Original sin. Catholics are moving away from it? Perhaps an individual might be, but the Church's teachings have not changed from Orange/Trent in this.
#402 "All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Romans 5:12,19). The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to the acquitall for all men" (Romans 5:18)
#404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man" (St. Thomas Aquinas). By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Adam's justice. Still the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin that will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature DEPRIVED of ORIGINAL holiness and justice (emphasis added). And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - it is a state and not an act.
#405 ...Original sin ...is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignornance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin...
#406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the 5th century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine...and in the 16th century in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, BY NATURAL POWER of free will AND WITHOUT THE NECESSARY HELP OF GOD'S GRACE, led a morally good life (emphasis added); Pelagius thus reduced Adam's fault to a bad example. The First Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil, which would be insurmountable.
As can be seen, the Church teaches the same thing regarding original sin at Orange, as it did at Trent, as it does today. While some private opinions of dissent or ignorance may surface, these are not the voice of the official Church stance.
Regarding Canon 3. I have never made the statement that we pray WITHOUT God's grace. WE pray - with the gifts that God has given us. Nothing is of our OWN. WE give back what God has given us. This is clear in the above #406.
3) The Council felt God did not await our will but He prepared our will. Contrast this with what the Council of Trent stated that it is our will to decide. This is the heart of the Augustine/Pelagius(Arminian) controversy. It also reminds me of our Jonah discussions
Trent does not go against what was said at Orange. It argues vs. the Reformers that man DOES have free will, as the Church has ALWAYS said. Trent also says that God prepares this will.
#2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace...God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it" (St. Augustine). "Indeed, we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and folluws us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God; for without him we can do nothing" (St. Augustine)
#2002 God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created man in His image by conferring upon him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy.
When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight (Council of Trent, DS 1525)
As can be seen, same teaching.
Council of Trent CANON IV. If any one shall affirm, that man’s freewill, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say, that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases, but that it is inactive, and merely passive; let such an one be accursed"!
This canon is against the reformers who were claiming man had NO free will. Clearly, this perversion is the opposite of what was ADDRESSED at Orange, which dealt with the opposite - ALL man's free will. Again, the heresy is the "either/or" - either God does it all or man does it all. Orange and Trent proclaim both work together, as does the Catechism. See the above quote from Trent.
CANON V.- If anyone shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam, man’s freewill is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church; let such an one be accursed"!
Free will does not do away with God's sovereignty. That is your interpretation, which is faulty. Even St. Augustine disagrees with that concept. And most certainly, no other Church Father taught that man has no free will. This is an innovation from Protestantism.
Trent contradicted Orange and in some cases completely altered the believes of Orange.
I don't see it. You keep reading the Council of Orange as if it says "man has no free will". It doesn't say that. It says that "man's will WITHOUT God" is heresy. You interpret this by saying "man's will PERIOD" is heresy. Thus, when the Church faces the other extreme with the Reformation, she must defend that man DOES have free will without giving up the position laid out at Orange. The two positions agree as two sides of the same coin.
It never ceases to amaze me when contrasting these two points of views to see the Council of Orange using scripture to support their statements and the Council of Trent using none.
It never ceases to amaze you? It amazes me you could say that. Councils are not about proof texting, but clarifying the Catholic Tradition that has been passed down through the ages.
As far as your veiw of Maccabee, I do not consider it to be inspired and neither did a large majority of early fathers or the Jews
Majority? LOL! I did a pretty thorough study on that and you are wrong. But that is not why I mention the Maccabees. It is part of our Christian heritage - and I merely noted that Catholics regard the BOTH of the question of God and man's interaction to do a good deed. You only look at one point of view.
Protestants always feel that questionable verses need to be supported with other verses from other parts of scriptures before setting doctrine.
I am aware of this man-made tradition and still do not understand it. It wouldn't make a bit of difference if there were a dozen verses that spoke of Purgatory in the NT - as my experience with you regarding something so simple as free will has demonstrated. Thus, proof-texting is a waste of time. When one holds a particular paradigm, they will conveniently ignore certain verses that overturn their views on "man has no free will" - despite verses that claim the opposite.
Want an example? "Faith without works is dead". Protestants then turn around with and look you in the eye and say "we are saved by faith alone"!!! That's where proof texting takes you.
Only by following the Church's interpretation of Scriptures can we know what Scripture actually means in its entirety.
Regards
Trent #405 ...Original sin ...is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignornance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin...
You stated earlier that you cannot explain what cooperating is. That is because “cooperating” doesn’t exist. God does not await our will to be cleansed from sin. God cleanses us from sin. It is God who makes us pray. There is not one thing that you have that hasn’t been given you by God.
Different church fathers held various opinions about these extra books. Many of the early church fathers felt these documents were suspect and relegated them to Appendices-not as divine teachings. . They weren’t included as “official” scripture until Trent. It all comes back to Trent.
Free will is a good example. There ARE NO verses that say God gives up His sovereignty to choose. He certainly chose Abraham, Paul and others. Yet people would deny God chooses people even after we have ¾ of the gospel devoted to God choosing Israel. Duh!!! If there were verses about Purgatory then I would support it. As it is the scriptures states that God will close the door just like He did with Noah and that will be that.