I’m a Roman Catholic and have been listening to this channel for several weeks now. I’ve always felt spiritually pulled in the direction of Lutheranism and I’m finally giving myself the chance to fully explore non-Roman Catholic ideas. This video is exactly what I needed right now! Thank you, Dr. Ortlund.
Yes! Lutherans have the historical (catholic) faith without the craziness of 19th century-and-after Roman Catholicism (or the craziness of some contemporary Protestants).
@@moses.coffee yes they do. Lutheran churches are buying into the worldly culture which is terribly discouraging. So far, the Catholic Church has held, but is showing signs of schism. This is a terrible time for Christians and I know is about to get worse.
Follow the Holy Bible, friend. The Catholic Church has been fraudulent for 1,500+ years. Find a non-denominational Holy Bible following church, and get Saved Brother!
That’s cute. A better way to frame it might be “Christ promised to guide his apostolic church into all truth; he didn’t promise to guide every club that rents a building and has a Bible into all truth.”
I think the orthodox churches would not take kindly to that description. It's hard to take doctrinal pronouncements seriously when they coincide so neatly with the interests of the powerful that make them.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787Christ didn’t promise to guide His apostolic church into all truth. He promised by His Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth. The apostles. The Holy Spirit did that, it’s called the scripture and the church is subordinate to that. Christ never promised ongoing revelation. The church is only guided by truth insofar as it follows the scripture. Churches can err, see Galatian churches and the church in Corinth which persisted in error. Rome isn’t immune. That’s fairy tale thinking.
@@KnightFelhe did give all the authority given to him (Christ) to the apostles which then would given them the authority to also pass on that authority.
I believe it's the same view the Orthodox Church holds to. Though I'm a Protestant, I will never say that those who attend a Catholic or Orthodox church are not saved. I may not agree with much of their doctrine. Only Jesus knows the heart if it's genuine and we are saved.
This channel is great. Finally good sound arguments from a Protestant Pastor who has wrestled with the writings of the church fathers. I grew up in a Baptist church with such a weak grasp on its own rich tradition. It's refreshing to see that the fathers aren't the 'property' of the Roman Catholic church and that it is in our best interest to read them ourselves in light of scripture. Thanks Dr. Ortlund.
I am a lfe-long practicing Catholic layman (not an "ex" anything) Throughout my life (I am now 75) I have always thought: A) Augustine should have kept his mouth shut more that he did B) God, being Sovereign, died for ALL people (as Scripture explicitly states several times C) is bigger than any "church" D) established a visible Church E) and brings Christ's salvation to people ANY WAY He wants to in ways the Church can never comprehend......don't bind the Holy Spirit!!
It seems it wasn't a uniquely Agustinian "problem." Roughly a millennium later, the council of Florence strongly affirms: no salvation outside the Catholic church. It excludes Jews, etc... This sort of "universalism" which is seen in post vatican 2 Catholicism(recognizing protestants as "separated brethren," for example) would have been unrecognizable to the Roman Catholic church of the Renaissance era, for instance. What you're saying is very charitable, and dare I say...Christian😉, yet it is not in alignment with much of the historical stance and practice of the Roman Catholic church.
Hey Dr. Ortlund! I actually wrote an essay for my seminary, over at Southern Evangelical Seminary, about Roman Catholic teachings on justification. When you had brought up the yolk of infallibility claims, it reminded me of what I wrote about in my essay! In my writing, I had compared the development of Roman Catholic dogmatic teaching to a scientific phenomenon known as Mueller's ratchet. I think it is worth taking a look at Mueller's ratchet and order to understand how it feels like a good analogy for the dangers difficulties and burdens which come along with Roman Catholic teaching. Admittedly, my professors, though liking my paper, thought it was strange and interesting to have a chapter on genetics in a paper on Roman Catholic teachings of justification. However, I really do think that it is a helpful way to show, and real life biological examples, the dangers that can come from being bound by certain post scriptural and post 4th century dogmatic proclamations by Roman Catholic magisterium and the papacy. Sorry for any errors or strangeness in my grammar! I am using the voice to text currently. And either case, I greatly appreciated your video and I pray that God continues to use your ministry so that people may see the glory of God more and more in their lives. Thank you!
Would you be willing to share your writing? I am actually doing a personal deep dive into Catholicism. On top of that, I love reading peoples essays, articles, etc. I would love to have it for my library but if you are not comfortable sharing I understand.
@@unapologeticapologetics6953 Sorry to pull you back to this thread from a year ago, but would you be willing to give the analogy in a very simple way here by any chance? I think I’m still confused
the next logical question is "which branch of protestantism?" so many fish in the sea. or any denomination it okay as long as its not the catholic church? even though denominations within protestantisms dont agree in almost everything, and push comes to shove that you disagree within your fellow protestants of the same denomination, who would be the final arbiter of truth? It wont be the bible since both of you will only use that defense.
@@Ternz_TV Which rite, fraternity, order, society, or family are you? Are you TLM or novus ordo .. which language is spoken? Are you in the Catholic Charasmatic Renewal or do worship more purely and reverently than "those" people?
@@ReformingApologetics all you mentioned do not fall in the realm of doctrines. So outside of doctrines we catholics kave have varying opinions on rites, theological speculations and opinions and can disagree with one another. but doctrinally speaking, we catholics are united. If you can't differentiate doctrines from rite/theological speculations/opinion then it will be hard for you to get my point.
@@Ternz_TV That's just based on differing definitions. The RCC might not call "tongues" a "doctrine," while a Pentecostal might. There are still Catholics in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal who worship separately, and believe and practice this while others don't. I think it's close to 200 million people now. The trads, especially the sedevacantists generally don't even consider them Catholics. Are the sedevacantists Catholics with the same doctrine? Perhaps the "doctrine" is just flexible enough to allow them to reject Francis while the other ~92% don't. Are you a Marshalist (disciple of Taylor Marshall)? Does he have the same soteriological "doctrine" as von Balthasar did? Are all the new doctrines and dogmas since the 1st century such that a believer from that time that didn't believe these things would be a heretic if they lived today? Forcing trads and novus order folks, diocese by diocese to worship separately, is decisive, but if you hide behind your definition of "doctrine," its ignored. Were all these folks "untied in doctrine"? catholicherald.co.uk/religious-orders-at-war/ The centuries long, brutal divisions over the Immaculate Conception were even worse, but wasn't it a "doctrine" before it was a dogma? Where does Scripture say we're known for doctrinal conformity, anyway? If you read it, you'd be inclined to think it's more about, oh, I don't know, love for one another, bearing fruit, maybe doctrinal conformity is in there somewhere and I just missed it.
Another great presentation Dr. Ortlund. I look forward to reading all the clarifications you will make in the comments because folks will mishear you or not finish the whole video and throw out responses and church father quotes that are neither here nor there. Thank you for your service.
Excellent fleshing out of this issue; and, for a long time, (since around 1996, when my friend Rod Bennett converted to Roman Catholicism and I started really studying RC more) - for a long time I have had the conviction that this is one of the clearest contradictions to Roman Catholicism to it's own claims. The contradiction is between the long history of the tradition of "no salvation outside the church" vs. Vatican 2 and post Vatican 2 theology. You did a good job of unpacking the issue for us. Thank you!
There is still no salvation outside the Church. So this means that st judgment you will be informed that the Eucharist IS the body of Christ. If you still reject that then no salvation because you would reject Christ. Just like if a Muslim or Buddhist or any other religion rejects Christ sacrifice and the Holy Spirit.
Baptists that aren't in the Reform tradition have Baby dedication which is basically the same as infant baptism just without the Baptism part: it's a very short ceremony usually at the end of a service that parents could dedicate there child to God and their responsibility to raise the child in Christianity and when they make a decision for Christ then they can be baptized as a believer. The Pastor would then pray for each child and parents individually.
@@TruthUnites thank you. I wrote this on your last video, but would you consider commenting on the "joint declaration of the doctrine of justification" from 1999? Can it be a regional phenomenon considering the claims about catholicity from the Roman catholic church? Is it binding? Is it progress? Is it just a nice gesture?
@@georgwagner937 Regarding JDDJ, Austin over at Gospel Simplicity has an informative interview with Dr. Michael Root who served as a Lutheran representative on the project. Interestingly, Root is now Roman Catholic.
This video absolutely devastates Roman Catholicism. Because it first proves the magisterium contradicts itself and is thus not infallible and second it exposes the utter absurdity that only Roman Catholics can be saved.
This gets even more complicated when one considers papal encyclicals like pascendi by pious the 10th. There he says any doctrinal change is ' modernism'. No mechanism exists to distinguish modernism from the development of doctrine. Also, Gavin, this video summarizes my almost exact thoughts on this issue. This issue of doctrine cannot change was a pivotal reason why i left the church. One cannot maintain the Ratzinger Hermeneutic of Continuity. also teaching on usury was changed.
Well, to be honest, some things really can't be changed at all. Trinitarianism. The existence of God. Things like that are dogmatic for a reason. Usury isn't a central tenet of the faith, or even a peripheral one. A teaching on such a thing can change. We then have to consider what "change" actually means and how we're applying it. I think if we understand "change" to mean the organic unfolding of Truth, such as the recognition of the various Marian dogmas or the revelation of the Trinity and a deepening of our understanding of it, then we're not engaging in "modernism". Also, I really think you've mischaracterised what Pius X did in Pascendi. He definitely did not say that "any doctrinal change is "modernism"". It's a pretty quick read. That document lists 65 relatively modern errors and condemns them. If we take an example: "65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism." We can see that anyone who agrees with this statement is not properly utilising reason. I would hazard the guess that the original error being condemned probably stems from some kind of popular conception of Darwin(ism) and the weird idea that somehow faith is irrational and that religion must somehow condemn science. If we apply reason to the situation, I think it's far closer to the truth that science reconciles itself with faith. When we look at first principles, we understand that God created a sensible, knowable, and rational universe. 2 x 5 = 10; acid plus base = heat + salt; woman + man = family of children. Science might reveal the details, but does not contradict the first principle. I could be mistaken in understanding what you meant, but in reading Pascendi, I just don't wee where the Pope is condemning modernism per se, rather than errors that modernists fall prey to. "With truly lamentable results, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race. Thus it falls into very serious errors..." On the other hand, if we "change" a doctrine such that we overthrow, get rid of, deny, reduce the importance of, or corrupt the meaning of the doctrine, then, yes, that is an error of "modernism" and would result in our self-expulsion from the Church. Christianity holds the doctrine of the Trinity as dogmatic. It's an axiom of the faith. To admit a fourth person of the Trinity is clearly heretical. To deny the Trinity likewise. This is why Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. Their "doctrinal change" has not been organic in nature so much as catastrophic. So we end up with a people who were once Protestant Christians, but are now polytheists, believing that the Father was once a man and was married and had a kid, named Jesus, and that one day we'll all be gods too. Or another group of former Protestant Christians who now believe that Jesus is not God, but is the archangel Michael.
Great video. You reminded me that I need to finish my study of the topic. In addition to Newman's essay, I have Pelikan's "Development of Christian Doctrine: Some Historical Prolegomena", Owen Chadwick's, "From Bossuet to Newman: The Idea of Doctrinal Development", and R.P.C. Hanson's "The Continuity of Christian Doctrine". I can't wait to start digging. If you have any recommendations for primary sources or historical proponents of the theory, I'd love to hear about them. Keep up the good work.
As a former RC who became a mere Christian, I note that Jesus' promise (that every one who believes in Him as Savior *will* receive eternal life) is in diametrical opposition to the RCC's decree (that I cannot have eternal life unless I return to the RCC). Now, who should I believe: Jesus Christ, or the church of Rome organization? It's a no-brainer, I'll go with Jesus every day of the week and twice on Sunday! 🤣 Obviously the RCC took a wrong left turn long ago! Currently I am in a wonderful ACNA Anglican parish, but what defines me is my faith in Jesus Christ. Not the name over the doorway!
Yes you should believe Christ, but you reject that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. You’ll have a more difficult time because you were brought up with that knowledge and are rejecting it.
Thank you for this Gavin. I'm always looking forward to your videos about these hot apologetic cross-denominational topics because I know you won't just discredit Catholics from the start, but you'll give a fair hearing to their arguments and give your best counters. This is very informative, and very necessary in the protestant world, where most preachers who talk about these issues are very antagonistic towards Catholics and basically cut any and all hope for a civil conversation.
@@Tom-qo4mz it's a reference to Cardinal Newman and his idea of the development of doctrine in the RCC. It's a bit of a meme I guess you could say nowadays where non-RC who are critiquing Catholicism will say just "sprinkle some Newman on it" and all of the perceived contradictions go away because it can be considered a development of doctrine, and not an aberration. The often used image is an acorn developing into an oak tree. However, I'm starting to see the development of Roman Catholic dogmas more as a grafting of one type of tree onto another. Thus, I'm not sure how long before I head to the Orthodox Church. God bless you.
@@johnsayre2038 thanks for elaborating, i had come across Newman in passing before but don't (didn't..!) know enough (or anything really) to understand your comment at first
@John Sayre why not just become Lutheran? If you prefer traditional mass but don't want the problems of the Papacy then Lutherans are basically that. Greek Orthodox have a borderline heretical view of the trinity where they don't quite accept that Jesus has the authority to send the Holy Spirit. It's on the border of heresy because while they don't deny the trinity, they do question Jesus equality with the Father.
Dr. Ortlund, I’ve been doing a lot of investigation of Catholicism lately, and I’ve found your channel to be an invaluable resource. I would love to hear a response to the Catholic teaching of invincible ignorance, the Protestant position(s) on salvation apart from faith in Jesus Christ, and what Christ meant when he said “forgive them, they know not what they’ve done.” My initial reaction to this teaching is that it is wholly unsound. But if your channel has taught me anything, it’s that I am often surprised that historical Protestant views are much different than what I’ve learned at the nondenominational churches I’ve attended. I have searched for a rebuttal to this doctrine, but I have yet to find a Protestant perspective on these issues (at least on TH-cam). Any book reference would also be greatly appreciated!
I am in a similar place. I find that there is no " Protestant " perspective. It is so discouraging. Each individual Protestant church is different. That is the weakness.
And it only takes them hours and hours and hours to explain things, ultimately hypnotizing the viewer with so much information that one is left in a trance, thinking, "Well they spoke with conviction - talking non-stop for three hours - so they must be right."
Dr. Ortlund, You mentioned at the 21:07 mark that “no one, from Augustine to…” held a view similar to that of Vatican II. The following excerpt is from Augustine’s “On Baptism, Against the Donatists” (Chapter 28:39). If you haven’t read this yet, I encourage you to do so. If you have, how would this not be considered a strong witness to the understanding of Invincible Ignorance / invisible unity to The Church? “Hence, therefore, we have now set before us an easier and more simple consideration of that ark of which Noah was the builder and pilot. For Peter says that in the Ark of Noah, "few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God)." 1 Peter 3:20-21 Wherefore, if those appear to men to be baptized in Catholic unity who renounce the world in words only and not in deeds, how do they belong to the mystery of this ark in whom there is not the answer of a good conscience? Or how are they saved by water, who, making a bad use of holy baptism, though they seem to be within, yet persevere to the end of their days in a wicked and abandoned course of life? Or how can they fail to be saved by water, of whom Cyprian himself records that they were in time past simply admitted to the Church with the baptism which they had received in heresy? For the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, "The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale." If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. It is therefore possible that some who have been baptized without may be considered, through the foreknowledge of God, to have been really baptized within, because within the water begins to be profitable to them unto salvation; nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water. And again, some who seemed to have been baptized within may be considered, through the same foreknowledge of God, more truly to have been baptized without, since, by making a bad use of baptism, they die by water, which then happened to no one who was not outside the ark. Certainly it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark through the same water, through which all who are in heart without, whether they are also in body without or not, die as enemies of unity. As therefore it was not another but the same water that saved those who were placed within the ark, and destroyed those who were left without the ark, so it is not by different baptisms, but by the same, that good Catholics are saved, and bad Catholics or heretics perish. But what the most blessed Cyprian thinks of the Catholic Church, and how the heretics are utterly crushed by his authority; notwithstanding the much I have already said, I have yet determined to set forth by itself, if God will, with somewhat greater fullness and perspicuity, so soon as I shall have first said about his Council what I think is due from me, which, in God's will, I shall attempt in the following book.”
Helps, perhaps, to define terms? As a layman Protestant, I could hear the statement, "There is no salvation outside the church," and think, "Well of course not! However you slice it, we all come to Christ through the testimony or the word, all of which come from the Body of Christ." So maybe it would be more precise if you said, "No salvation outside the _Catholic_ (or Orthodox) church"? Thanks! Love your channel! You're one of the few I gladly give to support.
The wording/phrasing is extra ecclesiam nulla salus Which translates to “no salvation outside the church” The formulation, as presented in the video had 0 to do with RCC or EO, but they ran with it and produced ungodly doctrines based on those As far as salvation goes, salvation comes through Christ, not the church so the doctrine already has problems. I mean sure the Protestant formulation of all who are in Christ are the church rectifies this apparent contradiction from the doctrine While I can agree with noble intentions every ought be Christian to be saved, the issues stem now from sacraments and validity which also had heresies such as donatist heresy Ps There are rare instances of naaman, commander of assyria, where he was saved despite never converting to judaism Or the thief on the cross who was never Christian It’s kind of hard to take the whole no salvation doctrine in good faith
Yes, exactly. We just need to agree on what comprises the Church. Most who do not already know would be surprised to learn the understanding of the Catholic Church on this. (Want to know? Start with CCC 759!) A lot of non-Catholics believe that what they hear from Catholics engaging in apologetics represents what the Catholic Church is, but this isn't true. Apologetics is, more or less by definition, responding to challenges against our Faith - it is not, in itself, the Faith. (No more than soap and water used to clean something is the dirt or the "something".) And, in reality, the controversies we are willing to defend against run counter to our Church and what our Faith actually IS. We are called to PEACE, and THAT is the character of our Faith - not all this controversy.
@@duckymomo7935 about the thief, the actual Church wasn’t established until Pentecost. So the thief would not have been restricted by that, also the Church has always thought that God can bring anyone he wants to heaven, but us mere humans must go through the Church Jesus establish which is the Roman Catholic Church.
Dear Pastor Gavin, I’ve watched several videos from Catholics in the past few months on various topics. There is one thing that I just can’t get by and that is that I find that most Catholics argue for and point to the Catholic Church, defending their beliefs as their main goal (not saying all, I also believe that there are brothers and sisters in Christ), but the videos are so intellectual, often empty and draining and it often boils down to “we have the better arguments”, everything is about the church fathers, but it is different with you, one can hear, that your goal is, that God would be glorified. You don’t primarily point people to a certain Christian tradition, but you point People to the person of Jesus Christ (especially in your video about church anxiety) wanting people to put their trust in him and that is very prominent in you. It is your heart that is different. And if that is the fruit of being solid in your Protestant beliefs, what else can one be than Protestant, for the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart. God bless you🙏🏼
There's a lot of good evidence in this video against what modern Roman Catholic's teach on doctrinal development and apparent changes over the course of history. I honestly feel bad that they have to work so hard to find ways to defend what to me seems to be obvious changes in teaching over time. I recently became aware of Sedevacantism where modern Roman Catholic's have to defend typically Vatican II changes in teaching from this Catholic sect that are defending traditionalist views. I expect a two hour response from Trent Horn by next week.😅
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Never claimed to be well versed on the particular topic. Just stated my opinion based on my limited knowledge base and the arguments in Dr. Ortlund’s video.
Hi Gavin - Would you do a video in the future about salvation outside the church more broadly (i.e. Jewish people, Muslims, Socrates, etc)? I was deeply disappointed by Bp Barron's response to Ben Shapiro when he was asked about this a few years ago. I have a personal theory about how salvation is made available to all while maintaining Christ as the essential mediator, but I'd really appreciate hearing your pastoral thoughts on this topic.
CCC847: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation." This are for people who due to their situation cannot know Christ and His church. People who live in remote areas, etc. and this can also include people born into different religions, different cultures, different timelines, etc. God alone is the judge. He desires that all moral man be saved. One thing that must be understood is that a man must desire God and live a moral life..
- Protestants : Catholics, you have to reform!! - Catholics: No! 430 years of protest later - Catholics: Ok fine, we'll reform - Protestants: Aha!! You reformed! You were wrong all the time.
Harold, I see your point and that could be an unfortunate conclusion, but the more logical reason would be just to tweak some bad doctrine. It’s like fine tuning something that only needs some clarification, simply cleaning house. Catholics unfortunately, do not want any discussion on any dogma.
So you think that protestant reformed the church? Just look at the fruit of reformation or rather I say deformation. The fruit is thousands of denominations each contradicts each other. Sad to say but thats reality.
@@NP-vk8de Brother, Catholics dont claim that they are perfect. And lm talking about the fruit of "reformation" per se. Dont you see the fruit brother? its division. Massive division.
@@iggymagnifico7821 I guess Iggy, you cannot see the forest for the trees? You have corrupt inept leadership and you blame the Reformers? A sexual pervert is running the show (Rodrigo Borgia) and no one is allowed to say a word? So, basically you are saying it is okay to allow corruption into the church and still have clear conscience?
@@NP-vk8de I am for a reform brother. But not what the protestant did 500 years ago. Because its cause more division not Unity No, I never say what you have written brother. This is my last reply. God be with you brother.
IV LATERAN COUNCIL, 1215 A.D.: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved.” “Jews are to wear distinctive clothing. They are forbidden to be appointed to public offices.”
I was so happy to find you. You are so refreshing and loving and kind. I am devastated to find out you are a Calvinist. You say that we can accept it even if we don't believe it. I heard your arguments and even though you are very intelligent and I have learned from you I just can't listen to you any more and I feel very sad about this but how you defend Calvinism doesn't make sense. Not because I don't want it to be true but because the God of the Bible does not fit this view and the church didn't accept it until calvin came up with it later in history
The idea that Socrates and pre Christ individuals lived justly and can be called Christians makes me question what they thought salvation was. I mean the whole premise is that we needed His sacrifice for the remission of sins. Unless he is saying that they believed the righteous ways of God as was revealed to them as in Romans but through God's creation, etc. They still needed Jesus but His sacrifice was for all time?
"You're just picking and choosing." "Yeah, well, so is everyone." You hit the nail on the freaking head right there, from a maverick Orthodox. Catholics all the time attack Orthodoxy for allowing contraception, when many of their own Western Fathers condemned waiting to have sex only when the woman was infertile (which is the core tenet of NFP, which is only _now_ allowed in Catholicism). Yeah, Orthodoxy isn't following the Church Fathers, but neither is Catholicism. Nor the Protestants. Literally no one today follows them with regard to contraception. It really makes one think what the proper role of the Church Fathers is, if we can just dismiss their perennial teachings and beliefs. Must it be the case that we be "Church Fathers only, the Church Fathers are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect?" Granted, I still see Protestantism as lacking something that Apostolic Christianity has; maybe it's the ritual, the sacraments, Idk. And while I still strongly dislike Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura (more so the rigidity of the latter; having it as a "rule of thumb" is a separate thing), as well as having an _extreme_ distaste for Augustine _and_ his theology, Protestant epistemology, either intentionally or unintentionally, successfully pointed out the flaws in Apostolic epistemology, particularly with regard to the Fathers. But, still... how can you be deep in history, and not cease to be ProtesTANT???????????? 😨😨🤯🤯😨😨🤯🤯😨😨🤯🤯
haha. Appreciate the comment. It has to do with how we view church history. In my recent video with Dr. Cooper on "What is Protestantism?" we discussed this a bit, if it's of interest.
@@TruthUnites Yeah, whenever I see someone unironically quote that from Newman, I just know that they only saw Catholic Answers (or whatever the Orthodox equivalent might be) and either converted right there or were cradle. Most people take one step into apologetics, seeing only one argument/counter-argument, and that's it; so you get Catholics who go on about how sex is for procreation and reproduction, then they just go off the rails when you ask why it's two and not one or three, why it's those two specifically, or why wine drinking (then spitting it out) isn't allowed. They're like one voice in saying sex is for those two things (in that, every Catholic will say that), then just splinter and come up with varying bizarre arguments after you push back against that (I've seen one say it's because procreation is more important than, say, drinking [can't remember what exactly it was]; another that it's a bad analogy, and so on). Similarly, you'll see Orthodox saying how the Fathers are basically the rule of faith because, hey, Protestantism is splintered (which is a problem, IMO); but then you get either bizarre responses when saying that EENS is different now from what the Fathers believed, how contraception was forbidden totally, how penances were extremely severe back then, and so on; or you'll get responses that amount to, "Just ignore it and take the sacraments," which is a non-answer. It might work if Orthodoxy were an orthopraxic religion like Hinduism or Judaism, but it's not, so you absolutely need answers for this stuff. It's all illusory, man, and I'm honestly bugged that so many refuse to see this glaring issue in epistemics. So, that Newman quote is really naïve, and I'm glad there are people who are able to go past that first step in arguments/counter-arguments, and really question all the milquetoast apologia being spammed by... well, almost any type of Christian. I think Christianity being a religion of orthodoxy over orthopraxy might be one of the greatest tragedies in religious history. Anyway, sorry if my bitterness is showing; I've just been changed by Steve Skojec and TomsDigest online (the latter of which was what led me here), giving me multiple paradigm shifts that have given so much depth to my beliefs. Thanks again for the video, and for illustrating these issues.
When I was a Roman Catholic, the big problem I always had with invincible ignorance is that I wondered why would a person evangelize to a non-Christian and risk them rejecting the gospel? With invincible ignorance it would be better if they never heard the gospel, and never had a chance to reject it. According to invincible ignorance, they would still end up in heaven because of their ignorance. But if they heard the gospel and rejected it, then they’re damned.
"but if they heard the gospel and rejected it, they are damn" no you are simply wrong, because if this is a case of gavin polluting your mind about catholic teaching on invincible ignorance then he has succeeded. if you have no reason to believe that what a catholic is saying is true then even if you have heard it, you are still invincibly ignorant about it, and it wont be the reason why you got damned. Do you really think Jesus will command his apostles to preach the gospel to the world if your understanding of invincible ignorance is correct?
That's not true. If they are invincibly ignorant, they can't believe the Gospel (whatever that means) due to their ignorance. It is by no fault of their own they have such a lack of belief. Individuals of this category can be saved only by a properly formed conscience through the Grace of God. So, your evangelism of these people doesn't mean anything one way or another.
The invincibly ignorant that would be saved are the same people that would accept the gospel when presented to them. All you are doing for any creature by presenting them the gospel is helping them
Because to attain salvation, one must live a moral life, without guidance from the church, people unaware of that can fall into immorality. The straight and narrow road that leads to heaven is not an easy road to begin with, even for those gifted with the fullness of truth. Invincible ignorance, is not the only condition for salvation apart from the sacrament of baptism. The Church also teaches that such individuals must “seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience”
I encountered what I'd call a fundamentalist Catholic who stated there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church. I asked for clarification: "So all Protestants are going to Hell?" And all he would say in reply was that there's time to convert and "cross the Tiber." Most Catholics I know, including many priests, would not hold to this rather limiting position...for example, Peter Kreeft would say the Catholic Church is the best, but not the only part of the Body of Christ.
There are people, due to their circumstances cannot know the gospel of Christ...those who lived before Christ, those not reached by Christian missionaries, those in isolated primitive places, those mentally disabled, those killed in abortion, those who are born in pagan religions, etc. God is a merciful and a logical God, He desires that all men be given a chance for salvation. “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin" John 15:22 The implication is that it is possible to have a salvific link with Christ without knowing him formally. The bottom line is: the straight and narrow road that leads to heaven is not an easy road to begin with, even for those gifted with the fullness of truth. CCC847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation".
They were most probably a follower of Fr. Leonard Feeney who in the 1940s was attached to the Catholic Student's at Harvard University. He took up a very strict interpretation of the phrase "Outside of the Church there is no salvation." He and his followers were asked to explain their position, and instructed that their denial of the Baptism of Desire and the Baptism of Blood along with their denial in Invincible Ignorance, in which a person who through no fault of their own has not heard the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church (be it because they have not been presented it, or they are so prejudiced by Anti-Catholic indoctrination) will be judged by God based on what they knew, and how they conducted their lives. God will through the Merits of the Cross welcome into eternal life those who have endeavored to live a life following God as they understood His will to be. When they continued to refuse the Catholic interpretation of the Catholic understanding of "Outside the Church" they themselves were excommunicated, something they protested was invalid because they were the only one's who understood the teaching better than the Pope and the rest of the Church.
The pre christ pagans were not saved because they lived justly alone, but also because christ decended into the hell (limbus patrem) and applied salvation to them through the preaching of the gospel. Which is why saint peter says the gospel has been preached even to the dead. No one, absolutely no one enters heaven by their own merit, but by the application of the blood of Christ and the belief therein
No. That passage in Peter does not mean that at all. Christ preached to the people who were dead at the time that the verse was written but who were alive when the preaching was done. A proper understanding is that Peter was referring to just prior to the flood when Jesus preached through Noah. The dead are asleep in the grave.
Time-stamp 20:26 - Yup, this is modern. 21:06 - “invisibly on the ark of Noah” 🤣 21:55 - where’s the precedent? 22:37 - doctrinal development. 22:52 - what’s the point in an infallible teaching office if Christians misunderstand for centuries? 23:50 - change in meaning, not just a change in understanding. 24:26, 24:55 - the allowance analogy 25:55 - Gavin’s position on Vatican ll 26:15, 27:50 - Protestant freedom
You need to learn more about infallibility in the Church. Everything he said here has little to do with that. So the teaching on the Trinity is infallible, the teaching in the Eucharist is in fallible, the teaching on the Virgin Mary is infallible, and the teaching in no salvation outside the Church is infallible along with other things. But there are practices and traditions that are for helping people and can be changed.
The entire "no salvation outside the church" nonsense also has to ignore parts of the Bible. We forget that Christianity is very much a continuation of the Jewish faith. Did Jesus or the apostles ever say you have to stop being a Jew to follow Jesus? No! And did they ever say to us gentiles you have to convert to Jewish law to follow Jesus? No! Its very explicitly stated to follow the life you were chosen to live. The entire idea of "no salvation outside the church" is a blatant slap in the face to the very culture the world inherited from the Israelite people, and is a slap in the face to both Jesus and the apostles. And im willing to stake eternity on that. "if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." How on earth have we gotten so far away from the very simple Gospel?
Does the Orthodox church also teach that there is no salvation outside of it? If so, could i ask anyone to cite me some official Orthodox source please? Also, I have just been thinking about this this week, one of the things holding me back from going Orthodox/RCC is that I can't honestly deny the holy spirit working with protestant denominations...
IMO, other churches also have experienced such "Vatican II" moments, either formally or informally, be it EO, OO, or ACOE. At least in the laity levels, you could always find people who defend a broader ecumenism with their own slogans and terms.
yes they do, historically. In my book I document a number of saints/theologians and a few councils saying that the Filioque is damnable heresy, e.g. This starts to change a bit in the 19th/20th centuries among some Orthodox theologians.
Thanks a lot. Also I appreciate how honest and respectful your protestant arguments are, most protestants i know are very militant and arrogant when it comes to arguing with the Cats/Orthodox.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj the Orthodox online that I have interacted with call Protestants heretics and outside the Ark of the church that Saves. This typology fails because the Flood wasn't Global and only A Large Regional flood of the Middle East. Nephilim( Giants) are still around after the Flood and settled in Canaan which is why King David and others had to fight this family of Goliaths of Gath. BTW Traditional Roman Catholics on Trent Horn's and have also called me (a Protestant ) a heretic ! Trent did comment about these types of comments and wanted his supporters to stop because that's not official Roman Catholic church teaching anymore. But there are Roman Catholics that don't accept Vatican ll new teaching. This video comments on this problem for Roman Catholicism at the end of the video.
One of the things that I love about this channel is that it gives us an opportunity to split hairs in a fruitful way and better understand one another. Super! I think a better example could have been chosen to illustrate the concerns with doctrinal development. Regarding GUARD RAILS, no-salvation-outside-the-church is not what I would call a sacred dogma. There really is a hierarchy of truths in Roman Catholicism. It only makes sense that there would be more wiggle room to develop those lower down the ladder. And while a medieval theologian might have made an argument for those earlier teachings being infallible, what qualifies as an ex cathedra statement is itself a doctrinal development! So it is wrong to suggest that the church has “positively reformulated” what should have stood the test of time. For my part, doctrinal development is a brilliant mechanism that God built into his Church to keep it relevant throughout the ages, faithfully guiding its members ever closer to that glorious day. Once again, though, outstanding video. Always food for thought and a chance to reflect! Ave Maria.
Glad you enjoyed the video! To your first point, the fact that this dogma may be less important (not sure about that, but granting it for the sake of argument) does not mean it is any less infallible and thus irreformable. So I'd say that is irrelevant. To the second point, when you say "what qualifies as an ex cathedra statement is itself a doctrinal development," I have lots of concerns about this. One is it makes for an infinitely moving target. Another is I really don't think Catholics teach or believe that. Another is that in this particular case, the vast majority of Catholics consider the papal bull from the Council of Florence ex cathedra. Ultimately that kind of statement undercuts the appeal for an infallible authority, it seems to me, because now you never really know when it is infallible. Hope that makes sense.
Warren, I would have to disagree on your approach to this dilemma. It is true that in one sense we can we can rank doctrines in importance or centrality to the Christian faith. e.g. The divinity of Jesus is more important than the dogmas on indulgences. However if something is a dogma, then it is a dogma. All infallible and irreformable definitions are infallible and irreformable by definition. I think the solution to the dilemma is to pay attention to the definitions in their context, distinguish between what is normatively necessary vs. absolutely necessary and not make a dogmatic definition wider than it was intended.
Thank you both for your comments! Very constructive. It should not come as a surprise that the definition of what constitutes ex cathedra is itself a doctrinal development. While the Church has always had it in some form, it wasn’t until much later that serious discussions about inerrancy began to take hold and obviously weren’t fully formulated until Vatican 1. Having said that, I don’t know enough about the topic to properly argue it. I’m inspired to dig deeper! Perhaps in the new year. Merry Christmas!
I don't think the allowance analogy works. Here's why: those of us who believe the Church is necessary for salvation can still say there is no salvation outside of the Church and what this would mean is that all salvific graces and doctrine enter the world through Christ and His Church. So if there is something salvific about any protestant sects they got it from us. If there is something salvific about the life of a pagan who doesn't know Christ he's participating in virtue that the Church proclaims. With this view your analogy would look like this "parents tell their son 'you can use no money that is not money'." If the boy us going to use any money (participate in virtue and be saved) there is no way to do it but to use money (participate in virtue and be saved).
I think there's a little arguing over semantics here because in Orthodoxy we view the church to be the body of Christ and catholics have a similar view so saying "no salvation outside the church" would be equivalent to a protestant saying "no salvation outside of Christ" which I think we can all agree with. However I think protestants are completely correct in pointing out that limiting the scope of Christ to only extend as far as the boundaries of what we view to be the canonical church is human arrogance. There's a difference between knowingly, consciously rejecting the church (as in Christ) and desiring to be in the church but not having knowledge of or access to the human denomination that is the most correct in their theology.
"The schisms in the "Church" today are not like the marcienites or something like that" Why not? Also there aren't schisms "inside" the church. Which is what Cyprian is saying, to deny the faith even in one article is to remove yourself from the church. The church is always one. One Lord, one baptism, one faith. And if you concoct your own faith, or follow a heretic you are not in the church
I think most people are misinterpreting what the “church” actually is. Jesus says his kingdom is not of this world. It would make sense that his church body wouldn’t be recognizable by this world. It’s not a building, a denomination, or a magisterium. Peter tells us the church is simply people who put their faith in Jesus. Jesus himself is building his church. “As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.“ 1 Peter 2:4-5
But how would that work? The church existed for 400 years before the bible and it took thousands of years before it was ever printed and another hundreds of years before common folks can read and get a hand on a copy of a bible. Christ build a church with His chosen 12 apostles to teach His gospel and spread it out through the world.
Doctrine can change in its understanding but not its meaning. I like that. It reminds me of how Christ declared all food clean, but didn't declare we could eat anything. Yet, the church in general, has taught with an understanding that is more lawless than law abiding. The meaning of Matthew 15 and Mark 7 doesn't change, but our understanding does.
Just as you stated that Augustine became much "harder" in his later life, I noticed that you are becoming much firmer in your doctrinal teachings. It may just be how you are delivering your teachings. I am not saying this is a bad thing. It allows viewers to understand your position better. Jordan Cooper became like that too. He used to be pretty "mushy", so I had a hard time understanding the Lutheran beliefs. Nowadays, I can clearly understand the distinctions.
I mean I hate that I’m charitable to RCC teachings but after hearing them they’re just flat out wrong and all that I know that being a catholic or eo is going to. BE miserable for me especially adherence to sacraments and bad doctrines
@@duckymomo7935 While I am a conservative Presbyterian, Christianity is more than just sacraments and doctrines. It's really about Christ. Some prefer Nicene-Constantian Creed and some prefer Chalcedon Creed. These creeds really set us what it means to be Christians. We are followers of the Triune God. Unlike deistic Judaism or Islam, we worship the Father who created and loves us eternally. We worship the Son who came down as a man and suffered for us. We believe in the Holy Spirit who indwells in us to help in all aspects of our lives. That's the most important aspect of the Christianity and we can spread from there.
Thank you for your scholarly deep dives into doctrine, among other things. I am a Roman Catholic who had a major spiritual crisis when talk of declaring Mary co-redemtrix started to be "taken for granted ". Natural doctrinal development, right? I have not been to church in over a year. I can't talk to a priest because one priest here has 3 parishes. I have never had a pastor. I would become Protestant but that would entail individual interviews with each pastor to determine the beliefs of that particular church. I can avoid the ones that have a rainbow flag next to the door, but not all advertise. I know that we need to worship as humans together, but I am unchurched and bereft in that way.
The most recent popes have moved away from using the language of Mary as co-redemtrix. No Catholic is bound to affirm this title. Although, technically all Christians are co-redeemers in Christ since we are all commissioned by Our Lord to proclaim the Gospel.
Might a Lutheran congregation be a reasonably comfortable place to start for you? Most church websites will state their doctrinal statements, so that’s always a good place to examine. Listen to some sermons online & check for proper use of the Bible. Then visit a few times. Membership classes typically will give you a much deeper understanding of how the church works. Interestingly, I was sent to this video by Pastor Mike Winger who was addressing the “45,000 denominations” baloney in his first question (his last video of 2023) and how to find the right church for you. Blessings
Co-redemtrix just means that God in his greatness allowed a human to help him bring salvation to the world. Mary had free will and without her saying yes, there would be no salvation. I believe it is yet another way God showed his great humility. And Mary is to be called blessed by us all and I believe that Jesus being Mary’s son still had to honor and obey his mother. Just think if God would die for all of us, how does he show honor to his mother?
Question? Suppose you reject the primacy of the pope but accept bishops. Why not be Eastern Orthodox then? Or another question. Suppose that the bishops agree to have a pope as leader. Then it’s not contradicting the will of the bishops.
To the first question, if you accept episcopal church government, you could be Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, Anglican, Lutheran or Methodist. There are also some Reformed Christians and other smaller groups that have bishops. Even some Baptists have bishops! To the second question, yes, if all bishops agreed to have one leader, that would lead to a state of concord. However, this is different from Catholic teaching about the papacy, which maintains the papacy is Christ's appointment, not merely the result of a decision of the church.
@@TruthUnites Interesting, thank you! Brings a lot more diversity to the Protestant position for people who hold certain views of apostolic succession! Never knew that!
The difference between Florence/unum sanctum and Vatican II/current teaching is the primary reason I reject infallibility both from the pope and the general magisterium. They are different things, no matter how much context you allow and categories you create.
Why do you suppose that the heresies promoted by Protestants are less than heresies of old? How are these new heresies good and why should we acknowledge them?
In addition to my other comment, I'd just like to make a note on Church Fathers, on Tradition, on Magesterium, on Councils, on Scripture. As a Catholic, I have to commend you for delving into the Fathers with such gusto! As I understand it, this is territory that not many Protestants wholeheartedly wish to tread. That said, I think you might be headed towards an error in your thought process. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that you're almost equating Cyprian and Augustine with Church teaching as a whole. I get this gut feeling that you're saying Catholics should be taking every single thing a Father says and make it doctrinal if not dogmatic. We hold the Doctors and Fathers in high regard, of course, but we don't replace scripture with letters or documents written by them. Just as we don't take the private revelations given to saints or other individuals as universal or public revelation. While we don't hold scripture as being "above" tradition, because scripture IS tradition, neither do we hold all aspects of tradition as equal! We could come very close to holding "prima scriptura". (But not quite there!) If we take all of the Church's tradition as a necklace, obviously the Bible is the whopping big diamond in the middle. All the rest of the gems are the traditions of the Church. The Fathers form the setting, they enhance the beauty, they glorify and magnify, they explain, they teach, they opine, but they do not constitute doctrine or dogma in and of themselves. So if a Church Father says there is no salvation outside the Church, we need to discover several things: first, is he quoting scripture?; second, what is his context?; third; how did this apply at the time?; and fourth, what does this mean for us now? As far as ecumenical councils go, and Florence in particular, I've read that that one is especially problematic because only parts of that Council are actually and truly Ecumenical. Even so, and even though it mentions pagans and Jews as outside of salvation, I don't know if that particular statement is "infallible" or not. I think Cardinal Ratzinger said it well: "We must remember that this expression (salus extra ecclesiam non est) was formulated by St. Cyprian in the third century in a quite concrete situation. There were those who thought they were better Christians who were unhappy with the Church of bishops and separated themselves from her. In answer to that, Cyprian says: separation from the Church community separates one from salvation. But he did not mean to lay down a theory on the eternal fate of all baptized and non-baptized persons (quoted in "Ratzinger Speaks," The Catholic World Report, January 1994, p. 23). - Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation)" And since you brought this up in the context of baptism, of babies or other people who die before being baptised, I think we can't lose sight of a major (if unofficial) doctrine of the faith: we need the sacraments, thus we need to be baptised in order to join the body of Christ; but God does not need any sacrament and he is not bound by them. Thus it is we understand that God provides us a clear path to access his graces, but that he himself is not bound to only give or withhold grace based on that clear path. So, yes, there used to be a theory of limbo, which I think was probably a pastoral response to a true need. If you've ever had a miscarriage or an abortion, then you might naturally wonder --- and perhaps worry --- about what happened to your baby after it died. There was no magisterial teaching, no doctrine, and there still isn't. It's simply a mystery that hasn't been revealed. We do certainly hope that our unborn and unbaptised babies are not consigned to damnation. And I think, through reason, we can see that they are not. God is Love and Mercy itself. It is inconsistent with the very nature of Love and Mercy to withhold those things from the truly innocent. Therefore, and while this is my opinion, I think it is very reasonable to believe that our unborn babies are alive now in heaven. In other words, I think you might be heading down the road of picking some phrase out of the writings of the Fathers and applying it as a universal. And a necessary universal at that, when this isn't what the Catholic Church is doing. I would agree with the statement "outside the Church there is no salvation is the formal equivalent of salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church, which is His Body". It is perhaps best expressed in Lumen Gentium: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation." This is where my first response is founded, and this also, I believe, covers unbaptised babies. It certainly covers catecheumens in the waters of baptism of desire and in the case of martyrs, baptism of blood. And this is where we really head into deep waters! Let's consider salvation and judgement for a moment. When can we truly say, with absolute certainty, that we have been irrevocably saved? Is it when you say the sinners' prayer? Is it when you're baptised? Are they formal equivalents of each other? Are they close synonyms? What if you do the salvation thing and then go on to live a life of a murderous rapist? What if you fall prey to a non-Christian religion and its teachings? Speaking of unbaptised babies --- what really does happen when you die? Are you judged instantaneously? How about immediately? How about soon after? What does time and space even mean to a soul who is departed from its spatio-temporal housing? Have you been saved then? And we might ask about purgatory as well. What does it even mean to "spend time" in a place that is not located inside the universe and is not subject to the laws of nature? What happens if I meet a guy who was Muslim there? Or an Atheist? What should I think if I see Mr Hitler there? Or Emperor Nero? Or even you! Where are Cyprian's writings now? What I think is clear is that we should always look to first principles. For salvation, judgement and final disposition: we must rely on God's Love and Mercy. They are boundless, deeper than any universe full of space, more profound than any words I can type. This is the mystery of salvation. We tend to think of it from the human side here in the created world. But maybe we should be looking at it from the other side, from God's world. On this, St. Padre Pio said: "I believe that not a great number of souls go to hell. God loves us so much. He formed us at his image. God loves us beyond understanding. And it is my belief that when we have passed from the consciousness of the world, when we appear to be dead, God, before He judges us, will give us a chance to see and understand what sin really is. And if we understand it properly, how could we fail to repent?" Maybe doctrinal development isn't so bad after all? Let's be honest: we didn't give Jesus a very long time to teach here on Earth. And if it wasn't for Our Lady, then there might have been even less time. It is what it is --- what, three years? Four years? And twenty centuries later we're still trying to sort out what it meant!
It seems like this argument is equally good for the rejection of Biblical Inerrancy/Inspiration as well. We could look at a number of statements in the Bible compared to the way they are understood by modern Christians and see them as not just a valid development but a real change. We could even find passages within the Bible that appear to be at odds with each other rather than rely on any particular Christian's understanding. It seems that it follows that it would be better to be unyoked by Biblical Inspiration and just be free to say that the Bible got it wrong. I'm sure that people who are committed to Biblical Inspiration will find ways to justify it, but should the defenders of Biblical Inspiration at least understand that for someone who is not committed to it that it has every appearance of being, not a consistent understanding, but simply a contradiction?
It depends on what you mean by inspiration, inerrancy and contradiction. Is the Bible at the same time saying that there is a God and that there isn’t? That at the same time He’s essentially personal and an impersonal force? That He’s only One God and also three Gods (the answer is “no,” but admittedly, the doctrine of the Trinity is difficult to understand)? That He became the man Jesus and at the same time is completely disconnected from humanity? That Jesus’ death opens the Way to eternal life and yet our lives will all end in the grave? That at the same time Jesus bodily rose from the grave and remains in it? Etc., etc., etc. As opposed to other religions (like Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism), I see the Bible as God’s inerrant message to us about who He is, about who we are, and about His plan of salvation, all summed up in the New Testament’s preaching of the Gospel. Unfortunately, a lot of people today can’t see the forest for the trees ...
"as a protestant I'm just free to say: I think the church made a mistake on this" the catholic thinks "so what you're saying is Christ is incompetent and cannot protect his church?"
I think a great guy who you can have a conversation on this topic is Christian B. Wagner from the "Scholastic Answers" channel, he has an open debate invite to anybody who wants to talk about Doctrinal Development or Evolution of Dogma.
People will continue to debate the council of Florence statement. This is a really really difficult judgment and I honestly don't have an answer on Vatican 2 is a legitimate development of that statement in the council of Florence. But I will say this that process that went into drafting that document from the council of Florence was a bit different than an infallible judgement, it was meant to summarize the most important / infallible teachings of the Catholic Church for an eastern orthodox audience. That's why the Pope speaks this way as you read down the document saying “we proclaim preach and declare” x and “anathematize” the contrary statement. He is just repeating or echoing a previous ecumenical council's judgment. In contrast the statement about salvation outside the church does not come with an anathema meaning that this teaching was not part of the summary of previously declared infallible statements that he's making, but rather an additional teaching of the Pope's own. One clearly intended to motivate eastern orthodox persons to come into the Catholic Church. So even though it could meet Vatican I criteria for an infallible judgment we can't really say for sure, even though many theologians including Dr Scott Hahn consider it infallible.
Hi Dr. Ortlund, Catholic here! Do you generally agree that doctrine develops but just disagree with the Catholic Church's notion of doctrinal development because of the church says she is infallible?
hello! Glad to be connected to you. Yes, that is correct. Our understanding of theology develops and grows. But the RC way of construing this in my view runs into problems because of allegedly infallible claims that appear to change. Hope that helps.
infallible? the church no. The pope can be infallible when he speaks ex Cathedra, but he only did that twice in history in defining The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. The church is not infallible, per se, but she is protected from error (by the H.S.), on doctrines of faith and morals. - she cannot accept into the church things like abortion, artificial birth control, gay marriage, etc. but that does not protect her from finance troubles, clergy corruption, scandals, administrative errors, etc. The pressure to accept the "pill" decades ago was intense, even Catholics lobbied for its acceptance, only the Catholic church stood it's ground, after several years, it was discovered that some "pills" can be abortifacient, aside from being a moral issue, that would have been a grave error on the part of the church to have accepted artificial birth control into the church. Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae of 1968, defined Christian life, and foretold the consequences of the "pill" - which all came true today.
@@joekey8464 hello friend! Financial troubles, scandal, etc are not pertaining to faith and morals. The church is infallible on faith and morals, not individuals in the church, which was never the claim. I think we agree more than disagree, but by me saying that the church is infallible, I mean the magisterium and its teaching office on matters of faith and morals, not individuals outside of the pope speaking ex-cathedra. In that vein, the church is indeed infallible, meaning she is protected from teaching error.
@@brianaalece5314 yes, Church is protected from teaching errors with regards to faith and morals. In other words she is infallible with teachings of regards to faith and moral. The only church today that still stands on the teachings of Christ. all other churches had gone astray.
The Epistle of Saint Ignatius Antioch to the Smyrnaeans Chapter 4. Beware of these heretics I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that you also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this. But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, [in fact,] he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so in the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, Romans 8:17 He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me. Philippians 4:13 Chapter 5. Their dangerous errors Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death. I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to [a true belief in] Christ's passion, which is our resurrection. Chapter 6. Unbelievers in the blood of Christ shall be condemned Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
For anyone interested, Michael Lofton did give a good presentation on the Reason and Theology TH-cam channel on Salvation Outside the Church and he offered the following as evidence that even in the middle ages, there were theologians that were arguing for a broad view of no salvation outside the Church. Invincible Ignorance, Baptism of Desire and Implicit Faith in Aquinas "For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know. • "If some Gentiles were saved, without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in the Mediator. Because even though they did not have explicit faith, they did have a faith that was implicit in their faith in divine providence, believing that God is the liberator of mankind in ways that He himself chooses. • "A person receives the forgiveness of sins before baptism in so far as he has baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly;" • "Consequently, just as some are baptized with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being baptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally. • Note: Aquinas believed explicit faith in the Trinity and the incarnation is needed for salvation after the incarnation. Francisco de Vitoria (1483-1546), O.P. on Inculpability for People Who Have Heard the Gospel "It is not sufficiently clear to me that the Christian faith has yet been so put before the aborigines and announced to them that they are bound to believe it or commit fresh sin. I say this because. they are not bound to believe unless the faith be put before them with persuasive demonstration. Now, I hear of no miracles or signs or religious patters of life; nay, on the contrary, I hear of many scandals and cruel crimes and acts of impiety. Hence, it does not appear that the Christian religion has been preached to them with such sufficient propriety and piety that they are bound to acquiesce in it, even though many religious and other ecclesiastics seem both by their lives and example and their diligent preaching to have bestowed sufficient pains and industry in this business, had they not been hindered therein by men who were intent on other things." Albert Pighius (1490-1542) on the Possibility of Salvation for Muslims. "One cannot doubt that in so great a multitude of those who follow the doctrine of Mohammed.there are some who know and revere God...and they keep the law of nature. What is to be though of such people?…..Now if the ignorance of the Christian faith did not prevent Cornelius, even without baptism, from being pleasing to God in Christ, how much less will the much more invincible ignorance of these people prevent them from being able to please God in Christ." St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) on Church Membership and Baptism of Desire • "Such a one is in the church with his mind or by desire, which is sufficient for his salvation; however, he is not in the church bodily, that is, by external communion, and it is the latter which makes one in the strict sense a member of the church on earth." "I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved." Francisco Suarez, S.J. (1548-1617) • "Now we are saying the same things with regard to anyone who has faith in God, and sincere repentance for sin, but who is not baptized, whether he has arrived at explicit or only implicit faith in Christ. For, with implicit faith in Christ he can have an implicit desire for baptism, which St. Thomas teaches can suffice. Juan De Lugo, S.J (1583-1660). on the Possibility of Jews, Muslims and Non-Christians Being Saved. • "There are some who, while they do not believe all the dogmas of the Catholic religion, do acknowledge the one true God; such are the Turks. and all Moslems, as well as the Jews. Others acknowledge the Triune God and Christ, as most heretics do. Now if these people are excused from the sin of infidelity by reason of invincible ignorance, they can be saved." "It would follow that a Jew or other non-Christians can be saved; for he could have a supernatural faith in the one God, and be invincibly ignorant about Christ. • "The possibility of salvation for such a person is not ruled out by the nature of the case; moreover, such a person should not be called a non-Christian, because, even though he has not been visibly joined to the church, still, interiorly he has the virtue of habitual and actual faith in common with the church, and in the sight of God he will be reckoned with the Christians Given the number of examples of the early Church on a broad view of no salvation outside of the Church (See William Most's article "No Salvation Outside the Church" on EWTN), I think it makes perfect sense that the magisterium would clarify some of its statements (e.g. Florence) when there clearly was disagreement through the middle ages on what no salvation outside the Church meant. This does not seem like doctrinal change, then, rather a clarification of ideas that were already present in the Church for a long time. God bless!
Thanks for these quotes. This is truly helpful. I don't think Thomas' statement are to the point; baptism of desire for catechumens in the Roman Catholic Church is different than Eastern Orthodox or others outside the Roman Catholic Church. Consider what Thomas says in his commentary in Psalm 48, "faith in Christ flourishes principally among the people of the west, because in the northern regions there are still many Gentiles, and in the eastern lands there are many schismatics and heretics." So here the "schismatics and heretics" are, with the Gentiles, contrasted with where there is "faith in Christ" flourishing. I am not aware of any time Thomas ever taught that Eastern Orthodox Christians or Oriential Orthodox or Assyrian, still less Muslims and Jews, could be saved. And my reading of Thomas on this point is consistent with Francis Sullivan, a Roman Catholic theologian (see his book Salvation Outside the Church?, chapter 4). The same would also apply to some of these other statements, such as that of Bellarmine, who seems to be speaking of catechumens. This is not the issue of tension between Florence and Vatican 2, but rather Jews, Muslims, other Christians outside of RC, etc. Francisco de Vitoria simply says the Christian faith has not been preached to the new people with enough clarity that they are bound to believe it. Does he ever say that this means they are saved? I would be curious if he draws that implication. Similarly, does Albert Pighius mean that Muslims revering God are saved? Because the comparison with Cornelius would suggest otherwise, since Cornelius had to respond to the gospel message as preached by Peter (Acts 10:42-43). I think your quotes from Suarez and De Lugo are strong, especially De Lugo. They accord with Sullivan's interpretation of them as well, which I re-consulted. This is the first time someone has actually produced clear examples of this, so thank you. It still remains, of course, how to reconcile these with Florence, Unam Sanctam, etc. But this would start to push the timeline back, at least for openness to the salvation of pagans (and for De Lugo, Jews and Muslims). I will simply note that De Lugo's position (I am still a bit unclear about Suarez') was widely rejected up until more recent times. Here is how Sullivan puts it (Salvation Outside the Church?, p. 103): "[the Jesuit view of salvation for those without explicit faith in Christ] was a departure from the teaching of St. Thomas and the whole medieval tradition, which had required explicit Christian faith for the salvation of everyone in the Christian era. After the suppression of Jesuit order, hardly any Catholic theologians dared to question the traditional teaching on this point." Thank you for your contribution which has qualified my thinking a bit!
@@TruthUnites You are awesome, Dr. Ortlund! Much respect! Like I mentioned elsewhere, I am no expert in this area and these quotes come from Michael Lofton. In his video he walks through a bunch of examples chronologically, to try and show the differing types of questions theologians in the Church tried to answer that pertain to the formal vs. informal relationship with the Church distinction and how it applies to the teaching on no salvation outside the Church. Hopefully, he or someone with more expertise could point everyone to some other good resources on the differing views on this question in the Middle Ages. You've piqued my curiosity on the question, so I will keep digging around a bit more too. God bless!
This is a fascinating free article and worth a read! I think it also has shifted my position a bit. Instead of Vatican II simply clarifying Florence (meaning that Florence was ambiguous but actually meant the same thing), this paper makes me lean towards saying the Vatican II and other modern era documents are definitely developments (meaning there has been a change in some aspects of understanding) of earlier statements, such as Florence. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Substance of Catholic Doctrine: Towards a Realization of Benedict XVI's "Hermeneutic of Reform" by Matthew Ramage. Nova et Vetera, English Edition, Vol. 14, No. 1 (2016): 295-330 Can be found online for free at St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology. There are a couple key distinctions as to why modern theologians don't think this means the Catholic Church taught an error, though. I can't say Dr. Ortlund (or other Protestants) will like it, but it makes sense to me and appears to be what the Church has been teaching in recent years. 1. The first distinction is the historical context matters for how a dogma is presented. Each era dealt with unique circumstances in that they weren't trying to answer the fate of all mankind when discussing issues related to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, but rather local historical sociopolitical/theological issues. For instance, the early Church was often talking (e.g. Cyprian) about extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the context of Christians who were persecuted and tempted to leave the Church or to defend the early Church's ecclesial structure and prevent schisms. In the early Middle Ages, all Europe was Catholic and the possibility of not hearing the gospel was likely non-existent. They thought invincible ignorance was not possible, then; anyone in that era who didn't accept the gospel, must have been sinning as the truth of it had to be evident to them. The paper's author states, "had they known about the New World and all the other peoples of the earth who had never heard the Gospel, they likely would have articulated their doctrine differently to account for this knowledge." It seems that this lines up with why someone like Francisco de Vitoria would be starting to ask that question as the Chruch was running into new people's in the undiscovered countries of the Americas and needing to figure out what that meant for extra ecclesiam nulla salus. 2. The second important distinction the paper also talks about is a distinction in the substance vs. presentation/accidents of a dogma. It shows examples of the recent Church explaining that the presentation of a dogma can develop/change as long as the substance is still something that all Christians in all ages would agree upon. In the case of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, it is that the Church is necessary for salvation, but some are informally connected to it. In this case, the essence/substance of the dogma is the same, but the full understanding of it has developed. John XXIII's opening words at the Second Vatican Council: "The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another."53 According to Sullivan, the Church has presented the same truth in various ways over the centuries. To apply Newman's thought, we might say that the Church's modern distillation of EENS is something that Catholics of all epochs, if given the knowledge we have today, would agree upon. Finally, the paper ends by cautioning against assuming all non-Christians/Catholics are invincibly ignorant. This would kill evangelization and is not likely true. Some cited resources that sound very helpful: Joseph Ratzinger. "Salus Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Est," Documentatie Centrum Concilie, Series I, no. 88 (1963) Ralph Martin. "Will Many be Saved?" Sullivan, "Salvation Outside the Church?" God bless!
@@Stormlight1234 Thanks Chris for your very interesting input. I wish to disagree with a single point which you have quoted. The idea that the early medieval Catholic church was unaware of unevangelised pagans ( as opposed to Jews and Muslims) and their statements were made in that context is historically implausible. The Catholic church which made these statements did not suddenly become aware of the unevangelised pagans after the 'discovery' of the New World. 1) The peoples along the southern Baltic remained pagan in the early middle ages. Pope Eugenius III called in 1147 for a crusade against the pagan slavs. The Lithuanians were the last European pagans to convert to ( Catholic) Christianity in 1387. 2) Marco Polo travelled on the Silk Road as far as China 1271-1295 and obviously brought back information about vast populations who were neither Christians, Jews nor Muslims. 3) Throughout the middle ages Genoese and Venetian merchants traded with Byzantium and had colonies in Crimea. They would surely have had some knowledge of peoples further east. Thus the exclusivist statements of the medieval Catholic church were made by a church fully aware of the existence of unevangelised pagan populations. God bless.
@@derekmchardy8730 Thanks for pointing that out! This is just how Sullivan (the person Gavin was also citing in his video) and Martin explain it as cited in the above mentioned paper. As I read it again, they certainly aren't saying the Catholic Church was completely unaware of other non-Christian people, but that they thought they knew of most everyone in the world and most everyone would have had exposure to Christianity. They still acknowledge the rare circumstances some might not be as Martin references Aquinas and the belief that God would somehow find a way to present the gospel to a virtuous pagan who has yet to hear it. I am going to have to track down the other paper mentioned by Torrell as it sounds like it deals extensively with the "geographical horizon" topic mentioned in the paper. Here are the two relevant quotes from the paper: First of all, there was the fact that their world was practically identical with Christian Europe. . . . When they spoke of the possibility that someone might never have heard the gospel preached, they imagined the case of a child brought up in the wilderness. The limits of their geographical horizon led them to the conviction that everyone had had ample opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel. At the same time, the limits of their grasp of human psychology led them to the conviction that all those who had heard the message of the gospel and did not accept it must be guilty of sinning against the truth which surely was evident to them.49 Foot Note 49: Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church?, 201. On the subject of the limits of medieval Christendom’s geographical horizon and its impact on their position concerning the salvation of non-Christians, see Jean-Pierre Torrell, O.P., “Saint Thomas et les non-chrétiens,” Revue Thomiste 106 (2006): 17-49. Ralph Martin summarizes this reality as follows: “Given the common medieval understanding that Christianity was so widely known and promulgated that invincible ignorance would be extremely rare, it was assumed that nonbeliev- ers were culpable for their unbelief ” (Will Many Be Saved?, 37-38).While not referencing Torrell, the treatment of this issue in Martin and Sullivan aligns well with his careful analysis. Martin and Torrell both cite Aquinas, De Veri- tate, q.14, a.11 ad 1., in which Thomas discusses the hypothetical case of the invincibly ignorant person raised in the wilderness or by animals. According to Thomas, we must most certainly hold (certissime tenendum est) that God would reveal himself to this person by means of an interior inspiration or by a preacher specifically sent to him. It is pivotal to recall here, however, Aquinas’s stipulation that God will extend such an offer “provided that he followed his natural reason in seeking the good and avoiding evil.” God bless!
21:31 I have brought up Busenbaum, a 17th C. Jesuit, mentioned by Newman. I've brought him up to the Dimond Brothers (who are diehard on the obvious sense of Florence), and I'm bringing it up here.
Gavin, the Scripture itself is overloaded with apparent contradictions, not least the genealogy of Jesus Himself. If you want something directly analogous to Catholic development, try the stoning of the man in Numbers 15:32. How can Jesus then get away with it? Because the higher meaning of the law was what mattered, not plain interpretation. That's a more clear-seeming contradiction than anything in Catholic theological history that I can think of (Jews still make your critique to this day), and yet it is done directly by God Himself. Or just go to the old Romans and James contradiction!
The Bible's accounts of Jesus' genealogy. That is an accusation that comes from extremely uneducated ppl. Matthew traces Jesus' adopted ancestry to David through Joseph, whereas Luke traces His physical heritage to David through Mary. A close inspection of Joseph and Mary's ancestry shows that the both of them descended from David through different sons.
I would rather ask what is closer to the Bible. Errors crept into the church when the apostles were present so why then assume that the rest of the early church period would be error free?
@@geordiewishart1683 I think the worst error in Christendom is the reformation. After the reformation they become their own popes. That's why protestants don't agree even in the essentials of their faith.
Which church fathers are you referring to? Some contradict each other. But the thrust of my point remains - why argue over which group is more aligned to the church fathers instead of asking who is more aligned to scripture?
Saint Cyprian of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Augustine acknowledged that the rock was Peter's confession, not Peter himself. Why look to church fathers for guidance? They contradict each other. Look to the Bible. Peter never gave any indication that he believed he had any form of primacy
@@geordiewishart1683 Saint Augustine “If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]). SAINT IRENAEUS “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). Saint Optatus "You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas) ...that in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner."-Against the Donatists 370 AD Saint Jerome “As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.”- Letter to Pope Damasus 376 AD Saint Ambrose of Milan “It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]). Council of Ephesus “Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]). Council of Chalcedon “Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out." (Acts of the council session 1)
I specifically mentioned Augustine and you proceed to quote a number of church fathers. Considering that errors were creeping into the church during the time of the apostles, why assume that the church fathers somehow held the truth exclusively? You may as well quote Simon Magus to me. Augustine later revised his statement about Peter being the rock in his The Retractions 1:20:1.
@@geordiewishart1683 Jesus promised the gates hell would not prevail against his church how then can error crept in at all? What kind of god is he if the church he started had error right after his death? And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven -Matthew 16:18
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Stooping that low already? Be respectful and charitable, something Dr. Ortland does remarkably well. 2+2 still equals 4 even if it's said by a criminal or a crazy person. Attack the arguments, not the man.
"You can't accept everything in church history" absolutely! Theologins and saints contradict eachother and get it wrong all the way through. There are however points of faith that must be accepted or you are not Christian. For example that Jesus was God "and the world was God" Or that the scriptures were divinely inspired.
Salvation is for anyone who believes in Jesus.. shame upon shame to those who steal away Christ and try to teach any different Romans 1:16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”
It's interesting that Newman, although a hero of conservative Catholics now, was considered by his peers as a more progressive Catholic by Roman Catholic standards. His development theory was considered a departure from the sound scholastic method, and thus he was criticized by both Dominican and Jesuit alike (Jesuits in the 19th century were some of the strongest Thomists). I've read both his Apologia and his Essay on Development, and my sense is that he was aesthetically and morally drawn to Rome and convinced thereby. But he needed more than aesthetics and morality, so he utilized the "organic" and "evolutionary" ideas that were in the air in the mid-19th century to provide the logic that was lacking in his own convictions of Rome's truth claims. It was brilliant, but it can be used to justify almost anything (e.g., Pope Francis changing the Catechism to teach that the death penalty is "an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." CCC #2267). The liberalism that Newman genuinely hated in mainline Protestantism was, in fact, incorporated into Catholic thinking by, ironically enough, Newman's ideas!
If the son of sedition is anyone but the pope, then who? If the man of sin is anyone other than the Roman pontiff, then name him? If the scarlet woman is anything other than Roman Catholicism, then describe it.
Thanks again Gavin. I've said this before regarding your videos. They are like light flooding into a dark room. The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him. Proverbs 18:17 Can't wait to see the rebuttals 😀
First, I’ll state that I’m a devout Catholic and haven’t read all of the comments here so if I’m repeating a point already made by someone my apologies. The context is that this session of the Council of Florence is focused on those who were opposed to the Church throughout history and reaffirms those that have been anathematized or excommunicated by a previous Ecumenical Council (Manes, Valentinus, Arius...) while also affirming previous Ecumenical Councils. Opposition has always led to anathematization or excommunication so a “no salvation outside of the Church” makes sense in that regard for those where the Church is known to them but choose another religion. The pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics believe in something other than what the Catholic Church is teaching. It assumes that they are not invincibly ignorant - they are knowingly choosing to not believe and align themselves with the one true Church. The unity of the ecclesiastical body is critical because the Church and Jesus are inseparable (Eph 5:32). The entirety of truth is that important - an iota of falsehood is unacceptable since Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. And the Council makes clear the teaching of the 73 books in the Bible and the Eucharist and the consecration that occurs at Mass…this in 1442...but that's a different topic. Paragraph 847 that is referred to in this video as a change in doctrine simply makes a distinction between those that knew the faith but chose against it with those that never knew Jesus or His Church. Those mentioned in the Council of Florence above did know the Gospel of Christ and His Church but chose to reject. That is why paragraph 846 still states that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church because it's true. If you are like the pagans, the Jews, the heretics, or schismatics and know Jesus and the truth about His Church, but your pride won't allow you to see the truth then you will not be saved. For a Catholic, Jesus and His Church are inseparable. To love Jesus is to love His Church. Therefore, to reject His Church is to reject Jesus. I'm sure many will disagree, but just wanted to give another Catholic point of view FWIW. God bless!!
I didn't finish everything you said, but you basically were saying in the beginning the exact issue he had with it. The teaching was very clear and now hundreds of years later, there is an explanation? That's hundreds of years of people thinking they are going to hell and now there's a caveat? I think you need to listen again.
@minagelina Hi, I got to admit that I'm not going to rewatch a video from 4 months ago, but I'm not quite sure what your point is. No salvation outside the Church still applies today as it always has... for those that know the Catholic Church is the one true Church, but their pride won't allow them to submit, then they will not be saved. Jesus and His Church are Inseparable and that has always been the case.
The church declares what Catholic beliefs are, not the church fathers. Church father's importance is when their quotes correspond with what the church decides on. They are supporting evidence, not the primary evidence. The primary evidence is when the church declares something. There can be two different church father's with two different opinions and the one against what the church decides on is not supporting evidence. It's evidence that the issue was being debated. That's it. You don't go to the church leaders that wanted Circumcision to be a salvation requirement to support anything on the church finally ruling against them. They are evidence that the issue was debated. It was resolved in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. Is any particular issue dogma or is it just a discipline (is the belief mandatory or optional, can it be changed or does its basic nature have to stay the same)? Those also are two very important questions to ask. Examples: Abortion being a sin can never change as a belief, it is dogma. Priests taking a celibacy vow is a discipline and can change and has changed. I think it would be helpful if these videos defined the belief as Catholic dogma or not as it is very important. Sola Scriptura was doctrinal development in the same way this example shows. There is no evidence in the first 1,400 years of Christianity of the Bible being the "only" primary source of teaching we are to use for our beliefs. There is evidence that it is a primary source, but you cannot read the Bible and literally see it say anywhere that everything has to come from it. Nothing can contradict it is not the same as it being the only primary source for belief. Catholics also agree that it is a primary source and that nothing can contradict the Bible. The development of Sola Scriptura as we see it today was unknown for over a thousand years. No one back then asked, "Where is that in the Bible?". Protestants use the word "only" or "alone" too liberally and add it to scripture when it isn't there. The same applies to Sola Fide. They add "alone" every time they see "faith" in the Bible. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are not in the Bible and the New Testament actually says anyone that believes in Sola Fide are "fools" or "ignoramuses" according to the translation (James 2:20). "If you need proof that faith without works is worthless, you are a fool." It cannot be faith alone and faith without works are worthless at the same time. Those are contradictory statements. This is a better example of a failed doctrinal development belief that was created despite it contradicting Sacred Scripture.
ST. TERESA BENEDICTA OF THE CROSS (EDITH STEIN): ‘The concept which assumes that everything in the Church is irrevocably set for all times appears to me to be a false one. It would be naive to disregard that the Church has a history; the Church is a human institution and, like all things human, was destined to change and evolve. Likewise, its development takes place often in the form of struggles.’ ST. TERESA BENEDICTA OF THE CROSS (EDITH STEIN): “It has always been far from me to think that God’s mercy allows itself to be circumscribed (limited) by the visible Church’s boundaries. God is Truth. All who seek truth seek God, whether this is clear to them or not.”
To suggest that agustine made the dogma rigorous is inaccurate, our lord himself set the standard: Go ye therefore to all nations preaching the gospel and baptizing in the name of the father and the son and the holy Ghost, he who believes and is baptized will be saved, he who believes not will be condemned" "When he saw the crowds leaving he turned to his disciples and said: ""will you then also leave?"" " "Enter therefore through the narrow gate, for wide is the way that leads to destruction, and many are they that go by it, but small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to eternal life... I am the narrow gate"
True, Christ has said one must be perfect just as the Father is perfect. But watered downed Christianity is all the rage nowadays. They do not want to be responsible for their actions. Spiritual weakness..
@@TheWavelengthStudiosThe essence of any "god" is holiness. The gods, expect their subjects to worship him and behave morally. All men whatever culture believe in their gods that way, do good and you would be rewarded.... the Hindus believe in karma - action or deed, and its effect or consequences. Some people do not like God because He tells them to behave.
There is not Salvation outside the Church, because She is precisely the Body of Christ, and there's no Salvation outside of Christ. Everyone that gets to be saved by the Mercy and Grace of God is through the Church, Christ's Body. Everyone that is in Heaven is part of the Church. The issue that Protestants very much fail to understand is what "Salvation" in that affirmation entails. It is not simply a binary question of legal status (either saved or damned). Salvation is the healing of the soul from sin and death, and sanctification and union with God. This process only happens in the Church, through the Church. Saint Pope Gregory the Dialogist prayed for all Roman Emperors, and Emperor Trajan was saved and rescued from Hell. That means that, through the Church, he was saved, and is now part of the Church. There's no Salvation without Church, that's like having Salvation without Christ. The Church is the Body of Christ. ☦️
I feel like this would be a better critique if you included your thoughts on John Henry Newman’s “An essay on the development of Christian Doctrine” I think the problem is that you say it’s too squishy, yet the squishiest parts of Christianity that are changing the most rapidly from the traditional doctrine (women pastors, LGBTQ, etc.) are from non-denominational Christianity that are as you would say “free” to say that the old ways were wrong so long as they feel like they’re being prudent about it.
If the catholic church has always held to natural theology, every argument in this video crumbles-is there a point in history where the catholic church did not accept natural theology?
There could be a difference because the Protestants were brought up as Catholics before rejecting the teachings. The Protestants today get so much Catholic 101 wrong that it’s as though they were never taught about Christ. Remember that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.
So that would be "no salvation" outside the visible institutional churches which date, roughly speaking, from C4 AD through to the present. Personally, bro, I'm not feeling it.
Im on this exact journey and have been considering how or if i should broadcast it. I think ive completely rejected protestantism, being pulled hard to Orthodoxy. Hopefully i dont land Catholic.
I’m a Roman Catholic and have been listening to this channel for several weeks now. I’ve always felt spiritually pulled in the direction of Lutheranism and I’m finally giving myself the chance to fully explore non-Roman Catholic ideas. This video is exactly what I needed right now! Thank you, Dr. Ortlund.
Glad it was helpful and may the Lord direct you in your journey!
Yes! Lutherans have the historical (catholic) faith without the craziness of 19th century-and-after Roman Catholicism (or the craziness of some contemporary Protestants).
Bryan Wolfmueller, Jordan B Cooper, Flaneur Record are great Lutheran yt Channels
@@moses.coffee yes they do. Lutheran churches are buying into the worldly culture which is terribly discouraging. So far, the Catholic Church has held, but is showing signs of schism. This is a terrible time for Christians and I know is about to get worse.
Follow the Holy Bible, friend. The Catholic Church has been fraudulent for 1,500+ years. Find a non-denominational Holy Bible following church, and get Saved Brother!
"Any development is wrong unless we are the one doing it!" - The One and Only True Church (pun intended)
That’s cute. A better way to frame it might be “Christ promised to guide his apostolic church into all truth; he didn’t promise to guide every club that rents a building and has a Bible into all truth.”
I think the orthodox churches would not take kindly to that description. It's hard to take doctrinal pronouncements seriously when they coincide so neatly with the interests of the powerful that make them.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787Arguing that doctrinal developments is what Lord was talking when he said all truth is🤦
@@thegoatofyoutube1787Christ didn’t promise to guide His apostolic church into all truth. He promised by His Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth. The apostles. The Holy Spirit did that, it’s called the scripture and the church is subordinate to that. Christ never promised ongoing revelation. The church is only guided by truth insofar as it follows the scripture. Churches can err, see Galatian churches and the church in Corinth which persisted in error. Rome isn’t immune. That’s fairy tale thinking.
@@KnightFelhe did give all the authority given to him (Christ) to the apostles which then would given them the authority to also pass on that authority.
I believe it's the same view the Orthodox Church holds to. Though I'm a Protestant, I will never say that those who attend a Catholic or Orthodox church are not saved. I may not agree with much of their doctrine. Only Jesus knows the heart if it's genuine and we are saved.
This channel is great. Finally good sound arguments from a Protestant Pastor who has wrestled with the writings of the church fathers. I grew up in a Baptist church with such a weak grasp on its own rich tradition. It's refreshing to see that the fathers aren't the 'property' of the Roman Catholic church and that it is in our best interest to read them ourselves in light of scripture. Thanks Dr. Ortlund.
You mean that the Roman Catholic fathers are not property.
I am a lfe-long practicing Catholic layman (not an "ex" anything) Throughout my life (I am now 75) I have always thought: A) Augustine should have kept his mouth shut more that he did B) God, being Sovereign, died for ALL people (as Scripture explicitly states several times C) is bigger than any "church" D) established a visible Church E) and brings Christ's salvation to people ANY WAY He wants to in ways the Church can never comprehend......don't bind the Holy Spirit!!
Amen
It seems it wasn't a uniquely Agustinian "problem." Roughly a millennium later, the council of Florence strongly affirms: no salvation outside the Catholic church. It excludes Jews, etc... This sort of "universalism" which is seen in post vatican 2 Catholicism(recognizing protestants as "separated brethren," for example) would have been unrecognizable to the Roman Catholic church of the Renaissance era, for instance. What you're saying is very charitable, and dare I say...Christian😉, yet it is not in alignment with much of the historical stance and practice of the Roman Catholic church.
@@paulyoshida1747 :)
Modernist
@@ShaNaNa242 ???
This "No salvation outside the church" created a lot of anxiety when i was in orthodoxy
Thank God for showing me the truth!!
which one, the baptist, the lutheran, the anglican or the pentecostal truth?
@@haroldgamarra7175 they don't have a different truth.
@@ReformingApologetics yes they do LOL
@@ReformingApologeticsthey contradict on issues of sacraments, ecclesiology and soteriology.
@@hildegardnessie8438 that assumes that those are central
Ecclesiology alone makes a strong case for protestantism
Another amazing video pastor!!
Hey Dr. Ortlund! I actually wrote an essay for my seminary, over at Southern Evangelical Seminary, about Roman Catholic teachings on justification. When you had brought up the yolk of infallibility claims, it reminded me of what I wrote about in my essay! In my writing, I had compared the development of Roman Catholic dogmatic teaching to a scientific phenomenon known as Mueller's ratchet. I think it is worth taking a look at Mueller's ratchet and order to understand how it feels like a good analogy for the dangers difficulties and burdens which come along with Roman Catholic teaching. Admittedly, my professors, though liking my paper, thought it was strange and interesting to have a chapter on genetics in a paper on Roman Catholic teachings of justification. However, I really do think that it is a helpful way to show, and real life biological examples, the dangers that can come from being bound by certain post scriptural and post 4th century dogmatic proclamations by Roman Catholic magisterium and the papacy.
Sorry for any errors or strangeness in my grammar! I am using the voice to text currently. And either case, I greatly appreciated your video and I pray that God continues to use your ministry so that people may see the glory of God more and more in their lives. Thank you!
Interesting phenomenon
Would you be willing to share your writing? I am actually doing a personal deep dive into Catholicism. On top of that, I love reading peoples essays, articles, etc. I would love to have it for my library but if you are not comfortable sharing I understand.
@@sharplikecheddar2 I would consider it! Or at least I can share a chapter with you about Muller's ratchet.
@@unapologeticapologetics6953 Sorry to pull you back to this thread from a year ago, but would you be willing to give the analogy in a very simple way here by any chance? I think I’m still confused
appreciate all your labor. I know the hours and hours it takes to make an argument that is rooted in the sources and that is not a straw man.
I was looking into Catholicism for awhile. You have helped me see that one can be deep in history and persist to be a Protestant. God bless.
So glad to hear I've been of help, Jonas! God bless you.
the next logical question is "which branch of protestantism?" so many fish in the sea.
or any denomination it okay as long as its not the catholic church? even though denominations within protestantisms dont agree in almost everything, and push comes to shove that you disagree within your fellow protestants of the same denomination, who would be the final arbiter of truth? It wont be the bible since both of you will only use that defense.
@@Ternz_TV Which rite, fraternity, order, society, or family are you? Are you TLM or novus ordo
.. which language is spoken? Are you in the Catholic Charasmatic Renewal or do worship more purely and reverently than "those" people?
@@ReformingApologetics all you mentioned do not fall in the realm of doctrines. So outside of doctrines we catholics kave have varying opinions on rites, theological speculations and opinions and can disagree with one another.
but doctrinally speaking, we catholics are united. If you can't differentiate doctrines from rite/theological speculations/opinion then it will be hard for you to get my point.
@@Ternz_TV That's just based on differing definitions. The RCC might not call "tongues" a "doctrine," while a Pentecostal might. There are still Catholics in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal who worship separately, and believe and practice this while others don't. I think it's close to 200 million people now. The trads, especially the sedevacantists generally don't even consider them Catholics. Are the sedevacantists Catholics with the same doctrine? Perhaps the "doctrine" is just flexible enough to allow them to reject Francis while the other ~92% don't. Are you a Marshalist (disciple of Taylor Marshall)? Does he have the same soteriological "doctrine" as von Balthasar did? Are all the new doctrines and dogmas since the 1st century such that a believer from that time that didn't believe these things would be a heretic if they lived today?
Forcing trads and novus order folks, diocese by diocese to worship separately, is decisive, but if you hide behind your definition of "doctrine," its ignored.
Were all these folks "untied in doctrine"?
catholicherald.co.uk/religious-orders-at-war/
The centuries long, brutal divisions over the Immaculate Conception were even worse, but wasn't it a "doctrine" before it was a dogma?
Where does Scripture say we're known for doctrinal conformity, anyway? If you read it, you'd be inclined to think it's more about, oh, I don't know, love for one another, bearing fruit, maybe doctrinal conformity is in there somewhere and I just missed it.
So much good information, I wish all these arguments where compiled in one big book. I'd buy it. I'd buy a lot and give them to friend and family.
Another great presentation Dr. Ortlund. I look forward to reading all the clarifications you will make in the comments because folks will mishear you or not finish the whole video and throw out responses and church father quotes that are neither here nor there. Thank you for your service.
Excellent fleshing out of this issue; and, for a long time, (since around 1996, when my friend Rod Bennett converted to Roman Catholicism and I started really studying RC more) - for a long time I have had the conviction that this is one of the clearest contradictions to Roman Catholicism to it's own claims. The contradiction is between the long history of the tradition of "no salvation outside the church" vs. Vatican 2 and post Vatican 2 theology. You did a good job of unpacking the issue for us. Thank you!
There is still no salvation outside the Church. So this means that st judgment you will be informed that the Eucharist IS the body of Christ. If you still reject that then no salvation because you would reject Christ. Just like if a Muslim or Buddhist or any other religion rejects Christ sacrifice and the Holy Spirit.
I just started watching your discussion with Dr. Cooper on "is infant baptism biblical?".
I'm going to watch this video later. Interesting stuff.
hope you enjoy!
Baptists that aren't in the Reform tradition have Baby dedication which is basically the same as infant baptism just without the Baptism part: it's a very short ceremony usually at the end of a service that parents could dedicate there child to God and their responsibility to raise the child in Christianity and when they make a decision for Christ then they can be baptized as a believer.
The Pastor would then pray for each child and parents individually.
@@TruthUnites thank you. I wrote this on your last video, but would you consider commenting on the "joint declaration of the doctrine of justification" from 1999?
Can it be a regional phenomenon considering the claims about catholicity from the Roman catholic church?
Is it binding?
Is it progress?
Is it just a nice gesture?
@YAJUN YUAN is it propaganda to lure in protestants?
@@georgwagner937 Regarding JDDJ, Austin over at Gospel Simplicity has an informative interview with Dr. Michael Root who served as a Lutheran representative on the project. Interestingly, Root is now Roman Catholic.
This is an unrelated request for a future video: Please consider touching on the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints in church history
This video absolutely devastates Roman Catholicism. Because it first proves the magisterium contradicts itself and is thus not infallible and second it exposes the utter absurdity that only Roman Catholics can be saved.
This gets even more complicated when one considers papal encyclicals like pascendi by pious the 10th. There he says any doctrinal change is ' modernism'. No mechanism exists to distinguish modernism from the development of doctrine. Also, Gavin, this video summarizes my almost exact thoughts on this issue. This issue of doctrine cannot change was a pivotal reason why i left the church. One cannot maintain the Ratzinger Hermeneutic of Continuity. also teaching on usury was changed.
Well, to be honest, some things really can't be changed at all. Trinitarianism. The existence of God. Things like that are dogmatic for a reason. Usury isn't a central tenet of the faith, or even a peripheral one. A teaching on such a thing can change. We then have to consider what "change" actually means and how we're applying it. I think if we understand "change" to mean the organic unfolding of Truth, such as the recognition of the various Marian dogmas or the revelation of the Trinity and a deepening of our understanding of it, then we're not engaging in "modernism".
Also, I really think you've mischaracterised what Pius X did in Pascendi. He definitely did not say that "any doctrinal change is "modernism"". It's a pretty quick read. That document lists 65 relatively modern errors and condemns them. If we take an example: "65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism." We can see that anyone who agrees with this statement is not properly utilising reason. I would hazard the guess that the original error being condemned probably stems from some kind of popular conception of Darwin(ism) and the weird idea that somehow faith is irrational and that religion must somehow condemn science. If we apply reason to the situation, I think it's far closer to the truth that science reconciles itself with faith. When we look at first principles, we understand that God created a sensible, knowable, and rational universe. 2 x 5 = 10; acid plus base = heat + salt; woman + man = family of children. Science might reveal the details, but does not contradict the first principle.
I could be mistaken in understanding what you meant, but in reading Pascendi, I just don't wee where the Pope is condemning modernism per se, rather than errors that modernists fall prey to. "With truly lamentable results, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race. Thus it falls into very serious errors..."
On the other hand, if we "change" a doctrine such that we overthrow, get rid of, deny, reduce the importance of, or corrupt the meaning of the doctrine, then, yes, that is an error of "modernism" and would result in our self-expulsion from the Church. Christianity holds the doctrine of the Trinity as dogmatic. It's an axiom of the faith. To admit a fourth person of the Trinity is clearly heretical. To deny the Trinity likewise. This is why Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. Their "doctrinal change" has not been organic in nature so much as catastrophic. So we end up with a people who were once Protestant Christians, but are now polytheists, believing that the Father was once a man and was married and had a kid, named Jesus, and that one day we'll all be gods too. Or another group of former Protestant Christians who now believe that Jesus is not God, but is the archangel Michael.
Great video. You reminded me that I need to finish my study of the topic. In addition to Newman's essay, I have Pelikan's "Development of Christian Doctrine: Some Historical Prolegomena", Owen Chadwick's, "From Bossuet to Newman: The Idea of Doctrinal Development", and R.P.C. Hanson's "The Continuity of Christian Doctrine". I can't wait to start digging. If you have any recommendations for primary sources or historical proponents of the theory, I'd love to hear about them. Keep up the good work.
As a former RC who became a mere Christian, I note that Jesus' promise (that every one who believes in Him as Savior *will* receive eternal life) is in diametrical opposition to the RCC's decree (that I cannot have eternal life unless I return to the RCC). Now, who should I believe: Jesus Christ, or the church of Rome organization? It's a no-brainer, I'll go with Jesus every day of the week and twice on Sunday! 🤣 Obviously the RCC took a wrong left turn long ago!
Currently I am in a wonderful ACNA Anglican parish, but what defines me is my faith in Jesus Christ. Not the name over the doorway!
Yes you should believe Christ, but you reject that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. You’ll have a more difficult time because you were brought up with that knowledge and are rejecting it.
Great video! Thank you!
This channel is a gold mine.
Amazing work as always Dr. Ortlund!
Thank you for this Gavin. I'm always looking forward to your videos about these hot apologetic cross-denominational topics because I know you won't just discredit Catholics from the start, but you'll give a fair hearing to their arguments and give your best counters. This is very informative, and very necessary in the protestant world, where most preachers who talk about these issues are very antagonistic towards Catholics and basically cut any and all hope for a civil conversation.
glad you find them helpful!
Sometimes it seems there just ain't enough Cardinal Newman to go around. Appreciate your content.
what did you mean by this?
@@Tom-qo4mz it's a reference to Cardinal Newman and his idea of the development of doctrine in the RCC. It's a bit of a meme I guess you could say nowadays where non-RC who are critiquing Catholicism will say just "sprinkle some Newman on it" and all of the perceived contradictions go away because it can be considered a development of doctrine, and not an aberration. The often used image is an acorn developing into an oak tree. However, I'm starting to see the development of Roman Catholic dogmas more as a grafting of one type of tree onto another. Thus, I'm not sure how long before I head to the Orthodox Church. God bless you.
The development of doctrine is also invented because he couldn’t find any of tomes teachings in history
@@johnsayre2038 thanks for elaborating, i had come across Newman in passing before but don't (didn't..!) know enough (or anything really) to understand your comment at first
@John Sayre why not just become Lutheran? If you prefer traditional mass but don't want the problems of the Papacy then Lutherans are basically that.
Greek Orthodox have a borderline heretical view of the trinity where they don't quite accept that Jesus has the authority to send the Holy Spirit.
It's on the border of heresy because while they don't deny the trinity, they do question Jesus equality with the Father.
Thanks!
thank you!
Dr. Ortlund, I’ve been doing a lot of investigation of Catholicism lately, and I’ve found your channel to be an invaluable resource. I would love to hear a response to the Catholic teaching of invincible ignorance, the Protestant position(s) on salvation apart from faith in Jesus Christ, and what Christ meant when he said “forgive them, they know not what they’ve done.” My initial reaction to this teaching is that it is wholly unsound. But if your channel has taught me anything, it’s that I am often surprised that historical Protestant views are much different than what I’ve learned at the nondenominational churches I’ve attended. I have searched for a rebuttal to this doctrine, but I have yet to find a Protestant perspective on these issues (at least on TH-cam). Any book reference would also be greatly appreciated!
I am in a similar place. I find that there is no " Protestant " perspective. It is so discouraging. Each individual Protestant church is different. That is the weakness.
@@mcgilldi And it's strength, we can have diversity of thought and ideas.
The mental gymnastics RC apologists have to make to handle the problem of doctrine development es amazing.
Not really.
And it only takes them hours and hours and hours to explain things, ultimately hypnotizing the viewer with so much information that one is left in a trance, thinking, "Well they spoke with conviction - talking non-stop for three hours - so they must be right."
@@mystdragon8530Yes really.
Dr. Ortlund,
You mentioned at the 21:07 mark that “no one, from Augustine to…” held a view similar to that of Vatican II. The following excerpt is from Augustine’s “On Baptism, Against the Donatists” (Chapter 28:39). If you haven’t read this yet, I encourage you to do so. If you have, how would this not be considered a strong witness to the understanding of Invincible Ignorance / invisible unity to The Church?
“Hence, therefore, we have now set before us an easier and more simple consideration of that ark of which Noah was the builder and pilot. For Peter says that in the Ark of Noah, "few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God)." 1 Peter 3:20-21 Wherefore, if those appear to men to be baptized in Catholic unity who renounce the world in words only and not in deeds, how do they belong to the mystery of this ark in whom there is not the answer of a good conscience? Or how are they saved by water, who, making a bad use of holy baptism, though they seem to be within, yet persevere to the end of their days in a wicked and abandoned course of life? Or how can they fail to be saved by water, of whom Cyprian himself records that they were in time past simply admitted to the Church with the baptism which they had received in heresy? For the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, "The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale." If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. It is therefore possible that some who have been baptized without may be considered, through the foreknowledge of God, to have been really baptized within, because within the water begins to be profitable to them unto salvation; nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water. And again, some who seemed to have been baptized within may be considered, through the same foreknowledge of God, more truly to have been baptized without, since, by making a bad use of baptism, they die by water, which then happened to no one who was not outside the ark. Certainly it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark through the same water, through which all who are in heart without, whether they are also in body without or not, die as enemies of unity. As therefore it was not another but the same water that saved those who were placed within the ark, and destroyed those who were left without the ark, so it is not by different baptisms, but by the same, that good Catholics are saved, and bad Catholics or heretics perish. But what the most blessed Cyprian thinks of the Catholic Church, and how the heretics are utterly crushed by his authority; notwithstanding the much I have already said, I have yet determined to set forth by itself, if God will, with somewhat greater fullness and perspicuity, so soon as I shall have first said about his Council what I think is due from me, which, in God's will, I shall attempt in the following book.”
Helps, perhaps, to define terms? As a layman Protestant, I could hear the statement, "There is no salvation outside the church," and think, "Well of course not! However you slice it, we all come to Christ through the testimony or the word, all of which come from the Body of Christ." So maybe it would be more precise if you said, "No salvation outside the _Catholic_ (or Orthodox) church"? Thanks! Love your channel! You're one of the few I gladly give to support.
The wording/phrasing is extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Which translates to “no salvation outside the church”
The formulation, as presented in the video had 0 to do with RCC or EO, but they ran with it and produced ungodly doctrines based on those
As far as salvation goes, salvation comes through Christ, not the church so the doctrine already has problems. I mean sure the Protestant formulation of all who are in Christ are the church rectifies this apparent contradiction from the doctrine
While I can agree with noble intentions every ought be Christian to be saved, the issues stem now from sacraments and validity which also had heresies such as donatist heresy
Ps
There are rare instances of naaman, commander of assyria, where he was saved despite never converting to judaism
Or the thief on the cross who was never Christian
It’s kind of hard to take the whole no salvation doctrine in good faith
Yes, exactly. We just need to agree on what comprises the Church. Most who do not already know would be surprised to learn the understanding of the Catholic Church on this. (Want to know? Start with CCC 759!)
A lot of non-Catholics believe that what they hear from Catholics engaging in apologetics represents what the Catholic Church is, but this isn't true. Apologetics is, more or less by definition, responding to challenges against our Faith - it is not, in itself, the Faith. (No more than soap and water used to clean something is the dirt or the "something".) And, in reality, the controversies we are willing to defend against run counter to our Church and what our Faith actually IS. We are called to PEACE, and THAT is the character of our Faith - not all this controversy.
@@duckymomo7935 about the thief, the actual Church wasn’t established until Pentecost. So the thief would not have been restricted by that, also the Church has always thought that God can bring anyone he wants to heaven, but us mere humans must go through the Church Jesus establish which is the Roman Catholic Church.
Dear Pastor Gavin,
I’ve watched several videos from Catholics in the past few months on various topics. There is one thing that I just can’t get by and that is that I find that most Catholics argue for and point to the Catholic Church, defending their beliefs as their main goal (not saying all, I also believe that there are brothers and sisters in Christ), but the videos are so intellectual, often empty and draining and it often boils down to “we have the better arguments”, everything is about the church fathers, but it is different with you, one can hear, that your goal is, that God would be glorified. You don’t primarily point people to a certain Christian tradition, but you point People to the person of Jesus Christ (especially in your video about church anxiety) wanting people to put their trust in him and that is very prominent in you. It is your heart that is different.
And if that is the fruit of being solid in your Protestant beliefs, what else can one be than Protestant, for the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.
God bless you🙏🏼
Thanks!
Amazing!
Can you do a video on penance and its practice throughout Church history and how protestants deal with this
There's a lot of good evidence in this video against what modern Roman Catholic's teach on doctrinal development and apparent changes over the course of history. I honestly feel bad that they have to work so hard to find ways to defend what to me seems to be obvious changes in teaching over time. I recently became aware of Sedevacantism where modern Roman Catholic's have to defend typically Vatican II changes in teaching from this Catholic sect that are defending traditionalist views.
I expect a two hour response from Trent Horn by next week.😅
Glad you found it helpful!
@@elvisisacs3955 I almost spit out my coffee
Oh, so you can tell doctrinal development is obviously false right out the gate but you just found out what sedevacantism is?
A well versed man...
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Never claimed to be well versed on the particular topic. Just stated my opinion based on my limited knowledge base and the arguments in Dr. Ortlund’s video.
@@Particularly_John_Gill
I can see that.
Hi Gavin - Would you do a video in the future about salvation outside the church more broadly (i.e. Jewish people, Muslims, Socrates, etc)? I was deeply disappointed by Bp Barron's response to Ben Shapiro when he was asked about this a few years ago. I have a personal theory about how salvation is made available to all while maintaining Christ as the essential mediator, but I'd really appreciate hearing your pastoral thoughts on this topic.
CCC847: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."
This are for people who due to their situation cannot know Christ and His church. People who live in remote areas, etc. and this can also include people born into different religions, different cultures, different timelines, etc.
God alone is the judge. He desires that all moral man be saved.
One thing that must be understood is that a man must desire God and live a moral life..
Great video. I'd like to know your scripture citations for no salvation outside a particular institutional chuch.
@thoskabrah amen, that is a good point
@ThoskaBrahwhose us? Rome? Or Constantinople?
The first documented person to hold that is Cyprian of Carthage who had a famous dispute with Stephen of Rome.
- Protestants : Catholics, you have to reform!!
- Catholics: No!
430 years of protest later
- Catholics: Ok fine, we'll reform
- Protestants: Aha!! You reformed! You were wrong all the time.
Harold, I see your point and that could be an unfortunate conclusion, but the more logical reason would be just to tweak some bad doctrine. It’s like fine tuning something that only needs some clarification, simply cleaning house. Catholics unfortunately, do not want any discussion on any dogma.
So you think that protestant reformed the church? Just look at the fruit of reformation or rather I say deformation. The fruit is thousands of denominations each contradicts each other. Sad to say but thats reality.
@@NP-vk8de Brother, Catholics dont claim that they are perfect. And lm talking about the fruit of "reformation" per se. Dont you see the fruit brother? its division. Massive division.
@@iggymagnifico7821 I guess Iggy, you cannot see the forest for the trees? You have corrupt inept leadership and you blame the Reformers? A sexual pervert is running the show (Rodrigo Borgia) and no one is allowed to say a word? So, basically you are saying it is okay to allow corruption into the church and still have clear conscience?
@@NP-vk8de I am for a reform brother. But not what the protestant did 500 years ago. Because its cause more division not Unity
No, I never say what you have written brother.
This is my last reply. God be with you brother.
This is the fundamental principle that keeps me Protestant.
IV LATERAN COUNCIL, 1215 A.D.: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved.”
“Jews are to wear distinctive clothing. They are forbidden to be appointed to public offices.”
Cyprian sounds rather Anglican to me 😆
I was so happy to find you. You are so refreshing and loving and kind. I am devastated to find out you are a Calvinist. You say that we can accept it even if we don't believe it. I heard your arguments and even though you are very intelligent and I have learned from you I just can't listen to you any more and I feel very sad about this but how you defend Calvinism doesn't make sense. Not because I don't want it to be true but because the God of the Bible does not fit this view and the church didn't accept it until calvin came up with it later in history
The idea that Socrates and pre Christ individuals lived justly and can be called Christians makes me question what they thought salvation was. I mean the whole premise is that we needed His sacrifice for the remission of sins. Unless he is saying that they believed the righteous ways of God as was revealed to them as in Romans but through God's creation, etc. They still needed Jesus but His sacrifice was for all time?
"You're just picking and choosing."
"Yeah, well, so is everyone."
You hit the nail on the freaking head right there, from a maverick Orthodox. Catholics all the time attack Orthodoxy for allowing contraception, when many of their own Western Fathers condemned waiting to have sex only when the woman was infertile (which is the core tenet of NFP, which is only _now_ allowed in Catholicism). Yeah, Orthodoxy isn't following the Church Fathers, but neither is Catholicism. Nor the Protestants. Literally no one today follows them with regard to contraception. It really makes one think what the proper role of the Church Fathers is, if we can just dismiss their perennial teachings and beliefs. Must it be the case that we be "Church Fathers only, the Church Fathers are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect?"
Granted, I still see Protestantism as lacking something that Apostolic Christianity has; maybe it's the ritual, the sacraments, Idk. And while I still strongly dislike Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura (more so the rigidity of the latter; having it as a "rule of thumb" is a separate thing), as well as having an _extreme_ distaste for Augustine _and_ his theology, Protestant epistemology, either intentionally or unintentionally, successfully pointed out the flaws in Apostolic epistemology, particularly with regard to the Fathers.
But, still... how can you be deep in history, and not cease to be ProtesTANT???????????? 😨😨🤯🤯😨😨🤯🤯😨😨🤯🤯
haha. Appreciate the comment. It has to do with how we view church history. In my recent video with Dr. Cooper on "What is Protestantism?" we discussed this a bit, if it's of interest.
@@TruthUnites Yeah, whenever I see someone unironically quote that from Newman, I just know that they only saw Catholic Answers (or whatever the Orthodox equivalent might be) and either converted right there or were cradle.
Most people take one step into apologetics, seeing only one argument/counter-argument, and that's it; so you get Catholics who go on about how sex is for procreation and reproduction, then they just go off the rails when you ask why it's two and not one or three, why it's those two specifically, or why wine drinking (then spitting it out) isn't allowed. They're like one voice in saying sex is for those two things (in that, every Catholic will say that), then just splinter and come up with varying bizarre arguments after you push back against that (I've seen one say it's because procreation is more important than, say, drinking [can't remember what exactly it was]; another that it's a bad analogy, and so on).
Similarly, you'll see Orthodox saying how the Fathers are basically the rule of faith because, hey, Protestantism is splintered (which is a problem, IMO); but then you get either bizarre responses when saying that EENS is different now from what the Fathers believed, how contraception was forbidden totally, how penances were extremely severe back then, and so on; or you'll get responses that amount to, "Just ignore it and take the sacraments," which is a non-answer. It might work if Orthodoxy were an orthopraxic religion like Hinduism or Judaism, but it's not, so you absolutely need answers for this stuff. It's all illusory, man, and I'm honestly bugged that so many refuse to see this glaring issue in epistemics.
So, that Newman quote is really naïve, and I'm glad there are people who are able to go past that first step in arguments/counter-arguments, and really question all the milquetoast apologia being spammed by... well, almost any type of Christian. I think Christianity being a religion of orthodoxy over orthopraxy might be one of the greatest tragedies in religious history.
Anyway, sorry if my bitterness is showing; I've just been changed by Steve Skojec and TomsDigest online (the latter of which was what led me here), giving me multiple paradigm shifts that have given so much depth to my beliefs. Thanks again for the video, and for illustrating these issues.
Bruh how can you read the New Testament and honestly head to Constantinople or cross the Tiber?
@@KnightFel Or even be Protestant or Nicene Christian, honestly.
I'll be guilty as a Protestant on Judgement day for having taken Jesus on His Word. He is not a liar. Men are dear RC friends.
When I was a Roman Catholic, the big problem I always had with invincible ignorance is that I wondered why would a person evangelize to a non-Christian and risk them rejecting the gospel? With invincible ignorance it would be better if they never heard the gospel, and never had a chance to reject it. According to invincible ignorance, they would still end up in heaven because of their ignorance. But if they heard the gospel and rejected it, then they’re damned.
"but if they heard the gospel and rejected it, they are damn"
no you are simply wrong, because if this is a case of gavin polluting your mind about catholic teaching on invincible ignorance then he has succeeded.
if you have no reason to believe that what a catholic is saying is true then even if you have heard it, you are still invincibly ignorant about it, and it wont be the reason why you got damned.
Do you really think Jesus will command his apostles to preach the gospel to the world if your understanding of invincible ignorance is correct?
That's not true. If they are invincibly ignorant, they can't believe the Gospel (whatever that means) due to their ignorance. It is by no fault of their own they have such a lack of belief.
Individuals of this category can be saved only by a properly formed conscience through the Grace of God.
So, your evangelism of these people doesn't mean anything one way or another.
What kind of claim is this????? How is this Biblical? Matthew 28:19-20, anyone??? This is getting ridiculous.
The invincibly ignorant that would be saved are the same people that would accept the gospel when presented to them. All you are doing for any creature by presenting them the gospel is helping them
Because to attain salvation, one must live a moral life, without guidance from the church, people unaware of that can fall into immorality.
The straight and narrow road that leads to heaven is not an easy road to begin with, even for those gifted with the fullness of truth.
Invincible ignorance, is not the only condition for salvation apart from the sacrament of baptism. The Church also teaches that such individuals must “seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience”
I encountered what I'd call a fundamentalist Catholic who stated there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church. I asked for clarification: "So all Protestants are going to Hell?" And all he would say in reply was that there's time to convert and "cross the Tiber." Most Catholics I know, including many priests, would not hold to this rather limiting position...for example, Peter Kreeft would say the Catholic Church is the best, but not the only part of the Body of Christ.
There are people, due to their circumstances cannot know the gospel of Christ...those who lived before Christ, those not reached by Christian missionaries, those in isolated primitive places, those mentally disabled, those killed in abortion, those who are born in pagan religions, etc.
God is a merciful and a logical God, He desires that all men be given a chance for salvation.
“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin" John 15:22
The implication is that it is possible to have a salvific link with Christ without knowing him formally.
The bottom line is: the straight and narrow road that leads to heaven is not an easy road to begin with, even for those gifted with the fullness of truth.
CCC847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation".
@AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS Even if the magisterium contradicts itself?
You reject the Church Christ built and you think you're somehow entitled to heaven
They were most probably a follower of Fr. Leonard Feeney who in the 1940s was attached to the Catholic Student's at Harvard University. He took up a very strict interpretation of the phrase "Outside of the Church there is no salvation." He and his followers were asked to explain their position, and instructed that their denial of the Baptism of Desire and the Baptism of Blood along with their denial in Invincible Ignorance, in which a person who through no fault of their own has not heard the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church (be it because they have not been presented it, or they are so prejudiced by Anti-Catholic indoctrination) will be judged by God based on what they knew, and how they conducted their lives. God will through the Merits of the Cross welcome into eternal life those who have endeavored to live a life following God as they understood His will to be. When they continued to refuse the Catholic interpretation of the Catholic understanding of "Outside the Church" they themselves were excommunicated, something they protested was invalid because they were the only one's who understood the teaching better than the Pope and the rest of the Church.
@@thomasfolio7931 Feeney was correct, ignorance can never save.
You can't go to heaven based on how you lived your life, this is "works alone"
The pre christ pagans were not saved because they lived justly alone, but also because christ decended into the hell (limbus patrem) and applied salvation to them through the preaching of the gospel. Which is why saint peter says the gospel has been preached even to the dead. No one, absolutely no one enters heaven by their own merit, but by the application of the blood of Christ and the belief therein
What does this have to do with "no salvation outside the church"?
No.
That passage in Peter does not mean that at all.
Christ preached to the people who were dead at the time that the verse was written but who were alive when the preaching was done.
A proper understanding is that Peter was referring to just prior to the flood when Jesus preached through Noah.
The dead are asleep in the grave.
Time-stamp
20:26 - Yup, this is modern.
21:06 - “invisibly on the ark of Noah” 🤣
21:55 - where’s the precedent?
22:37 - doctrinal development.
22:52 - what’s the point in an infallible teaching office if Christians misunderstand for centuries?
23:50 - change in meaning, not just a change in understanding.
24:26, 24:55 - the allowance analogy
25:55 - Gavin’s position on Vatican ll
26:15, 27:50 - Protestant freedom
@YAJUN YUAN Basically :;)
Good argument. I find this issue to be the biggest argument against infallibility and you articulated your position very well.
You need to learn more about infallibility in the Church. Everything he said here has little to do with that. So the teaching on the Trinity is infallible, the teaching in the Eucharist is in fallible, the teaching on the Virgin Mary is infallible, and the teaching in no salvation outside the Church is infallible along with other things. But there are practices and traditions that are for helping people and can be changed.
The entire "no salvation outside the church" nonsense also has to ignore parts of the Bible. We forget that Christianity is very much a continuation of the Jewish faith. Did Jesus or the apostles ever say you have to stop being a Jew to follow Jesus? No! And did they ever say to us gentiles you have to convert to Jewish law to follow Jesus? No! Its very explicitly stated to follow the life you were chosen to live. The entire idea of "no salvation outside the church" is a blatant slap in the face to the very culture the world inherited from the Israelite people, and is a slap in the face to both Jesus and the apostles. And im willing to stake eternity on that. "if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
How on earth have we gotten so far away from the very simple Gospel?
Does the Orthodox church also teach that there is no salvation outside of it? If so, could i ask anyone to cite me some official Orthodox source please? Also, I have just been thinking about this this week, one of the things holding me back from going Orthodox/RCC is that I can't honestly deny the holy spirit working with protestant denominations...
IMO, other churches also have experienced such "Vatican II" moments, either formally or informally, be it EO, OO, or ACOE. At least in the laity levels, you could always find people who defend a broader ecumenism with their own slogans and terms.
yes they do, historically. In my book I document a number of saints/theologians and a few councils saying that the Filioque is damnable heresy, e.g. This starts to change a bit in the 19th/20th centuries among some Orthodox theologians.
But neither the Orthodox or the Catholic Church would claim it's impossible for the holy spirit to work in protestant denominations
Thanks a lot. Also I appreciate how honest and respectful your protestant arguments are, most protestants i know are very militant and arrogant when it comes to arguing with the Cats/Orthodox.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj the Orthodox online that I have interacted with call Protestants heretics and outside the Ark of the church that Saves.
This typology fails because the Flood wasn't Global and only A Large Regional flood of the Middle East.
Nephilim( Giants) are still around after the Flood and settled in Canaan which is why King David and others had to fight this family of Goliaths of Gath.
BTW Traditional Roman Catholics on Trent Horn's and have also called me (a Protestant ) a heretic !
Trent did comment about these types of comments and wanted his supporters to stop because that's not official Roman Catholic church teaching anymore.
But there are Roman Catholics that don't accept Vatican ll new teaching.
This video comments on this problem for Roman Catholicism at the end of the video.
One of the things that I love about this channel is that it gives us an opportunity to split hairs in a fruitful way and better understand one another. Super!
I think a better example could have been chosen to illustrate the concerns with doctrinal development. Regarding GUARD RAILS, no-salvation-outside-the-church is not what I would call a sacred dogma. There really is a hierarchy of truths in Roman Catholicism. It only makes sense that there would be more wiggle room to develop those lower down the ladder.
And while a medieval theologian might have made an argument for those earlier teachings being infallible, what qualifies as an ex cathedra statement is itself a doctrinal development! So it is wrong to suggest that the church has “positively reformulated” what should have stood the test of time.
For my part, doctrinal development is a brilliant mechanism that God built into his Church to keep it relevant throughout the ages, faithfully guiding its members ever closer to that glorious day.
Once again, though, outstanding video. Always food for thought and a chance to reflect!
Ave Maria.
Glad you enjoyed the video! To your first point, the fact that this dogma may be less important (not sure about that, but granting it for the sake of argument) does not mean it is any less infallible and thus irreformable. So I'd say that is irrelevant. To the second point, when you say "what qualifies as an ex cathedra statement is itself a doctrinal development," I have lots of concerns about this. One is it makes for an infinitely moving target. Another is I really don't think Catholics teach or believe that. Another is that in this particular case, the vast majority of Catholics consider the papal bull from the Council of Florence ex cathedra. Ultimately that kind of statement undercuts the appeal for an infallible authority, it seems to me, because now you never really know when it is infallible. Hope that makes sense.
Warren, I would have to disagree on your approach to this dilemma. It is true that in one sense we can we can rank doctrines in importance or centrality to the Christian faith. e.g. The divinity of Jesus is more important than the dogmas on indulgences. However if something is a dogma, then it is a dogma. All infallible and irreformable definitions are infallible and irreformable by definition. I think the solution to the dilemma is to pay attention to the definitions in their context, distinguish between what is normatively necessary vs. absolutely necessary and not make a dogmatic definition wider than it was intended.
Thank you both for your comments! Very constructive.
It should not come as a surprise that the definition of what constitutes ex cathedra is itself a doctrinal development. While the Church has always had it in some form, it wasn’t until much later that serious discussions about inerrancy began to take hold and obviously weren’t fully formulated until Vatican 1.
Having said that, I don’t know enough about the topic to properly argue it. I’m inspired to dig deeper! Perhaps in the new year.
Merry Christmas!
I don't think the allowance analogy works. Here's why: those of us who believe the Church is necessary for salvation can still say there is no salvation outside of the Church and what this would mean is that all salvific graces and doctrine enter the world through Christ and His Church. So if there is something salvific about any protestant sects they got it from us. If there is something salvific about the life of a pagan who doesn't know Christ he's participating in virtue that the Church proclaims. With this view your analogy would look like this "parents tell their son 'you can use no money that is not money'." If the boy us going to use any money (participate in virtue and be saved) there is no way to do it but to use money (participate in virtue and be saved).
I think there's a little arguing over semantics here because in Orthodoxy we view the church to be the body of Christ and catholics have a similar view so saying "no salvation outside the church" would be equivalent to a protestant saying "no salvation outside of Christ" which I think we can all agree with. However I think protestants are completely correct in pointing out that limiting the scope of Christ to only extend as far as the boundaries of what we view to be the canonical church is human arrogance. There's a difference between knowingly, consciously rejecting the church (as in Christ) and desiring to be in the church but not having knowledge of or access to the human denomination that is the most correct in their theology.
"The schisms in the "Church" today are not like the marcienites or something like that"
Why not? Also there aren't schisms "inside" the church. Which is what Cyprian is saying, to deny the faith even in one article is to remove yourself from the church.
The church is always one. One Lord, one baptism, one faith. And if you concoct your own faith, or follow a heretic you are not in the church
I think most people are misinterpreting what the “church” actually is. Jesus says his kingdom is not of this world. It would make sense that his church body wouldn’t be recognizable by this world. It’s not a building, a denomination, or a magisterium. Peter tells us the church is simply people who put their faith in Jesus. Jesus himself is building his church.
“As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.“
1 Peter 2:4-5
But how would that work?
The church existed for 400 years before the bible and it took thousands of years before it was ever printed and another hundreds of years before common folks can read and get a hand on a copy of a bible.
Christ build a church with His chosen 12 apostles to teach His gospel and spread it out through the world.
Doctrine can change in its understanding but not its meaning. I like that.
It reminds me of how Christ declared all food clean, but didn't declare we could eat anything. Yet, the church in general, has taught with an understanding that is more lawless than law abiding. The meaning of Matthew 15 and Mark 7 doesn't change, but our understanding does.
Just as you stated that Augustine became much "harder" in his later life, I noticed that you are becoming much firmer in your doctrinal teachings. It may just be how you are delivering your teachings. I am not saying this is a bad thing. It allows viewers to understand your position better.
Jordan Cooper became like that too. He used to be pretty "mushy", so I had a hard time understanding the Lutheran beliefs. Nowadays, I can clearly understand the distinctions.
I mean I hate that I’m charitable to RCC teachings but after hearing them they’re just flat out wrong and all that
I know that being a catholic or eo is going to. BE miserable for me especially adherence to sacraments and bad doctrines
@@duckymomo7935 While I am a conservative Presbyterian, Christianity is more than just sacraments and doctrines. It's really about Christ. Some prefer Nicene-Constantian Creed and some prefer Chalcedon Creed. These creeds really set us what it means to be Christians.
We are followers of the Triune God. Unlike deistic Judaism or Islam, we worship the Father who created and loves us eternally. We worship the Son who came down as a man and suffered for us. We believe in the Holy Spirit who indwells in us to help in all aspects of our lives. That's the most important aspect of the Christianity and we can spread from there.
@@thomasc9036amen!
Thank you for your scholarly deep dives into doctrine, among other things. I am a Roman Catholic who had a major spiritual crisis when talk of declaring Mary co-redemtrix started to be "taken for granted ". Natural doctrinal development, right? I have not been to church in over a year. I can't talk to a priest because one priest here has 3 parishes. I have never had a pastor. I would become Protestant but that would entail individual interviews with each pastor to determine the beliefs of that particular church. I can avoid the ones that have a rainbow flag next to the door, but not all advertise. I know that we need to worship as humans together, but I am unchurched and bereft in that way.
may the Lord protect, guide, and watch over you!
@@TruthUnites thank you for the prayers. I need every one.
The most recent popes have moved away from using the language of Mary as co-redemtrix. No Catholic is bound to affirm this title.
Although, technically all Christians are co-redeemers in Christ since we are all commissioned by Our Lord to proclaim the Gospel.
Might a Lutheran congregation be a reasonably comfortable place to start for you?
Most church websites will state their doctrinal statements, so that’s always a good place to examine. Listen to some sermons online & check for proper use of the Bible. Then visit a few times. Membership classes typically will give you a much deeper understanding of how the church works.
Interestingly, I was sent to this video by Pastor Mike Winger who was addressing the “45,000 denominations” baloney in his first question (his last video of 2023) and how to find the right church for you. Blessings
Co-redemtrix just means that God in his greatness allowed a human to help him bring salvation to the world. Mary had free will and without her saying yes, there would be no salvation. I believe it is yet another way God showed his great humility. And Mary is to be called blessed by us all and I believe that Jesus being Mary’s son still had to honor and obey his mother. Just think if God would die for all of us, how does he show honor to his mother?
Question? Suppose you reject the primacy of the pope but accept bishops. Why not be Eastern Orthodox then? Or another question. Suppose that the bishops agree to have a pope as leader. Then it’s not contradicting the will of the bishops.
To the first question, if you accept episcopal church government, you could be Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, Anglican, Lutheran or Methodist. There are also some Reformed Christians and other smaller groups that have bishops. Even some Baptists have bishops! To the second question, yes, if all bishops agreed to have one leader, that would lead to a state of concord. However, this is different from Catholic teaching about the papacy, which maintains the papacy is Christ's appointment, not merely the result of a decision of the church.
@@TruthUnites Interesting, thank you! Brings a lot more diversity to the Protestant position for people who hold certain views of apostolic succession! Never knew that!
@@joiemoie yes, just bear in mind not everyone who affirms episcopal church government necessarily affirms apostolic succession. God bless!
@@TruthUnites And not every church that has apostolic succession regards it as essential.
The difference between Florence/unum sanctum and Vatican II/current teaching is the primary reason I reject infallibility both from the pope and the general magisterium. They are different things, no matter how much context you allow and categories you create.
Why do you suppose that the heresies promoted by Protestants are less than heresies of old? How are these new heresies good and why should we acknowledge them?
"when you get stuck, you can get unstuck"...AMEN!!!
In addition to my other comment, I'd just like to make a note on Church Fathers, on Tradition, on Magesterium, on Councils, on Scripture.
As a Catholic, I have to commend you for delving into the Fathers with such gusto! As I understand it, this is territory that not many Protestants wholeheartedly wish to tread. That said, I think you might be headed towards an error in your thought process.
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that you're almost equating Cyprian and Augustine with Church teaching as a whole. I get this gut feeling that you're saying Catholics should be taking every single thing a Father says and make it doctrinal if not dogmatic. We hold the Doctors and Fathers in high regard, of course, but we don't replace scripture with letters or documents written by them. Just as we don't take the private revelations given to saints or other individuals as universal or public revelation. While we don't hold scripture as being "above" tradition, because scripture IS tradition, neither do we hold all aspects of tradition as equal! We could come very close to holding "prima scriptura". (But not quite there!)
If we take all of the Church's tradition as a necklace, obviously the Bible is the whopping big diamond in the middle. All the rest of the gems are the traditions of the Church. The Fathers form the setting, they enhance the beauty, they glorify and magnify, they explain, they teach, they opine, but they do not constitute doctrine or dogma in and of themselves. So if a Church Father says there is no salvation outside the Church, we need to discover several things: first, is he quoting scripture?; second, what is his context?; third; how did this apply at the time?; and fourth, what does this mean for us now? As far as ecumenical councils go, and Florence in particular, I've read that that one is especially problematic because only parts of that Council are actually and truly Ecumenical. Even so, and even though it mentions pagans and Jews as outside of salvation, I don't know if that particular statement is "infallible" or not.
I think Cardinal Ratzinger said it well: "We must remember that this expression (salus extra ecclesiam non est) was formulated by St. Cyprian in the third century in a quite concrete situation. There were those who thought they were better Christians who were unhappy with the Church of bishops and separated themselves from her. In answer to that, Cyprian says: separation from the Church community separates one from salvation. But he did not mean to lay down a theory on the eternal fate of all baptized and non-baptized persons (quoted in "Ratzinger Speaks," The Catholic World Report, January 1994, p. 23). - Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation)"
And since you brought this up in the context of baptism, of babies or other people who die before being baptised, I think we can't lose sight of a major (if unofficial) doctrine of the faith: we need the sacraments, thus we need to be baptised in order to join the body of Christ; but God does not need any sacrament and he is not bound by them. Thus it is we understand that God provides us a clear path to access his graces, but that he himself is not bound to only give or withhold grace based on that clear path. So, yes, there used to be a theory of limbo, which I think was probably a pastoral response to a true need. If you've ever had a miscarriage or an abortion, then you might naturally wonder --- and perhaps worry --- about what happened to your baby after it died. There was no magisterial teaching, no doctrine, and there still isn't. It's simply a mystery that hasn't been revealed. We do certainly hope that our unborn and unbaptised babies are not consigned to damnation. And I think, through reason, we can see that they are not. God is Love and Mercy itself. It is inconsistent with the very nature of Love and Mercy to withhold those things from the truly innocent. Therefore, and while this is my opinion, I think it is very reasonable to believe that our unborn babies are alive now in heaven.
In other words, I think you might be heading down the road of picking some phrase out of the writings of the Fathers and applying it as a universal. And a necessary universal at that, when this isn't what the Catholic Church is doing.
I would agree with the statement "outside the Church there is no salvation is the formal equivalent of salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church, which is His Body". It is perhaps best expressed in Lumen Gentium: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation." This is where my first response is founded, and this also, I believe, covers unbaptised babies. It certainly covers catecheumens in the waters of baptism of desire and in the case of martyrs, baptism of blood.
And this is where we really head into deep waters!
Let's consider salvation and judgement for a moment.
When can we truly say, with absolute certainty, that we have been irrevocably saved? Is it when you say the sinners' prayer? Is it when you're baptised? Are they formal equivalents of each other? Are they close synonyms? What if you do the salvation thing and then go on to live a life of a murderous rapist? What if you fall prey to a non-Christian religion and its teachings? Speaking of unbaptised babies --- what really does happen when you die? Are you judged instantaneously? How about immediately? How about soon after? What does time and space even mean to a soul who is departed from its spatio-temporal housing? Have you been saved then?
And we might ask about purgatory as well. What does it even mean to "spend time" in a place that is not located inside the universe and is not subject to the laws of nature? What happens if I meet a guy who was Muslim there? Or an Atheist? What should I think if I see Mr Hitler there? Or Emperor Nero? Or even you! Where are Cyprian's writings now?
What I think is clear is that we should always look to first principles. For salvation, judgement and final disposition: we must rely on God's Love and Mercy. They are boundless, deeper than any universe full of space, more profound than any words I can type. This is the mystery of salvation. We tend to think of it from the human side here in the created world. But maybe we should be looking at it from the other side, from God's world.
On this, St. Padre Pio said: "I believe that not a great number of souls go to hell. God loves us so much. He formed us at his image. God loves us beyond understanding. And it is my belief that when we have passed from the consciousness of the world, when we appear to be dead, God, before He judges us, will give us a chance to see and understand what sin really is. And if we understand it properly, how could we fail to repent?"
Maybe doctrinal development isn't so bad after all? Let's be honest: we didn't give Jesus a very long time to teach here on Earth. And if it wasn't for Our Lady, then there might have been even less time. It is what it is --- what, three years? Four years? And twenty centuries later we're still trying to sort out what it meant!
It seems like this argument is equally good for the rejection of Biblical Inerrancy/Inspiration as well. We could look at a number of statements in the Bible compared to the way they are understood by modern Christians and see them as not just a valid development but a real change. We could even find passages within the Bible that appear to be at odds with each other rather than rely on any particular Christian's understanding. It seems that it follows that it would be better to be unyoked by Biblical Inspiration and just be free to say that the Bible got it wrong.
I'm sure that people who are committed to Biblical Inspiration will find ways to justify it, but should the defenders of Biblical Inspiration at least understand that for someone who is not committed to it that it has every appearance of being, not a consistent understanding, but simply a contradiction?
It depends on what you mean by inspiration, inerrancy and contradiction. Is the Bible at the same time saying that there is a God and that there isn’t? That at the same time He’s essentially personal and an impersonal force? That He’s only One God and also three Gods (the answer is “no,” but admittedly, the doctrine of the Trinity is difficult to understand)? That He became the man Jesus and at the same time is completely disconnected from humanity? That Jesus’ death opens the Way to eternal life and yet our lives will all end in the grave? That at the same time Jesus bodily rose from the grave and remains in it? Etc., etc., etc. As opposed to other religions (like Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism), I see the Bible as God’s inerrant message to us about who He is, about who we are, and about His plan of salvation, all summed up in the New Testament’s preaching of the Gospel. Unfortunately, a lot of people today can’t see the forest for the trees ...
"as a protestant I'm just free to say: I think the church made a mistake on this"
the catholic thinks "so what you're saying is Christ is incompetent and cannot protect his church?"
This actually clarifies the confusion surrounding the doctrine
The catholic version of it is just flat out wrong and inconsistent
I think a great guy who you can have a conversation on this topic is Christian B. Wagner from the "Scholastic Answers" channel, he has an open debate invite to anybody who wants to talk about Doctrinal Development or Evolution of Dogma.
People will continue to debate the council of Florence statement. This is a really really difficult judgment and I honestly don't have an answer on Vatican 2 is a legitimate development of that statement in the council of Florence. But I will say this that process that went into drafting that document from the council of Florence was a bit different than an infallible judgement, it was meant to summarize the most important / infallible teachings of the Catholic Church for an eastern orthodox audience. That's why the Pope speaks this way as you read down the document saying “we proclaim preach and declare” x and “anathematize” the contrary statement. He is just repeating or echoing a previous ecumenical council's judgment. In contrast the statement about salvation outside the church does not come with an anathema meaning that this teaching was not part of the summary of previously declared infallible statements that he's making, but rather an additional teaching of the Pope's own. One clearly intended to motivate eastern orthodox persons to come into the Catholic Church. So even though it could meet Vatican I criteria for an infallible judgment we can't really say for sure, even though many theologians including Dr Scott Hahn consider it infallible.
Hi Dr. Ortlund, Catholic here! Do you generally agree that doctrine develops but just disagree with the Catholic Church's notion of doctrinal development because of the church says she is infallible?
hello! Glad to be connected to you. Yes, that is correct. Our understanding of theology develops and grows. But the RC way of construing this in my view runs into problems because of allegedly infallible claims that appear to change. Hope that helps.
infallible? the church no. The pope can be infallible when he speaks ex Cathedra, but he only did that twice in history in defining The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.
The church is not infallible, per se, but she is protected from error (by the H.S.), on doctrines of faith and morals. - she cannot accept into the church things like abortion, artificial birth control, gay marriage, etc. but that does not protect her from finance troubles, clergy corruption, scandals, administrative errors, etc.
The pressure to accept the "pill" decades ago was intense, even Catholics lobbied for its acceptance, only the Catholic church stood it's ground, after several years, it was discovered that some "pills" can be abortifacient, aside from being a moral issue, that would have been a grave error on the part of the church to have accepted artificial birth control into the church.
Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae of 1968, defined Christian life, and foretold the consequences of the "pill" - which all came true today.
@@joekey8464 hello friend! Financial troubles, scandal, etc are not pertaining to faith and morals. The church is infallible on faith and morals, not individuals in the church, which was never the claim. I think we agree more than disagree, but by me saying that the church is infallible, I mean the magisterium and its teaching office on matters of faith and morals, not individuals outside of the pope speaking ex-cathedra. In that vein, the church is indeed infallible, meaning she is protected from teaching error.
@@brianaalece5314 yes, Church is protected from teaching errors with regards to faith and morals. In other words she is infallible with teachings of regards to faith and moral. The only church today that still stands on the teachings of Christ. all other churches had gone astray.
The Epistle of Saint Ignatius Antioch to the Smyrnaeans
Chapter 4. Beware of these heretics
I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that you also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this. But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, [in fact,] he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so in the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, Romans 8:17 He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me. Philippians 4:13
Chapter 5. Their dangerous errors
Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death. I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to [a true belief in] Christ's passion, which is our resurrection.
Chapter 6. Unbelievers in the blood of Christ shall be condemned
Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.
Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
For anyone interested, Michael Lofton did give a good presentation on the Reason and Theology TH-cam channel on Salvation Outside the Church and he offered the following as evidence that even in the middle ages, there were theologians that were arguing for a broad view of no salvation outside the Church.
Invincible Ignorance, Baptism of Desire and Implicit Faith in Aquinas
"For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.
• "If some Gentiles were saved, without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in the Mediator. Because even though they did not have explicit faith, they did have a faith that was implicit in their faith in divine providence, believing that God is the liberator of mankind in ways that He himself chooses.
• "A person receives the forgiveness of sins before baptism in so far as he has baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly;"
• "Consequently, just as some are baptized with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being baptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally. • Note: Aquinas believed explicit faith in the Trinity and the incarnation is needed for salvation after the incarnation.
Francisco de Vitoria (1483-1546), O.P. on Inculpability for People Who Have Heard the Gospel
"It is not sufficiently clear to me that the Christian faith has yet been so put before the aborigines and announced to them that they are bound to believe it or commit fresh sin. I say this because. they are not bound to believe unless the faith be put before them with persuasive demonstration. Now, I hear of no miracles or signs or religious patters of life; nay, on the contrary, I hear of many scandals and cruel crimes and acts of impiety. Hence, it does not appear that the Christian religion has been preached to them with such sufficient propriety and piety that they are bound to acquiesce in it, even though many religious and other ecclesiastics seem both by their lives and example and their diligent preaching to have bestowed sufficient pains and industry in this business, had they not been hindered therein by men who were intent on other things."
Albert Pighius (1490-1542) on the Possibility of Salvation for Muslims.
"One cannot doubt that in so great a multitude of those who follow the doctrine of Mohammed.there are some who know and revere God...and they keep the law of nature. What is to be though of such people?…..Now if the ignorance of the Christian faith did not prevent Cornelius, even without baptism, from being pleasing to God in Christ, how much less will the much more invincible ignorance of these people prevent them from being able to please God in Christ."
St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) on Church Membership and Baptism of Desire
• "Such a one is in the church with his mind or by desire, which is sufficient for his salvation; however, he is not in the church bodily, that is, by external communion, and it is the latter which makes one in the strict sense a member of the church on earth."
"I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism.
Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved."
Francisco Suarez, S.J. (1548-1617)
• "Now we are saying the same things with regard to anyone who has faith in God, and sincere repentance for sin, but who is not baptized, whether he has arrived at explicit or only implicit faith in Christ. For, with implicit faith in Christ he can have an implicit desire for baptism, which St.
Thomas teaches can suffice.
Juan De Lugo, S.J (1583-1660). on the Possibility of Jews, Muslims and Non-Christians Being Saved.
• "There are some who, while they do not believe all the dogmas of the Catholic religion, do acknowledge the one true God; such are the Turks. and all Moslems, as well as the Jews. Others acknowledge the Triune God and Christ, as most heretics do. Now if these people are excused from the sin of infidelity by reason of invincible ignorance, they can be saved."
"It would follow that a Jew or other non-Christians can be saved; for he could have a supernatural faith in the one God, and be invincibly ignorant about Christ.
• "The possibility of salvation for such a person is not ruled out by the nature of the case; moreover, such a person should not be called a non-Christian, because, even though he has not been visibly joined to the church, still, interiorly he has the virtue of habitual and actual faith in common with the church, and in the sight of God he will be reckoned with the Christians
Given the number of examples of the early Church on a broad view of no salvation outside of the Church (See William Most's article "No Salvation Outside the Church" on EWTN), I think it makes perfect sense that the magisterium would clarify some of its statements (e.g. Florence) when there clearly was disagreement through the middle ages on what no salvation outside the Church meant. This does not seem like doctrinal change, then, rather a clarification of ideas that were already present in the Church for a long time.
God bless!
Thanks for these quotes. This is truly helpful. I don't think Thomas' statement are to the point; baptism of desire for catechumens in the Roman Catholic Church is different than Eastern Orthodox or others outside the Roman Catholic Church. Consider what Thomas says in his commentary in Psalm 48, "faith in Christ flourishes principally among the people of the west, because in the northern regions there are still many Gentiles, and in the eastern lands there are many schismatics and heretics." So here the "schismatics and heretics" are, with the Gentiles, contrasted with where there is "faith in Christ" flourishing. I am not aware of any time Thomas ever taught that Eastern Orthodox Christians or Oriential Orthodox or Assyrian, still less Muslims and Jews, could be saved. And my reading of Thomas on this point is consistent with Francis Sullivan, a Roman Catholic theologian (see his book Salvation Outside the Church?, chapter 4).
The same would also apply to some of these other statements, such as that of Bellarmine, who seems to be speaking of catechumens. This is not the issue of tension between Florence and Vatican 2, but rather Jews, Muslims, other Christians outside of RC, etc. Francisco de Vitoria simply says the Christian faith has not been preached to the new people with enough clarity that they are bound to believe it. Does he ever say that this means they are saved? I would be curious if he draws that implication. Similarly, does Albert Pighius mean that Muslims revering God are saved? Because the comparison with Cornelius would suggest otherwise, since Cornelius had to respond to the gospel message as preached by Peter (Acts 10:42-43).
I think your quotes from Suarez and De Lugo are strong, especially De Lugo. They accord with Sullivan's interpretation of them as well, which I re-consulted. This is the first time someone has actually produced clear examples of this, so thank you. It still remains, of course, how to reconcile these with Florence, Unam Sanctam, etc. But this would start to push the timeline back, at least for openness to the salvation of pagans (and for De Lugo, Jews and Muslims).
I will simply note that De Lugo's position (I am still a bit unclear about Suarez') was widely rejected up until more recent times. Here is how Sullivan puts it (Salvation Outside the Church?, p. 103): "[the Jesuit view of salvation for those without explicit faith in Christ] was a departure from the teaching of St. Thomas and the whole medieval tradition, which had required explicit Christian faith for the salvation of everyone in the Christian era. After the suppression of Jesuit order, hardly any Catholic theologians dared to question the traditional teaching on this point."
Thank you for your contribution which has qualified my thinking a bit!
@@TruthUnites You are awesome, Dr. Ortlund! Much respect! Like I mentioned elsewhere, I am no expert in this area and these quotes come from Michael Lofton. In his video he walks through a bunch of examples chronologically, to try and show the differing types of questions theologians in the Church tried to answer that pertain to the formal vs. informal relationship with the Church distinction and how it applies to the teaching on no salvation outside the Church. Hopefully, he or someone with more expertise could point everyone to some other good resources on the differing views on this question in the Middle Ages.
You've piqued my curiosity on the question, so I will keep digging around a bit more too.
God bless!
This is a fascinating free article and worth a read! I think it also has shifted my position a bit. Instead of Vatican II simply clarifying Florence (meaning that Florence was ambiguous but actually meant the same thing), this paper makes me lean towards saying the Vatican II and other modern era documents are definitely developments (meaning there has been a change in some aspects of understanding) of earlier statements, such as Florence.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Substance of Catholic Doctrine: Towards a Realization of Benedict XVI's "Hermeneutic of Reform" by Matthew Ramage.
Nova et Vetera, English Edition, Vol. 14, No. 1 (2016): 295-330
Can be found online for free at St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology.
There are a couple key distinctions as to why modern theologians don't think this means the Catholic Church taught an error, though. I can't say Dr. Ortlund (or other Protestants) will like it, but it makes sense to me and appears to be what the Church has been teaching in recent years.
1. The first distinction is the historical context matters for how a dogma is presented.
Each era dealt with unique circumstances in that they weren't trying to answer the fate of all mankind when discussing issues related to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, but rather local historical sociopolitical/theological issues.
For instance, the early Church was often talking (e.g. Cyprian) about extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the context of Christians who were persecuted and tempted to leave the Church or to defend the early Church's ecclesial structure and prevent schisms.
In the early Middle Ages, all Europe was Catholic and the possibility of not hearing the gospel was likely non-existent. They thought invincible ignorance was not possible, then; anyone in that era who didn't accept the gospel, must have been sinning as the truth of it had to be evident to them. The paper's author states, "had they known about the New World and all the other peoples of the earth who had never heard the Gospel, they likely would have articulated their doctrine differently to account for this knowledge."
It seems that this lines up with why someone like Francisco de Vitoria would be starting to ask that question as the Chruch was running into new people's in the undiscovered countries of the Americas and needing to figure out what that meant for extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2. The second important distinction the paper also talks about is a distinction in the substance vs. presentation/accidents of a dogma. It shows examples of the recent Church explaining that the presentation of a dogma can develop/change as long as the substance is still something that all Christians in all ages would agree upon. In the case of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, it is that the Church is necessary for salvation, but some are informally connected to it. In this case, the essence/substance of the dogma is the same, but the full understanding of it has developed.
John XXIII's opening words at the Second Vatican Council: "The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another."53 According to Sullivan, the Church has presented the same truth in various ways over the centuries. To apply Newman's thought, we might say that the Church's modern distillation of EENS is something that Catholics of all epochs, if given the knowledge we have today, would agree upon.
Finally, the paper ends by cautioning against assuming all non-Christians/Catholics are invincibly ignorant. This would kill evangelization and is not likely true.
Some cited resources that sound very helpful:
Joseph Ratzinger. "Salus Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Est," Documentatie Centrum Concilie, Series I, no. 88 (1963)
Ralph Martin. "Will Many be Saved?"
Sullivan, "Salvation Outside the Church?"
God bless!
@@Stormlight1234 Thanks Chris for your very interesting input. I wish to disagree with a single point which you have quoted. The idea that the early medieval Catholic church was unaware of unevangelised pagans ( as opposed to Jews and Muslims) and their statements were made in that context is historically implausible. The Catholic church which made these statements did not suddenly become aware of the unevangelised pagans after the 'discovery' of the New World.
1) The peoples along the southern Baltic remained pagan in the early middle ages. Pope Eugenius III called in 1147 for a crusade against the pagan slavs. The Lithuanians were the last European pagans to convert to ( Catholic) Christianity in 1387.
2) Marco Polo travelled on the Silk Road as far as China 1271-1295 and obviously brought back information about vast populations who were neither Christians, Jews nor Muslims.
3) Throughout the middle ages Genoese and Venetian merchants traded with Byzantium and had colonies in Crimea. They would surely have had some knowledge of peoples further east.
Thus the exclusivist statements of the medieval Catholic church were made by a church fully aware of the existence of unevangelised pagan populations.
God bless.
@@derekmchardy8730 Thanks for pointing that out!
This is just how Sullivan (the person Gavin was also citing in his video) and Martin explain it as cited in the above mentioned paper. As I read it again, they certainly aren't saying the Catholic Church was completely unaware of other non-Christian people, but that they thought they knew of most everyone in the world and most everyone would have had exposure to Christianity. They still acknowledge the rare circumstances some might not be as Martin references Aquinas and the belief that God would somehow find a way to present the gospel to a virtuous pagan who has yet to hear it. I am going to have to track down the other paper mentioned by Torrell as it sounds like it deals extensively with the "geographical horizon" topic mentioned in the paper.
Here are the two relevant quotes from the paper:
First of all, there was the fact that their world was practically identical with Christian Europe. . . . When they spoke of the possibility that someone might never have heard the gospel preached, they imagined the case of a child brought up in the wilderness. The limits of their geographical horizon led them to the conviction that everyone had had ample opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel. At the same time, the limits of their grasp of human psychology led them to the conviction that all those who had heard the message of the gospel and did not accept it must be guilty of sinning against the truth which surely was evident to them.49
Foot Note 49: Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church?, 201. On the subject of the limits of medieval Christendom’s geographical horizon and its impact on their position concerning the salvation of non-Christians, see Jean-Pierre Torrell, O.P., “Saint Thomas et les non-chrétiens,” Revue Thomiste 106 (2006): 17-49. Ralph Martin summarizes this reality as follows: “Given the common medieval understanding that Christianity was so widely known and promulgated that invincible ignorance would be extremely rare, it was assumed that nonbeliev- ers were culpable for their unbelief ” (Will Many Be Saved?, 37-38).While not referencing Torrell, the treatment of this issue in Martin and Sullivan aligns well with his careful analysis. Martin and Torrell both cite Aquinas, De Veri- tate, q.14, a.11 ad 1., in which Thomas discusses the hypothetical case of the invincibly ignorant person raised in the wilderness or by animals. According to Thomas, we must most certainly hold (certissime tenendum est) that God would reveal himself to this person by means of an interior inspiration or by a preacher specifically sent to him. It is pivotal to recall here, however, Aquinas’s stipulation that God will extend such an offer “provided that he followed his natural reason in seeking the good and avoiding evil.”
God bless!
21:31 I have brought up Busenbaum, a 17th C. Jesuit, mentioned by Newman.
I've brought him up to the Dimond Brothers (who are diehard on the obvious sense of Florence), and I'm bringing it up here.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Busenbaum
Could you create a quick TH-cam shorts on these, it would be extremely helpful?
Gavin, the Scripture itself is overloaded with apparent contradictions, not least the genealogy of Jesus Himself. If you want something directly analogous to Catholic development, try the stoning of the man in Numbers 15:32. How can Jesus then get away with it? Because the higher meaning of the law was what mattered, not plain interpretation. That's a more clear-seeming contradiction than anything in Catholic theological history that I can think of (Jews still make your critique to this day), and yet it is done directly by God Himself. Or just go to the old Romans and James contradiction!
The Bible's accounts of Jesus' genealogy. That is an accusation that comes from extremely uneducated ppl. Matthew traces Jesus' adopted ancestry to David through Joseph, whereas Luke traces His physical heritage to David through Mary. A close inspection of Joseph and Mary's ancestry shows that the both of them descended from David through different sons.
How can Jesus get away with what?
@@geordiewishart1683 having his disciples apparently violate the Sabbath
It’s interesting how Catholics need to quote ECF out of context to determine a bad doctrine/theology
Which is closer to Church Fathers teachings Catholics or Protestants?
I would rather ask what is closer to the Bible.
Errors crept into the church when the apostles were present so why then assume that the rest of the early church period would be error free?
@@geordiewishart1683 Do you think the early church fathers are ignorant of the Bible?
@@geordiewishart1683 I think the worst error in Christendom is the reformation. After the reformation they become their own popes. That's why protestants don't agree even in the essentials of their faith.
Which church fathers are you referring to?
Some contradict each other.
But the thrust of my point remains - why argue over which group is more aligned to the church fathers instead of asking who is more aligned to scripture?
Saint Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Augustine acknowledged that the rock was Peter's confession, not Peter himself.
Why look to church fathers for guidance?
They contradict each other.
Look to the Bible.
Peter never gave any indication that he believed he had any form of primacy
@@geordiewishart1683
Saint Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
SAINT IRENAEUS
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Saint Optatus
"You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas) ...that in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner."-Against the Donatists 370 AD
Saint Jerome
“As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.”- Letter to Pope Damasus 376 AD
Saint Ambrose of Milan
“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
Council of Ephesus
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
Council of Chalcedon
“Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out." (Acts of the council session 1)
I specifically mentioned Augustine and you proceed to quote a number of church fathers.
Considering that errors were creeping into the church during the time of the apostles, why assume that the church fathers somehow held the truth exclusively?
You may as well quote Simon Magus to me.
Augustine later revised his statement about Peter being the rock in his The Retractions 1:20:1.
@@geordiewishart1683 Jesus promised the gates hell would not prevail against his church how then can error crept in at all? What kind of god is he if the church he started had error right after his death?
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven -Matthew 16:18
@@Veritas463will they agree with the Roman inquisition too
Bought myself a Christmas gift. Protestants, The FAITH THAT Made THE MODERN WORLD BY Alec Ryrie. It is so insightful.
Me: "Is that black wand thing going to have fake flowers pop out of it like Michael Scott's?"
I thought it might be some kind of vape pen.
@@RoyCarter I think my suggestion is more likely
You should engage Micheal Lofton material on this. He has videos addressing this very issue.
@YAJUN YUAN Regardless of ones opinion of catholicism, seventh day adventism is cringe.
@YAJUN YUAN
But you aren't a protestant, are you?
Ortlund shouldn't waste time with someone of Lofton's caliber.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Stooping that low already? Be respectful and charitable, something Dr. Ortland does remarkably well. 2+2 still equals 4 even if it's said by a criminal or a crazy person.
Attack the arguments, not the man.
@YAJUN YUAN
Do angels come from Saturn?
"You can't accept everything in church history" absolutely! Theologins and saints contradict eachother and get it wrong all the way through. There are however points of faith that must be accepted or you are not Christian. For example that Jesus was God "and the world was God"
Or that the scriptures were divinely inspired.
Salvation is for anyone who believes in Jesus.. shame upon shame to those who steal away Christ and try to teach any different
Romans 1:16
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”
It's interesting that Newman, although a hero of conservative Catholics now, was considered by his peers as a more progressive Catholic by Roman Catholic standards. His development theory was considered a departure from the sound scholastic method, and thus he was criticized by both Dominican and Jesuit alike (Jesuits in the 19th century were some of the strongest Thomists). I've read both his Apologia and his Essay on Development, and my sense is that he was aesthetically and morally drawn to Rome and convinced thereby. But he needed more than aesthetics and morality, so he utilized the "organic" and "evolutionary" ideas that were in the air in the mid-19th century to provide the logic that was lacking in his own convictions of Rome's truth claims. It was brilliant, but it can be used to justify almost anything (e.g., Pope Francis changing the Catechism to teach that the death penalty is "an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." CCC #2267). The liberalism that Newman genuinely hated in mainline Protestantism was, in fact, incorporated into Catholic thinking by, ironically enough, Newman's ideas!
Have been hoping to have this addressed. Looking forward to response videos as well
If the son of sedition is anyone but the pope, then who?
If the man of sin is anyone other than the Roman pontiff, then name him?
If the scarlet woman is anything other than Roman Catholicism, then describe it.
Thanks again Gavin. I've said this before regarding your videos. They are like light flooding into a dark room.
The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.
Proverbs 18:17
Can't wait to see the rebuttals 😀
You have been my favourite brother on TH-cam since finding you, awesome dig into the subject brother!
First, I’ll state that I’m a devout Catholic and haven’t read all of the comments here so if I’m repeating a point already made by someone my apologies.
The context is that this session of the Council of Florence is focused on those who were opposed to the Church throughout history and reaffirms those that have been anathematized or excommunicated by a previous Ecumenical Council (Manes, Valentinus, Arius...) while also affirming previous Ecumenical Councils. Opposition has always led to anathematization or excommunication so a “no salvation outside of the Church” makes sense in that regard for those where the Church is known to them but choose another religion. The pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics believe in something other than what the Catholic Church is teaching. It assumes that they are not invincibly ignorant - they are knowingly choosing to not believe and align themselves with the one true Church. The unity of the ecclesiastical body is critical because the Church and Jesus are inseparable (Eph 5:32). The entirety of truth is that important - an iota of falsehood is unacceptable since Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. And the Council makes clear the teaching of the 73 books in the Bible and the Eucharist and the consecration that occurs at Mass…this in 1442...but that's a different topic.
Paragraph 847 that is referred to in this video as a change in doctrine simply makes a distinction between those that knew the faith but chose against it with those that never knew Jesus or His Church. Those mentioned in the Council of Florence above did know the Gospel of Christ and His Church but chose to reject. That is why paragraph 846 still states that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church because it's true. If you are like the pagans, the Jews, the heretics, or schismatics and know Jesus and the truth about His Church, but your pride won't allow you to see the truth then you will not be saved. For a Catholic, Jesus and His Church are inseparable. To love Jesus is to love His Church. Therefore, to reject His Church is to reject Jesus.
I'm sure many will disagree, but just wanted to give another Catholic point of view FWIW. God bless!!
I didn't finish everything you said, but you basically were saying in the beginning the exact issue he had with it. The teaching was very clear and now hundreds of years later, there is an explanation? That's hundreds of years of people thinking they are going to hell and now there's a caveat? I think you need to listen again.
@minagelina Hi, I got to admit that I'm not going to rewatch a video from 4 months ago, but I'm not quite sure what your point is. No salvation outside the Church still applies today as it always has... for those that know the Catholic Church is the one true Church, but their pride won't allow them to submit, then they will not be saved. Jesus and His Church are Inseparable and that has always been the case.
The church declares what Catholic beliefs are, not the church fathers. Church father's importance is when their quotes correspond with what the church decides on. They are supporting evidence, not the primary evidence. The primary evidence is when the church declares something. There can be two different church father's with two different opinions and the one against what the church decides on is not supporting evidence. It's evidence that the issue was being debated. That's it. You don't go to the church leaders that wanted Circumcision to be a salvation requirement to support anything on the church finally ruling against them. They are evidence that the issue was debated. It was resolved in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. Is any particular issue dogma or is it just a discipline (is the belief mandatory or optional, can it be changed or does its basic nature have to stay the same)? Those also are two very important questions to ask. Examples: Abortion being a sin can never change as a belief, it is dogma. Priests taking a celibacy vow is a discipline and can change and has changed. I think it would be helpful if these videos defined the belief as Catholic dogma or not as it is very important.
Sola Scriptura was doctrinal development in the same way this example shows. There is no evidence in the first 1,400 years of Christianity of the Bible being the "only" primary source of teaching we are to use for our beliefs. There is evidence that it is a primary source, but you cannot read the Bible and literally see it say anywhere that everything has to come from it. Nothing can contradict it is not the same as it being the only primary source for belief. Catholics also agree that it is a primary source and that nothing can contradict the Bible. The development of Sola Scriptura as we see it today was unknown for over a thousand years. No one back then asked, "Where is that in the Bible?". Protestants use the word "only" or "alone" too liberally and add it to scripture when it isn't there. The same applies to Sola Fide. They add "alone" every time they see "faith" in the Bible. Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are not in the Bible and the New Testament actually says anyone that believes in Sola Fide are "fools" or "ignoramuses" according to the translation (James 2:20). "If you need proof that faith without works is worthless, you are a fool." It cannot be faith alone and faith without works are worthless at the same time. Those are contradictory statements. This is a better example of a failed doctrinal development belief that was created despite it contradicting Sacred Scripture.
Where exactly does it say that Catholics believe Muslims can be saved? (The Premise on which this whole video hinges.)
ST. TERESA BENEDICTA OF THE CROSS (EDITH STEIN): ‘The concept which assumes that everything in the Church is irrevocably set for all times appears to me to be a false one. It would be naive to disregard that the Church has a history; the Church is a human institution and, like all things human, was destined to change and evolve. Likewise, its development takes place often in the form of struggles.’
ST. TERESA BENEDICTA OF THE CROSS (EDITH STEIN): “It has always been far from me to think that God’s mercy allows itself to be circumscribed (limited) by the visible Church’s boundaries. God is Truth. All who seek truth seek God, whether this is clear to them or not.”
Fantastic video. I think everything you say here is correct. And I'm Orthodox. Have you read David Bentley Harts Tradition and Apocalypse?
Thanks! Haven’t read it, is it good?
To suggest that agustine made the dogma rigorous is inaccurate, our lord himself set the standard:
Go ye therefore to all nations preaching the gospel and baptizing in the name of the father and the son and the holy Ghost, he who believes and is baptized will be saved, he who believes not will be condemned"
"When he saw the crowds leaving he turned to his disciples and said: ""will you then also leave?"" "
"Enter therefore through the narrow gate, for wide is the way that leads to destruction, and many are they that go by it, but small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to eternal life... I am the narrow gate"
True, Christ has said one must be perfect just as the Father is perfect. But watered downed Christianity is all the rage nowadays. They do not want to be responsible for their actions.
Spiritual weakness..
@@joekey8464 I absolutely agree with you, watered down Christianity is antithetical to the gospel.
@@TheWavelengthStudiosThe essence of any "god" is holiness. The gods, expect their subjects to worship him and behave morally. All men whatever culture believe in their gods that way, do good and you would be rewarded.... the Hindus believe in karma - action or deed, and its effect or consequences.
Some people do not like God because He tells them to behave.
There is not Salvation outside the Church, because She is precisely the Body of Christ, and there's no Salvation outside of Christ. Everyone that gets to be saved by the Mercy and Grace of God is through the Church, Christ's Body. Everyone that is in Heaven is part of the Church.
The issue that Protestants very much fail to understand is what "Salvation" in that affirmation entails. It is not simply a binary question of legal status (either saved or damned). Salvation is the healing of the soul from sin and death, and sanctification and union with God. This process only happens in the Church, through the Church.
Saint Pope Gregory the Dialogist prayed for all Roman Emperors, and Emperor Trajan was saved and rescued from Hell. That means that, through the Church, he was saved, and is now part of the Church. There's no Salvation without Church, that's like having Salvation without Christ. The Church is the Body of Christ.
☦️
I feel like this would be a better critique if you included your thoughts on John Henry Newman’s “An essay on the development of Christian Doctrine”
I think the problem is that you say it’s too squishy, yet the squishiest parts of Christianity that are changing the most rapidly from the traditional doctrine (women pastors, LGBTQ, etc.) are from non-denominational Christianity that are as you would say “free” to say that the old ways were wrong so long as they feel like they’re being prudent about it.
If the catholic church has always held to natural theology, every argument in this video crumbles-is there a point in history where the catholic church did not accept natural theology?
There could be a difference because the Protestants were brought up as Catholics before rejecting the teachings. The Protestants today get so much Catholic 101 wrong that it’s as though they were never taught about Christ. Remember that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.
As always well researched, presented and argued. I wonder how much Karl Rahners personal influence had to do with the change at Vatican 2
So that would be "no salvation" outside the visible institutional churches which date, roughly speaking, from C4 AD through to the present. Personally, bro, I'm not feeling it.
Im on this exact journey and have been considering how or if i should broadcast it.
I think ive completely rejected protestantism, being pulled hard to Orthodoxy. Hopefully i dont land Catholic.