libelles parvenus à la Congrégation, le secrétaire les inscrivait dans un registre spécifique, appelé tabulario, dans lequel il annotait le nom du diocèse de référence, parfois la paroisse du demandeur, ainsi qu’un bref résumé du libelle, le tout selon l’ordre calendaire. Il fixait ensuite la date de la session durant laquelle les cardinaux, après avoir pris connaissance des registres du secrétaire, établissaient quelles causes étaient ou n’étaient pas de leur compétence. En effet, toutes les suppliques n’étaient pas acceptées et discutées: la formule ad iudices suos était par exemple utilisée et apposée sur le fascicule pour indiquer qu’un cas ne relevait pas des compétences du dicastère. Une supplique pouvait aussi être repoussée en raison d’un manque d’éléments significatifs ou d’informations, ou encore pour son caractère trop général; considérée comme sans importance ou sans fondement, elle pouvait être tout simplement archivée.

47 Jacobson Schutte, By Force and Fear, 102 ss. 48 Cf. D. Lingen/P.A. Reuss, Causae selectae in S. Congregatione Cardinalium Concilii Tridentini Interpretum propositae per summaria precum ab anno 1823 usque ad anno 1869 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1871), XII; Parayre, La S. Congrégation du Concile, 191. L’origine de la procédure est toute encore à vérifier, mais à la lecture du Thesaurus Resolutionum, on peut avancer l’hypothèse que déjà avant 1836 la Congrégation avait prévu des procédures de discussion abrégées: on peut lire au sujet d’un cas de 1718 «haec sunt, quae continentur in actis a vicario capitulari transmissis, quae operae pretium esse censui summatim exponere, cum nullus sit, qui in causa scribat, vir etenim, et mulier paupertate laborant, et mulier personaliter accessit ad Urbem pro obtinenda [declaratio] validitatis sui matrimonii» [souligné par l’auteur]. Voyez Thesaurus Resolutionum, Taurinensis, matrimonii, 1.395.

384 2

Federica Meloni

Controverses

Une première catégorie de cas traités par la Congrégation regardait, comme on l’a vu, les suppliques, les lettres avec lesquelles les fidèles faisaient parvenir des requêtes aux cardinaux romains: l’annulation des vœux religieux, documentée par l’étude d’Anne Jacobson Schutte, n’en est qu’un exemple. Des suppliques aux motifs variés parvenaient à Rome. Il s’agissait souvent de confirmer des droits ou des privilèges, ou d’autoriser une dérogation à telle ou telle charge. Ce paragraphe illustrera brièvement une seconde catégorie d’appels au dicastère romain, relative aux causes contentieuses, c’est à dire aux controverses qui impliquaient deux sujets ou plus, et qui réclamaient un jugement dirimant. Ce second groupe est mieux documenté lui aussi à partir de la seconde moitié du dixseptième siècle, lorsque se diffusa l’habitude, en Italie surtout, de recourir à la Congrégation pour résoudre les litiges privés d’ordre matrimonial ou patrimonial en majorité. La procédure judiciaire était plus complexe dès lors qu’elle impliquait plus de deux sujets, par exemple dans le cas d’un litige entre un privé et un organisme religieux. Le secrétaire de la Congrégation, à l’arrivée d’un dossier contentieux, veillait à informer la partie adverse. Le terme avant lequel la partie citée devait presenter son mémoire ne devait pas dépasser les quinze jours, tout du moins avant le règlement de 1847 qui le confia à la discrétion du secrétaire.49 Dans le cas où l’une des parties n’aurait pas produit la documentation requise, on aurait procédé par contumace, et le dubium aurait été formulé etiam unica. Le premier tome du Thesaurus fait état d’au moins deux cas qui attestent de cet usage dès le premier quart du dix-huitième siècle. Le premier, advenu en 1720 dans le diocèse de Naples, concernait une affaire de sponsalia: Gerardo Brancacci recourut à la Congrégation afin de revendiquer une promesse de mariage stipulée avec une femme du nom de Teresa au chevet de son père. Après la mort de ce dernier, la femme avait convolé en noces avec un autre homme. Brancacci présenta cependant aux cardinaux un libelle pour dénoncer l’irrégularité du mariage et en réclamer l’invalidation. Lors de la session cardinalice, le secrétaire exposa les raisons de l’orateur, après quoi il affirma n’avoir pu rédiger la même relation pour exposer les raisons de la partie adverse à cause de sa contumace, contrevenant à 49 Le premier règlement procédural fut fixé par Innocent XII avec l’édit Non si debba, émané le 17 septembre 1695 sur la base de ce que rapporte Luigi Guerra dans le premier tome de son Pontificiarum Constitutionum (voyez Aloysius Guerra, Pontificiarum Constitutionum in Bullariis Magno, Et Romano Contentarum Et Aliunde Desumptarum Epitome et secundum materias dispositio [4 vol.; Venise: Héritiers de Niccolò Pezzana, 1772] 1.172), cité par Zamboni (voyez Zamboni, Collectio declarationum, 1.L–LI). L’édit aurait ensuite été republié en 1701 et encore en 1731, sans modification notable. Le 27 septembre 1847, en revanche, un nouveau règlement fut élaboré, plus organique et détaillé, revu en 1884 et en 1905.

La Sacrée Congrégation du Concile et l’interprétation de la réforme tridentine

385

l’édit d’Innocent XII.50 On notera que les cardinaux renoncèrent à émettre une sentence, et déléguèrent au nonce la suite de la procédure. Le second cas, traité la même année, regardait cette fois un ecclésiastique. Le prêtre Giuseppe Fattori avait dénoncé à la Congrégation Giacinto Micone Franchi pour avoir reçu la tonsure de manière illicite; il avait fourni un libelle riche d’arguments en faveur de sa thèse.51 On invita à plusieurs reprises Giacinto à présenter sa défense et à communiquer ses propres revendications avant que ne soit rédigé le folio, mais en vain: il ne consigna aucun mémoire, et pour cette raison fut considéré en état de contumace. Il ressort de ce type de documents que la Congrégation établissait la contumace dès lors que la partie en question ne s’était pas présentée avant la date péremptoire établie par le secrétaire, et qu’elle n’avait pas produit une requête de renvoi; celle-ci lui aurait été accordée, pour peu qu’elle ait demandé une nouvelle audience, contre le versement d’une somme pour les frais de bureau, mais la demande de délai devait être justifiée par des motifs légitimes exposés en pièce annexée, que le secrétaire était par ailleurs en droit de repousser. Giacinto Franchi demeura probablement en état de contumace; un peu moins d’un mois plus tard, les cardinaux accueillaient la position de Fattori, déclaraient illicite l’ordination de Giacinto, et ordonnaient la suspension de ses bénéfices.52 Une fois collectée toute la documentation produite par les parties, le secrétaire demandait à l’évêque du diocèse un rapport des faits, de la même manière que pour les suppliques, après quoi il convoquait les parties ou leurs procurateurs afin de trouver un accord sur la formulation précise du dubium à soumettre aux cardinaux. Ce passage devant sa personne, qui témoigne de la participation active des requérants à la Curie, sera analysé plus précisément dans le prochain paragraphe. Notons déjà que tel qu’il était organisé, il pouvait prévoir une réponse fermée, un oui ou un non, un affermative ou un negative, ce pour quoi l’attention devait être particulièrement grande. Le cas des époux Imperiali montre bien comment, à ce stade, s’ouvrait en réalité un jeu d’échange entre normes et pra50 Thesaurus Resolutionum, Neapolitana, matrimonii, 1.376: «Quoad monumenta facti et momenta rationi, quae assistere possunt, aut Gerardo contendenti nullitatem matrimonii, aut Matthiae eius validitatem sustinenti, debebunt EE. VV. sua consueta benignitate habere secretarium pro excusato, si a praedictarum rerum abstinet expositio; pro parte etenim Matthiae, ad quem pertinent onus probandi, nullum documentum fuit in Secreteria exhibitum, nec factum cum summario, contra edictum hius Sac. Congregationis impressum in parvo Bullario S. mem. Innocentii XII, pag. 244…». 51 Thesaurus Resolutionum, Aquilana, 1.348–9: «… aut enim pro folii extensione expectari debet, quod ab utraque parte scripturae communicentur, et ab unius partis contumacia fieri potest, quod causa nunquam in folio describatur, aut folium est extendendum exhibitis tantum iuribus unius partis, et impossibile est, quod ambarum partium iura in folio referantur, et quando unius partis tantum iura in folio referuntur, altera obliviscitur suae in exhibitione iurium, contumaciae, et palam, licet iniustissime, conqueritur, quod sua iura in folio non fuerint deducta». 52 Thesaurus Resolutionum, Aquilana, 1.373.

386

Federica Meloni

tiques, qui rendait beaucoup plus perméable la frontière entre des institutions bureaucratisées, chargées de contrôler l’orthodoxie, et les fidèles aux aspirations tout autres. En 1719 Anna Maria Pallavicini53 demanda la nullité de son mariage pour cause d’impuissance de son mari Giovanni Giacomo Imperiali. Au sein de la controverse ouverte entre les deux, la structuration du dubium à soumettre aux cardinaux fut un autre motif de conflit. Le jeune aristocrate génois, suite à la sentence accordant la nullité des noces, adressa un recours – le verdict non unanime lui permit de prétendre à une nouvelle audience. Ses défenseurs se présentèrent au secrétaire en septembre 1719 en fondant le recours sur un défaut d’approbation par l’orateur du dubbio exprimé en première instance, formulé non seulement sans son accord mais encore d’une manière à donner implicitement pour vraie la position de la partie adverse.54 La femme avait effectivement réussi à contourner la question de la consommation du mariage en sollicitant des cardinaux une autorisation pour demander au pape la dispense de dissolution du lien conjugal. Ainsi, dans cette affaire, la formulation de la demande était devenue l’objet même de la controverse, preuve de ce que le dubium pouvait facilement s’avérer un terrain miné. Du reste, les cardinaux n’avaient pas la faculté d’en atténuer l’acuité. En effet, ils ne devaient pas intervenir sur le fond de la question, mais tout au plus sur l’exactitude ou la non exactitude de sa forme. Et si on ne parvenait à aucun accord, la Congrégation renvoyait l’affaire à une nouvelle audience. Une fois le dossier complet, le secrétaire en distribuait les copies aux cardinaux, avant l’ouverture de la session. Il ressort de certaines sources qu’avec les tâches qui s’allongeaient, la Congrégation commença à confier l’examen préliminaire à une commission composée de quatre cardinaux, dite congregazione particolare.55 Probablement s’agissait-il d’un moyen de réaliser plus facilement et plus rapidement le travail préalable à l’émanation de la sentence en congrégation plénière. Une fois la séance instituée, on lançait la discussion autour des précédents juridiques, utiles à la résolution du cas. Après les nécessaires consultations, le secrétaire, selon la majorité des opinions émises, en faveur ou contre la pétition, concluait le cas. Apposer l’amplius à l’affirmative ou à le negative,56 signifiait que la résolution avait été prise à l’unanimité. Dans ce cas, l’orateur qui 53 Thesaurus Resolutionum, Januensis, dispensationis, 1.198 ss. 54 «Instat autem Joannes Jacobus pro recessu a decisis […] quod dubium propositum die 20 Maij 1719 ‘an sit consulendum Sanctissimo pro dispensatione matrimonii rati et non consummati in casu’, non poterat disputari, tum quia non fuit cum suo procuratore concordatum tum quia in dicto dubio supponitur matrimonium ratum et non consummatum et tandem quia facta a Sanctissimo Domino Nostro simplici instantia remissione ad hanc Sacram Congregationem, disputandum erat dubium, an sit concendenda dispensatio, prout semper factum fuit in consimilibus causis» (Thesaurus, Januensis dispensationis, 1.234). 55 Zamboni, Collectio declarationum, 1.XV; Varsànyi, «De competentia et procedura», 75. 56 Dans beaucoup de formules on peut lire «affermative et amplius» ou «negative et amplius».

La Sacrée Congrégation du Concile et l’interprétation de la réforme tridentine

387

avait perdu ne pouvait pas recourir à un autre tribunal, mais si le cardinal préfet lui avait accordé explicitement une nouvelle audience, alors il pouvait faire appel auprès de la même Congrégation. Il pouvait arriver aussi que les cardinaux ne parviennent à aucune conclusion par besoin de nouveaux approfondissements, et la cause était alors renvoyée avec la formule dilata. Dans ce dernier cas, il était possible de choisir de s’en remettre à la décision du pape, en inscrivant sur le registre des réponses comme «Consulendum Sanctissimo pro dispensatione in casu» ou «Si Sanctissimo visum fuerit, concedendum est», et en archivant le cas avec la mention «Facto verbo cum Sanctissimo». Si le recours de la partie perdante était accepté, le cas était reproposé avec un dubium type, «An sit standum vel recedendum a decisis». Le secrétaire enregistrait finalement la sentence, que luimême encore, l’auditeur de la Chambre apostolique ou bien les bureaux de la Daterie expédiaient alors aux parties.

3

Dubia

En droit canonique, le dubium recouvre une catégorie juridique précise, indiquant une hésitation sur un point de droit et s’exprimant sous la forme d’une question introduite par An. On parle précisément de temps des dubia à partir de la seconde moitié du seizième siècle,57 dès lors que ceux-ci investissent les procédures de toutes les congrégations romaines, et tout particulièrement de celles du Concile, dont la «culture» des dubia était si l’on peut dire intrinsèque. L’usage du dubium renvoyait effectivement à une nouvelle pratique dialectique avec la Curie romaine, qui démarra après le Concile de Trente, lorsque l’interdiction de commenter, d’annoter et d’interpréter le corpus juridique du Tridentino fit de l’institution romaine la seule à pouvoir résoudre tout type de question. Paolo Prodi a souligné dans nombre de ses travaux comment cette centralisation romaine, progressive avait notamment fini par soustraire à la science canonique sa capacité à générer et à enrichir le droit par des notes et des réflexions de juristes,58 par des commentaires et des gloses en marge des décrets pontificaux, ce dont elle avait toujours usé jusque là. Néanmoins, suite à la rupture opérée par la Réforme 57 P. Broggio/Ch. de Castelnau-L’Estoile/G. Pizzorusso, «Le temps des doutes: Les sacraments et l’Église romaine aux dimensions du monde», dans iidem (éd.), Administrer les sacrements en Europe et au Nouveau Monde: la Curie romaine et les Dubia circa sacramenta = Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, Italie et Méditerranée 121/1 (2009) 5–22, p. 12. 58 Voyez entre autre P. Prodi, «Note sulla genesi del diritto nella Chiesa post-tridentina», dans G. Alberigo/P.C. Bori/B. Calati (éd.), Legge e Vangelo: Discussione su una legge fondamentale per la Chiesa (Brescia: Paideia editrice, 1972) 191–223; Prodi, Una storia della giustizia: Dal pluralismo dei fori al moderno dualismo tra coscienza e diritto (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2000), 279–81; Broggio/De Castelnau-L’Estoile/Pizzorusso, «Le temps des doutes», 11–12.

388

Federica Meloni

Protestante, l’espace et la liberté de mouvement de la théologie et du droit canonique subirent de fortes restrictions, dont les dubia sont l’expression. La tradition juridique des dubia, que la Congrégation du Concile contribua à consolider en la normalisant selon les modalités illustrées ici, eut des retombées importantes sur la discipline juridique elle-même. En effet, l’activité décisionnelle des congrégations, désormais exercée exclusivement à travers les sollicitations par le bas, au moyen d’une requête de clarification, fit de fait voler en éclat la jurisprudence de tout un arsenal de sentences émises sur des affaires spécifiques et individuels.59 Dans le cas de la Congrégation du Concile, il fallut attendre le pontificat de Benoît XIV pour autoriser la première collection organique des résolutions prises par le dicastère entre l’année 1718, quand Prospero Lambertini en assuma la secrétairerie, et 1740, l’année de sa publication. Seulement alors, à partir du dix-huitième siècle, les décisions de la Congrégation furent rendues publiques dans le Thesaurus Resolutionum Sacrae Congregationis Concilii. Nous touchons ici à un troisième aspect, à savoir la formulation du dubium en tant que moment de négociation et de discussion entre l’institution centrale et les fidèles. Les dubia «sont ainsi dans un jeu d’échanges entre la pratique et les normes. Ils sont comme une interface entre les institutions et les fidèles, clercs et laïcs».60 En tant qu’institution «passive», la Congrégation du Concile était sujette à des pressions continues depuis le bas; sous la forme d’appels, de requêtes et de recours, elles portaient à son attention toute la flexibilité et la variété des us et coutumes locaux, en contraste souvent avec la rigidité des normes tridentines. L’exemple suivant est révélateur de la manière dont les suppliques pouvaient parfois manipuler et se servir de la justice pour la faire plier à des fins propres. Il porte sur le cas d’une union clandestine, débattu à la Congrégation en 1753. À Murcie, dans la nuit du 12 février 1742, le père Giuseppe Arteaga dénonça à Giuseppe Belluga, gouverneur et vicaire général du diocèse de Carthagène, la tentative qu’il avait subie de liaison clandestine de la part de Diego Arcaina et Melitona Melendez. Ces derniers s’étaient présentés à sa porte, en compagnie d’autres personnes; l’homme avait demandé à parler avec le prêtre au sujet d’une question confidentielle, et lorsqu’il le fit entrer, il prit la femme par la main et prononça les mots «Signor Curato lei sia testimonio».61 Giuseppe Arteaga dénonçait un mariage clandestin dans les règles de l’art, celui du cavalier Don Diego Arcaina, de la plus ancienne noblesse de Murcie, et de Melitona Melendez, fille 59 G. Pizzorusso, «I dubbi sui sacramenti dalle missioni ad infideles. Percorsi nelle burocrazie di Curia», Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, Italie et Méditerranée 121/1 (2009) 39–61, à la p. 55. 60 Broggio/De Castelnau-L’Estoile/Pizzorusso, «Le temps des doutes», 14. 61 Sacra Congregationis Concilii R.P.D. Furietto Secretario. Carthaginensis praetensi Matrimonii pro Ill.mo D. Equite Don Diego Arcaina et Aleman contra D. Melitonam Melendez (Rome: Reverenda Camera Apostolica, 1753), Summarium, A2 r., n.1, par. E.

La Sacrée Congrégation du Concile et l’interprétation de la réforme tridentine

389

d’un menuisier. Devant le juge, le jeune avait admis connaître le rite que le Concile de Trente avait prévu pour la célébration du mariage. Il était néanmoins conscient de la mésalliance, et de l’opposition que cette union aurait rencontrée dans sa famille. Aussi avait-il opté pour la solution de la fugue. Ses efforts en vue d’obtenir de l’évêque l’autorisation spéciale de ne pas publier les bans s’étant avérés vains, il avait conçu l’idée d’un mariage clandestin. Sollicité par le vicaire, Diego nia avoir été poussé par qui que ce soit: il connaissait l’existence de cette pratique, il en admettait l’incongruité, mais il savait qu’elle donnerait lieu à un mariage valide. En réalité, peut-être pour mieux se protéger, le cavalier confessa avoir demandé auparavant conseil à des hommes d’Église. Ces derniers lui auraient assuré que les unions clandestines étaient valables, en l’avertissant cependant des peines encourues: sanctions pécunières, et au pire, l’obligation de se séparer de la femme pour quelque temps. Diego, convaincu que le jeu en valait la chandelle, retourna auprès de Melendez, et lui expliqua le dispositif. Ce qui ressort de la confession de Diego, c’est ainsi la réflexion qu’il se faisait quant aux moyens légaux, ou à la limite de la légalité, dont il pouvait disposer pour atteindre son but. Averti et prudent, il s’était servi de ses relations privilégiées avec quelques ecclésiastiques pour leur demander conseil et assurances, ce qu’il obtint sans difficulté. Tout cela confirme que l’existence d’un panorama de possibilités pour se donner des marges de manœuvre à l’égard de la norme était bien concrète. La norme apparaissait comme négociable. La négociation résidait dans le fait qu’il ne s’agissait pas tant de contourner la loi que de trouver en son sein des lacunes, des espaces dans les limites desquels on pouvait se mouvoir. Dans le cas dont il s’agit ici, ce fut un certain milieu clérical qui donna une légitimité au choix de Diego, qui instruisit le jeune homme sur les avantages à retirer et les risques à courir en optant pour une «manipulation» de la norme. C’est d’ailleurs ce à quoi renvoyait une déposition faite par un témoin du vicaire: Il suddetto Gaetano Abellan soggiunse che poche notti prima [del 12 febbraio 1742], si era egli trovato in una conversazione di persone ecclesiastiche, dove si trattò del modo con cui potevano celebrarsi li matrimonii, ed intese dire che il modo con cui l’accennato D. Diego era determinato d’effettuarlo era valido per accasarsi.62

La procédure se prolongea presque dix ans, et vit l’émanation de trois sentences et d’un recours auprès de la Congrégation du Concile. Le 3 août 1745, la curie de Carthagène proclama la nullité des noces, expliquant que Melitona n’était pas parvenue à prouver suffisamment que la nuit de noces avait bien donné lieu aux éléments établis comme nécessaires par le Concile de Trente. Le vicaire faisait en particulier référence à la vérification insuffisante de la déclaration de consen62 Sacra Congregationis Concilii R.P.D. Furietto Secretario (la lettre qui identifie la page manque), n. 11, par. Q.

390

Federica Meloni

tement de la part des deux époux, ainsi qu’à l’absence de bénédiction de la part du curé. On imposait quoi qu’il en soit à Diego de verser à Melitona un dédommagement de cinq cents ducats et de payer les frais de la procédure. Un peu moins de quatre ans plus tard, le 11 mars 1749, sur les instances de Melitona, le tribunal de la nonciature apostolique révoqua la première sentence et prononça la validité du mariage, en ordonnant que dans la limite de quinze jours, les époux devraient recevoir la bénédiction nuptiale et s’en aller vivre ensemble. Mais de nouveau, le 6 juin 1750, Don Diego fit appel, et le nouveau nonce révoqua la seconde sentence, confirmant au contraire la première. Le mariage était nul, Don Diego était condamné à payer les frais de la procédure, et à indemniser Melitona de deuxmille ducats. C’est à ce moment que l’affaire parvint à Rome. Melitona Melendez fit appel auprès de la Congrégation du Concile dans l’espoir que la sentence soit à nouveau rebattue. On peut lire dans le Thesaurus:63 «appellavit ab hanc sententia Melitona, sed appellatio in devolutivo tantum admissa fuit».64 Cette précision permet de comprendre que l’appel de Melitona fut admis à la seule condition que la Congrégation du Concile s’attribuât le droit non seulement de se prononcer par une décision, mais de reprendre la cause point par point, en se transférant ainsi la charge d’une nouvelle enquête. Le 7 avril, cependant, les cardinaux arrivèrent à une parité des votes qui les empêcha de formuler une réponse univoque, si bien qu’ils décidèrent de confier le cause à des experts canonistes et théologiens, en déclarant: «iterum proponatur, et scribant duo theologi et canonistae pro veritate ex officio». La discussion des requérants fut envoyée à la Congrégation, où on énonça la résolution: «Affirmative pro validitate matrimonii, attentis facti circumstantiis in casu de quo agitur».65 À la tentative souvent bien consciente des fidèles de forcer la norme, correspond d’un autre côté la difficulté de la part de l’institution d’adapter la doctrine théologique et la norme du droit canonique à un milieu humain et culturel bien éloigné du dirigisme juridique. La confrontation continuelle entre la périphérie des requérants et le centre des cardinaux de Curie se trouvait concentrée dans cet appel à Rome, c’est à dire dans la construction d’une demande qui suivait nécessairement, comme le souligne Pierroberto Scaramella, une logique d’utilité et de convenance, «l’opportunità la suggerisce e la ragione la detta».66 L’institution romaine se faisait de cette manière institution qui vivifie continuellement le droit conçu dans son ensemble, non pas des normes définies une fois pour toute mais plutôt continuellement renouvelées par les besoins des fidèles. 63 64 65 66

Thesaurus Resolutionum, Carthaginen. Matrimonii, 22.16–18, 21, 50, et 55. Thesaurus Resolutionum, Carthaginen. Matrimonii, 22.17. Thesaurus Resolutionum, Carthaginen. Matrimonii, 22.50. P. Scaramella, «I dubbi sul sacramento del matrimonio e la questione dei matrimoni misti nella casistica delle congregazioni romane», Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, Italie et Méditerranée 121/1 (2009) 75–94, à la p. 78.

La Sacrée Congrégation du Concile et l’interprétation de la réforme tridentine

391

Conclusion La Congrégation du Concile fut la marque concrète et puissante d’une Église qui, au cours de l’âge moderne, renforça son caractère de tribunal adoptant une pratique spécifique de régénération et de renouvellement du droit. Au moyen du régime des congrégations, on produisit un système complet de normes, émanées à partir de cas singuliers, alternatif non seulement à celui des États, mais encore même au droit canonique. Avec ses interprétations, la Congrégation élabora des sentences, et avec elles des normes, qu’elle seule pouvait modifier de temps à autre, sans aucun contrôle extérieur, justement parce qu’elles n’étaient pas publiques. Et cela fut une caractéristique exclusive de la Congrégation conciliaire. Jusqu’au dix-huitième siècle en effet, le secret, imposé par Pie IV sur les actes conciliaires et sur la jurisprudence interprétative générée progressivement par le dicastère romain, fut maintenu. Un autre aspect qui ressort particulièrement de l’activité exercée par la Congrégation fut l’identification en son sein d’un pouvoir législatif avec un pouvoir de juridiction pratiquement en contraste avec la logique du droit canonique. Comme le note Paolo Prodi, «la proibizione di pubblicare e diffondere in qualsiasi modo le decisioni della Congregazione rende impossibile il richiamo a precedenti e quindi la formazione di una prassi giurisprudenziale».67 En conclusion, une telle logique, assumée et incarnée par l’activité de la Congrégation du Concile, fut certainement décisive dans la germination de la fracture entre Trente et Tridentinisme, que John O’Malley a si bien réévaluée dans sa récente publication.68 En effet, le dicastère romain, à travers un constant travail d’interprétation conduit de manière ininterrompue durant quatre siècles, a contribué à donner au Concile une autorité maximale, celle de décrets entendus comme exhaustifs et définitifs, sources uniques de solution pour toute question possible; d’un autre côté, en appliquant ces décrets à tous les domaines de la vie des fidèles, la Congrégation a promu une série d’interprétations toujours plus larges, conduites selon des principes bien souvent éloignés de ceux qui avaient guidé la réforme du Concile. «Concluso come evento, il Concilio entrava nella storia, ma anziché subire un processo di decantazione attraverso l’assimilazione delle sue decisioni nella tradizione ecclesiale, il Tridentino è stato elevato a misura della tradizione stessa.»69 L’ensemble des décisions prises par la Congrégation du Concile, encadrées dans le corps des normes tridentines, fit du dicastère le filtre exclusif de la tradition et de la réalité ecclésiale.

67 Prodi, Una storia della giustizia, 282. 68 O’Malley, Le Concile. 69 Alberigo, Il significato del concilio di Trento, 47.

392

Federica Meloni

Bibliographie Sources manuscrites Cité du Vatican, Archivio segreto Vaticano (ASV), Libri Litterarum, Libri Decretorum et Positiones. Cité du Vatican, Archivio segreto Vaticano, Congr. Concilii.

Sources imprimées et éditées Bullarium Romanum diplomatum et privilegiorum sanctorum romanorum pontificum, Taurinensis Editio, Aloysius Tomassetti (éd.) (24 vol.; Turin: Seb. Franco et Henrico Dalmazzo editoribus, 1857–72). De Luca, G.B., «Adnotationes practicae ad Sacrum Concilium Tridentinum», in Theatrum veritatis et iustitiae, G.B. De Luca et al. (éd.) (15 vol.; Venise: Paolo Balleoni, 1698). Fagnani, P., Ius canonicum sive Commentaria in quinque libros decretalium (4 vol.; Cologne: Wilhelm Metternich, 1704). Guerra, A., Pontificiarum Constitutionum in Bullariis Magno, Et Romano Contentarum Et Aliunde Desumptarum Epitome et secundum materias dispositio (4 vol.; Venise: Héritiers de Niccolò Pezzana, 1772). Poggiani, G., Iulii Pogiani Sunensis Epistolae et orations…, A.M. Gratiano/H. Lagomarsinio (éd.) (4 vol.; Rome: Generoso Salomon, 1757). Pratica della Curia romana (Rome: Francesco Burlié, 1815, 11781). Sacra Congregationis Concilii R.P.D. Furietto Secretario. Carthaginensis praetensi Matrimonii pro Ill.mo D. Equite Don Diego Arcaina et Aleman contra D. Melitonam Melendez (Rome: Reverenda Camera Apostolica, 1753). Thesaurus Resolutionum Sacrae Congregationis Concilii (Urbino: Girolamo Mainardi, 1741–60; Rome: Bernabò & Lazzarini, 1761–76; Rome: Reverenda Camera Apostolica, 1777–1908). Zamboni, G.F., Collectio declarationum Sacrae Congregationis Concilii tridentini interpretum (4 vol.; Arras: Rousseau-Leroy, 1860–68, 11812–16).

Sources secondaires Alberigo, G., «Concezioni della Chiesa al Concilio di Trento e nell’età moderna», dans M. Marcocchi/C. Scarpati/A. Acerbi/G. Alberigo (éd.), Il Concilio di Trento: Istanze di riforma e aspetti dottrinali (Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1997) 117–53. Alberigo, G., «Du Concile de Trente au tridentinisme», Irenikon 54 (1981) 192–210. Alberigo, G., «Il significato del concilio di Trento nella storia dei concili», dans G. Alberigo/ I. Rogger (éd.), Il Concilio di Trento nella prospettiva del terzo millennio (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1997) 35–55. Boutry, Ph., Souverain et pontife: Recherches prosopographiques sur la curie romaine à l’âge de la restauration. 1814–1846 (Rome: École française de Rome, 2002).

La Sacrée Congrégation du Concile et l’interprétation de la réforme tridentine

393

Broggio, P./de Castelnau-L’Estoile, Ch./Pizzorusso, G., Administrer les sacrements en Europe et au Nouveau Monde: la Curie romaine et les Dubia circa sacramenta = Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, Italie et Méditerranée 121/1 (2009). Broggio, P./De Castelnau-L’Estoile, Ch./Pizzorusso, G., «Le temps des doutes: les sacraments et l’Église romaine aux dimensions du monde», Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, Italie et Méditerranée 121/1 (2009) 5–22. Carocci, G.P., Lo stato della chiesa nella seconda metà del sec. XVI (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1961). Fantappié, C., «La Santa Sede e il mondo in prospettiva storico-giuridica», Rechtsgeschichte – Legal History 20 (2012) 332–8. Fattori, M.T., Clemente VIII e il Sacro Collegio, 1592–1605. Meccanismi istituzionali e accentramento di governo (Päpste und Papsttum, 33; Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 2004). Jacobson Schutte, A., By Force and Fear: Taking and Breaking Monastic Vows in Early Modern Europe (Ithaca, NY/London: Cornell University Press, 2011). Jedin, H., Storia del Concilio di Trento, G. Cecchi et al. (trad.) (4 vol. in 5; Brescia: Morcelliana, 2–42009–10). Jedin, H., Riforma Cattolica o Controriforma? Tentativo di chiarimento dei concetti con riflessioni sul concilio di Trento (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1957). La Sacra Congregazione del Concilio: Quarto Centenario dalla Fondazione (1564–1964): Studi e ricerche (Cité du Vatican: [s.n.], 1964). Lefebvre, Ch./Pacaut, M./Chevailler L., Les sources du droit et la seconde centralisation romaine (Paris: Éditions Cujas, 1976). Lingen, D./Reuss, P.A., Causae selectae in S. Congregatione Cardinalium Concilii Tridentini Interpretum propositae per summaria precum ab anno 1823 usque ad anno 1869 (Regensburg: Pustet, 1871). Moroni, G., Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica (103 tom.; Venise: tipografia emiliana, 1840–61). O’Malley, J.W., Le Concile de Trente. Ce qui s’est vraiment passé M.-R. de Hemptinne/I. Hoorickx-Raucq/P. Tihon (trans.) (Bruxelles: Éditions Lessius, 2013). Parayre, R., La S. Congrégation du Concile: Son histoire, sa procedure, son autorité (Paris: Lathielleux, 1897). Pizzorusso, G., «I dubbi sui sacramenti dalle missioni ad infideles: Percorsi nelle burocrazie di Curia», Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, Italie et Méditerranée 121/1 (2009) 39– 61. Prodi, P., Il paradigma tridentino: Un’epoca della storia della Chiesa (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2010). Prodi, P., Il sovrano pontefice. Un corpo e due anime: la monarchia papale nella prima età moderna (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2006). Prodi, P., «Note sulla genesi del diritto nella Chiesa post-tridentina», dans G. Alberigo/P.C. Bori/B. Calati (éd.), Legge e Vangelo: Discussione su una legge fondamentale per la Chiesa (Brescia: Paideia editrice, 1972) 191–223. Prodi, P., Una storia della giustizia: Dal pluralismo dei fori al moderno dualismo tra coscienza e diritto (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2000). Prosperi, A., Il Concilio di Trento. Una introduzione storica (Turin: Einaudi, 2001).

394

Federica Meloni

Reinhard, J.W., «Il concilio di Trento e la modernizzazione della Chiesa: Introduzione», dans P. Prodi/J.W. Reinhard (éd.), Il concilio di Trento e il moderno (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996) 27–54. Rosa, M., La curia romana nell’età moderna: Istituzioni, cultura, carriere (Rome: Viella 2013). Scaramella, P., «I dubbi sul sacramento del matrimonio e la questione dei matrimoni misti nella casistica delle congregazioni romane», Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, Italie et Méditerranée 121/1 (2009) 75–94. Visceglia, M.A (éd.), Papato e politica internazionale nella prima età moderna (Rome: Viella, 2013).

Epilogue

John W. O’Malley

The Council of Trent and Vatican II

By a strange coincidence, the year of the Louvain conference on the occasion of the 450th anniversary of the closing of the Council of Trent coincided with the 50th anniversary of Vatican Council II. The coincidence offers an opportunity to compare the two councils that are so often contrasted with each other. In so doing we will find that each throws light on the other and thereby enables us to understand both of them better. We are of course particularly concerned to see how the contrast with Vatican II helps us better understand the Council of Trent and provide sharper perspectives on it. The two councils differ in so many and such important ways that a comparison may seem unlikely to yield anything of substance. Sometimes when I try putting them side by side, I feel as if I am comparing the merits and demerits of apples against merits and demerits of lasagna. Moreover, prejudices have in the past years obstructed clear vision. Some Catholics, for instance, assert confidently that Trent created all the bad things that Vatican II rescued them from, whereas others just as confidently assert it created all the good things Vatican II robbed them of. The grain of truth in such assertions is that the councils are so different that one wonders if they have anything at all in common. Of course, they were both councils of the Catholic Church, which means they fit the basic definition of a Church council, that is, a meeting principally of bishops gathered in Christ’s name who, by virtue of that name and the presence of the Holy Spirit, are empowered to make decisions binding on the Church. Beyond that, is there anything they share? There certainly is, as I will attempt to show. But first we need to examine ways they differ from each other. The most immediately obvious way is the places where they were held. Not only is that an obvious fact, but it is a clue pointing to a crucial difference in their dynamics. Trent is hundreds of kilometers from Rome. The popes agreed to the city only with the greatest reluctance. With the Councils of Constance and Basel, they had learned the sorry lesson of the danger to themselves of councils distant from Rome.

398

John W. O’Malley

Trent meant they would not have the immediate oversight they desired and that Julius II and Leo X had had for the Fifth Lateran Council. None of the three popes who convoked the three periods of the Council of Trent ever set foot in the city, though Pius IV came under considerable pressure to do so. The popes tried, with considerable success, to control the direction of the Council through their legates. But that was certainly not the same thing as having the Council meet right under their noses in Rome. Communication between Rome and Trent through couriers was reliable, but at least six or seven days were required for an exchange of letters. The contrast with Vatican II is striking. Although neither Pope John XXIII nor Pope Paul VI attended the working sessions of the Council, they had immediate communication with what was happening in the basilica of Saint-Peter through radio and closed-circuit television in the papal apartments and through almost daily meetings with individual bishops. Because of the complicated, cumbersome, and almost unintelligible mix of entities working on the floor of the Council that shared responsibility for moving the agenda forward, it was impossible to know who was in charge there. The solution was to run to the Pope for the resolution of conflicts that arose. John XXIII tended to let the Council sort out its problems on its own, but Paul VI directly intervened time after time. He did so to a degree and with a frequency, immediacy, and impact that was unprecedented for a council. One of the paradoxes that arises through this comparison of the modes of papal oversight is that, much as the modes differed, in both instances they provoked the bishops to ask the same question: is the Council free? A second immediately obvious difference between the councils is the number and origins of the participants. When the Council of Trent opened on December 13, 1545, only 29 prelates, including the three papal legates, had showed up. The number for this first period eventually climbed to about a hundred. At the opening of the second period, only 15 showed up. The third period was the best attended, usually a little over two hundred prelates, but over two-thirds were from Italy and most of the rest from Spain and Portugal. Even the arrival of the small but important French delegation toward the end of 1562 did not change the proportions significantly. Unlike Lateran V, there was not a single bishop from “the New World”: Trent was essentially a council of the Western Mediterranean. At most of the working sessions of Vatican II the bishops numbered about 2.100, some ten times larger than the peak number at Trent. They came from 116 different countries from around the world, to make Vatican II truly ecumenical in the sense of Church-wide or world-wide and to do so to a degree that dwarfed even Vatican I, its only rival in that regard. Many of the bishops from former European colonies were natives of those countries and brought to the Council a new sense of the Catholicity of the Catholic Church.

The Council of Trent and Vatican II

399

There were other important differences in the membership of the two councils. At Trent the secular powers – that is, the laity – were present through their ambassadors (technically, “orators”), and their influence on the direction of the Council was considerable. Although some of the ambassadors were prelates, others were laymen, who they had the right to speak to the Council when they presented their credentials. They used the occasion to present the agenda of their monarchs. They tended to be strong supporters of the reform impulses of the Council, except of course when those impulses turned in the direction of their sponsors. Of all the monarchs, Emperor Charles V exercised the most decisive influence on the Council even before it opened. He insisted that the Council make reform of the Church its top agenda item in the face of Pope Paul III’s insistence that the Council deal primarily, if not exclusively, with doctrine. Pressure from the Emperor helped determine the Council’s decision to deal with both issues simultaneously and not privilege one of them over the other. To some extent “doctrine and reform” were perhaps inevitable as twin agenda items, yet Charles V’s insistence on the primacy of reform cannot be discounted. During the third period his brother and successor, Emperor Ferdinand I, continued, especially in the spring of 1563, to press the agenda Charles had initiated, to the great discomfort of Pope Pius IV. Vatican II followed the precedent set by Vatican I, which was the first council in the history of the Church to exclude the laity from participation. True, Vatican II eventually invited a few laymen and then, to its great credit, a few women, but they were essentially tokens. To look upon these actions of the Council as a breakthrough for the laity is to forget the large role the laity traditionally played in the councils, beginning with Nicaea and Emperor Constantine. The best that can be said of Vatican II in this regard is that it was an improvement over Vatican I and implicitly reopened the question. In another way, however, Vatican II accomplished what Trent was unable to do. At Vatican II members of other Christian churches – Protestant and Orthodox – were present as so-called Observers from the moment the Council opened until the moment it closed. By the end of the Council the number of Observers and non-Catholic “guests” rose to close to two hundred. Although they could not speak at the working sessions of the Council, they made their influence felt in informal ways. The bishops and theologians formulated their decisions with the keen awareness that they were being scrutinized by scholars and Churchmen who did not share many of the basic assumptions upon which Catholic doctrine and practice were based, and they adjusted them accordingly. In both councils theologians played a crucial role, but in ways that were considerably different. At Trent the theologians at times outnumbered the bishops. Of them the Pope chose only two or three. The rest were chosen either by

400

John W. O’Malley

their monarch or by their religious order. At the second period, for instance, Pope Julius III sent only two, whereas Emperor Charles V sent seven and his sister, Queen Mary of Hungary, Governess of the Low Countries, sent eight. At Vatican II, although bishops were free to bring their own theological advisers, only the Pope chose official theologians for the Council. Only those theologians could sit on the commissions formulating the decrees. Although the number of such officially designated theologians eventually rose to almost five hundred, it was proportionately much less than the number at Trent. The theologians functioned differently at the two councils. At Trent they opened the discussion of every doctrinal issue by commenting upon it in serial fashion, one theologian at a time until all had spoken. Each of them might speak for a few minutes or for as long as two hours or more. The bishops listened in silence, and only after all the lectures were completed did they themselves set to work. Sometimes for weeks on end, therefore, the bishops sat as students to listen to the theologians. Once commissions were formed to construct the actual decrees, the theologians again entered the process as advisers to the bishops. Even though theologians played an absolutely major role at Vatican II, the role was less immediately determinative than at Trent and, on an official level, much reduced. Both before and during Vatican II, the formulation of every document rested from beginning to end exclusively in the hands of the bishops working in the various commissions of the Council. The bishops of course relied upon the theologians the Pope had named to the commissions. But the theologians knew and were sometimes reminded that they were present in a strictly advisory capacity and were allowed to speak only when the bishops asked their opinion. Although they had a big impact on the direction of Vatican II, they were not as closely integrated into the operating procedures of the Council as they were at Trent. When the bishops arrived at Trent in 1545, nothing had been prepared for them to help them formulate their agenda. Even so, they soon hit upon the focused agenda of doctrine and reform with which we are familiar. They proposed for themselves what was essentially a narrow agenda, which meant they left many aspects of Catholic life and practice untouched. Under doctrine they would deal only with beliefs challenged by the Protestants. Under reform, they would deal only with the reform of the three traditional offices – papacy, episcopate and pastorate. If the agenda of Trent was limited and quite specific, the agenda of Vatican II was just the opposite. In Pope John XXIII’s letter to the bishops of the world shortly after he announced the Council, he asked them to send for the agenda anything they thought the Council should treat. Thus the agenda was from the beginning wide open. The Council itself then developed an agenda beyond the topics the bishops initially supplied. As a result, there is scarcely any aspect of

The Council of Trent and Vatican II

401

Church life that the final sixteen documents of Vatican II do not at least touch upon. Unlike the bishops arriving at Trent, the bishops arriving at Vatican II found some 75 documents or pieces of documents prepared for them and calling for action. Vatican II was the most extensively prepared council in the history of the Church. It was not, however, prepared in a coordinated and coherent way. Nor was it prepared in a widely collaborative way. The reaction of the bishops once they arrived at the Council was twofold: first, confusion and dismay – they felt there were drowning in a tsunami of paper and an infinitude of issues screaming for their attention; second, resentment – many bishops soon believed they were being manipulated into rubber-stamping documents they did not altogether agree with. Despite the extensive preparation, the bishops at Vatican II had a more difficult task finding their focus than did the bishops at Trent. They began to get their bearings only at the end of the first period, December, 1962. The most profound difference between the two councils is this: they spoke in two difference forms of discourse. Trent followed the pattern basically set at the first ecumenical Council, Nicaea, 325. It is fair to say that when Emperor Constantine convoked Nicaea, he saw it as in some measure the ecclesiastical equivalent of the Roman Senate. The Roman Senate made laws and rendered verdicts in high-level criminal cases. It was concerned with public order in the Empire. Nicaea was concerned with public order in the Church, whether regarding proper teaching or proper discipline. It therefore issued laws prescribing or proscribing certain behaviors, and it heard the case against Arius, accused of the high ecclesiastical crime of spreading heresy. Laws invariably carry penalties for non-observance, and negative verdicts in criminal cases carry even heavier penalties. Although Nicaea and later councils adopted a number of literary forms, the most prevalent was the canon, a short ordinance prescribing or proscribing some behavior. Canons commonly ended with an anathema, that is, a sentence of excommunication. Trent followed unquestioningly in this pattern, as the number of both its doctrinal and disciplinary canons testify. It modified considerably the traditional form of the doctrinal canons in that they did not condemn persons but only teachings. Strictly speaking, Luther, Calvin, and the other Reformers were not condemned at Trent, although it was obvious to everybody whom was targeted through the canons. Moreover, the Council prefaced most of its doctrinal canons with so-called chapters, that is, positive expositions of Catholic teaching related to the positions condemned in the canons. The Council was clear, however, that the canons were the form that bore the burden of the Council’s teaching. I have written extensively on the form of discourse Vatican II came to adopt. It is a subject far too complex for me to develop adequately in these few pages. Suffice it to say that when John XXIII addressed the Council on its opening day,

402

John W. O’Malley

he stressed in his gentle way that the Council should formulate its decision as far as possible in positive terms, so as to show the Church to be, in his words, “the loving mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness”. He explicitly asked that the Council as far as possible avoid issuing condemnations. The bishops took the Pope at his word and tried to do what he asked. They eventually began to see that this meant abandoning the traditional forms, especially the canon (Vatican II issued not a single one), and the adoption of form of discourse no council had ever before used – or, perhaps better said, never used in such a consistent and altogether characteristic way. Trent employed the canon because it was traditional but also because the bishops realized that exhortations especially regarding the duty of residence had proven themselves insufficient. That solution had been tried for generations without success. The fact that the obligation of residence aroused such strong opposition in the Council itself indicated that strong measures were needed if there was to be any hope of success. The bishops at Vatican II, on the contrary, were, except for a small minority, solidly behind the episcopal ideals presented in both Lumen gentium and Christus Dominus. They believed they did not need to coerce support for them. In essence Vatican II adopted and adapted a form of panegyric. Instead of prescribing or proscribing certain behaviors, it held up ideals to be striven for. A comparison between Trent’s legislation on the behavior of bishops with Vatican II’s decree On the Pastoral Office of Bishops, Christus Dominus, illustrates the point perfectly. The former prescribes certain behaviors. The latter proposes an ideal. The former pursues its goal through threat of punishment, the latter through appeal to the bishop’s conscience and good will. Vatican II’s style-choice had profound and radical implications. It made Vatican II not only different from Trent but from every council that preceded it. By that choice it implicitly but powerfully and unmistakably repudiated the Roman Senate model, and it set another in its place. The style-choice made Vatican II so different that it in effect redefined what a council is and what it is expected to do. Such a redefinition is without any doubt a difference of crucial importance. Failure to take account of the difference means a failure in basic hermeneutics for the Council. As I suggested earlier, even though the two councils very much differed from each other, they also had important similarities. We need, first of all, to note that Vatican II on several occasions maintained that what it was teaching, was in continuity with the Council of Trent. True though that may be, it also shared certain communalities with Trent that at the time the prelates and theologians of the Council did not clearly realize. I here call attention to five of them. First, they both had to respond to a great crisis. That is obvious for the Council of Trent but generally denied for Vatican II, which is often singled out as being

The Council of Trent and Vatican II

403

unusual for not having to face a crisis. In fact, however, Vatican II met in a period of profound crisis not only for the Catholic Church but for all Christian churches. It was a crisis all the more serious for being diffuse and not easy to analyze or define in a few words. Yet, the crisis was real, pervasive, and far-reaching in its ramifications – perhaps the most serious and radical in the history of Christianity. We can call it, for lack of a better word, the crisis of modernity or the crisis of the modern world. It is a crisis with roots deep in history. It was early propelled on its way by the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions but took on its sharpest characteristics in the wake of the French Revolution during the century and a half leading up to Vatican II, the period I have called “the long nineteenth century”. In its official pronouncements the Church almost invariably assumed a negative stance toward every aspect of “the modern world”. Yet by the time of Vatican II it was no longer credible to maintain that stance, as the theologians and bishops at the Council realized at least on some level. “The modern world” or Modernity or Post-Modernity – a reality so complex as to be almost intractable! But let me name five aspects of it that are particularly pertinent to the Council and that the Council directly or indirectly tried to address. They are first, the newly urgent problem of multi-culturalism (What does this mean for a church so identified with the West as the Roman Catholic Church, especially in the post-colonial period?); second, the newly urgent problem of religious pluralism (Can the Church credibly continue to disdain and belittle other churches and religions? Responsibility for the Holocaust?); third, the crisis of authority produced by the most radical political and social shifts in world history (What does this mean for a Church that looks upon itself and upon the world as structured essentially hierarchically?); fourth, the closely related problem of the new social, economic, and cultural situations of most human beings today (Urbanism, industrialism, mobility, women in the work force, nuclear proliferation, bioethical dilemmas, and so forth); and, fifth, the emergence of a newly sharp historical consciousness, now applied in systematic fashion even to sacred subjects (How explain as apostolic truth a doctrine like the Immaculate Conception of Mary? The discrediting of the classical world view. Evolution). I of course do not have space for even the most superficial discussion of these complex issues, but perhaps we can at least agree that just as Trent faced a crisis, Vatican II did the same. Just as Trent tried to find solutions to the crisis, so did Vatican II. The second trait the two councils have in common is a particular of the first, namely, being forced to deal with the problem of change. Trent had to deal with it because of Protestant attacks. According to the Protestant Reformers the Church in its doctrine and practice was discontinuous with the apostolic past. Trent’s response was, in blunt terms, to deny any discontinuity, to deny that change had

404

John W. O’Malley

occurred. That solution was no longer possible for Vatican II. To the Council’s credit, it addressed the question by accepting the fact of change in the Church’s teaching and practice. Unlike any previous council, Vatican II used the word change in a positive or neutral sense and went on to use words like progress, evolution, and especially development. It did not try to solve the paradoxical problem of change within continuity, but it deserves credit for facing it. In so doing, the Council took an important step in qualifying the Catholic bias toward continuity to which Trent had given impetus. The Council thereby provides us with a notable example of the recurring paradox of history: continuity and change are twins conjoined at birth. Under one aspect of the problem of change Vatican II is like Trent, continuous with the past, but under another different from Trent, discontinuous with it. The third trait the two councils share: they were both councils of reconciliation. Designating Trent a council of reconciliation requires considerable qualification and is certainly not immediately obvious. Nonetheless, it is a valid designation. Despite prejudices, skepticism, and serious missteps, the Council did not give up the hope of some form of reconciliation with “the Lutherans” until almost the end – even though the reconciliation had to be on the Council’s terms. For Vatican II reconciliation was more obvious and more effectively operative. When on January 25, 1959, Pope John XXIII convoked the Council he announced as one of its aims the extension of “a renewed cordial invitation to the faithful of separated communities to participate with us in this quest for unity and grace, for which so many souls long in all parts of the world”. Vatican II took up the challenge and produced two documents that are quintessentially reconciliatory, the document On Ecumenism, Unitatis redintegratio, and the document On Non-Christian Religions, Nostra aetate. But those two documents are symptomatic of the wider reconciliatory dynamic of Vatican II that extended to all five of those features I singled out as characteristic of the contemporary world. The final document of the Council Gaudium et spes, is appropriately entitled “The Church in the Modern World”. In it the Council not only affirmed that the Church helps the world and teaches it, but, most remarkably, that the world helps and teaches the Church. The document was addressed to “the whole of humanity” and thereby sought to enlist all persons of good will in the Church’s mission of peace and harmony. Vatican II tried to make categorical repudiation of “the modern world” a thing of the past. The fourth trait is much more concrete and more easily named and identified than the first three. Both councils dealt with the relationship between the papacy and the episcopate, especially when the bishops are acting together in collegial fashion in a council. Not only did they both deal with it, but in both councils it provoked major crises. Although at Trent the legates did all in their power to keep

The Council of Trent and Vatican II

405

the problem from coming to the surface, they could not keep it from obliquely but unmistakably doing so. This issue underlay the problem of enforcing episcopal residency, and therefore it perforce had to raise its ugly head. During the third period it brought upon the Council its most dramatic crisis, which lasted for ten long months. Cardinal Giovanni Morone was finally able to broker a compromise, but a compromise that satisfied neither party. Although the compromise allowed the Council to move forward and complete its agenda, it left the theoretical problem unaddressed and unsolved. Yet, the final documents of the Council betray not the slightest suggestion that papal authority was a crucial, persistent, and divisive issue at the Council. Vatican II tried to face the problem squarely with its teaching on episcopal collegiality in the third chapter of Lumen gentium. Despite the fact that the teaching won overwhelming approval, a small minority continued to oppose it and in various ways eviscerate it of its effectiveness as an institution of Church governance. As in Trent, this problem again and again provoked crises. At Vatican II the crises were resolved more swiftly than at Trent but just as unsatisfactorily. The fifth trait is similarly concrete and easily identified: they both wanted to reform the Roman Curia. At the time of the Council of Trent, the reform of the Curia was already a problem of long-standing in the Church that grew acute during the crisis of the Great Western Schism. It was high therefore on the agenda of both the Council of Constance and the Council of Basel. When Luther made it a major issue in his Appeal to the German Nobility, 1520, he catalogued in particularly provocative and exaggerated terms grievances that had become commonplaces. No surprise, therefore, that reform of the Curia was on the agenda at Trent. Like Constance and Basel, Trent wanted to simplify the life-style of the cardinals in the Curia, eliminate their practice of amassing huge fortunes by holding multiple, incompatible benefices, abolish the practice of quid-pro-quo granting of dispensations and similar favors, curtail the naming of teenagers as cardinals, and, finally, force the cardinal bishops to reside in their dioceses just as other bishops were required to do. There was a deeper grievance, even though it never got officially articulated. It was the control over the Council exercised by a group of curial cardinals the Pope gathered to review the Council’s deliberations and decisions and thereby to control the Council’s freedom of action. The Council of Trent had only limited success in remedying these problems. Nonetheless, by the time of Vatican II, no cardinals in the Curia were holding multiple benefices or amassing huge personal fortunes. No teenagers were being nominated as cardinals – in fact, the very opposite had become a problem! But the control the Curia tried to exercise over the bishops and, more specifically, over the Council itself had not gone away. During the first period of Vatican II,

406

John W. O’Malley

the autumn of 1962, the resentment the bishops felt towards the Curia reached almost a boiling point, and by the end of the period many bishops were determined to put its reform high on the agenda when the Council reconvened the next year. Bishops began to speak openly about the complete abolition of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office of the Roman Inquisition. Pope Paul VI diffused the tension when a few months after his election and just before the Council reconvened he addressed the Curia. He told its members that reform was necessary and they should expect it. He reassured them by telling them that he himself, with their cooperation, would undertake it. In so doing he eliminated the possibility that the issue come to the floor of the Council. In effect he removed it from the Council’s agenda. Paul VI subsequently made changes but certainly not changes as radical as some members of the Council thought were needed. For instance, the cry for the elimination of the Holy Office went unheeded. Paul renamed it the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and made other changes, but in time the CDF began to function more or less as it always had. It is not surprising, therefore, that in our own day we once again hear a great deal about the reform of the Curia. Curia semper reformanda. Two councils, two radically different eras, two very different sets of problems. Yet, the two councils unmistakably display the paradox of being both markedly discontinuous with each other and markedly continuous. They nicely illustrate the paradox of history, where la longue durée is constantly pitted against the obtrusive reality of change. We do not resolve the paradox by taking easy refuge in another, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Vatican II was certainly not la même chose as the Council of Trent. Yet, certain patterns recur in history. Our two councils clearly illustrate several such recurrences. Moreover, they teach us the important lesson that reform of any institution, especially one with such a long, rich, and complex history as the Catholic Church is not a task easily accomplished. Nor is it a task accomplished once and for all. In that regard it is like the reform of life to which Christians believe they are daily called. Reform, whether of an institution or of one’s personal life, is an ongoing project.

About the Authors

Els Agten is a staff member at the RC Diocese of Hasselt (Belgium) and parttime researcher at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven, Belgium. Morgane Belin is a PhD Student at the Department of History, Faculty of Arts, University of Namur, Belgium. Robert Bireley († 2018) was Professor (Emeritus) of History at Loyola University Chicago, USA. Xavier Bisaro is Professor of Musicology, at the Centre d’Études Supérieures de la Renaissance, Université François-Rabelais de Tours, France. Emidio Campi is Professor Emeritus of Church History and former Director of the Institute of Swiss Reformation Studies, University of Zürich, Switzerland. Leonardo Cohen is Assistant Professor at the Department of Middle East Studies and the African Studies Program at Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel. Sanja Cvetnic´ is Professor of Renaissance and Baroque Art, at the Department of Art History, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Croatia. Fabrizio D’Avenia is Assistant Professor of Early Modern History at the Department of Cultures and Societies, University of Palermo, Italy. Ellénita de Mol has finished the PhD degree program at the Department of Art History, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium.

408

About the Authors

Philippe Denis is Professor of History of Christianity at the School of Religion, Philosophy and Classics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Simon Ditchfield is Professor of Early Modern History at the Department of History, University of York, UK. Ignasi Fernández Terricabras is Associate Professor of Early Modern History at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain. Pierre-Antoine Fabre is Professor of History of Religious Institutions at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France. Heinz Finger is Director of the Cologne Cathedral Library and Professor of Medieval and Renaissance History at Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Germany. Wim François is Research Professor of Early Modern Church and Theology, Research Unit of History of Church and Theology, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven, Belgium. Günter Frank is Extraordinary Professor of Philosophy at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (University) and Director of the Europäische Melanchthon-Akademie Bretten, Germany. José J. García Hourcade is Associate Professor for History and Humanities at the Catholic University of Murcia, Spain. Joris Geldhof is Professor of Liturgical Studies and Sacramental Theology at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven, Belgium. Antonio Gerace is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Research Unit of History of Church and Theology, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven, Belgium. Marianne C.E. Gillion is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Department of Musicology at KU Leuven, Belgium. Tom Hamilton is a Junior Research Fellow at Trinity College, University of Cambridge, UK.

About the Authors

409

Gustaaf Janssens is Professor Emeritus of Archival Science at the Faculty of Arts, KU Leuven and Honorary Director of the Archives of the Royal Palace at Brussels, Belgium. Nicole Lemaitre is Professor Emeritus of History at the Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France. Gerald MacDonald is Docent for Ethics and Transcultural Nursing at the Protestant College for Geriatric Nursing in Essen, Germany. Antoine Mazurek is an Associate Research Fellow at the Centre d’Études de Sciences Sociales du Religieux, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France. Querciolo Mazzonis is Assistant Professor of History of Christianity at the Faculty of Media Studies, University of Teramo, Italy. Walter Melion is Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Art History at Emory University, Atlanta, USA. Federica Meloni is a PhD Student at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia and Research Fellow at the Fondazione per le scienze religiose Giovanni XXIII, Bologna, Italy. John O’Malley is University Professor, specialized in the history of religious culture in early modern Europe, in the Theology Department at Georgetown University, USA. Tomásˇ Parma is Assistant Professor of Church History at the Saints Cyril and Methodius Faculty of Theology, Palacký University Olomouc, Czech Republic. Irène Plasman-Labrune is an Associate Postdoctoral Researcher at the Centre de Recherche en Histoire Européenne Comparée, Université Paris-Est-Créteil, France. S. Elizabeth Penry is Assistant Professor of History and Latin American and Latino Studies at Fordham University, New York, USA. Vasyl Popelyastyy is a PhD Student at the Research Unit of History of Church and Theology, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven, Belgium and

410

About the Authors

Lecturer at the Department of Liturgical Studies, Theology and Philosophy Faculty at Ukrainian Catholic University. Camilla Russell is Conjoint Lecturer in Early Modern European History at the University of Newcastle Australia, and Publications Editor, Institutum Historicum Societatis Iesu (IHSI), Rome. Paolo Sachet is a Research Fellow at the Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland and a Visiting Lecturer at the University of Milan, Italy. Violet Soen is Professor of Early Modern Religious History and Chair of the Research Group Early Modern History, at the Faculty of Arts, KU Leuven, Belgium. Tanja Trsˇka is a Senior Research Assistant at the Department of Art History, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Croatia. Soetkin Vanhauwaert is a PhD Student at the Faculty of Arts, KU Leuven and Assistant Conservator at the University Archives & Art Collections of the same university, Belgium. Andrea Vanni is Assistant Professor of Early Modern History at the University of Roma Tre, Italy. Hélène Vu Thanh is Assistant Professor of Modern History at the University of Bretagne-Sud, France. Günther Wassilowsky is Professor of Church History at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Haruko Nawata Ward is Professor of Church History at Columbia Theological Seminary, USA. Christian Wiesner is University Assistant at the Institute of Church History and Patrology, Katholische Universität Linz, Austria.

Contents of Volumes 2 and 3

Volume 2 Between Bishops and Princes Bishops, Seminaries and Religious Orders Nicole Lemaitre L’idéal pastoral de réforme et le Concile de Trente (XIVe–XVIe siècle) Heinz Finger Das Konzil von Trient und die Ausbildung der Säkularkleriker in Priesterseminaren während der Frühen Neuzeit Christian Wiesner Die Rezeption des Tridentinums durch die Konzilskongregation am Beispiel der Residenzpflicht – Ein Werkstattbericht José J. García Hourcade Les visites pastorales et l’application du Concile de Trente au diocèse de Carthagène (Espagne) Morgane Belin Pastoral Reform in the Diocese of Namur Following the Council of Trent: From Norms to Applications (1559–1666) Tomásˇ Parma La lente réception du Concile de Trente en Moravie Tanja Trsˇka Bisogno di buona regola: Lodovico Beccadelli and Conciliar Discipline in Renaissance Ragusa

412

Contents of Volumes 2 and 3

Andrea Vanni The Order of the Theatines between Carafa’s Inquisition and Borromeo’s Diocesan Reform Querciolo Mazzonis The Council of Trent and Women’s Active Congregations in Italy

Church and Politics Ignasi Fernández Terricabras The Catholic Reformation and the Power of the King: Implementation of the Decrees of the Council of Trent in the Absolute Monarchies Violet Soen The Council of Trent and the Preconditions for the Dutch Revolt (1563–1566) Gustaaf Janssens Le duc d’Albe et l’exécution des décrets du Concile de Trente aux Pays-Bas: raison d’État et dévouement religieux en temps de guerre (1567–1573) Fabrizio D’Avenia Political Appointment and Tridentine Reforms: Giannettino Doria, Cardinal Archbishop of Palermo (1608–1642) Irène Plasman-Labrune Question disciplinaire ou question politique: le Concile de Trente face aux revendications du roi de France sur l’exclusion des clercs étrangers (1562) Tom Hamilton The Impact of Jacques Gillot’s Actes du Concile de Trente (1607) in the Debate Concerning the Council of Trent in France Philippe Denis Tridentinism in Question: Edmond Richer and the Renewal of Conciliarism in the Early Seventeenth Century About the Authors Contents of Volumes 1 and 3 Index of Names Index of Places

Contents of Volumes 2 and 3

413

Volume 3 Between Artists and Adventurers Arts & Music Pierre-Antoine Fabre Une théorie en mouvement: Lainez et les «images» entre Paris et Trente (1562– 1563) Walter S. Melion Quod etiam Ecclesia curat: Responses to the Tridentine Decrees in Jerónimo Nadal’s Adnotationes et meditationes in Evangelia of 1595 Soetkin Vanhauwaert The Sculpted Saint John’s Head in the Low Countries 1370–1800: The Influence of the Council of Trent on Religious Cult Imagery Ellénita de Mol Le culte de la Vierge après le Concile de Trente, perçu à travers trois triptyques flamands de la fin du XVIe siècle et du début du XVIIe siècle Sanja Cvetnic´ Scudum solidissimum: Post-Conciliar Sacred Imagery at the South-Eastern Borders of Catholicism and Beyond Xavier Bisaro D’un concile à l’autre: aux sources des prescriptions musicales du Concile de Trente Marianne C.E. Gillion Cantate Domino Canticum Novum? A Re-examination of ‘Post-Tridentine’ Chant Revision in Italian Printed Graduals

Global Catholicism Simon Ditchfield De-centering Trent: How ‘Tridentine’ Was the Making of the First World Religion?

414

Contents of Volumes 2 and 3

Hélène Vu Thanh Un évêque tridentin au Japon ? Le rôle de Luís Cerqueira dans l’application des réformes du Concile de Trente au sein de la mission japonaise (1549–1614) Haruko Nawata Ward Trent and Tales of All These Saints Travelling East: Saint Catherine of Alexandria in the Jesuit Japan Mission Leonardo Cohen A Postmortem of the Jesuits’ Banishment from Ethiopia S. Elizabeth Penry Canons of the Council of Trent in Arguments of Priests and Indians over Images, Chapels and Cofradías in Seventeenth-Century Peru About the Authors Contents of Volumes 1 and 2 Index of Names Index of Places

Index of Names

Agustín, Antonio 348 Alaba y Esquivel, Diego de 113, 121 Alberti, Giuseppe 132 Albonese, Tullio 351, 361 Alciati, Francesco 345 Alciati, Pietro Antonio 348 Alciati, Terenzio 357 Alepuz, Salvador 125 Alesius, Alexander 112 Altomare, Antonio 260 Ambrosius (Ambrose) 159 Andrada de Payva, Diego de 141 seq., 283 Anne, mother of Mary 103, 120, 215, 228, 231, 378, 382, 384 Arcaina, Diego 388 Arias Montano, Benito 147 seq., 234 Aristeas 166 Aristotle 38 Arius 123, 401 Arteaga, Giuseppe 388 Audet, Nicolas 133 August (Elector) of Saxony 147, 161, 252, 261, 263, 265, 267, 269, 271, 279, 290, 296 seq., 301, 314, 321, 361 Augustinus (Augustine of Hippo) 158, 160–162, 164, 169, 249, 253, 284–286 Avis, Henrique of Portugal de 239 Avont, Pieter van 19 Balleoni, Paolo 375 Barberini, Francesco 343 Baronio, Cesare 62, 234, 240 Beccadelli, Lodovico 16, 222 seq., 262, 271, 408

Beda, the Venerable 165 Bellarmine, Robert (ps. ‘Matteo Torti’) 37, 153, 198, 362 Belluga, Giuseppe 388 Benedict XIII (Orsini, Pietro Francesco) 380 seq., 388. Benedict XIV (Lambertini, Prospero Lorenzo) 199, 224, 380 seq. Bernard of Clairvaux 297 Bertano, Pietro 113, 121 seq., 124, 138 seq. Bertram of Metz 104 Bessarion, Basilios (Cardinal) 147 Beuter, Pere Antoni 233, 236 Beza, Theodore 19 Bibliander, Theodor 277, 346 Blado, Antonio 353 Blarer, Ambrosius 290 Bolera, Clemente 375 Bollani, Domenico 348 seq. Boncompagni, Ugo 345 Bonifacio, Isabella 268 Borromeo, Carlo 16, 34, 37, 42, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 65, 177, 197, 204, 213, 294, 344, 351, 361, 375, 408 Botero, Giovanni 32, 39 Bozzola, Giovan Battista 348–350, 358– 360 Brancacci, Gerardo 384 Brenz, Johannes 277, 282 Brucioli, Antonio 108 Bruggen, Gothard Van der 353 Bucer, Martin 123, 277, 288, 295, 346 Buddeus, Johannes Franciscus (Budde Johann Franz) 333

416 Bullinger, Heinrich 12, 277 seq., 288–295, 346 Burlié, Francesco 380 Busaeus, Joannes 33 Calandra, Endimio 253 Calvin, Jean 12, 32, 200, 277 seq., 288, 295– 302, 312, 327, 346, 354, 401 Camerarius, Joachim 321 Camerino, Pietro 195 Campeggio, Tommaso 112 Campi, Pietro Maria 12, 221, 277, 289, 291, 299, 341 Canisius, Peter 33, 38, 184 seq., 288 Cano, Melchior 62, 145, 178, 207, 209 Carafa, Antonio 151–152 Carafa, Gian Pietro (see also Paul IV) 16, 151 seq., 254, 257, 262–265, 353, 408 Carnesecchi, Pietro 252, 255, 257, 260–265, 268, 271 Carranza, Bartolomé de 346 Casas, Bartolomé de las 234 Cassius, Bartholomaeus (Kasˇic´, Bartol) 199 Castellano, Albert 11, 193–196, 201, 203, 206, 211, 216 seq. Castiglione, Battista (Castilloneus, Baptista) 134 Castro, Alfonso de 113–115 Catharinus, Ambrosius 113 Catherine of Alexandria 22, 410 Cattaneo, Rocco 193 seq. Caussin, Nicholas 33 Cerinthus 123 Cerqueira, Luís 21, 410 Cervini, Marcello 110 seq., 115, 118 seq., 121, 150, 252 seq., 272, 347 Charlemagne 291 Charles II (King) of Spain 378 Charles V (Charles Quint, Emperor) 30, 49, 103, 146, 258, 280, 295–296, 312, 354, 358 seq., 399 seq. Charles IX (King) of France 359 Chemnitz, Martin (Chemnitius, Martinus) 327

Index of Names

Cicada, Giovan Battista ‘Giambattista’ 344, 375 Cicero 32, 35 Clement VII (Medici, Giulio de’) 280, 312 Clemens VIII (Aldobrandini, Ippolito) 152 seq., 178 seq., 181, 185, 191, 226 Cocciano, Giulio 257 Cochlaeus, Johann 145, 297, 303, 346, 353 seq. Colonna, Marcantonio 152 Colonna, Vespasiano 255 Colonna, Vittoria 251, 255 Commendone, Giovanni Francesco 61 Contarini, Gasparo 251 seq., 353 Correia, Francisco 358 Crabbe, Pierre 346 Croce, Maria Giovanna della (Floriani, Bernardina) 252, 256 Curtius, Petrus (Corte, Peter de) 146 Cyprianus, Thascius Caecilius (Cyprian) 160, 165 Dalmazzo, Enrico 375 Dávila y Toledo, Sancho 234 Delfino, Zaccaria 61, 361 Dietenberger, John 106 Dietrichstein, Franz of 16 Doria, Giannettino 17, 408 Driedo, John 11, 62, 131–146, 154, 158, 163, 170 seq., 173 seq. Dryander, Franciscus (See also Enzinas, Francisco de) 318 Durandus of Saint-Pourçain 205 seq. Duval, André 202 seq., 212, 223, 231 Eck, Johann 33, 62, 106, 145, 279 Eisengrein, Martin 288 Erasmus 35, 63, 104–107, 115, 117, 149, 297, 299, 328 Emser, Jerome 106, 145 Enzinas, Francisco de (see also Dryander, Franciscus) 277, 318 Eunomius 123 Eusebius 163–165 Fagnani, Prospero

375, 380

Index of Names

Fattori, Giuseppe 376, 385 Ferdinand of Aragon 103, 108, 114 Ferdinand I of Habsburg 361, 399 Filhol (Filheul), Antoine Imbert 111–113, 118 Fisher, John 62, 145, 154, 197 seq. Flacius Illyricus, Matthias 318, 346 Florimonte, Galeazzo 259 Fonseca, Juan 113, 125 Foscarari, Egidio 261, 270 seq. Franchi, Giacinto Micone 385 Francis de Sales 32, 34 Francis Xavier 20, 38 seq., 409 Francis I (King) of France 30, 49, 280, 295, 314 Franco, Girolamo 8, 225, 290, 375 Gabutius, Joannes Antonius 198 Georg von Komerstadt (Kommerstadt, Commerstedt) 320 Gerson, Jean 18, 105, 108, 114, 203 Gheri, Cosimo 262 Giacomelli, Giacomo 112 Giberti, Gian Matteo 249 Gillot, Jacques 18, 408 Giustiniani, Bernardo 198 Giustiniani, Tommaso (Paolo) 311 Gonzaga, Ercole 251 seq., 254 seq., 257– 259, 265 seq., 270 seq., 349 Gonzaga, Giulia 12, 249–251, 254 seq., 257–260, 263–266, 268 seq., 271–273 Goto, John Soan de 224, 238 Gravius, Bartholomeus (Grave, Bartholomew van) 131 seq., 132, 146 seq., 147, 152 Gravius, Henricus (Grave, Henry van) 152 Graziani, Antonio Maria 361 Gregory IX (Ugolino of Anagni) 104 Gregory XIII (Boncompagni, Ugo) 12, 36 seq., 104, 151, 177 seq., 181, 183, 191, 196, 226–230, 232, 234, 238 seq., 362 Gregory XIV (Sfondrato, Niccolò) 152, 178, 380 Griffio, Cristoforo 349, 358 Gropper, Johann 145

417 Guise, Charles de (Charles of Lorraine) 50, 63, 359 Hardenberg, Albert 322 Henry II (King) of France 293, 359 Henry VIII (King) of England 30 Hentenius, Johannes (Henten, John) 132, 146–149 Hieronymus, Eusebius Sophronius (Jerome) 112, 114–116, 134, 137 seq., 141, 152, 158, 160 seq., 164–166, 168–171, 230, 299 Hiersemann, Anton 377 Hilarius of Poiters 158, 164 Hosius, Stanislas 265, 283, 294 Hunnaeus, Augustinus 147 seq. Hus, John 61, 105, 278, 280, 291 Ildefonso of Toledo (Ildefonsus Toletanus) 228, 231 Ignatius of Loyola 22, 32, 34 seq., 41, 54, 177, 184 Imperiali, Giovanni Giacomo 385 seq. Innocent III (Lotario dei conti di Segni) 104 Innocent IX (Facchinetti, Giovanni Antonio) 152, 178 Innocent X (Pamphili, Giovanni Battista) 380 seq., 384 seq. Innocent XII (Pignatelli, Antonio) 384 seq. Innocent XIII (Conti, Michelangelo dei) 381 Irenaeus of Lyon 158, 285 Isaiah 117 Isabella of Castile 103 Isidore of Seville 228, 231 Jerome of Prague 280 John the Baptist 19 John XXIII (Roncalli, Angelo Giuseppe) 398, 400 seq., 404 Julius II (Rovere, Giuliano della) 311, 398 Julius III (Ciocchi del Monte, Giovanni Maria) 110, 319, 344, 354, 400

418 Lagomarsini, Girolamo 361 Le Plat, Josse 341 seq., 350, 352 Lefebvre, Henri 376 Lefèvre, Nicolas 105, 107 seq. Lempereur, Martin 107 Leo X (Medici, Giovanni de’) 8, 75, 193, 290, 398 Leo XIII (Pecci, Vincenzo Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi) 8, 75, 199, 357, 381 Lessius, Leonard 33, 223, 372 L’Estoile, Pierre de 387 seq. Leunis, John 33 Lindanus, Wilhelmus Damasi (Lindt, Willem Van der) 332, 346 Louis XIII (King) of France 33 Luca, Giovanni Battista de 375 Lucas, Franciscus ‘Brugensis’ (Lucas, Francis ‘of Bruges’) 11, 58, 88, 132, 148–151, 153 seq., 158, 164, 357 Luther, Martin 12, 31–33, 52, 62, 70, 88, 101, 104, 106 seq., 115, 123, 200, 252–254, 269, 273, 277–284, 286–288, 290, 292, 295, 311–314, 317, 320, 353 seq., 371 seq., 401, 405 Luzi, Orazio 362 Machiavelli, Nicolò 32 Madruzzo, Cristoforo 11, 118–126, 349 Mainardi, Girolamo 342, 380 Malerbi, Nicolò 108 Mansi, Gian Domenico 361 Manutius, Paulus (Manuzio, Paolo) 202, 344 Marcaria, Giacobbe 348 seq. Marmochino, Sante 108 Martin V (Colonna, Oddo) 311 Martins, Pedro 12, 277 Martirano, Coriolano 112 Mary, mother of Jesus 19, 58, 79, 103, 261, 288, 354, 403 Mary of Hungary 400 Massarelli, Angelo 49, 73, 111–113, 118– 121, 125, 141, 341 seq., 344, 347, 349, 352, 360 Maurice (Elector) of Saxony 293, 319–321 Maximilian II of Habsburg 361

Index of Names

Medici, Caterina de’ 359 Melanchthon, Philippus 13, 23, 123, 207, 277 seq., 282–284, 286, 292, 295, 297, 311–322, 330, 346, 354 Melendez, Melitona 388–390 Merenda, Apollonio 260 Merici, Angela 29, 42 seq. Meyer, Sebald 132, 328, 358, 360 seq. Michael the Archangel 20 Minalis, Annibale 379 Molanus, Johannes (Meulen, Jan van der) 81 Molin, Ludovico 194, 198 Monhemius, Johannes (Monheim, Johan) 328 Morales, Ambrosius (Morales, Ambrosio de) 234, 236 More, Thomas 11, 14, 50, 54, 69, 126, 133, 143, 145, 256 Morinus, Johannes (Morin, Jean) 208 Morone, Giovanni 71, 76, 89, 252 seq., 255, 261 seq., 271, 343 seq., 346, 354, 375, 379, 405 Mula, Marcantonio da (‘Amulio’) 343, 345 Münster, Sebastian 149 Musso, Cornelio 113 Nadal, Jerónimo 19, 409 Nicholas V (Parentucelli, Tomaso) 35 Nicolini da Sabbio, Ludovico 348 Novatus 123 Nutius, Martinus II 347, 349 Ocampo, Florián de 234 Ochino, Bernardino 252 Oecolampadius, Johannes (Oecolampad) 123 Origenes (Origen) 159, 165 seq. Ormanetto, Niccolò 361 Oviedo, André de 224, 236 Paceus, Valentin 320 Padilla, Francisco de 233 Paleotti, Gabriele 81, 270, 344 seq., 345 Pallavicini, Anna Maria 386 Pamphili, Cinzio 352, 380

Index of Names

Parpaglia, Vincenzo 259 Passeri, Bernardino 19 Paul II (Barbo, Pietro) 119 Paul III (Farnese, Alessandro) 36, 38, 61, 141, 280, 290, 296, 314, 344, 353 seq., 375 seq., 399 Paul IV (Carafa, Gian Pietro) 16, 51, 64, 184, 254, 263, 265, 353 Paul V (Borghese, Camillo) 8, 177, 179, 181, 183, 185, 191, 197 seq. Paul VI (Montini, Giovanni Battista) 65, 398, 406 Paul of Samosata 123 Paul of Tarsus 115 seq., 118, 121, 123, 135, 159, 160, 163 s, 168, 174, 315 seq. Pavesi, Giulio 269 seq. Peregrino, Marco Antonio 352 Perron, Jacques Davy du 225 Peter Abelard 207 Pezzana, Niccolò 384 Philip II (King) of Spain 12, 37, 65, 148, 221, 224–226, 230–232, 234, 239 seq., 359 Photinus 123 Pighius, Albertus (Pigge, Albert) 145 Pius II (Piccolomini, Enea Silvio) 311 Pius IV (Medici, Giovanni Angelo de’) 36, 51, 60 seq., 64 seq., 89, 126, 136, 150, 192, 322, 343–345, 355 seq. 358, 362, 373, 375, 378 seq., 381, 391, 398 seq. Pius V (Ghislieri, Michele) 64, 151, 177– 186, 191, 202, 224, 226, 230, 232, 238 seq., 240, 350, 355, 361 seq., 374 seq., Pius IX (Mastai Ferretti, Giovanni Maria) 199, 357 Pius X (Sarto, Giuseppe Melchiorre) 199 Plantin, Christopher 147–151, 153 seq., 222, 228, 234, 361 Poggiani, Giulio 361, 379 Pole, Reginald 15, 110, 119, 251 seq., 255, 259–262, 271, 294, 354 Porzio, Camillo 254 Possevino, Antonio 39 Pourbus, Frans I 19 Preuß, Eduard 327 Psaume, Nicolas 359 seq.

419 Quiñonez, Francisco de 184 Quirini, Vincenzo 311 Quiroga, Gasparis de (Quiroga y Vela, Gaspar de) 226 Renouard, Antoine Augustin 342 seq., 352 Reyneri, Cornelius ‘Goudanus’ 147 seq. Richard of Le Mans 113 Richer, Edmond 18, 408 Román de la Higuera, Jerónimo 235, 241 Romano, Bonaventura 138, 141, 153, 159, 193–195, 197, 199, 212, 225, 238 seq., 344, 384 Rosin, Albert 290 Rouillé, Guillaume 360, 362 seq. Ruffinus 164 Runge, Jakob 322 Sabellius 123 Sadoleto, Jacopo 353 Salazar Fernández, Juan 125 Samarino, Francesco 11, 193, 195, 201, 206 seq., 211–213, 216 seq. Sanfelice, Tommaso 113, 125, 269, 271 Sangro, Placido di 257–259, 263, 265, 267, 269, 271 Santori, Giulio Antonio 11, 192 seq., 196 seq., 207, 210 seq., 217 Saraceni, Gian Michele 375 Sarcerius, Erasmus 320 Sarpi, Paolo 18, 73, 76, 113, 357, 371, 374 Scotti, Gian Bernardino 343 Scotti, Giovanni Maria 358 Scupoli, Lorenzo 34 Sessa, Melchior 193 Sfondrati, Paolo Camillo 197 Sforza, Pallavicino 371 Silvius, Guilielmus 349, 360 Simonetta, Ludovico 265, 268, 344 seq., 375 Sirleto, Guglielmo 149–152, 177, 224, 227, 230, 345 Sittich von Hohenems, Markus 265 Sixtus V (Peretti di Montalto, Felice) 36, 65, 151–153, 178, 362, 376, 378–380

420 Stephanus, Robertus (Estienne, Robert) 147 Steucho, Agostino ‘Eugubinus’ 140 seq. Stigel, Johann 319 Sturm, Johannes 353 Suarez, Francisco 37 Surius, Laurentius (Surius, Lorenz) 346 Sutcliffe, Thomas 133 Symmachus 122, 165 Tapper, Ruard 146 Teresa of Avila, 231 Tertullianus (Tertullian) 164, 166 Theiner, Augustin 330, 357 Theodotion 122, 165 Thomas a Kempis, 31 Thomas Aquinas 58, 205 seq., 351 Tomassetti, Aloysius 375 Torrius, Ascanius 198 Tremellius, Immanuel 299 Truchsess von Waldburg, Otto 358 Turlino, Damiano 348 Tyndale, William 104, 145 Urban VII (Castagna, Giovanni Battista) 152, 178 Urbanus VIII (Barberini, Maffeo) 13 seq., 178 seq., 238, 381

Index of Names

Valdés, Juan de 251 seq., 255, 264, 268 Valignano, Alessandro 21, 39 Valla, Lorenzo 149 seq., 299 Vergerio, Pier Paolo 277, 280, 291 seq., 346, 353 seq. Verhasselt, Merten 358, 360 Veronicus, Felix 198 Viret, Pierre 297 Vitelli, Vitellozzo 343, 345, 375 Vittoria, Francisco 37 Volpe, Giovanni Antonio 294 Vopisco, Francesco 257 Vorsterman, Willem 107 Walch, Johann Georg 327, 333 Wierix, Antoon 19 Wilhelmi, Johannes ‘Harlemius’ Wycliffe, John 103

148

Zaccaria Delfino 61, 361 Zaccaria, Francisco Antonio 194–197 Zaccaria of Florence 108 Zamboni, Giovanni Fortunato Anne 375 seq., 379 seq., 382, 384, 386 Zilettus, Nicolaus 195 Zwick, Johannes 290 Zwingli, Huldrych 12, 63, 123, 288–290

Index of Places

Aarschot 19 Acqui 125 Aix-en-Provence 111, 113, 125 America 9 seq., 15, 19, 21, 30, 33, 38 seq., 41, 51, 88, 178, 252, 255, 279, 341 Amiata, Mount 152 Antwerp (Antwerpen/Anvers) 33, 104 seq., 107, 147, 149 seq., 153 seq., 198 seq., 208, 341, 347, 349, 353 Aragon 108, 231 Astorga 113, 121 Augsburg 61, 184, 278, 280, 291, 311, 321, 358 Avignon 43 Baden 290 seq., 294 Basel 20, 51, 193, 205, 268, 277, 291 seq., 294, 313, 318, 354, 397, 405 Belcastro 113 Bern 291 Bitonto 113, 125 Bohemia 15–17, 105, 109 Boiano 380 Bologna 24, 36, 61, 212, 312, 319, 347 Bordeaux 42 Bosnia 20 Bourges 55 Brabant 131 Bremen 322, 361 Brescia 42, 198, 346, 348 Bruges 11, 132, 148, 151, 154 Brussels (Bruxelles/ Brussel) 106 Burgos 235 seq.

Cambrai 15 Capaccio 125 Capodistria 291 Castellamare di Stabia 125 Castellaneta 376 Cava de’ Tirreni 113, 125 Chalcedon 281 Chalon-sur-Saône 209 China 40 Chioggia 125 Cochin (Kochi) 38 Coimbra 376 Cologne (Köln) 33, 36, 43, 55, 328, 330, 332, 349 Constance (Konstanz) 30, 51, 61, 105, 199, 278, 280, 290–291, 294, 313, 397, 405 Constantinople 281, 293 Dalmatia 15, 20, 109, 116, 125 Delft 106 seq. Dillingen 358, 360 Dubrovnik (see also Ragusa) 16 Düsseldorf 328 England 30, 103, 108, 261, 277 Ephesus 281 Ethiopia 10, 22, 410 Fano 113, 121, 125, 138 Feltre 112 Flanders 63 Florence 11, 108, 200 seq., 204 seq., 207 seq., 210, 216, 358 Fondi 255

422

Index of Places

France 17–19, 30–32, 36, 42 seq., 63, 83, 89, 104 seq., 108., 119 seq., 199, 277, 280, 293, 314. 321 seq., 327, 345, 357–359, 362, Frankfurt am Main 72 seq., 295 Freiburg im Breisgau 7 seq., 77 Gaeta 255 Germany 61, 105–109, 118, 184, 199, 280, 313, 318, 327, 333, 346, 358, 361 Ghent 322 Goa 39 Gouda 107 Granada 358 seq. Graz 36 Hagenau 295 Herne 106 Holy Roman Empire 345

17, 82, 89, 106, 277,

India 30, 38 seq. Ingolstadt 288 Innsbruck 321 Italy 12, 20, 30, 36, 41, 50, 63, 82, 105, 107– 109, 112 seq., 121, 127, 140, 150, 194, 199, 232, 249–251, 255 seq., 260, 268, 272, 345, 351, 358, 384, 398 Jaén 113, 237 Japan 10, 21 seq., 38 seq. Jerusalem 29 seq., 317 Lanciano 125 Las Navas de Tolosa 231 Lateran (V Council of) 195, 294, 311, 313, 398 Lateran (IV Council of) 11, 202 seq., 210, 212–214, 216, 294 Lausanne 295 Leipzig 279, 312 Liège 43 Lille 7 seq., 33 Lisbon (Lisboa) 142, 358 London 73 Lorraine 359 seq.

Louvain (Leuven) 7–9, 11, 22–24, 55, 105, 131–134, 136, 138, 140–143, 145–148, 150–154, 330, 332, 358, 360, 397 Low Countries (see also the Netherlands) 15, 17, 19, 42, 105–109, 132, 332, 358, 362, 400, 409 Lucerne 36 Lviv 197 Lyon 55, 114, 123, 199, 346, 349, 360 Madrid 358 Mainz 202 Mantova 258, 266 Melun 18 Mexico 38 Milan 34, 37, 41–43, 54, 60, 186, 204, 213, 347, 353, 358 Moravia 15–17 Mühlberg 282 Munich (München) 37 Nagasaki 21 Namur 15 Naples 108, 113, 120, 136 seq., 147, 250– 252, 254–260, 263, 265 seq., 268–271, 358, 384 Netherlands (Low Countries) 15, 34, 63 Nicaea (Council of) 61, 281, 293, 312, 315, 319, 399, 401 Novara 358 Nuremberg (Nürnberg) 279 seq., 321 Olomouc (Olmütz) 15 seq. Osijek 20 Ottoman Empire 20 Padua 348 seq., 358 Palencia 239 Palermo 17, 108, 125, 408 Papal State (see also Vatican) 35 seq., 350 seq. Paris 18 seq., 43, 55, 105, 107 seq., 114 seq., 120, 126, 312, 347, 355 Peru 21 seq., 410 Piacenza 16 Pienza 125

423

Index of Places

Pisa 22, 70, 346 Poland 17, 109, 199, 240 Porto Torres 125 Portugal 50, 63, 127, 146, 231, 240, 329, 358, 398 Ragusa (see also Dubrovnik) 15–16, 408 Regensburg 295, 321 Rhineland 43 Riva di Trento 348 Roermond 332 Rome (Rom) 9 seq., 12 seq., 20, 29, 30 (Roman Empire), 35 seq., 61, 71, 73, 76, 78, 82–84, 89–92, 141, 146, 149–153, 182, 186, 198 seq, 221, 223–226, 230, 233, 238– 241, 252 seq., 258–265, 269, 280–282, 291 seq., 294, 303, 341–343, 348, 351, 353, 355, 357–361, 372, 375, 378–382, 384, 390, 397 seq. Rouen 32 Saint-Germain 19 Saint-Omer 153 seq. Salamanca 103, 114, 358 Salerno 136, 254, 257, 259 seq. Sardinia 108, 120, 125 Saxony (Sachsen) 280, 293, 319–321 Schaffhausen 291 Schmalkalden 314, 317 Senigallia 113, 125 Sens 55 Sevilla 228, 231, 236–238 Sicily 17, 108, 120, 258 Sora 125 Spain 12, 15, 30, 37, 50, 63, 108, 113 seq., 120, 127, 146, 148, 199, 221 seq., 224–236, 239–241, 322, 355, 357 seq., 362, 398 Speyer 280, 296 Split 20 Suelli 376

Switzerland

63, 255, 260

Toledo 226, 254, 346 Trent (Trente/Trient; Council of) 7–22, 24, 31, 40, 42–44, 49–66, 69–73, 75–91, 93, 99, 101 seq., 108–114, 118–127, 131–133, 136, 138–146, 150–154, 175 seq., 179– 183, 186 seq., 191–194, 200–217, 222– 223, 227, 231–234, 240, 247, 249–251, 253 seq., 258 seq., 263–266, 268–273, 277–279, 281–284, 287–301, 303 seq., 311 seq., 317–322, 325–329, 331 seq., 334, 339, 341–349, 351 seq., 354 seq., 357, 359, 361, 371–374, 376 seq., 387, 389, 391, 397–406 Trier 198 Turin 349 Turnhout 131 Utrecht

107

Valencia 358 Valladolid 227, 358 Vatican (see also Papal State) 8, 10, 14, 42, 56, 149–154, 177–180, 182 seq., 255, 261, 343 seq., 350 seq., 354–356, 362, 374, 397–406 Venice (Venise/Venedig) 20, 64, 113, 193, 195, 251, 255, 329, 343, 347–348, 351, 358, 362 Verdun 359 Viterbo 251 seq., 255 Wezemaal 19 Wittenberg 9 seq., 102, 283, 312–315, 317– 321 Worms 104, 279, 295, 322 Zaragoza 358, 361 Zürich 289, 292