Question 1
Evaluate the interpretations in both of the two passages and explain which you think is more
convincing as an explanation for the reasons why Pope Paul III called the Council of Trent.
Passage A
On first viewing, Paul III might have seemed little different from his decadent Renaissance predecessors… Yet Paul III immediately recognised how desperate the position of the Catholic Church was in Europe. Not only had much of Germany become Lutheran by 1535, but England had also symbolically broken with Rome, and both France and the Empire were warring again over the Italian states. Added to this was the growing threat of the Turkish Empire. Paul III realised that both in a political and religious sense he needed to summon a council of the Church in order to preserve the position and status of the Catholic Church in Europe.
Unlike his immediate predecessors, Paul III was decisive in his decision-making and showed himself willing to confront the major issues. As early as 1536, Paul III summoned a council for Mantua but was thwarted by the reluctance of France to support a venture that might increase Habsburg strength. Moreover, Paul III was faced with an Emperor who was still pursuing a religious policy of unity through peaceful negotiation with the Protestants…
Luther and the Pope recognised that attempts at compromise were futile and that confessional lines in Europe had long been drawn and were now hardened. Paul III now prepared the way for a systematic statement of belief and, in May 1542, he summoned a council to meet in Trent.
Adapted from A. Armstrong, The European Reformation 1500–1610, published in 2002
Passage B
From 1471 all papal candidates swore an oath that, if elected, they would call a council within two years – a promise left unfulfilled by eight successive popes….
Papal obstinacy was challenged principally by Charles V, who repeatedly urged the need for a council and even threatened to call one himself, as Roman Emperors had done a thousand years before. Equally, Charles tried to bully the papacy into issuing the summons, as Emperor Sigismund had done in 1413–15. The emperor was then widely considered to be God’s vicar and guardian of the church, the secular counterpart to the Pope. Among the laity, therefore, he was in a unique position to influence ecclesiastical affairs.
Yet Charles hesitated to strike the decisive blow. Did he realise just how weak the papacy of the 1520s was? Perhaps too loyal, certainly too deferential, the emperor’s forbearance meant that nothing happened until attitudes changed within Rome, and that had to wait upon the election of Paul III in October 1534. Even then, however, there was no immediate resolution, for pope and emperor, united in wanting a council, were divided over the agenda. While Paul looked primarily to the restoration of doctrinal clarity and papal authority, Charles believed that thorough institutional reform must come first. Only then would Protestants feel able to negotiate a formula for reunion with Rome.
Adapted from M.D.W. Jones, The Counter Reformation: Religion and Society in Early Modern Europe, published in 1995
[30]
Answer
