In 1929 J. Umberg, who was one of
the editors of the Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitonum Declarationum (commonly
called Denzinger), compared the censures of Pius VI against the
propositions of the Synod of Pistoia with the canons found in the decrees of
Trent. Did the Synod of Pistoia, he asked, dissent from Trent, and, if so, were
these instances of their dissent heretical? Umberg found two instances in which
the Synod of Pistoia had clearly contradicted Trent, and in which Pius VI had
concluded that such contradictions were heretical. However, he argued, what
about the other one hundred and eighteen canons of Trent? Umberg pointed out
that there were, indeed, other instances in which the Synod of Pistoia, had
contradicted Trent, but which Pius VI had not judged heretical. Did this not mean
the following, namely, that the mere fact that there was something
contradictory, to the canons of Trent in itself could not be considered an
adequate basis for heresy?
Following this work of Umberg, H.
Lennerz examined the canons of Trent and came to the conclusion that many of
the canons must be interpreted as penalties, latae sententiae. Lennerz
states, however, that if one is going to deny a tradition of the church, one
must first know what that tradition is, and if one has such knowledge and still
denies the tradition, then there is an anathema because of the contempt (pro
eius contemptu) not specifically because of the denial of the tradition. R.
Favre continued this line of research on a number of the Tridentine canons. He
found that anathema sit had several meanings even during the council. He
found that anathema sit had several meanings even during the council. To
prove his point he lists one canon after another.
In turn, A. Lang reviewed the
teaching of Melchior Cano, a major figure at the time of Trent, and conclude that
anathema sit, by itself, cannot be taken to mean heresy. Lang argues
that other factors, from other sources, must be present and operative before a condemnation
of heresy is warranted. H. Jedin, though his historical research on the Council
of Trent, arrived at the same conclusion. P. Fransen also researched the
material and came to a similar conclusion. Faith and heresy have, in the
documents of Trent, a meaning which is far more comprehensive than merely a divinely
revealed truth (faith) or its denial (heresy). Under “faith” Trent refers not
only to items found in scripture, but also to items proposed for the universal
church, including ecclesiastical law. On this topic, Karl Peter states; “An
anathema meant a major communication, as canonists have remembered better than
theologians. Heresy, by the same token, involved disobedience to the religious leaders
Christ left to guide us to salvation.”
On many occasions during the Council
of Trent, the issue under consideration focused more on the rejection of church
authority by the reformation theologians, rather than one an issue of heresy.
At times it was this contempt for authority which was anathematized, rather
than a specific theological position. In the following discussion, the mere recital
of the canon, then, cannot be understood, of itself, as a statement of divinely
revealed truth, on the one hand, and its denial, on the other hand, as an heretical
position. (Kenan B. Osborne, Reconciliation & Justification: The Sacrament
and Its Theology [New York: Paulist Press, 1990], 160-61)
