“Outside the Church there is no salvation is a dogma. You have to accept it whether you like it or not. And personally I do like it” - based Michael Lofton.
You are doing great work Mr. Lofton. Before you, schismatic types had a monopoly on this content, at least in the online sphere. But you brought nuance and synthesized the truths revealed through all the councils.
Michael, the Church is truly blessed by your ministry. Thank you for helping us to navigate the sometimes confusing aftermath of an ecumenical council. And the double Windsor - cha ching.
Wow. thank you so much. Incredibly helpful, thank you for giving your time and resources (I'm a protestant seriously studying Catholicism and this answered a lot of questions I've been having, thank you for the resource!)
ST. POPE JOHN PAUL II: When brothers and sisters who are not in perfect communion with one another come together to pray... their prayer is the soul of the whole ecumenical movement. If Christians, despite their divisions, can grow evermore united in common prayer around Christ, they will grow in their awareness of how little divides them in comparison to what unites them. “It is absolutely clear that ecumenism, the movement promoting Christian unity, is not just some sort of ‘appendix’ which is added to the Church’s traditional activity. Rather, ecumenism is an organic part of her life and work, and, consequently, must pervade all that she is and does.”
Excellent presentation, Michael. R&T is my favorite channel. I just want to add that the Latin in LG #16 is "saepius" meaning "more often", which is even stronger than the English translation "often" that you were citing.
The way to understand how the Church has acted through the centuries, as I wish all Christians will do, is to approach it in these 2 very important but overlooked ways: 1. Christ, in establishing His Church on Peter, said that “WHATEVER YOU BIND ON EARTH SHALL BE BOUND ON HEAVEN, AND WHATEVER YOU LOOSE ON EARTH SHALL BE LOOSED IN HEAVEN”; and 2. Christ promised His Church that “THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL GUIDE IT INTO ALL TRUTH.” One can truly understand and realize the significance of these 2 related Bible truths in the spirit of faith and confidence in Christ only. God bless, everyone.
Michael, serious question. Do you plan on making St. Maximus the Confessor Institute an actual university or something of the sort? If so, well well well I might have to consider going (I'm in high school right now) :)
Thanks Michael. I think having a deeper understanding of this dogma helps to understand better Nostra Aetate and Unitatis Redintegratio. It helps to better understand the mind and spirit of the Council Fathers. Many superficial criticisms to VII may come due to a lack of deep understanding of the dogma ECNL. What are your thoughts on this? Thank you very much. Very helpful
I think we should distinguish between "assuming culpability" as a methodology vs "assuming culpability" in reality. What I mean by that is that we have to evangelize people "as if" they are culpable (i.e. we act "as if" they are culpable just in case they are culpable ). But we should not actually believe in our minds that, yes, they are definitely culpable (i.e. we should not make a real assumption or judgment about whether they have actual culpability), because this goes against Jesus command to not judge souls. Rather, we should suspend our judgment interiorly and remain agnostic about their actual state of culpability. Also, when I say that we have to evangelize people as if they are culpable, I don't mean that we have to accuse them or berate them. I mean that our desire to evangelize them should be as strong, loving and urgent as if they were culpable (like the father who desperatly wanted the return of his prodigal son).
@@reasonandtheology Ok I understand. But I think in order to make a judgment about the culpability of someone you have to know them enough for that. It would not be fair I think to make a judgment simply based on the fact that they are not Catholic if you don't know them personally.
ST. POPE JOHN PAUL II: “The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace, which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.”
@Reason & Theology How would you exactly define "implicit faith"? It is quite hard to understand what is the precise difference between "implicit" and "explicit faith".
Explicit faith is they directly know and believe in whom they are placing their faith in, and implicit faith means they may not know who God is but they are disposed to believe in him and would believe in him if they had known who he was.
@@reasonandtheology Thank you, it was helpful! Yet it seems to me that the line between explicit and implict faith is a little bit vague and blurred. It could be said that the distinction is rather psychological than theological.
This is a great explanation. I only have one question: How can we be sure that Muslims and Christians do in fact worship the same God? I want to assent to V2 in its entirety, but I'm not sure how to reconcile this statement in LG about the Muslims worshipping the same God, even if they don't do it in a salvific manner, with the fact that the Muslims have a corrupted idea of who God is. They're not comparable to the Jews who simply have an incomplete concept of who God is; their concept of God is straight up wrong. If we say that because they're monotheistic they must worship the same God, then is this also true for other monotheistic religions aside from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? Again, I want to assent to V2 in its entirety; I don't want to be in schism. Perhaps this question is just a manifestation of my scrupulosity, but I've been wondering and asking this for a while and never gotten a satisfactory answer.
So, around minute 37:30 he says that god would not hold someone (an aborigine in this case ) culpable for something he could not have known. So what about original sin? God holds ALL humans culpable for Adam's "sin", yet all humans did not participate nor know of Adam's "sin".
@@reasonandtheology I don't think you addressed the issue. Natives are not culpable for not knowing Jesus. It is biblical and traditional that God would not hold you responsible for something you could not have known. No human knows or, more importantly, participated in original sin. So how and why are we culpable for it? Yes, were are impacted by others' actions but we are not culpable for them.
@@joemathis6551Original sin is a disease or defect, and like life, it’s unfair but it is still there, if you don’t like this type of answer then just think of original sin as the lack of grace that Adam and Eve had within the garden due to their sin
Hey Michael, there is a common objection raised against Catholics which says that: "If EENS is true, then your salvation for many centuries was largely geographically dependent?" Of course our response is detailed in this video, drawing distinctions, recognising the possibility of extraordinary means by which God reaches those, let's say in the New World, in the first milennia. Perhaps sending an angel or something, or they have all of those conditions, invincible ignorance, implicit faith and baptism of desire implicitly... How now would you respond to the objector who says that that kicks the can down the road essentially and raises a new problem. "If EENS is true, then the likelihood of your salvation, the help you receive for your salvation viz the Sacraments and the truth, is largely dependent upon geographical location for the first millenia let's say" At that point is the response simply, God does not owe us salvation let alone a common standard of help to every individual for their salvation? Or is there something more we can say here.
IMHO being "chosen' was always geographically limiting. And, He does not owe us salvation. And, God is not bound by the sacraments, He can save whoever He wants, (the good thief.)
thanks Michael for the presentation. could u explain to me what kind of level degree of ignorance that someone may be save? especially people from other religion. is it still acceptable in this internet era when almost every person in this world can Access and try to find out about Truth (Jesus) and His Church? thanks
I think part of the answer lies in the idea that even if someone explicitly tells you “follow Jesus, be baptized, join the Church, receive the Eucharist” etc but it was not presented in a persuasive way, their ignorance can still be ignorant, in which case the possibility remains that they can be saved outside the visible boundaries of the church. The level of ignorance has to be enough where you are not at fault for being ignorant. The mere fact of near infinite accessible information shouldn’t be the deciding factor, because maybe you don’t know where to look to find persuasive information. But actively avoiding information that might change your mind could very well be cause for _vincible_ ignorance.
Joe, you have to place this dogma adjacent to the dogma that every soul is given sufficient grace to be saved. These are two contrary dogmas yet when contemplated they allow the soul to glimpse at what reason cannot.
WRT Rahner's shtick re "Anonymous Christians": When I first heard about this way back when, I envisioned a Hindu retorting to Rahner, "Well, maybe *you're* an Anonymous Hindu!" It just seemed like such a supercilious, condescending approach. In the name of irenicism and ecumenism, Rahner was actually being rather patronizing. I mean, Father Rahner, dude, please respect non-Christians enough to recognize their need for the same Gospel that saves and blesses us Christians.
“Outside the Church there is no salvation is a dogma. You have to accept it whether you like it or not. And personally I do like it” - based Michael Lofton.
timestamp?
W Dwong. Wasn’t expecting see a comment from you here lol
You are doing great work Mr. Lofton. Before you, schismatic types had a monopoly on this content, at least in the online sphere. But you brought nuance and synthesized the truths revealed through all the councils.
Glad it helps!
Truth bomb by Michael Lofton - great show
Michael, the Church is truly blessed by your ministry. Thank you for helping us to navigate the sometimes confusing aftermath of an ecumenical council. And the double Windsor - cha ching.
Wow. thank you so much. Incredibly helpful, thank you for giving your time and resources (I'm a protestant seriously studying Catholicism and this answered a lot of questions I've been having, thank you for the resource!)
Glad it was helpful!
Excellent lecture!
Thank you R & T for clarifying this doctrine which is indeed hard especially if we know people that are not in communion with the RCC.
I have a problem with this very thing. I’m going to listen and try to understand. Thank you, Michael.
Thanks, Michael Lofton.
ST. POPE JOHN PAUL II: When brothers and sisters who are not in perfect communion with one another come together to pray... their prayer is the soul of the whole ecumenical movement. If Christians, despite their divisions, can grow evermore united in common prayer around Christ, they will grow in their awareness of how little divides them in comparison to what unites them.
“It is absolutely clear that ecumenism, the movement promoting Christian unity, is not just some sort of ‘appendix’ which is added to the Church’s traditional activity. Rather, ecumenism is an organic part of her life and work, and, consequently, must pervade all that she is and does.”
@@TaylorR-kr2nw cafeteria catholicism
Excellent presentation, Michael. R&T is my favorite channel. I just want to add that the Latin in LG #16 is "saepius" meaning "more often", which is even stronger than the English translation "often" that you were citing.
This is excellent! Thank you!
The way to understand how the Church has acted through the centuries, as I wish all Christians will do, is to approach it in these 2 very important but overlooked ways:
1. Christ, in establishing His Church on Peter, said that “WHATEVER YOU BIND ON EARTH SHALL BE BOUND ON HEAVEN, AND WHATEVER YOU LOOSE ON EARTH SHALL BE LOOSED IN HEAVEN”; and
2. Christ promised His Church that “THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL GUIDE IT INTO ALL TRUTH.”
One can truly understand and realize the significance of these 2 related Bible truths in the spirit of faith and confidence in Christ only.
God bless, everyone.
Michael, serious question. Do you plan on making St. Maximus the Confessor Institute an actual university or something of the sort? If so, well well well I might have to consider going (I'm in high school right now) :)
Possible in the years to come.
@@reasonandtheology Cool. I would sign up. I'm only 1 state to the west of you 😉.
@@TheChunkyCrusader I hope it grows into something that big
Great presentation! Any chance at getting a copy of that Power Point?
Thanks Michael. I think having a deeper understanding of this dogma helps to understand better Nostra Aetate and Unitatis Redintegratio. It helps to better understand the mind and spirit of the Council Fathers. Many superficial criticisms to VII may come due to a lack of deep understanding of the dogma ECNL. What are your thoughts on this? Thank you very much. Very helpful
I think we should distinguish between "assuming culpability" as a methodology vs "assuming culpability" in reality. What I mean by that is that we have to evangelize people "as if" they are culpable (i.e. we act "as if" they are culpable just in case they are culpable ). But we should not actually believe in our minds that, yes, they are definitely culpable (i.e. we should not make a real assumption or judgment about whether they have actual culpability), because this goes against Jesus command to not judge souls. Rather, we should suspend our judgment interiorly and remain agnostic about their actual state of culpability.
Also, when I say that we have to evangelize people as if they are culpable, I don't mean that we have to accuse them or berate them. I mean that our desire to evangelize them should be as strong, loving and urgent as if they were culpable (like the father who desperatly wanted the return of his prodigal son).
Jesus forbade us to make hypocritical judgments about people. Not judgments at all.
@@reasonandtheology Ok I understand. But I think in order to make a judgment about the culpability of someone you have to know them enough for that. It would not be fair I think to make a judgment simply based on the fact that they are not Catholic if you don't know them personally.
Nice job! This was helpful to me.
ST. POPE JOHN PAUL II: “The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace, which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.”
@Reason & Theology How would you exactly define "implicit faith"? It is quite hard to understand what is the precise difference between "implicit" and "explicit faith".
Explicit faith is they directly know and believe in whom they are placing their faith in, and implicit faith means they may not know who God is but they are disposed to believe in him and would believe in him if they had known who he was.
@@reasonandtheology Thank you, it was helpful! Yet it seems to me that the line between explicit and implict faith is a little bit vague and blurred. It could be said that the distinction is rather psychological than theological.
When you quote all these saints and documents, why didn't you use any reference at all? Is it another place where I can find it?
Amazing video thanks Michael. What do you think about the SSPX related to EENS?
This is a great explanation. I only have one question: How can we be sure that Muslims and Christians do in fact worship the same God? I want to assent to V2 in its entirety, but I'm not sure how to reconcile this statement in LG about the Muslims worshipping the same God, even if they don't do it in a salvific manner, with the fact that the Muslims have a corrupted idea of who God is. They're not comparable to the Jews who simply have an incomplete concept of who God is; their concept of God is straight up wrong. If we say that because they're monotheistic they must worship the same God, then is this also true for other monotheistic religions aside from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?
Again, I want to assent to V2 in its entirety; I don't want to be in schism. Perhaps this question is just a manifestation of my scrupulosity, but I've been wondering and asking this for a while and never gotten a satisfactory answer.
Check out my playlist on Vatican II on the channel. I know I deal with it in several videos engaging Lumen Gentium.
When Rahner talks about graces granted through false religions is he referring to actual graces or sanctifying grace?
Sanctifying
Michael, would you be willing to share your notes from this talk?
Yes. I can post them on the website soon. Aside from the slides most of it was extemporaneous so no notes on them.
@@reasonandtheology thanks for the notes and the new vocab word. Extemporaneous. I like it
So, around minute 37:30 he says that god would not hold someone (an aborigine in this case ) culpable for something he could not have known. So what about original sin? God holds ALL humans culpable for Adam's "sin", yet all humans did not participate nor know of Adam's "sin".
The context was accountability for willful sin. Obviously everyone is impacted by actions of others in one way or another.
@@reasonandtheology So we are impacted by Adam's "sin" in such a way as to make us all culpable for that "sin"?
@@reasonandtheology I don't think you addressed the issue. Natives are not culpable for not knowing Jesus. It is biblical and traditional that God would not hold you responsible for something you could not have known. No human knows or, more importantly, participated in original sin. So how and why are we culpable for it? Yes, were are impacted by others' actions but we are not culpable for them.
@@joemathis6551Original sin is a disease or defect, and like life, it’s unfair but it is still there, if you don’t like this type of answer then just think of original sin as the lack of grace that Adam and Eve had within the garden due to their sin
@@joemathis6551Also God had written the law of nature in their hearts as Paul says, if they even do not abide by that law, they have no excuse
Hey Michael, there is a common objection raised against Catholics which says that: "If EENS is true, then your salvation for many centuries was largely geographically dependent?"
Of course our response is detailed in this video, drawing distinctions, recognising the possibility of extraordinary means by which God reaches those, let's say in the New World, in the first milennia. Perhaps sending an angel or something, or they have all of those conditions, invincible ignorance, implicit faith and baptism of desire implicitly...
How now would you respond to the objector who says that that kicks the can down the road essentially and raises a new problem. "If EENS is true, then the likelihood of your salvation, the help you receive for your salvation viz the Sacraments and the truth, is largely dependent upon geographical location for the first millenia let's say"
At that point is the response simply, God does not owe us salvation let alone a common standard of help to every individual for their salvation? Or is there something more we can say here.
IMHO being "chosen' was always geographically limiting. And, He does not owe us salvation. And, God is not bound by the sacraments, He can save whoever He wants, (the good thief.)
thanks Michael for the presentation.
could u explain to me what kind of level degree of ignorance that someone may be save? especially people from other religion. is it still acceptable in this internet era when almost every person in this world can Access and try to find out about Truth (Jesus) and His Church?
thanks
I think part of the answer lies in the idea that even if someone explicitly tells you “follow Jesus, be baptized, join the Church, receive the Eucharist” etc but it was not presented in a persuasive way, their ignorance can still be ignorant, in which case the possibility remains that they can be saved outside the visible boundaries of the church.
The level of ignorance has to be enough where you are not at fault for being ignorant. The mere fact of near infinite accessible information shouldn’t be the deciding factor, because maybe you don’t know where to look to find persuasive information. But actively avoiding information that might change your mind could very well be cause for _vincible_ ignorance.
Why is this the only dogma that needs a detailed explanation to say that it really means something else?
@@Wgaither1 “Easier” does not mean true
Joe, you have to place this dogma adjacent to the dogma that every soul is given sufficient grace to be saved. These are two contrary dogmas yet when contemplated they allow the soul to glimpse at what reason cannot.
@@timothyspjut6300 How did the saints understand this dogma?
WRT Rahner's shtick re "Anonymous Christians": When I first heard about this way back when, I envisioned a Hindu retorting to Rahner, "Well, maybe *you're* an Anonymous Hindu!" It just seemed like such a supercilious, condescending approach. In the name of irenicism and ecumenism, Rahner was actually being rather patronizing. I mean, Father Rahner, dude, please respect non-Christians enough to recognize their need for the same Gospel that saves and blesses us Christians.