"The "revealed" belief of the Eucharist and Mary Eucharist didn't happened for about six hundred years later."
Not sure what "Mary Eucharist" is, but as for the doctrine of the Eucharist, well that's fully expounded, developed and in all ways identical with today's theology of The Church in +Ignatius of Antioch in the 1st, early 2nd centuries. By the late 4th century, when the Desert Fathers began writing, they all, every one of them, refer continually to the Eucharist, usually in passsing so it doesn't signify that this was any new idea, and always espousing the exact same theology about the Eucharist that The Church does today. Where did you get the idea that the Church's doctrines about the Eucharist developed in the 9-1000's?
"As Augustine noted in a Treatise on Predestination, he received his instruction from others in the Church. Augustine was not at odds with what the Church was teaching at the time. He was actually quite consistent with what was taught."
+Augustine's speculations on predestination were his own alone. If he picked up that idea from others, they weren't among the recognized Fathers (except perhaps from some of the writings of Tertullian that The Church anathemized, or those of Origen which met the same fate). His theories on predestination and even on what he calls "Original Sin" were far outside the consensus patrum.
Brother, you have said this before - please give me some written proof. I don't see what you are talking about, and I have read the Council's various anathemas against Pelagius. Please show me what you are talking about.
The "revealed" belief of the Eucharist and Mary didn't happened for about six hundred years later.
That is simply not true. I can quite easily post St. Ignatius of Antioch on the Eucharist - about 107 AD, or St. Justin the Martyr (150 AD), St. Irenaesu (180 AD) and St. Tertullian (200 AD) on BOTH the real presence of the Eucharist, and Mary's special role as the New Eve, complimentary to the New Adam already found in the Scriptures for Christ. I will spare you the quotes, unless you demand to see them. I have in the past posted what the Latin Fathers thought about free will and so forth. There is really no proof for your assertions regarding the Eucharist, Mary, or the belief that man has no free will and God reprobates actively to hell.
Actually you'll find Calvinists are in full agreement that men are responsible for turning to God to be saved. It just that they can't turn to God until God sets them free.
Then we agree here - the Council of Trent has reaffirmed the Catholic belief that God FIRST comes to man for a man to even desire to come to God. You should be familiar with this, you have posted from Trent and this section before. One difference, though, is that St. Augustine and others clearly regard that men ARE secondary causes. This is where Calvinism departs from Christianity of the first millenium.
As Augustine noted in a Treatise on Predestination, he received his instruction from others in the Church. Augustine was not at odds with what the Church was teaching at the time. He was actually quite consistent with what was taught.
St. Ambrose didn't teach St. Augustine's version of predestination, nor did anyone else that I know of. Please educate me on who taught St. Augustine (if HE even taught it!) that God actively reprobates men to hell?
Regards
HD, the Council of Orange was a local Council. This was explainted to you already and you simply refuse to acknowledge that local councils were not binding on the whole Church; only General (Ecumenical) Councils are.
A local council in Toledo in the 6th century decided to add "filioque" to the Creed. The rest of the Church continued singing the Creed without it for another six hundred years, and the East to this day does not include it.