Any comments on the effect of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) upon Anglo-Catholic tradition? Cooper
It pretty much defines the anglo-catholic tradition. For example the “seven sacraments” were first officially declared then, 1500 years after our Lord’s resurrection; some of these “new sacraments” had been declared after the Reformation. The reformers did not have in mind the Rome of today, and we’re caught completely by surprise by what was happening at Trent, where such a huge new things were added, seemingly supporting the very reason why the reformation had to happen. See Chemnitz (Lutheran theologian), his 1560s analysis of the then on-going council of Trent. Another huge surprise which Trent gave everyone was that the apocrypha were declared Scripture. This was a thorny subject in the middle ages, some claiming that it is Scripture, and others citing antiquity to show that it’s not. As late as the early 1500s, Cajetan the greatest Roman theologian of that era sided with Saint Jerome in saying that OT Scripture was NOT the whole Greek Septuagint, but only the Hebrew books, which corresponded one-to-one with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet. That’s how we know how many OT books there were originally— as many as the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Thus he excluded the apocrypha from Scripture. But of course many of pivotal Roman doctrines hang on the apocrypha, such as Purgatory, Indulgences, the “justification by works”, some of the sacerdotal doctrines making a Roman priesthood into an Aaronic priesthood, etc. Thus they had to make the apocrypha into Scripture, in opposition to their own translator of the Latin Bible, Saint Jerome himself. Anglo Catholics of course firmly believe in purgatory and prayers to the saints; they go to Trent for these doctrines, but especially they go to the Apocrypha as legit Scripture, using arguments filtered through the centuries but having originated from Trent. I could probably name more things, but these are to start with. Without Trent I don’t think there could be an Anglo-Catholic movement.
Hmm I have not seen Anglo-Catholics talks about purgatory and such. Prayers to the saints are in the EO and OO and they never had a Council of Trent. They also have the Duerterocanical Books. In fact the EO's have more than the Romans, and the Ethiopians in their greater canon have the most.
Interestingly, I don't agree. I think it is a mistake to understand the Reformation as an event, so much as a process. And indeed the Council of Trent was more of a process than an event, though the dates are a little clearer, as we know that there were 25 sessions of the council. Interestingly you raise a question which is an interesting one to contemplate. If the reformers faced the Rome of today would that feel so compelled as they did in the day, or would it have been a Church they were more ready to call home, perhaps needing a little renovation rather than reform. The Council was in some ways a reaction to the Reformation movement, and indeed elicited some responses in the Reformed circles. I am not at all convinced it was a huge surprise. The KJV produced some time after the Council included the Deuterocanonicals, and if memory serves me Ridley was part of the group that were responsible for that part of the translation. They also formed part of Luther's Bible, albeit in a separate section. Most scholarly research would suggest that most of the writers of the New Testament were most familiar with and used LXX as their primary source, and passages like John 3:14-15 would seem to clearly reference deuterocanonical material. The historic lectionaries of the C of E also include some Deuterocanonical texts. The 2nd canon should not be anathema to Anglicans, simply it is not a place to found doctrine. (At times I would like to exclude some of Daniel and Revelation as a source for doctrine as well! however that is not a position I take though I am sure you understand my meaning). Without Trent the Reformation would have been different, and without the Reformation the Council of Trent would not have happened. Time like an ever rolling stream moves forwards, not backwards, and sometimes we need to take a breath and look, and try to understand why. The Anglo-Catholic movement which begins in the 1830's was a call to a renewal in spirituality for the nation, a call to service of the poor, and very like the reformation was a call to the Church of England to put its house in order. I do not identify myself and an Anglo-Catholic, nor am I opposed to Anglo-Catholics. They bring to the church a renewed call to holiness, and alert us to the importance of worship and the service of the poor, neither of which is a bad thing.
The Anglo-Catholics are like the mild version of RCs. They may mention it less in practical usage, but will fight to the death to establish that Purgatory exists. They will fight to the death to establish that the Apocrypha is Scripture. It may be more on paper than in practice, but yes they strongly tend to adopt these things, solely on the strength of the Roman church promulgating them. The EO and OO have had very little historic impact on the Anglo-Catholic movement. We are talking about the Western church here. In the Western church there has been a great deal of controversy about prayers to the saints, an allowance or prohibition of images of Jesus, and things like that. You find most of the Western church completely banning the depiction of images when the 2nd council of Nicea had promulgated it. Charlemagne famously forbade any of the 2nd Nicea edicts in the Western realms, and for centuries the Western church didn't consider 2nd Nicea a legitimate church council. Similarly with the Deuterocanon/apocrypha, very controversial and typically refrained against. All of this goes in harmony with the early church of course, which mainly followed the course of Jerome and the Eastern fathers in prohibiting the Apocrypha, prohibiting images of Jesus, having no purgatory, having only 2 sacraments, etc. It was basically Anglicanism, and to a large extent the Western church retained that legacy in the 8th century. But then the rise of the Papacy meant that the middle ages saw their own corruption. At the Reformation there was a return to the ancient doctrines, but then Trent formalized and dogmatized the heretical innovations of the middle ages. Anglo-Catholics, having no confidence in their own tradition, typically prefer to ape Romanism, and find strength in that tradition as for what they should believe.
Charlemagne and a council did disavow images but when the Pope told them to stand down and they had a faulty translation they said ok. The Pope was always ok with 2nd Nicea. I have never run across anyone source that says otherwise. I also have never seen any Eastern Fathers disavowing the Apocrypha. I find that Anglicanism has the best way to use the Apocrypha but then again I am an Anglican Convert so I would say that.
Who was the Pope to tell Charlemagne, the Emperor of Christendom, to "stand down"? And secondly, there was no such "standing down", and 2nd Nicea was kept out of the lists of Western councils for 400 years, until the 1200s or so. I believe I provided the references for this a while back. They conscientiously included councils right before it, and right after it, but specifically excluded it, as a Robber Council (which it was). The Pope was always in favor of images, but since I don't consider him the Vicar of Christ but a pretend upstart usurper, it matters less what he thought, and more what the whole Western Church thought (it was against images, as I said). Agreed that the Anglican use of Apocrypha is best. I'm not of the mind of ceasing them from being used altogether. They are indeed pious and worthwhile texts, they just weren't written with the finger of God that's all.
The Libri Carolina when sent to the Pope refuted it and it was accepted by the Franks. It was not published until the reformation. The Western Church accepted it after that as that I the only known pushback against it that I know of. The Papacy did not confirm the council till the 880's though. I also only find the Pope to be Bishop of Rome and the first among equals as an honorific title
Give me a break @Stalwart... For someone who doesn't claim to be an Anglo-catholic, you sure seem to know a lot about it. More than I can speak to, that's for sure. As an Anglo-catholic, this is total baloney.
Well... I had no idea this was going to be such a hot button thread--in a matter of hours. But that is good in many ways. Leads us--and the readers of this thread--to reflect upon doctrinal statements and movements. Please continue to post comments about our early years. Cooper
Baloney? With mustard and horseradish, perhaps? Or accurate? In the interest of learning, I would be curious to know what an Anglo-Catholic priest, trained in the doctrine, would have to say about it. Do we have any on the forum who might chime in?