Canon law has played a role in the life of the Church since its earliest days. For many centuries, it was largely customary and local. However, from the sixth century on, the Roman pontiff played an increasingly prominent role in shaping and applying this law in the West. This tendency to centralize authority in the hands of the Roman pontiff reached its culmination with the promulgation of the first Code of Canon Law in 1917. Cut off from the law’s roots in history and theology, this code derived its force from the will of the pontiff who enacted it. The Second Vatican Council, from 1962 to 1965, attempted to balance the role of the pope with that of the College of Bishops and to move toward decentralization of authority by enhancing the figure of the diocesan bishop and creating episcopal conferences. These conciliar efforts have been implemented, at least in part, in the revised Latin code of 1983 and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches of 1990. Nevertheless, subsequent legislating has come largely through the unilateral action of the Roman pontiff.

The dynamic of simultaneous recognition and restriction of women’s leadership roles in the Church is not new for the papacy. This chapter employs the figures of Mary Magdalene and the Virgin Mary – the two “leading women” of the New Testament – to explore the surprising degree to which popes have recognized the pivotal role of women in salvation history. It also shows, however, that popes consistently crafted the identities of the Virgin and the Magdalene in a manner that de-emphasized any priestly function or Christ-like power. Both Marys, therefore, share traits connected to their lack of suitability for leadership within a male order. In constraining the roles of the Marys, popes have also limited the roles for ordained women in the Church, thereby maintaining their unique claims to primacy.

This chapter suggests that the papacy dealt with Protestantism in various ways. It condemned the forty-one propositions of Martin Luther and then waited for the Council of Trent to condemn others. It used the institutions of preventive press censorship and of various inquisitions to check heresy. It sought the support of Christian rulers to prevent its spread, sending nuncios and legates to the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire, France, England, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, and Poland–Lithuania to urge them to suppress heresy and to secure their loyalty by negotiating agreements on Church appointments and shared revenues and by offering military aid, efforts that had mixed success, or failed. Religious orders such as the Jesuits and Capuchins were also enlisted in the struggle. Leading Protestant reformers came to see the papacy as the Antichrist or foreign usurper.

Chapter 3 is about early modern institutional artistic censorship in Venice. The methods available for controlling devotional art in the city are described and conclusions are drawn on their efficacy, demonstrating that censorship proved to be far more haphazard than programmatic.

Chapter 1 focuses on the practice and purpose of biblical scholarship in the Catholic world in the later sixteenth and early seventeenth century. It traces the fortunes of three prospective polyglot editions of the Bible in Spain, the Southern Netherlands, and France to examine how the publication of authoritative Roman editions of the Septuagint (1587) and Vulgate (1592) posed new challenges for Catholic scholars and editors of the Bible.

Chapter two examines how the foundations of Christian citizenship began to take shape in regional conciliar movements in Spain, coming into maturity with the Crown’s ratification of the Council of Trent in 1564. As the Christian republic of the Spanish Empire became more diverse, the Crown put its weight behind a legal revolution that would provide the Church with a more coherent set of policies. The Catholic Church conceived the Council of Trent (1545-63) as an answer to the Protestant Reformation and a device with which to effect a reform of the administration of the Church.The Spanish monarchy welcomed the Council’s reforms enthusiastically. However, the Spanish incarnation of Tridentine (adj., from Trent) reform was unique, in that it functioned as an instrument of political consolidation that provided the monarchy the tools necessary to create some semblance of uniformity within a growing empire.

The introductory chapter surveys the events that led to the convocation of the Council of Trent and summarizes what was accomplished at each of its twenty-five sessions. It also recounts how its was formally approved, its decrees published, their interpretation and implementation entrusted to the Congregation of the Council, and its legislation promulgated by provincial councils. How the council has been remembered by historians and its records made available is also traced.

The essay chronicles the Protestant objections to images and the Catholic response in the decree “On the invocation, veneration, and relics, of salnts, and on sacred images” of the Council of Trent. Paintings created as ecclesiastical decoration in the wake of the decree in Italy and in the Netherlands are examined.

On July 15, 1563, the bishops gathered in Trent unanimously approved the decree Cum adolescentium aetas that recommended the erection of a seminary in each diocese. It was a provision of epochal significance that endowed the Church with an instrument for the care of vocations to the ordained priesthood, according to the pastoral ideal of cura animarum. For the first time, referring to previous experiences and responding to the challenges raised by Protestants, a council laid the foundations for the creation of a specific educational institution for the spiritual, intellectual, and human preparation of its pastors. The Tridentine decree on priestly formation influenced, according to different rhythms, all the territories of the Roman Church. In many dioceses the institution took off only after decades (centuries, in some cases) of unsuccessful attempts, but certainly the decree of the twenty-third session had suggested a stable and uniform model of ecclesiastical formation, partly perfectible and adaptable, but now essential.

The chapter reviews the models – ideal and actual – of the ‘good bishop’ put forward at the beginning of the sixteenth century, models which inspired those conciliar fathers most inclined to reform. It also looks at the debate pursued throughout the three phases of the council over the source of episcopal authority, focusing on the disputes about the theological basis of the obligation of residence. Finally, it will analyse what was new about the regulations regarding the clergy and the reforming decrees issued above all in the last sessions of the assembly, when the discord between the Curia party and the reformers threatened to wreck the council altogether. Without actually embracing the episcopalian position, the council did at least restate the importance of the care of souls, which was the responsibility of the pastors of the diocese, but failed to curtail the scope for curial intervention, the secular authorities’ nomination rights or the privileges enjoyed by the male religious orders.

Chapter Five focusses specifically on the issue of papal power, and particularly the heightening of tensions brought about by the question of receiving the Tridentine decrees in France. It aims both to contextualise the League debates, and to position them in relation to the ongoing question of the precise content of the Gallican liberties. In the work of lawyers, such as Antoine Hotman and Louis Dorléans, and theologians such as Gilbert Génébrard, Jean Porthaise and Jean Boucher, the deliberations over the Tridentine decrees are shown to be anchored in the context of a revival of late medieval conciliarism, and the still-resonant clash between royal and papal power embodied in the disputes between Boniface VIII and Phillip IV (1296–1303). From the problem of Sixtus V’s power of excommunication, to the troubled issue of Henri IV’s abjuration of Protestantism, this chapter further indicates that these debates, transformed and adapted from the medieval era, would go on to define Henri IV’s reign after 1594 and last well beyond the life span of the League itself.

Chapter 25 considers the 1547 Tridentine Decree on Justification. This document is widely regarded as one of the most significant statements on the doctrine of justification. It set out a full exposition of the Catholic position, rather than simply rejecting opinions regarded as unacceptable. The Council saw its task as ‘expounding to all the faithful of Christ the true and sound doctrine relating to justification’, not simply identifying what they considered to be the errors of Protestantism. This chapter consists of four sections. The first considers the Decree’s teaching on the first stage of justification, which includes a strongly transformist concept of justification, and a rejection of any idea that justification can be said to be merited. It also firmly links justification with the sacrament of baptism. The second considers its teaching on the second stage of justification, dealing with the way in which believers increase in righteousness. The third deals with the restoration of justification through the sacrament of penance. Finally, the canons of the decree, dealing with views that the Council regarded as unacceptable, are noted and their significance assessed.

Chapter 23 considers the range of Catholic positions that were represented during the Council of Trent’s debates on justification. Although some representatives are best considered as independent theologians, not specifically committed to one of the leading schools of theology of this period, it is clear that many of those present aligned themselves with one of three schools: the early Dominican school (based mainly on the works of Thomas Aquinas), the early Franciscan school (based mainly on the works of Bonaventure), and the later Franciscan school (based mainly on the works of Duns Scotus). This chapter considers the basic position of each of these schools of thought in relation to the questions being discussed. Although some earlier accounts of the Tridentine discussions of justification suggest that there was a distinct Augustinian school of theology represented, the evidence does not support this view.

Chapter 26 considers how the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification was received within Catholicism, particularly during the second half of the sixteenth century. The chapter contains two main blocks of material. First, it considers early Catholic Interpretations of the Decree, noting how the Decree was open to several interpretations at points. The most interesting of these concerns whether the Decree permitted the teaching that justification could be merited de congruo, an opinion which was widely held within Franciscan theological circles. The Council of Trent also gave rise to a series of Catholic catechisms, designed to blunt the Protestant advantage in this field. The Catechismus Romanus and Peter Canisius’s Summa doctrinae christianae (1555) are of particular importance. The chapter also notes how the Council of Trent’s decree on justification initially led to Catholic discussion of salvation focussing on the concept of justification. However, a gradual return to the more traditional Catholic use of multiple images of salvation, including but not restricted to justification, can be seen taking place in the seventeenth century.

Chapter 24 examines the records of the Tridentine discussions of justification which took place over the period 22–28 June 1546. These discussions indicate how the basic agenda was set, and how a number of approaches were explored, before the final structure of the Decree on Justification was developed. These discussions are of major importance in interpreting the final Decree on Justification, as they often indicate why a particular form of words was adopted in preference to another. Perhaps the most important of these is the revised version of the eighth chapter of the draft decree that was drawn up for discussion on 11 December 1546, concerning the formal cause of justification. The original wording recognised that there was una (‘one’) such cause. This was considered to allow that other formal causess might also be countenanced, and so was replaced by unica (‘single’, ‘sole’ or ‘one and only’).