Did the Council of Trent Contradict the Second Council of Orange?

Editor's note:
Here is an excellent article comparing the Council Trent with the Second Council of Orange. Trent was an ecumenical council calling all the bishops of the Church to attend or with representatives and held as binding on all Catholics. The Second Council of Orange was a local council, but received papal approval by Pope Felix IV, making them binding on the Faithful.

Many Calvinists think the Second Council of Orange approved of their theology. This article explains how this is incorrect.

Just as a helpful note on "actual grace" or "helping grace" and "sanctifying grace":

In Christian theology, "actual grace" or "helping grace" and "sanctifying grace" are distinct concepts.

"Actual grace" or "helping grace" refers to the temporary assistance given by God to help a person to perform a specific good action or avoid a specific evil action. This type of grace is said to be "actual" because it refers to God's grace accepted by a person to help him to act according to His will, man is always free to reject such graces.

On the other hand, "sanctifying grace" refers to the state of grace in which a person is placed when they receive God's forgiveness for all their sins and are reconciled into Him in Baptism. This type of grace is said to be "sanctifying" because it transforms a person to be holy, remitting all sin, and transforming them from a state of sinfulness to a state of righteousness and making him or her an adopted child of God and incorporates one into the Mystical Body of Christ-- the Church.

While actual grace is temporary and specific to a particular situation or action; it is available before and after justification. Sanctifying grace (justification) is transformative, changing the very nature of the person into a child of God. Sanctifying grace can be lost by mortal sin (and regained through the sacrament of confession) but being a child of God can never be lost the soul is marked or sealed and this is permanent:
Ephesians 1:13
"having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of the promise"

In short, actual grace is a temporary assistance to help a person act in accordance with God's will, while sanctifying grace is a transformation that makes a person holy and righteous.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
calledtocommunion.com

by Bryan Cross

---

John Hendryx is a PCA member who studied at Reformed Theological Seminary and owns and edits Monergism.com, a well known Reformed website and online Reformed library and bookstore. He has posted an article claiming that the sixth session of the Council of Trent (AD 1547) is at odds with the Second Council of Orange (AD 529). Because the acts of the Second Council of Orange were approved by Pope Boniface II on January 25, in AD 531, if Hendryx’s claims were true, this would imply that at the Council of Trent the Magisterium of the Church rejected soteriological doctrines it had previously affirmed over a thousand years earlier, and would thereby strengthen the Reformed claim to have preserved the authentic soteriology of the early Church. Here I show two things: first, that the Tridentine canons Hendryx thinks are contrary to the doctrine promulgated by the Second Council of Orange are not only entirely compatible with the teaching of Orange but in full continuity with it, and second, that in multiple ways Reformed theology deviates from the soteriological doctrines taught at the Second Council of Orange.

Interior of the Cathedral at Orange, France

Hendryx quotes the following three canons from the Second Council of Orange.

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism — if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

Guy Fawkes Day-- Myth?

Did members of a government faction set up the plot themselves? So they could crack down on Catholics?

The Gunpowder Plot (Nov. 5, 1605) was supposedly a conspiracy by a number of Catholics. The best known of these was Guy Fawkes, but Robert Catesby was allegedly the mastermind, second only to the Jesuit superior named Henry Garnet. The gunpowder laid  in a cellar under Parliament for about 6 months, before it was even discovered.

The real history of the plot may never be known. But the evidence lies heavily that Lord Cecil and his minions were the real plotters.

It was an elaborate misadventure. The conspirators were supposed to have rented a house and from within this house they dug a tunnel to Parliament. But before completing the tunnel and just reaching the foundations of Parliament-- they stopped. They discovered a cellar under parliament. Thus instead of tunneling, they snuck huge barrels of gunpowder into the cellar, where the barrels remained waiting for 6 months, until Parliament's first day of opening.

The government claimed to have discovered the plot 10 days before Parliament was to meet.

Lord Monteagle, a Catholic, got an anonymous letter delivered by an unknown man. The letter, couched in incoherent language, warned him that it would be wise to be absent for the opening ceremony of Parliament.

Monteagle took the letter at once to Lord Cecil, the king being out of town on a hunt, and Cecil figured out its meaning and gave it to the king five days later.

Apologetics: Did the Church Ever Support Slavery?

The myth persists of Catholics approving slavery, because there were individual Catholics who supported slavery or owned slaves or some nations, even Catholic Portugal promoted it.

If you ever see the movie "The Mission" the controversy of ownership of the land of the Mission was whether it was Spanish or Portuguese rule. Although it isn't the main part of the story, it involved slavery, which was illegal under Spanish law but not under Portuguese. Slavery was similar to today's issue of abortion, some Catholic countries outlaw abortion, while some so called Catholic countries allow it. Both slavery and abortion are human rights issues.  

Scholars, with an axe to grind, use bad Catholics or wayward Catholic countries as  “proof” that the Church accepted slavery, without drawing the necessary distinction that what individual Catholics, or "Catholic" countries may do, does not necessarily reflect the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Apologetics: Protestant Theology

 Here is an excellent discussion on history and theology from a Protestant convert Dr. David Anders with one of the few orthodox Jesuits, Fr. Mitch Pacwa.

Apologetics: The Evils of Christianity

 While no one can excuse evil, especially the scandal of it done in the name of the Church, some of these accusations are exaggerated or not true.

The problem is the human condition. We are a fallen people. We desire good but tend to do evil.

If we look at any institution like anti-Catholics look at the Church, how well would they fair? 

We are seeing this applied to western civilization by "Critical Theory."

Most would agree that a civilization or a country or any group of people should not be defined by their worst moments.

Apologetics: Mary and the Protestant Pulpit

On the Journey with Matt and Ken and Kenny, Episode 99:

Matt Swaim and former Baptist pastor Ken Hensley are joined by Kenny Burchard, a former Foursquare Church pastor, to begin a series discussing what led each of them to embrace Catholic teaching on Mary.

Ken and Kenny share how they used to preach about Mary as Protestant pastors, why they used to think about her as unimportant, and what it was that began to open their hearts to start thinking of Mary as more than just a background character in the Bible.

Bad Popes --reply by Scot Hahn.

 

God, UFOs, and The Physics of Star Wars with Hugh Ross

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross, the founder of Reasons To Believe, talks to The Babylon Bee about extraterrestrial alien life, UFOs, and the reasons from science to believe in the God of the Bible. They also talk about how faster than light travel would completely kill you dead.

Apologetics: The Mass and Back to the Future

 

I was recently visiting a friend. He was just finishing  the movie “Back to the Future.” I asked if I was disturbing him? He said “ No, I  already watched it yesterday. I was just re-watching it.” He turned the sound off as it continued to visually play in the background.  We had a conversation as the movie played. Just random stuff.

He is a pretty strong Protestant, and religious topics come up a lot between us, but this time, not so much. As we continued to talk, he noticed a part of the movie– now the TV was playing “Back to the Future, part II”, which followed right after the first one.

I remembered the first one pretty well, seeing it a few times in the cinema, in my youth. But the second movie, I think, I watched once on TV, and remembered hardly anything. He filled me in what had happened because it was nearing the end and approaching the climax. We both started to watch together with sound as Doc explains the TIMELINE.

Apologetics: Peter and the Keys

St. Peter and the Keys.

 

Here is part of a correspondence I had recently. People like to throw out a lot of accusations, if you are Catholic. Some may have a half truth, others are just wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I answered your point on  "Petra" and "Petros," but regardless, it isn't so necessary to prove Peter to be head of the Apostles.

Let's look at the passage again.

Mathew 16:17-19
"…17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.

18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."..."

To follow up on my point of lineage, ie. tracing your church back to Jesus through history, the verse "and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." By saying the Catholic Church fell away  until, whenever your church started, then you are saying "Hades" "Hell" or "death" have prevailed until the 20th century.

Apologetics: Did Jesus Say He will Build His Church on St. Peter?

St. Peter's in Rome

Here is part of a correspondence I had recently. The person was using the typical argument that Protestants like to use drawing a distinction in Greek between "Petros" and  "Petra,"

If you have never heard the Protestant claim, it's basically that when Jesus says "You are Peter [Petros] and upon this Rock [petra] I will build my Church" the Greek word Petros means "little pebble" while petra means "big rock". The Protestant is arguing that Jesus was not identifying Peter with "Rock," but rather contrasting Peter's littleness with the bigness of the Rock (i.e. Jesus). Therefore Jesus was not founding His Church on Peter.

In the Greek New Testament "Petros" is always used for Peter.(162 times). 

Where did the notion that Peter means "little pebble" even come from?

Some Protestant apparently dug up this distinction from a long outdated form of Greek that wasn't even in use at the time of the Apostles (i.e. not Biblical Greek). This detail alone makes the Protestant argument invalid.

There are two types of Greek: Attic Greek, and  Koine Greek.
In Attic Greek, there was a slight difference in meaning between "Petros" and "Petra," but in Koine Greek (the dialect used in the New Testament) they were synonyms. A place to look this up is D. A. Carson’s commentary on Matthew 16 in the Expositors Bible Commentary. He makes this point very well, and he is a highly-respected Evangelical Bible scholar.

Most Protestant scholars have rightly rejected this theory as well. But it always comes up with Evangelical friends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I understand you correctly, are  you saying Peter is not the person Jesus will build His Church on?

Apologetics,: Should We Worship on Saturaday or Sunday?

Below is part of an email exchange I've had with a member of an Adventist group. Particularly a member of The World Wide Church of God . (Seventh Day Adventist fall with in this category too.)

Adventists, as most Protestants, tend to read the Bible without the context of history. They have very little, if any, knowledge of the ancient Church and early Christian history. They may know a lot about Jewish/Hebrew history but not Christian. There is over 2000 years of Christian history. But I am talking mainly about what is called the Apostolic Fathers-- the first 200 years of Christianity.  Detached from history, it is hard to have correct doctrine.

One thing I noticed about Adventist Protestants is they stress communal worship on Saturday--the Sabbath, and not Sunday as most Christians do. They think it is sinful to worship on Sunday and not Saturday as the Jews do.

How did the early Christians understand the theory of keeping communal  worshiping on Saturday?

Colossians 2:16

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day."

In other words St. Paul is saying : ' Don't let anyone intimidate you into following the Jewish rituals about eating and drinking...nor their feast-days, nor their celebration of the SABBATH.

Apologetics : Where is the Catholic Chuch refereced in the Bible?

Technical terms were still being developed when the New Testament was being written, and defined  later for precision. For example The word for priest derives from the Greek presbyteros, which means elder or senior, although in the early Christian presbyteros could refer to a bishop or a priest. The English word  "priest" is a derivative of the word presbyter.

The word ‘catholic’ itself is not found in the Bible. However “KAΘ OΛHC” (pronounced as ‘kath oles’) is found in the  of Acts 9:31.

A three word phrase from Acts 9:31 is “EKKΛHCIAI KAΘ OΛHC” (pronounced as “ekklesiai kath oles”) which is Koine Greek for “church all over” or “church universal.” Swap those words around and you get “universal church.” This is exactly what the word  Catholic means, the Universal Church, i.e The Catholic Church. We will cover this more below.

While of course this reference isn't definitive but is does circumstantially point to the origins of the term "Catholic" for the true Church.

Apologetics: 4. You talk of universal persuasion. Men used to believe that the world was flat!

A sufficient reason for that error is evident, viz., lack of data, and the fact that men followed their senses, which seemed to say that the earth was flat.

That was not a judgment of the pure reason. The senses supplied no immediate manifestations that there might be a God as they indicated that the world might be flat.

The cases are not parallel, and the transition from a judgment based upon the senses to one based upon pure reason is not valid. In any case, the scientific and metaphysical proofs justify belief in God quite independently of this psychological reason. They would be valid supposing that only one man in a million believed in God's existence. This latter supposition, however, will never be verified, for the common rational judgment of the vast majority will always intuitively perceive this truth.

Apologetics: 3. I, as a rationalist, ask, "Who created your uncreated clock-maker?"

 That is not a rational question.

I say that the universe is obviously created, and that what is created supposes a Creator who is uncreated, or the problem goes on forever, the whole endless chain of dependent beings as unable to explain itself as each of its links.

It is rational to argue to an uncreated clock-maker. It is not rational to ask, "Who created this uncreated clock-maker?" God was not created. If He were, He would be a creature and would have a creator. His creator would then be God, and not He Himself. God always existed. He never began, and will never cease to be. He is eternal.

Apologetics: 2. What is this evidence for God's existence, apart from the Bible?

 

There are many indications, the chief of which I shall give you very briefly:

• The first is from causality.
  The universe, limited in all its details, could not be its own cause. It could no more come together with all its regulating laws than the San Francisco Harbor Bridge could just happen, or a clock could assemble itself and keep perfect time without a clock-maker. On the same principle, if there were no God, there would be no you to dispute His existence.
  
  
• A second indication is drawn from the universal reasoning, or if you wish, intuition of men.
  The universal judgment of mankind can no more be wrong on this vital point than the intuition of an infant that food must be conveyed to the mouth. The stamp of God\'s handiwork is so clearly impressed upon creation, and, above all, upon man, that all nations instinctively believe that there is a God.
  
  The truth is in possession. Men do not have to persuade themselves that there is a God. They have to try to persuade themselves that there is no God. And no one yet, who has attained to such a temporary persuasion, has been able to find a valid reason for it. Men do not grow into the idea of a God; they endeavor to grow out of it.
  
  

Apologetics: 1. Please give me evidence that God exists. I have never had any such evidence. And don't use the Bible, because I don't accept it.

What do you mean by evidence?

Some people think that evidence must be seen and touched, as an animal sees a patch of grass and eats it. But men are not mere animals.

They have reason, and can appreciate intellectual evidence. For example, the evidence of beauty in music or in painting is perceived by man's mind, not by his senses. An animal could hear the same sounds, or see the same colors, without being impressed by their harmony and proportion. Apart from the Bible altogether, reason can detect sufficient evidence to guarantee the existence of God.