Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?

Inside Catholic ^ | October 24, 2009 | Mark Shea

[samiam1972]

That was funny!! Maybe not to everyone but it sure made me giggle!

[Iscool]

To a Catholic when you speak of “diciples” you are talking about the Apostles.

That's what I'm talkin' about...YOu guys will twist every verse in the scriptures to make it fit your theology...

Jesus wasn't talking about Apostles...He was talking disciples...

Things that are different are not the same...

I'm a disciple of Jesus...Does that make me an Apostle???

[Mr Rogers]

The Apocrypha or Deuterocanonicals were not accepted by the Jews. They were only sort of accepted by the Councils in 400. Many continued to claim they were not good for doctrine, but only examples. I believe Jerome was in this category. Nor did anyone in the NT quote them for authority, and only one citation for illustration.

If you want to know why Christians did NOT feel compelled to use them - and what ‘them’ consist of depends on who you ask - for doctrine, there are good discussions available.

The Catholic canon was not authoritatively fixed until the Council of Trent, AFTER the Reformation started. So no, Protestants don’t feel compelled to accept those books as scripture - good for doctrine.

Now ask, why only ONE verse that even IMPLIES Purgatory, and that in a questionable book? Given that Purgatory would rank with Hell in importance, why did the NT know nothing about it? Why did it take hundreds of years for this doctrine to be ‘realized’?

[NYer]

Let me try this again: “If you can find an example of his taking confession” = “If you can find an example of Jesus TAKING confession”.

How about you give me an example of why Jesus would take confession.

[Mr Rogers]

“Clearly?”

Clearly!

Succinct, too!

[Mr Rogers]

Because his disciples had sinned?

[Mad Dawg]

LOL!

Thang you. Thang you. Thang you berry mudge.

Elvis has left the logomachy!

[Mad Dawg]

I’m hoping I can come in under the new Apostolic Constitution. Then I could be a Canterburyist. Is that kewel or what?

[netmilsmom]

>>Then I could be a Canterburyist. Is that kewel or what?<<

LOL!
Right!

[NYer]

Because his disciples had sinned?

Puhlease! God should confess that He sinned because his disciples were sinners?

I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.
Luke 5:32.

[Mad Dawg]

You do know that the concept of Purgatory is scriptural, yes?

From previous conversations, I'd say that among those who disagree with us are those who take the most implausible understanding of terms like "satisfaction" and then argue that since THAT can't be right, what WE teach can't be right.

In general they insist on a "perspicuity" (I think that's the term) of Scripture which means that after several hundred words one is then allowed to say "clearly Scripture says ... ." but then require the terms of art of theology to mean what they themselves insist they mean.

If one comes into the conversation insisting that we feelthy papists think God hates everybody, one can find evidence to suit. In my case, one day I thought I'd consider that maybe the feelthy Papists believe the Gospel. Then the very same items of evidence showed the wonder and depth of God's love.

[Uri’el-2012]

You do know that the concept of Purgatory is scriptural, yes?

2 Maccabees

The theory of Purgatory impugns
the salvific power
of the substitutionary atonement
of the Blood of the Lamb of G-d.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[wagglebee]

The theory of Purgatory impugns
the salvific power
of the substitutionary atonement
of the Blood of the Lamb of G-d.

ONLY if the possibility exists that some in Purgatory are damned, since this is not the case you point is moot.

[Mad Dawg]

I get so fed up with thus anti-catholic "Shoot and move" tactic!

You tried to make an argument from Constantine. When it is suggested that MAYBE you are misinterpreting the evidence, you change the subject.

I don't play that game.

I say again, to say that, for example, worship on the Lord's day was instituted by Constantine on the basis of some edicts is to misunderstand the relationship between edicts and behavior and to assume that the edicts CAUSE the behavior. This is an error.

There MAY or MAY NOT be other errors we are making. But it's silly to go off after them before we resolve this one. Do you wash only some of the dishes and then go and mop only part of the floor before you make one half of the bed?

[Uri’el-2012]

U-2012>The theory of Purgatory impugns
the salvific power
of the substitutionary atonement
of the Blood of the Lamb of G-d.

ONLY if the possibility exists that some in Purgatory are damned, since this is not the case you point is moot.

If I understand you correctly
both the saved and the damned
go to purgatory;
correct?

[Mad Dawg]

Now I understand t he "Clearly" Everything is clear if one overlooks the unclear parts.

You can search the scripture for the idea of going to a priest and confessing one’s sins so they can be forgiven, but it isn’t there.

You can also search the Scriptures for (1) a notion that nothing was revealed to the 12 which was not also included in Scripture, (2) the idea that no development or elaboration was envisioned or allowed. In fact, you find in the Jerusalem conference an instance of the development of faith and morals and of the claim of Infallible authority: It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us.

Lengthy excerpts from passages we already have read are a burden which prove nothing, though, I suppose they explain or clarify points of view. We quite acknowledge the priesthood of all believers, while at the same time we appreciate the development of a kind of hierarchy with episcopoi and presbyteroi as well as diakonoi all of whom had different responsivbilities in the growing Church. we also, with varying degrees of efficiency and success, try to follow Paul's notice that there are diversities of gifts of the Spirit, and, especially, the NOT all are teachers.

Incidentally, FWIW while the modern use of the word "priest" more adequately translates hierous, the word itself seems to be clearly derived from presbyteros. It's going to be a tough sell that there were no elders in the Apostolic Church.

AND you entirely misunderstand and seem to persist in misunderstanding what we think of Popes in general. This very article mentions the gleefulness with which Dante puts Boniface in hell, in the company of lots of other Popes. WE KNOW Peter was a fool. We know we are fools. We believe the Church is run by such fools, poltroons, and scoundrels that if it were not for God's grace it wouldn't have lasted more than a generation or two.

From the outside you see the honor paid to the Pope and think it's about him. WE think it's about God and His love.

But in general, you all approach Scripture in a way which seems to us to hit all the clear and high points but which overlooks the awkward bits. And in general we approach Scripture differently. It SEEMS the Protestants or some of them seem to think that on a desert island with a Bible and nothing else they could reconstruct the entire Church, while we think of a family AND a book.

[Uri’el-2012]

I get so fed up with thus anti-catholic "Shoot and move" tactic!

I am not responsible for your salvation.

That is for you to work out.

I am commanded to preach the Word.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Mad Dawg]

If I understand you correctly both the saved and the damned go to purgatory; correct?

No. All in Purgatory are saved. One highly inadequate way to look at Purgatory is as the outskirts of heaven. (the 'burbs? Well ....)

[wagglebee]

If I understand you correctly both the saved and the damned go to purgatory; correct?

Incorrect.

[Uri’el-2012]

incorrect

So you are stating that the
shed Blood of the Lamb of G-d
does not cover our sins ; correct?

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach