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.
That is an interesting point. I'll have to get back to you on that, as I only have a bit of time left to respond to your letter.
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.
When man cooperates with God, the action is man returning God's gifts. Man is not deciding BY HIMSELF to do anything to come to God. It is only God's initiative and promptings that move the will of man. But just the same, as St. Augustine has said, God does not save man without man. We cooperate by responding positively. Before ANY action we take, we DO have the ability to say "no" or "yes". No matter how slight that voice, we always have that ability to disobey God's known will. Or obey it if we intend to do wrong. Thus, when an action is undertaken, our "yes" or "no" is our utilizing God's gift - or ignoring it.
This clarification became corruption and distortion of the gospel. It’s like lining people up and whispering a message in the first person’s ear.
Tradition is not ORALLY passed down! Apostolic Tradition is merely Catholic teaching that is not specifically written in Scriptures, but may be implied. For example, infant baptism. But do you think this Tradition of the Apostles was orally passed down to 2006? It is clearly mentioned in writings of the Church Fathers of the 200's as being an "ancient practice"!
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.
Sorry to burst your bubble. My research doesn't rely on Catholic authors of today, but THE Catholic authors themselves - the Church Fathers. For two weeks, I scan the writings of the Fathers preceding 400 AD, when three local councils established the official Canon. Jerome is the ONLY Father who denies the inspiration of the OT Deuterocanonicals - until the Church officially accepts them. Numerous Fathers, in their actual writings, QUOTE AS IF FROM SCRIPTURE, from the OT Deuterocanonicals! This includes St. Athanasius, Origen, Tertullian, St. Irenaeus, and so forth. When an author quotes from a Proto-canonical work and cites a Deutero-canonical work in the SAME sentence, you'd think he considers BOTH as inspired and coming from God! I found many such citations - and almost NO explicit denials of the Deut's, especially Wisdom and Sirach, which even the NT quotes from indirectly a number of times (Paul from the first, and James from the second quite often).
When you say, "many of the Church Fathers felt these documents were suspect", you are clearly wrong, because I have read and searched the actual documents, and find little support for your claim. In practically every case for a Father "refusing" said documents, it is a matter of including them as inspired (from God) but not of LITURGICAL value.
It all comes back to Trent
Blame the Protestants, then.
Man-made??? I don’t think so
You willing to back it up? Give me some Scriptures that say that oral teachings are abrogated in favor of written ones. Give me some Scripture that tell me that Christians are to ONLY follow what is in the Bible. It is man-made all right!
You believe you need the Church to take that one piece of scripture and tell you what it states. I believe that if there is a truth to be contained in the verse, there will be other verses which support it.
The Church doesn't declare what every verse means in the Bible. They are a guiding principle for the entire context. With this paradigm, this context, this analogy of the faith, we then approach the Bible - and understand some of your verses as a partial telling of the full story of the interrelationship between God and man in the execution of one action. Of course, we believe other verses should support a given idea or concept. It all comes to interpretation. IF you believe that Christianity is a revealed religion, then private interpretation is NOT God's means of revealing Himself - but the Body that He established, being given the power to bind and loosen and preach and teach all that He had taught.
Free will is a good example. There ARE NO verses that say God gives up His sovereignty to choose
We don't make that claim, either. Which Catholic/Orthodox person said that?
If there were verses about Purgatory then I would support it.
there are verses about the Eucharist and Apostolic succession, but you don't support that. Please. You come to the Bible with the "saved by faith alone" and "bible alone" and "man is totally corrupted - even after regeneration" and "imputed righteousness". Anything that disagrees with that (Purgatory would imply that Christ doesn't cover us) you would deny and twist it to mean something else.
Is there any more CLEAR verse in ALL of Scripture, repeated over and over - "Truly, I say to you..."; Amen I say to you..." then the eating of Christ's Body? Oh, but no, it doesn't mean that! You, Harley, 2000 years removed and reading an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation, know better, despite what the men on the ground heard with their own ears!
Please. If you are going to make such claims, then be consistent.
Regards
First, let’s correct your presumption that you place onto Orange. First, the term “dead in sin” does not mean that man’s WILL is destroyed. It means that man is WITHOUT sanctifying grace (as Orange and Trent affirm) in their soul. We have life when Christ abides in us. This is what “life” means. But our will is WEAKENED – not DESTROYED. For example, regarding free will…
CANON 1: If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius (Orange)
This canon tells that man’s will is NOT unimpaired, but not that it is destroyed! Consider the following:
CANON 8: If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God…{let him be anathema} (Orange)
CANON 19: That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could by no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God? Again, man’s nature is not destroyed. It is damaged in that it needs God to receive sanctifying grace and be saved for eternal life. Man cannot come to God without God. But man’s nature is not destroyed or totally corrupted. Lacking the abiding presence of the Lord is a death of the soul, but not of our nature or will. In each case above, we sese that Orange did not view that man was totally corrupted – but wounded.
The Council of Trent on this subject agrees. Man cannot come even to initial justification without God’s graces. His will is moved by the illumination of the Spirit to come to God.
The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them. (Session 6, Chapter 1, Trent)
The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. (Session 6, Chapter 5, Trent)
If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption. (Decree Concerning Original Sin, Trent)
Here, we see that ALL men are affected by Adam’s sin of disobedience. The end result can NOT be restored by human powers (vs. Pelagianism), but only by Jesus Christ. Because of Adam, our will is weakened. We absolutely need God’s presence and grace within us to move our will to His.
Council of Orange CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin...
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,
As usual, you forgot a key element of the quote and insert your ellipses…
Orange CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself…
Trent CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.
First, read Canon III of Trent:
CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema
Second, you ignore Scripture when it says that man can ignore the Graces of God “We then, [as] workers together [with him], beseech [you] also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.” 2 Cor 6:1
With the full context of Canon 4 of Trent, we see the Bishops were referring to man being TOTALLY PASSIVE. Scripture disagrees with that. And note, in Orange Cannon 4, Phil 2: 13, which states “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" I would like to point out that God does indeed cleanse our will, but NOT WITHOUT US! Note, He is at work in us to cleanse our will. But we are not passive in subsequent decisions on whether to obey the commandments or not.
I believe your error is that you consider man’s will destroyed as a result of original sin, when the Church never made such a statement. This leads you to believe that man is totally passive in an action, again, refuting Scripture and the Counciliar declarations.
Regards