Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?

Inside Catholic ^ | October 24, 2009 | Mark Shea

[Melian]

Anyone who says Catholics don’t read the Bible is not telling the truth. We do. Practicing Catholics attend Mass every Sunday. At every Mass we hear a passage from the Old Testament, the Psalms, the New Testament and the Gospel. The readings are selected on a three-year cycle.

That is all we are required to read; however most Catholics read the Bible on their own in various ways. Some attend Bible studies, some attend more than weekly Masses, some read it on their own at home.

The only difference that I’ve ever been able to see is that most Catholics don’t memorize passages to the degree that other Christian faiths do. We will memorize some that are meaningful to us, but we tend to focus on the message or concept in the passage rather than rote memorization of it.

This accusation that we don’t read the Bible is just a “talking point.” Good Catholics read the Bible, just as good Christians of all denominations do. This talking point is flawed because many non-Catholic Christians do not read the Bible much either. I know lots of people who call themselves Christian who rarely look at a Bible. Some of them are very good, spiritual people who do many loving acts of charity.

Finally, I might add that some Christians seem to make the Bible their god. They actually seem to revere it above all else. The Pharisees were like that too. They were so concerned with the minute details of the Law, arguing the minutia all day long, that they forgot to treat the people right in front of them with respect and dignity and love. They were so concerned with the memorized passages they would fling at people like weapons that they couldn’t even recognize the Messiah standing right in front of them radiating love and concern.

We know what Christ thought of them. He called them whited walls. Let us not forget, also, that the Pharisee, who had memorized the Torah cover to cover, was able to step over the injured traveler lying on the ground in the parable of the Good Samaritan and continue on his way. Perhaps he didn’t notice the broken human before him because he had his nose buried in his holy book. This parable made clear that Christ considered the Samaritan who responded to the human being in front of him with compassion and respect to be His kind of Christian. He had nothing but contempt for the Pharisee who spent his days memorizing the Torah and using it to hurt, humiliate, and browbeat people.

[Mad Dawg]

So you do get it. One CAN disagree with something somebody says without calling them a liar.

[Mad Dawg]

Krylon-buzz?

Sir, you were wandering all over the space-time continuum. Somebody might have gotten hurt.

[Kolokotronis]

“For all the ink spilled in polemics concerning the filioque (and the papacy) in the east, why has it never been condemned in Liturgy via the Synodicon of Orthodoxy?”

I have no idea.

[Kolokotronis]

You know, it occurs to me that the condemnation and anathemas of any changes to the Creed contained in the Horos of the “Eighth Ecumenical Council” might obviate the necessity of any mention in the Synodicon.

Here’s a link to an interesting article on that condemnation by Fr. George Drags. I know Fr. Dragas well. He is one of the most brilliant theologians in Orthodoxy. He also chants a beautiful liturgy.

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html

[wagglebee]

How can you possibly say that an opinion I’ve formed based on observations over many years is untrue? Can you somehow verify that all of the “former Catholics” on here are actually former Catholics?

[Mad Dawg]

(I'm proofing this and I'm troubled by its length. Sorry. I don't know how to make it shorter and still adequate.)

Jews seemed to have tradition as well, but Jesus quoted scripture, not tradition. Ever wonder why?

Because until something is written, it's hard to quote?

Please remember that I am a convert. That means that most of the arguments which seem so conclusive no longer have any effect on me. I used to believe them. Further study led me to stop finding them persuasive.

One unpersuasive thing is the illogic of taking an argument against SOME traditions and interpreting it as an argument against all traditions. "Traditions of men" is not one word; it's not a predication. "Of men" specifies a group, possibly a sub-group. There may be other traditions which maybe might could be of God.

(It's similar with "vain repetitions". The very use of the word vain suggests the possibility that there might be repetitions which are not empty. But the assault on the Rosary often presumes that ALL repetitions are by this saying shown to be vain. No sale. It doesn't follow.)

Do in remembrance?

It is interesting, though I am sure inadvertent, that you do not give the full line. It's not ποιειτε (Do as my memorial) but τουτο ποιειτε (THIS do as my memorial...) εισ την εμην αναμνησιν -- εισ (as) την (the) εμην (of mine) αναμνησιν (anamnesis -inadequately translated memorial or remembrance).

Interesting because it is the "This" over which the disagreement lies.

And we also have Scriptural witness that it is not simply a "remembering." It is also a proclamation (I Cor 11:26: καταγγελλετε, katanggellete - "announce down"?), and a κοινωνια, (I Cor 10:14-15) a participation or sharing in Christ's Sacred Body and Precious Blood (according to Paul) which makes us one with one another in the Body of Christ.

So it's a pretty large, powerful, and comprehensive τουτο — This — that we're doing, not "merely" a remembrance, If the Scriptural witness is to be taken in its entirety.

So how do you represent the blood and flesh of Jesus when his sacrifice was in the past?

You got me! It's a miracle! And one thing that means is that it's GOD who does it, not us.

Here is a deep rift in theology or in the philosophy which undergirds theology: namely, a disagreement about God and time.

I'm a little diffident about discussing this because recently when I mentioned it I got mugged, and I was never quite clear what the problem was for which I was being mugged. But we think God is outside of time as well as in time.

(We also think that God is always blissful and always all-powerful. So when we look at that crucifix for which we are so often castigated, we do not see a feckless, defeated Christ, as we have been accused, but the mystery the perfect revelation of Divine power and of God's joy and of the peace which passes all understanding.)

I mention that all to reinforce my earlier saying that we have a very different way of looking at things. It is NOT airy-fairy, at least not in my experience. As a hospital chaplain especially I experienced many times what Paul says, that when I was weak, then I was strong, because God acted in my weakness.

So, anyway, we don't claim to know HOW God does it. We just believe that He does, that in the Eucharist the discontinuity between time and eternity is broken, softly and secretly as it was at the Incarnation, as it is every time God speaks in the heart.

And this gets me back to the initial "fully equipped" question. It IS possible, you know, to have a differing opinion about a passage of Scripture without actually ignoring it.

As an attempt at rebuttal I'd say that it seems that I am asked to take one passage literally and figuratively at once. I am very dubious that Paul meant "the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament" when he wrote πασα γραφη, though I can see that it's not a huge step from literal sense of the Scriptures HE understood to be theopneustos to the figurative larger sense of the group of Scriptures WE understand to be the same.

I am also not certain about putting too great a burden on the "fully". The RSV renders thus:

(16)All scripture is inspired by God and (OR Every scripture inspired by God is also) profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (17) that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

I don't consider the RSV an unquestionable authority, but I don't think of them as dishonest either, and their translation is not quite so restricted as the one offered often in these threads. (Once the grammarians of koine Greek disagree, I tend to throw up my hands.)

In any event one of the things WE find in Scripture is a reference to the reliability of tradition (the tough part being to determine WHICH tradition.) So the complete equipping (in our reading) includes directing Timothy to pay attention not only to all Writing, but also to what has been handed down to him otherwise.

That sort of driving one beyond itself is, to me, the hallmark of both Scripture and sound tradition. The point, after all, is not to stop at Scripture, Tradition, Church, or even Sacrament but rather to see all these as at least LIKE our Lord in that He is both Way and Truth.

Yeah, I know. Blah blah blah. And I've only had one cup of coffee!

[wagglebee]

Here’s the biggest give aways. Not all Catholics went to twelve years of Catholic schools, in fact, I would say that since Vatican Council II most have not and even prior to this Catholic schools were not available in many rural parts of the country. The other strange thing is that they all seem to think that ONLY nuns and Jesuits teach at Catholic schools and this isn’t true either.

[Iscool]

So, I'm guessing Boniface was trying to use his position and clout to push around fractious European monarchs. He set out to make a statement about how they owed him some kind of homage, and ended up making a definitive ecclesiastical statement. He meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.

So you admit Boniface was a scoundrel...What makes you think God was involved at all in Boniface's proclamation???

[onedoug]

Deuteronomy 4:19 and Malachi 1:11.

[Mad Dawg]

So you admit Boniface was a scoundrel...

Well, YEAH!

I don't get this. We clomp around, talking about the number of popes in Dante's Inferno. The great saint of the Lay Dominicans pretty much got in her pope's face and yelled at him to man up.

And yet some Protestants do an end-zone dance whenever we diss a Pope. What's up with that? It's God in whom we place our confidence. Yes, there have been some awesome and awesomely holy popes. But, starting with Peter himself, many of them have, well let's say, had their moments. "We have this treasure in earthen vessels," and we are well aware of their earthen-ness.

What makes you think God was involved at all in Boniface's proclamation???

Asked and answered: God's promise to the Church.

[Mad Dawg]

Malachi 1:12 is also interesting.

At the Lord's table I find more than the bread of angels.

[Iscool]

Yep. They think that there's only one possible way to think about atonement.

One problem is they forget that we are talking about mysteries here, and that language is asked to do a task it can hardly bear, while reason is asked to do something analogous to the unassisted naked eye trying to count sunspots.

Obviously you've bought into the hype...

No mysteries...
There is no language barrier...
Reason has nothing to do with it...

Jesus died for our sins...ALL of them...We have become righteous in the eyes of God...

For us, the desert isn't just imputed moisture and fertility. It actually becomes moist and fecund, bringing forth seed for sowing and bread for eating. Justification, sanctification, merit, all these are gifts, not earned. But they are real gifts, not badges, tokens or changes of status.

A bunch of empty words...So how does your desert become moist if it was not imputed??? You worked it out on your own??? You provided the rain???

[Mad Dawg]

Okay, when you're done expressing how empty and useless my words are, do you think you might muster an argument?

Imputation without actual rain doesn't make the desert fertile.

[Iscool]

Trying to be facetious? What evidence is there that Christ founded the LDS Church, as compared to the evidence that does exist that shows Christ founded the Catholic Church?

They're about the same...Neither one resembles anything in the scriptures other than the Pharisees...

[Petronski]

Got a job yet?

The term Fair Game is used to describe various aggressive policies and practices carried out by the Church of Scientology towards people and groups it perceives as its enemies.

[Iscool]

What can be expected from the celebrated, almost joyful, abandonment of the God-given gifts of discernment: logic and common sense.

Petronski, I would so love to repond to you in the way you deserve but the Holy Spirit is holding me back...

Discernment is a spiritual gift...Logic and common sense are not gifts...They are traits inherent in all humans...Your mis-guided logic is not from God...It is from your own ego...

IF you ever become led by the Holy Spirit, you too will abandon your own wisdom and reasoning in scriptural and spiritual matters...

[Petronski]

Logic and common sense are not gifts...

Perhaps yours aren't.

IF you ever become led by the Holy Spirit...

False premise.

[Iscool]

Imputation without actual rain doesn't make the desert fertile.

If God makes the desert wet without rain, it's still wet...

[wagglebee]

If the shed Blood of the Lamb of G-d covers all of our sins, why do we need to go to some non-scriptual place ?

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. (Matthew 12:32)

What precisely is the "world to come" where sins are forgiven? There is no forgiveness in Hell, in Heaven everything has already been forgiven. So, what is this "world to come" that you dismiss as "non-scriptural"?

If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. (1 Corinthians 3:15)

Where is the "non-scriptural place" where man shall be saved "as by fire"? There is no salvation in Hell and no flames of Hell in Heaven.

16 The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain: 17 But when he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me, and found me. 18 The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou very well knowest. (2 Timothy 1:16-18)

Why is Saint Paul asking for others to pray that Onesiphorus find mercy? Onesiphorus is already dead, there is no mercy in Hell and no need for it in Heaven. And what is "that day" is there some future day of judgment for Onesiphorus?