Talk:Council of Trent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article includes content derived from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1914, which is in the public domain.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Concerning clerical celibacy. I would think the Council did not make a new dogma requiring this, since it is not required now in Eastern-rite Catholic churches. So could we have some clarification of what was dogmatic and what was not in the Council's publications? As for the validity of marriage depending on a priest, how is it that the Western church now allows deacons to officiate, and the ministers of the sacrament are considered to be the bride and groom administering it to each other, rather than a clergyman administering it? And that marriages performed in Protestant churches and otherwise outside the Catholic church are not considered invalid? Michael Hardy 01:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

With regard to marriage, The Council of Trent created the impediment of clandestinity, which prevents secret marriages. It is a diriment impediment of form, which renders the contract of marriage null and void (if the presence of the parish priest of the locality or his delegate, and of two witnesses, is lacking), but which can be dispensed by Ecclesiastical law...and it has been in the cases you wonder about. Canon Law since 1741 (the Benedictine dispensation) has explicitly recognized marriages conducted in accord with civil law, eventually including mixed marriages, marriages conducted in Protestant churchs and outside the presence of a priest or his delegate - though this acceptance was extended at different times in different countries. - Nunh-huh 01:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
With regaurd to celibacy, it is a discipline not a dogma. There is no required belief in celibacy as a matter of divinely revealed truth. Rather it is a discipline on clerics (with some exceptions) in both the Eastern and Western Chruchs.DaveTroy 10:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You speak of the contract being null and void. But what of the validity of the sacrament? Is it dogmatically stated that it is not valid in those cases? Or is it illicit but nonetheless valid, like needless lay baptisms? Michael Hardy 02:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's null sacramentally, as if it never occurred. Unless a dispensation is given. The "substance" of the sacrament of marriage is the exchange of vows (or contract), so in terms of canon law, the contract is the sacrament... though it would have been much less confusing if I'd just written sacrament. Sorry about that<g>. An example of an illicit but valid marriage would be a failure to publish the marriage banns. - Nunh-huh 03:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] POV?

  • "They are stated with great clearness and precision. The decree on justification betrays special ability and theological circumspection. The Protestant doctrines, however, are almost always exhibited in an exaggerated form, and sometimes mixed up with heresies that the Protestants also condemn emphatically." Is that POV? — flamingspinach | (talk) 20:54, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
I would suggest that no, it is not. Most of the bishops at Trent probably had no real understanding of the Protestant position. Remember, while Latin was the universal language, it was no sure thing people understood it correctly, never mind the German that Luther and some of the other reformers spoke. Another debate is how well any of them knew the Greek of the New Testament, or if they did, what codex they had access to.DaveTroy 10:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion about Occasions, sessions, and attendence

In the second paragraph of the Occasions, Sessions, and attendence section it gives a timeline of the Council. To me However, it seems really fragmented and confusing. Could someone explain it better? Thank You in advance.

[edit] Objectives

Two as promised or six as presented?

[edit] Three or four periods of meeting?

The article currently states: "The history of the council is divided into Four distinct periods: 1545–49, 1551–52 and 1562–63. The last was the most important. The number of attending members in the three periods varied considerably." -- It looks to me as if the word "Four" is in error here, but not knowing the history or the sources, I am reluctant to change it. DSatz 13:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bornfeld

Mr. Bornfeld is a teacher of AP Eurpean History at Aliso Niguel High School. Some students find it humorous to put his name in articles that they have to research, please watch out for his name to keep popping up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mksail2 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)