“The Catholic Response”
As a matter of fact, this ISN’T the Catholic response. This is only the response of a small and pitiful faction known as traditionalists who don’t read the catechism or listen to their Popes anymore, even as their Popes tongue-kiss the Koran and praise Islam, and who never fail to make excuses for the rampant liberalism that runs their church and makes their theology absolutely contradictory and damnable.
What the Papists actually teach is that non-believers, who have not been baptized, can be perfectly saved so long as they are willing to work for it, chief among whom are the Muslims:
841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”330
As for baptism, the scriptures also say that we would be baptized in “fire” as well (Matt 3:11), and yet, the Papists do not have the courtesy of roasting themselves instead of troubling innocent Christians with obnoxious assertions. That Simon Magus was also baptized, and yet, obviously, was never regenerated (Acts 8:13-24), and the Thief on the cross saved without it at all, along with Cornelius who was regenerated before baptism explicitly (Acts 10:44-48), I think we can safely conclude that baptism of water has no regenerating power within it. And, therefore, the power of regeneration resides in the Holy Spirit only, and not in any ordinance, which are signs and symbols for far deeper spiritual realities that have already occurred.
What an ugly and venomous misrepresentation. Is twisting someone else's words like a pretzel some sacrament of your religion? Is name-calling like a petulant schoolboy another?
non-believers, who have not been baptized, can be perfectly saved
Certainly the Bible is clear that water baptism is not an absolute requirement for salvation (although it is a normative one); consider the penitent thief for example.
Then all that remains is whether there is such a thing as inculpable ignorance as an explanation for non-belief, and whether God chooses to overlook such ignorance at least sometimes. He's sovereign, remember, and gets to break his own rules.
can be perfectly saved
"Part of God's plan of salvation" does not equate to "perfectly saved," sorry.
so long as they are willing to work for it
LG doesn't say that Muslims are saved by "working for it". Neither is anyone else.
chief among whom are the Muslims:
The most egregious example of twisting. A cursory read of the source document makes it clear that "in the first place" referring to Muslims means "in the first place AFTER CONSIDERING ALL JUDEO-CHRISTIAN FAITHS, which the document has already done in discussing Catholics, then Orthodox, then Protestants, then Jews. Only viewed against all of the OTHER remaining religious classifications are Muslims "in the first place".
BTW, Mr. Staples is perfectly orthodox and in the mainstream of Catholic thought AFAIK, not some kind of fringe traditionalist as you paint him to be.
He's also ex-Assemblies of God -- you know, one of those groups you don't insult with derogatory names.
you obviously don’t have a CLUE regards the sacrament of Baptism and what the church teaches. Please. No false preaching from the peanut gallery about what Catholics believe. You are not an accurate reporter.
We are saved by God’s GRACE, through faith and good works. Or did you rip James out of your bible? We are also meant to be baptized, normally through water and saying “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” There is also “baptism of desire” where one can’t be baptized, perhaps for a practical reason like the thief on the cross, and St. Genesius, an actor who was acting in an anti-Christian lay and midway in the performance, which mocked Christian beliefs, he DID embrace Christian beliefs, said so and was martyred on the spot. He is still patron saint of actors.