Why does it appear that the Council of Orange contradicts the Council of Trent?

Council of Orange

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 and contradicts the scripture which says, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:20); and, “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?” (Rom. 6:16); and, “For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved” (2 Pet. 2:19).

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. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him “unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).

Council of Trent

CANON 5. If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing only in name, indeed a name without a reality, a fiction introduced into the Church by Satan, let him be anathema.

Local councils get things wrong all the time. The Council of Orange was not an ecumenical council, and hence does not have the same protection from error as a council like Trent does.

That being said, much is lost in translation, and comparing the Latin might make things more apparent. It is also not clear from the quote if complete free of the will is intended, or if Orange might simply be referring to the inclination to sin or some other such thing. Given the influence of St. Augustine’s writings in the area, it would be hard to imagine the Council of Orange so explicitly disagreeing with him on such a major issue especially since the role of grace, merit, and free will was Augustine’s pre-eminent topic (hence he is known as the Doctor of Grace). I suppose anything is possible though.

You rock. Thanks.

I’m not sure they contradict even if Orange was a local council. It sounds like Trent is condemning the thought that man has no free will, even after baptism. Orange sounds like it is using the term “free will” (based on the first sentence in Canon 8) in the sense of coming to Christ on his own, without grace. This of course is false.

That’s pretty much what I was thinking, too. Adam’s sin didn’t destroy free will completely, but may have damaged it in our inheriting of Original Sin.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

I don’t really see the conflict.

The Council of Orange seems to indicate that we still have free will but a free will that has been damaged by Adams sin.
Canon 1 seems to me to condemn the idea that the freedom of the soul was unimpaired by the sin of Adam. So canon one is stating that our free will of the soul was impaired. Impairment is a destruction of freewill–just not a total destruction.

Canon 8 seems to me to condemn the idea that we come to the grace of baptism by our freewill which has been manifestly corrupted. It condemns the idea that the free will of all men has not been weakened through the sin of Adam and the idea that that our free will was affected in such a way that men still have “the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God.” Again we have a free will – simply one that has been weakened.

Canon 13 it seems to me does not mean that our free will was totally destroyed but rather canon 13 must be read in the light of what Canons 1 and 13 say about the impairment of the free will. Otherwise the Council contradicts itself. This canon addresses how that part of the free will that was destroyed i.e. the impairment is to be restored.

These canons (as presented in your post) seem to me to be in harmony with canon 5 from the Council of Trent (as presented in your post) which seems to condemn the idea that our free will was totally destroyed and exists in name only. This canon tells us we still have a free will–and I do not think that is contradicted by anything in canons from the Council or Orange that you presented–as they state that we still have a free will–albeit one that has been impaired by Adams sin.

Council of Orange–reponding to the idea that the free will of the soul was not impaired by Adams sin
Council of Trent – responding to the idea that the free will was totally destroyed and exists in name only.

Anyway thats how I read them–hence I see no conflict. Remember Canon 13 must be read in light of the earlier cannons which clearly indicate that our free will still exists and that is in harmony with the Council of Trent.

Hope that is helpfull.

Peace,
Mark

Dave Armstrong addresses Orange socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/01/catholic-sola-gratia-vs-calvinist-total.html , regardless Orange II is a dogmatic council, its infallible. Its one of the Local Councils that were made universally binding

It is not possible for a local Council to be made into a ‘dogmatic council’. The individual Bishops, whether each alone or gathered in a local group, such as in a Bishops’ Conference or local Council, do not have the perogative of infallibility.

I’ve studied and written about the teachings of the Council of Orange on original sin. There is no contradiction with the teachings of the Council of Trent. Orange merely uses the word ‘destroyed’ in a different sense, to indicate that free will is harmed by original sin, which Trent also taught in saying that both the soul and the body of the descendents of Adam and Eve have been harmed by original sin.

It is not possible for a local Council to be made into a ‘dogmatic council’. The individual Bishops, whether each alone or gathered in a local group, such as in a Bishops’ Conference or local Council, do not have the perogative of infallibility.

The Council of Orange II is universally binding because it was confirmed by Pope Boniface II

The acts of the council, which were signed by the bishops, the pretorian prefect Liberius and seven other distinguished laymen, were forwarded to Rome and approved by Boniface II on 25 January, 531 ( see BONIFACE II ). They consequently enjoy œcumenical authority and are printed in Denzinger’s “Enchiridion Symbolorum” (10th ed., nos. 174-200).

Local Councils can become dogma either by acceptance thru a General Council or by direct approval by the Pope. One of the Councils of Carthage also because dogma, it was around 417, either the XVI or XVII or XVIII council by that name, where Pelagius’s doctrines were condemned.

Teachings of congregations of the Holy See, including the CDF, teachings of local Councils, teachings of Bishops’ Conferences, and teachings of individual Bishops do not have the prerogative of infallibility. The confirmation or approval by the Pope of a teaching by any of these groups or individuals does not make the teaching infallible. Such a teaching would not meet the conditions for papal infallibility taught by Vatican I, nor the conditions for the infallibility of an Ecumenical Council or of the Universal Magisterium, taught by Vatican II.

All the teachings issued by the CDF and by other congregations of the Holy See are first approved or ‘confirmed’ by the Pope. But the Magisterium does not teach that these teachings thereby become infallible.

Well the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Councils of Orange I posted said that the Acts of the II Council of Orange

consequently enjoy œcumenical authority and are printed in Denzinger’s “Enchiridion Symbolorum” (10th ed., nos. 174-200).

The teachings of Vatican II on Ecumenical Councils overrules any opinion in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Bishops teaching in communion with the Pope (which describes any local Council approved by the Pope) only teach non-infallibly, and so their teachings require only the religious submission of will and intellect.

“Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.” (SVC, Lumen Gentium, n. 25.)

“With respect to the non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church, these should be received with religious submission of mind and will.”
(Address of Pope John Paul II to the Bishops of the United States on their ‘ad Limina’ visit. 15 October 1988)

If you read Lumen Gentium n. 25 in its entirety
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
teaching authority and infallibility is discussed at length, and there is nothing to support the claim that a local Council turns into an ecumenical council by the subsequent ‘confirmation’ of a Pope. In fact, many expressions of the non-infallible ordinary Magisterium are approved in some way by the Pope; this does not cause the teachings to become dogmatic.

Also, the Pope himself does not always teach infallibly, and so it would be absurd to claim that every teaching of a Bishop or group of Bishops becomes infallible merely by approval of that teaching by the Pope. The Pope of course approves of his own teaching, and that does not make his every teaching infallible.

The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially** at the second Council of Orange** (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297–CCC 406

It became the object of a formal declaration of the Magisterium in the fifteenth Synod of Carthage in 418 and the Synod of Orange in 529, principally against the errors of Pelagius–Pope John Paul II, General Audience, vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19860924en.html

Does this suffice???

The fact of the matter is, different councils have said different things, as have popes. Makes one wonder about unity.

When a new ecumenical council if made they make a confession of faith affirming the previous councils they do not say different things, they may expound on something previous or clarify it, but not contradict

I realize this is several years late, but BerhaneSelassie FTW!

The translation is off. It’s always a good idea to go back to the original language. It reads: " . . . Arbitrium voluntas in primo homine infirmatum . . ." Freedom of the will weakened in the first man . . .

infirmo means to deprive of strength, to weaken, enfeeble.

Canon 5 in the decree on Justification from the Council of Trent reads in Latin: “Si quis liberum hominis arbitrium poat Adae peccatum amissum et extinctum esse dixerit . . .” If anyone says that after Adam’s sin the free will of man is lost and extinct . . .

Big difference.

Makes me wonder about intelligence. The translation is way off. Read the Latin in my post below.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.