Vatican II and Trent

[Bob Crowley]

I'm Catholic, but ex-Protestant, so my views of Trent and Vatican II are that of a Catholic convert who did not have the benefit or otherwise of coming through the Catholic system.

So this is my personal, if somewhat uniformed, perception. The first question we need to ask is "WHY" these councils were called.

In the first case, the Council of Trent (1545-1563) was a reaction, as Councils often have been (eg. Nicea as a reaction to the Arian heresy) - a reaction to the Protestant Reformation, and which re-stated the fundamental Catholic beliefs, at a time when religious turmoil was tearing Western Europe apart, with Christians killing Christians all over Western Europe, putting the Crusades a distant second for violence.

By the time the "wars of religion" had played out, Wiiliam Shirer in his seminal work "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" claimed the population of Germany had declined from 16 million to 6 million.

Hence it was a strong statement of Catholic belief, reaffirming both the Catholic Church and its dogma, in time of raging religious violence. And at that time, Christianity was still mainly confined to Europe, using either the Latin or Cyrilllic scripts, with the Orthodox churches having a liturgy reminiscent of the Latin based liturgy. With the Protestant Reformation, local languages began to be used, and Latin decreased in importance in those circles.

Fast forward to Vatican II from 1962 to 1965, and the world was vastly different. Christianity had now spread around the world, but so had many other ideas. A large part of the world was under Communist atheist domination (Russia, China, Eastern Europe), the main powerhouse of Western freedom was the (basically Protestant) USA, Europe itself was becoming more and more secular, and the Church had spread into lands with no historical tradition of Latin based languages eg. Asia and Africa.

If they had experience of Latin based script, it was only through the bitterly remembered influence of European colonialism. So why should they have felt any need to feel any need to retain a Latin based liturgy? It was an entirely foreign cultural adjunct not even used by Italy for that matter, within which the Vatican was located.

We were also moving into an era of profound technical change - the space race, nuclear weaponry, ICBM"s, the global village created by electronic communication and fast air travel, the education of women, a burgeoning population growth through reaching a certain plateau in growth statistics plus longer lives due to medical advances (I'm no admirer of the Catholic ban on the contraceptive pill - as far as I'm concerned it should have been permitted for married couples as RECOMMENDED BY TWO COMMITTEES SET UP AND EXPANDED BY TWO POPES, but negated due to the influence of a hardline inner cardre of Cardinals, and I think was in fact God's gift given at the very time that population problems were becoming a real problem in some parts of the world, using Catholic researchers to a large extent, and relying on tbe body's own hormonal processes. One of my beefs with the Catholic Church I'm afraid. I also fail to see one iota of difference in the purpose of using NFP or the pill. Frankly I think if John XXIII hadn't died so suddenly, he'd have pushed it through).

But that's a digression.

I'll say this much. I doubt very much if I'd have become a Catholic convert if I'd had to move from a Protestant based church using the local vernacular language (English in my case) to some Latin language I'd never heard of.

In closing, I haven't got much time for Vatican II bashing. Vatican II isn't the problem. The problem is that we haven't learnt how to evangelise, and so we fall back on criticism of Vatican II as being the root core of the problem.

The Protestant churches don't have any problem with evangelising. Just ask them - they'll tell you.

To get back to the beginning - the first question to ask is "WHY" were the Councils of Trent and Vatican II called when they were? The answers flow on from that.

 

[Spherical]

In closing, I haven't got much time for Vatican II bashing. Vatican II isn't the problem. The problem is that we haven't learnt how to evangelise, and so we fall back on criticism of Vatican II as being the root core of the problem.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I believe we should make a prayerful exercise of introspection and self-evaluation. Are we looking at the plank in our own eyes?

 

[Concilium Tridentinum]

I'll always choose Trent if contradictions arises.

 

[royal priest]

I'll always choose Trent if contradictions arises.

Is it possible to even justify certain statements of Vatican II in light of Trent's assertions?

 

[Rhamiel]

Is it possible to even justify certain statements of Vatican II in light of Trent's assertions?

I would say that there is nothing in V II that directly contradicts Trent
just that much of it is so poorly worded that it can mean just about anything

also, I would like to say that I love your screen name
the idea that we are a Royal Priesthood is something that Protestants have done a great job stressing and developing a theology on
us Catholics could learn more on that

 

[royal priest]

I would say that there is nothing in V II that directly contradicts Trent
just that much of it is so poorly worded that it can mean just about anything

Council of Trent is so dogmatic regarding RCC authority and her place in God's Kingdom, that you could reasonably sum it up in the words of Cyprian of Carthage, "Outside the church, there is no salvation."
But V II uses the most ecumenical language imaginable. Baptism of desire? How does V II justify such concepts?

 

[Rhamiel]

But V II uses the most ecumenical language imaginable. Baptism of desire? How does V II justify such concepts?

well the Church has always believed in the explicit baptism of desire
this would be early Church martyrs who were learning about the Christian Faith but were executed before they could be Baptized
the idea that this can be applied to people who do not want Baptism, well that is kind of a stretch

 

[royal priest]

well the Church has always believed in the explicit baptism of desire
this would be early Church martyrs who were learning about the Christian Faith but were executed before they could be Baptized
the idea that this can be applied to people who do not want Baptism, well that is kind of a stretch

Martyrs were applied by the Baptism of blood.

 

[Rhamiel]

Martyrs were applied by the Baptism of blood.

Baptism of Blood would be a subset of Baptism of Desire

 

[Tallguy88]

well the Church has always believed in the explicit baptism of desire
this would be early Church martyrs who were learning about the Christian Faith but were executed before they could be Baptized
the idea that this can be applied to people who do not want Baptism, well that is kind of a stretch

Most Protestants are validly baptized, though

 

[chevyontheriver]

Council of Trent is so dogmatic regarding RCC authority and her place in God's Kingdom, that you could reasonably sum it up in the words of Cyprian of Carthage, "Outside the church, there is no salvation."
But V II uses the most ecumenical language imaginable. Baptism of desire? How does V II justify such concepts?

First off, many of us only know a caricature of the Council of Trent. The canons, all of them, are available for study though, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent is a book that is still available and still worth reading. Then there is Hubert Jedin's multivolume history of the Council of Trent, that gets into the richness of what actually happened and why. If I were to sum up Trent, it would be half reforming abuses and half reiteration of ancient teaching in response to Protestants. That was the stated goal, and the accomplished result.

 

[Markie Boy]

Council of Trent is so dogmatic regarding RCC authority and her place in God's Kingdom, that you could reasonably sum it up in the words of Cyprian of Carthage, "Outside the church, there is no salvation."
But V II uses the most ecumenical language imaginable. Baptism of desire? How does V II justify such concepts?

My thoughts too. How one makes "Outside the Church there is no salvation" compatible with salvation for ANY religion, even non-Christian religions and atheists - my head does not do the mental gymnastics needed for that to work.

It seems those writing Trent were condemning protestants - that seemed to be the whole point. Today they want to soften the language without simply saying they were wrong.

 

[chevyontheriver]

My thoughts too. How one makes "Outside the Church there is no salvation" compatible with salvation for ANY religion, even non-Christian religions and atheists - my head does not do the mental gymnastics needed for that to work.

It seems those writing Trent were condemning protestants - that seemed to be the whole point. Today they want to soften the language without simply saying they were wrong.

First, many understand councils in caricature only. Want to boil it down to one thing even if that isn't the actual thing. That makes it easy to miss the continuity, makes everything look so discontinuous. Stop doing mental gymnastics and examine better the texts of the two councils that you believe are so discontinuous. They are discontinuous in the mind of modern men but not in the texts.

The phrase 'no salvation outside the Church' has for 1600 years been nuanced carefully within the Church. It is not, nor has it been, as simple as Cyprian made it out to be.

 

[Markie Boy]

To set the picture - I am actually trying to be Catholic, and learning along the way, so I'm not an anti.

I believe in Cyprian's day there were not so many "churches", so it was a more straight forward statement, and one I don't really argue with. Although I have to say today's Catholic teaching that covers things like those that never heard the Gospel, I believe are a good addition to the teaching.

I think my old Baptist pastor would be less quick to agree on that - and if they don't hear the Gospel they may not make it. Too short sighted and man dependent for me.

 

[Hamlet7768]

I think my old Baptist pastor would be less quick to agree on that - and if they don't hear the Gospel they may not make it. Too short sighted and man dependent for me.

I think that idea I bolded is the core of the whole idea of Baptism of Desire and the controversial "Anonymous Christian" idea put forth by theologians such as Karl Rahner, SJ. At its core it is nothing more than a supposition based on the premise of God's infinite mercy. God is not confined by His Church.

I think Raher would be rather dismayed to see his theology of mercy used to promote indifferentism.

 

[concretecamper]

It seems those writing Trent were condemning protestants - that seemed to be the whole point. Today they want to soften the language without simply saying they were wrong.

Can you point to anything in VII that says protestants are saved or that non Christians are saved?

 

[royal priest]

Can you point to anything in VII that says protestants are saved or that non Christians are saved?

Lumen Gentium, Chapter 2, paragragh 15:
The Church recognizes... she is linked with those who... do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. ...They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities... they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit... He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, Chapter 1, paragragh 3:
...large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church... men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church ...The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

It goes on from there.

 

[Markie Boy]

Thanks - I won't elaborate on that, but you are correct, it goes on from there. Trent and Vatican II contradict each other enough that both can not be true.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Non-Catholics arguing about Catholic councils is going from amusing to annoying.

 

[concretecamper]

Lumen Gentium, Chapter 2, paragragh 15:
The Church recognizes... she is linked with those who... do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. ...They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities... they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit... He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, Chapter 1, paragragh 3:
...large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church... men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church ...The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

It goes on from there.

Lots of friendly language. But where is the part that says that protestants are saved and nonn christians are saved