In congregations held on March 2, 3, and 4, they de- liberated about graiitiiig a safe-conduct to the Protes- tants, and a decree upon the subject was drawn up.
On March 11a general congregation was held, in which twelve articles of reform were ])roposed for ex- amination, which gave rise to great dispute and were discussed in subsequent congregations.
Session XIX (May 14, 15(52).— In this session noth- ing whatever passed requiring notice, and the publica- tion of the decrees was postponed to the following ses- sion. Immediately after this session the French am- bassadors arrived, and their instructions were curious, and to the Ibllowing effect:
That the decisions which had taken place shonld not be reserved for the pope's approval, but tliat the pope shonld be compelled to submit to the decision of the council. That they should begin with the reform of the Church in its head and in its members, as had lieeii i)roni- ised at the Council of Constance, and in that of Basle, but never completed. That annates should be abolished ; that all aich bishops and bishops shouhi lie obliged to, residence; tliat the council shonld make arrangements with respect to disiiensalioiis, so as to remove the neces- sity of sending to Rome. Thatxthe sixth canon of Clial- cedou should be observed, which prohibits bishops to or- dain priests without appointing them to some specific charges, so as to prevent the increase of useless minis- ters, etc.
On May 20 a congregation was held to receive the ambassador of France. The Sieur de Pibrac, in the name of the king his master, in a long discourse, ex- horted the prelates to labor at the work of reformation, promising that the king would, if needful, support and defend them in the enjoyment of their liberty.
Session XX (June 4, 15(;2). — In this session the pro- moter of the council replied to the discourse delivered by Pibrac in the last congregation; after which a de- cree was read [iroroguing the session to July 16.
In the following congregation five articles upon the subject of the holy eucharist were proposed for exam- ination.
1. Whether the faithful are, by God's command, obliged to receive in both kinds?
2. Whether Jesus Christ is received eutire under one sjiecies as under both ?
3. Whether the reason which induced the Church to.
TRENT, COUNCIL OF
538
TRENT, COUNCIL OF
give the communion to the Inity under one kind only still i>l)lii;ed her not to sr.int the cup to any one?
4. Upon wlial eonditioiii* the cup should be permitted to any persons, supposinsj it to be advisable to >^rant if ?
5. Whether the commuuiou is necessary to children un- der years of discretion ?
The question alxiiit the obligation of residence was also aijain mooted; but the cardinal of jSIantua objected to its discussion as entirely alien from the subject before them, promisiiii;, at the same time, that it should be discussed at a littiui^ season.
In subsequent congregations held from the 9th to the 23(1 of June the subject of the five articles was discussed.
In a coiigregati<Mi held July 1-1 the decree in four chapters on the communion was examined.
Session XXI (July 10, 1562). — The four chapters on doctrine were read, in which the council declared:
Tliat neither laymen nor ecclesiastics (not consecratina:) are bound by any divine precept to receive the sacrament of the eiicliarist in both kinds; that the sufficiency of communion in (Uie kind cannot be doubted without in- jury to faith. Further, that the Church has always pos- sessed the power of establishing and changing in the dis- pensation of the 8:;craments (without, however, interfer- iuir with essentials) according as she has judged to be most conducive to tlie honor due to tlie holy sacrament, and to the good of the recipients, taking into account the diveisities of place and conjuncture ; that, although Jesus Christ insti;uted and gave to his apostles the sacrament under two kinds, it is necessary to believe that under either kind Jesus Christ is received whole and entire; and that no diminution is experienced in any of the graces conveyed by the sacrament. Lastly, that children not arrived at years of discretion are not obliged to re- ceive the eucharist.
Four canons in conformity with this doctrine were then read:
1. Against th<ise who maintain that all the faithful are under obligation to receive in both kinds.
2. Against those who maintain tliat tlie Church has not sufficient grounds for refusing the cuj) to the laity.
3. Against those who deny that oin- Lord is received entire under each species.
4. Against those who maintain that the eucharist is necessary to children before they come to the exercise of their reason.
Subsequently nine chapters on reform were read, hav- ing regard to the duties of bishops, education of clerks, etc.
A few days after this session the Italian bishops re- ceived a letter from the pope, in which he declared that he was far from wishing to hinder the discussion of the question concerning the nature of the obligation to res- idence; that he desired the council to enjoy entire free- dom, and that every one should speak according as his conscience directed him; at tiie same time, however, he wrote to his nuncio, Visconti, bidding him take se- cure measures for stifling the discussion, and for send- ing it to the holy see for decision.