So, God is always sending His graces to those who are in any error for them to recognize such and know the truth. Thus, ANY failure to know the truth, and this includes the necessity of submitting to the Roman Pontiff, is that ignorant person’s OWN fault.

James Akin ignores God's promises and infallible Church teaching. Akin’s position denies what the Church declared at Vatican I, just quoted above. He ignores (if he believes in it) God's power to get the truth to those who are open to it. He never considers the doctrine of the Particular Providence of God. In fact James Akin approaches this ENTIRE subject from a naturalistic point of view. But this entire topic is a matter of FAITH, not natural reasoning. It is a supernatural matter.

Alas, James Akin cannot get beyond his "fleshly" mind.

===========

>Even for those who are innocently ignorant, salvation is not achieved
>without some union with the Church. As Catholic teaching makes clear,
>one can be united with the Church in a way that does not involve full
>incorporation into it. Only Catholics are fully incorporated, though
>non-Catholics who are in a state of grace are linked with it (to use
>Vatican II's terminology), even if they are unaware of this.
>
>Vatican II stated: "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. Nor shall divine providence
>deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any
>fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God,
>and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life. . . . But very
>often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their
>reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the
>world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living
>and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate
>despair. Hence, to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all
>these, the Church, mindful of the Lord's command, 'preach the Gospel
>to every creature' (Mark 16:16) takes zealous care to foster the
>missions" (Lumen Gentium 16).
>
>Some radical traditionalists are not satisfied with the teaching of
>Vatican II and demand more proof that some who are not in formal union
>with the Church can be saved. We could cite the works of any number of
>popes prior to Vatican II to show this (for example, Pius IX's
>allocution, Singulari Quadem, given the day after he defined the
>Immaculate Conception in 1854, or his 1863 encyclical Quanto
>Conficiamur Moerore,

=======================

Section V:

I have already conclusively demonstrated that these non-infallible/ non-definitive documents do not necessarily teach that those who are not in formal union with the Church can be saved WHERE THEY ARE. I do so by both pointing out where the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#'s 846-848) quotes the above section from "Luman Gentium" AND what was actually said by Ven. Pius IX in these documents and how they must be understood in light of what the Church has infallibly defined on salvation. And when done so, they actually support it.

(See the Tower of David booklet "Dogmatic Deception" pages 63-69)

===========

> or Pius XII's 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis), but to make
>short work of the matter, let us look at an infallible definition
>from the Council of Trent, whose teachings were formulated in
>one of the most bitterly polemical and least ecumenical periods
>in history...
>
>Trent on Desire for Baptism
>
>Canon four of Trent's "Canons on the Sacraments in General" states,
>"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not
>necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that although all are not
>necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of
>them . . . men obtain from God the grace of justification, let him be
>anathema [excommunicated]."
>
>This is an infallible statement because anathemas pronounced by ecumenical
>councils are recognized as infallibly defining the doctrine under discussion.
>
>Trent teaches that although not all the sacraments are necessary for
>salvation, the sacraments in general are necessary. Without them or
>the desire of them men cannot obtain the grace of justification, but
>with them or the desire of them men can be justified. The sacrament
>through which we initially receive justification is baptism. But since the
>canon teaches that we can be justified with the desire of the sacraments
>rather than the sacraments themselves, we can be justified with the
>desire for baptism rather than baptism itself.

=====================

Section VI:

Three points here:

1: His last point is true. But, this is NOT what the topic is about. We are not talking about whether the desire for Baptism can justify, but whether this desire is sufficient for the attainment of salvation. James Akin side steps the REAL issue. justification and salvation are not the same reality as I will subsequently demonstrate.

2. Also notice his use of the clause "in general." It is NOT in the actual document. James Akin is adding to what the Church has declared. The words "in general" imply that exceptions can exist. Nevertheless, even if Trent used "in general" as James Akin states above, the "in general" both contextually and grammatically is in reference to the sacraments, NOT TO PEOPLE! The exception being not ALL the sacraments are necessary for ALL men, BUT, as canons 2 and 5 "On Baptism" from Trent make clear, water Baptism IS necessary for salvation and the Church condemns those who would make any exceptions.

3. Also, did you notice the quote?

The Church has infallibly declared and condemned any and everyone who:

"says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous..."

But isn't this EXACTLY what James Akin is trying to prove?

Yes it is. Akin's position nothing other than what the Church has condemned.

=====================

>This is confirmed in chapter four of Trent's Decree on Justification.

==============

Section VII:

To what, Dear Reader, do you think the word "this" refers?

Does it refer to James Akin's position that the desire for Baptism can be sufficient for salvation or that it is only sufficient for justification?

Let's take a look.

============

>This chapter defines justification as "a translation from that state
>in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and
>of the 'adoption of the sons' of God through the second Adam, Jesus
>Christ, our Savior." Justification thus includes the state of grace
>(salvation).

==================

Section VIII:

Whoa! Where does James Akin get the idea that justification is equivalent to salvation. Where does he get the idea that the state of grace is equivalent to salvation? These are Protestant concepts which Trent condemned! James Akin is a convert from Protestantism, and he hasn't thrown off this heretical chain yet.

There is NO Magisterial document which equates these two. In fact, as I will prove soon, the Church makes a distinction between the two.

===============

>The chapter then states that "this translation, after the promulgation
>of the gospel, cannot be effected except through the laver of
>regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: 'Unless a man be
>born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of
>God' [John 3:5]." Justification, and thus the state of grace, can be
>effected through the desire for baptism (for scriptural examples of
>baptism of desire, see Acts 10:44-48, also Luke 23:42-43).
>Only actual baptism makes one a formal member of the Church; baptism
>of desire does not do so.

====================

Section IX:

James Akin's position dies by his own admission. The case is closed. WHY?

Because the Church has infallibly defined that outside the Catholic Church no one can be saved; AND no one is IN the Church who has not at least received water baptism. This was dogmatically declared at both the Council of Florence (DNZ 696; see Belief, Baptism and Body membership pp.27-28) and at Trent (DNZ 895; see TFW #69c).

It is by Baptism by which one enters the Church, and without Baptism no one is within the Church. Here are three infallible pronouncements declaring this truth:

1. Council of Valence III (855), whose canons were confirmed and approved by Pope Leo
IV (847-55), it was declared that:
 

All the multitude of the faithful are regenerated from water and the Holy Spirit,
and THROUGH THIS are TRULY incorporated into the Church.
(canon 5; DNZ 324)

2. Council of Florence (1438-45); solemn definition in the Decree for the Armenians
(1439):
 

Holy Baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments because it is the
gateway to the spiritual life. BY IT we are made members of Christ and His Body,
the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, "unless
we are reborn of water and the Spirit, we cannot," as the Truth says, "enter the
kingdom of Heaven. (DNZ 698)

These are positive definitions. Negatively teaching, the Church also makes it clear that
anyone NOT yet baptized has not entered it and thus is not yet a member of Christ’s Body.

3. Council of Trent (XIV Session, chap.4) infallibly declared:
 

"the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not first entered it through
the gateway of baptism. `For what have I to do,' says St. Paul, `to judge them
that are without?' (1 Cor.5:12). It is otherwise with those of the household of
faith, whom Christ the Lord, by the waters of baptism has once made
members of His own body." (DNZ.895)

So the Church has definitively dealt with this fact both positively (Valence, Florence) and
negatively (Trent): Baptism makes us members, no Baptism means no membership.

The following lines from the infallible dogmatic definition of Pope Eugene IV concerning salvation are stated without exception, and this is how we MUST understand and believe them:

A) "none of those who are not within the Catholic Church... can ever be
partakers of eternal life..."

B) "no one,... not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's
sake, can he be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the
Catholic Church."

Pope Eugene IV's infallible definition says NO ONE who is outside the Catholic Church can be saved. The Church has defined that NO ONE is a member except through Baptism.

and

Canons 2 and 5 (as are all of the canons) "On Baptism" from Trent are AS DECLARED unchangeable and binding on all without exception for all time and are to be held and believed and professed precisely as they are stated.

In light of what was defined at Vatican I, and also in light of the condemnations of the
Modernist method of interpreting dogmas by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (Denz.2079,2087), we must hold and believe this dogma (as with all dogmas) precisely as it is defined. Therefore, "no one" means NO ONE. Period! If one is "not within the Catholic Church," they cannot be saved. Period! These are the precise words declared by the Church. It is a matter of simple faith.

James Akin wants to complicate things and confuse people.

Let me put it into a simple and irrefutable syllogism.

Infallible Major Premise (declared by Church at Florence and Trent):

No Baptism in water = no Church membership

Infallible Minor Premise (declared by Popes Innocent III, Boniface VIII, Eugene IV )

No Church membership = no salvation

Therefore,

Infallible conclusion (declared by Church at Trent)

No Baptism in water = no salvation.

Dear Reader, there is no way around what Mother Church has once declared. But James Akin deceives his readers in attempting to find such a way.

============

>Since justification can be received by desire
>for baptism, as Trent states, justification and thus the state of grace
>can be received without formal membership in the Church. The desire for
>baptism is sufficient.

==========================

Section X:

It is only sufficient for justification, not for salvation. He has yet to prove his case though he tries to fool the reader into believing his case has been proven. James Akin is simply reading his presupposed belief INTO the Trent document.

=============

>Implicit Desire
>
>Later Catholic teaching has clarified the nature of this desire and
>shown it can be either explicit or implicit. One has explicit desire
>for baptism if he consciously desires and resolves to be baptized (as
>with catechumens and others). One has an implicit desire if he would
>resolve to be baptized if he knew the truth about it.

=======================

Section XI:

Entirely incorrect.

Trent uses the word "voto" (votum) in this document over a half a dozen times.

The Latin word "voto" means taking a vow, or a pledge. "Voto," by definition, is a
conscious, explicit act. Therefore, when the James Akin says that the desire for Baptism can be an implicit desire, he contradicts an essential aspect of the meaning of the word Trent chose to define this dogma.

Since Latin already has two words for desire: "desiderium," and "cupidum,"
both which Trent chose NOT to use, then we know that using "desire" to translate "voto" is at best faulty, if not completely incorrect.

The Church, protected by the Holy Spirit from any error or ambiguity, chose the word "voto" which, by definition, is a conscious act. This fact alone demonstrates that the Church intended a stronger act of the will than mere desire, let alone implicit desire.

This alone precludes Akin’s heretical view that implicit desire can suffice.

=============

>Papal and conciliar writings in the last hundred years have clarified
>that those who are consciously non-Catholic in their theology may
>still have an overriding implicit desire for the truth and hence for
>Catholicism. Pope Pius XII stated that concerning some of "those who
>do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . by an
>unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with
>the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" (Mystici Corporis 103).

===========================

Section XII:

James Akin’s use of Pope Pius XII is based on an incorrect translation used by liberals.

Dear Reader, if you a truly honest about investigating how the dogma of no salvation outside the Church is misrepresented, and in particular how Pius XII is misquoted, then obtain the book: "Father Feeney and the Truth About Salvation" by Brother Robert Mary, M.I.C.M. Read particularly from the bottom of page 152 to the end of page 155.

Brother Robert conclusively proves that Pope Pius XII taught wrote something entirely different from what Akin says he taught. It is liberal heretics which have distorted it.

(See www.catholicism.org to order this book.)

===========

>As papal and conciliar writings have indicated, the same thing is
>possible in religion. If a person's primary desire is for salvation
>and truth then he implicitly desires Catholicism even if he is consciously
>mistaken about what will bring him salvation and truth. He might be a
>member of some other church, yet desire salvation and truth so much
>that he would instantly become a Catholic if he knew the truth concerning
>it. In this case, his primary desire would be for salvation and truth --
>wherever that might be found -- rather than his primary desire being
>membership in a non-Catholic church.

=========================

Section XIII:

Akin works entirely on from a natural premise here. He fails to take into consideration God's Providence as well as the attributes of God: ALL-Mighty and ALL-Knowing. As well s the truth that God is perfectly Good and would not withhold the truth from those who sincerely seek it. God promised such (see Mat.7:7ff, John 18:37, Heb.11:6).

If you re-read my post to you which explains how, based on God's promises, someone could never truly desire salvation and truth and NOT come to it UNLESS he were not really sincere. God will not fail. (See Section IV above on this point.)

=======

>Even though some radical traditionalists are disobedient to the papal
>and conciliar documents which teach the possibility of implicit desire
>sufficing for salvation,

==========================

Section XIV:

Have you noticed that he has YET to quote ONE infallible Magisterial document which states that the desire for Baptism is sufficient for salvation.

He doesn't even substantiate the above claim! He only supplied an incorrect translation of a single sentence from Pope Pius XII's "Mystici Corporis."

He does use Trent "On Justification," but this describes the conditions for justification ONLY, not those sufficient for salvation.

=========

>the Church has still taught for centuries that formal membership in
>the Church is not an absolute necessity for salvation.

==========================

Section XV:

Oh, really? Where and when? Akin does it again. He simply makes an unsubstantiated declaration that the Church teaches this. Where is the documentation? He has not supported ONE point of his with ANY infallible Magisterial documents.

Has ANYONE noticed this?

Quote for us the sources, Mr. Akin. This above statement has NO Magisterial support behind it. WHEREAS, I have demonstrated the truth with numerous infallible Magisterial references and quotes. The reason he doesn't is that he CANNOT. No documentation exists to support his false position.

===============

>... formal membership in the Church is not an absolute necessity for
>salvation. This was the point made by Trent when it spoke of desire
>for baptism bringing justification.

==========================

Section XVI:

Says James Akin, but NOT ANY infallible Church document.

=======

> The issue of whether desire for baptism saves and the issue of whether
> that desire can be explicit or implicit are two separate subjects which radical
>traditionalists often confuse.
>
>If we keep them separate, it is extremely clear from the Church's
>historic documents that formal membership in the Church is not
>necessary for salvation.

=======================

Let us see.

===========

>Justification and Salvation
>
>To avoid this, some radical traditionalists have tried to drive a
>wedge between justification and salvation, arguing that while desire for
>baptism might justify one, it would not save one if one died without
>baptism. But this is shown to be false by numerous passages in Trent.
>
>In the same chapter that it states that desire for baptism justifies,
>Trent defines justification as "a translation . . . to the state of
>grace and of the adoption of the sons of God" (Decree on
>Justification 4). Since whoever is in a state of grace and adopted by
>God is in a state of salvation, desire for baptism saves. If one dies in the
>state of grace, one goes to heaven and receives eternal life.

===================

Section XVII:

Whoa! He has done it again. The last two sentences are Akin's own invention. There is not one Magisterial document which states this. (The last sentence is true ONLY for Baptized Catholics.) The "state of salvation" is a Protestant invention. The nature and essence of Salvation was infallibly defined by Pope Benedict XII (1334-1442) in the Bull "Benedictus Deus" (Jan.29, 1336; Denz.530). So, the Church has infallibly defined what salvation entails, and salvation occurs AFTER death, not before (DNZ 530). Therefore, no one can be in a "state of salvation" before his particular judgment.

As a matter of canonical fact, Trent itself differentiates between getting into Grace and getting into Heaven:

According to the demands of both the logic and grammar the clause, "resolve (desire) to receive them," refers ONLY to the condition of justification, not to salvation. It does not refer to what is necessary for salvation. To pretend it does is to work directly against the very logic and grammar used by the Church in this statement. Therefore this clause concerning desire is concerned ONLY with, and is in reference to, justification alone, not salvation.

Besides, there would be no need to make a separation in this single canon between the two if there was no distinction between justification and salvation. This is why the particular condition for salvation mentioned here (i.e. the necessity of the sacraments), is separate and distinct from the particular conditions mentioned in reference to justification (the sacraments themselves or the desire to receive them).

To teach anything different is an abuse of both logic and grammar and is, as Vatican I declared, a recession from that meaning which holy Mother Church has once declared.

There are actually two important distinctions here:

1) that justification (what we receive here and now) and salvation (the actual entrance into heaven after we die) are not one and the same reality, but are distinct and,

2) that the desire (or resolve) to receive the Sacrament of Baptism may suffice ONLY for justification. It does not suffice for salvation. (But this is not what is at issue with this thread.)

In the "Decree on Justification" (ch.4; DNZ. 796) the Church at Trent declares that the voto for Baptism can suffice for justification. Yet, elsewhere, in regards to salvation, the Church decrees the necessity of water Baptism by condemning those who would deny its necessity (DNZ 858, 861). This reveals that the Church is all along working on the presumption that justification and salvation are distinct and that the former is simply one of the pre-requisites for the attainment of the latter.

THEREFORE, James Akin is in serious error here in failing to recognize the very distinction the Church herself makes between justification and salvation.

=============

>As Trent also states: "Justification . . . is not merely remission of
>sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man
>through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby an
>unrighteous man becomes a righteous man, and from being an enemy [of
>God] becomes a friend, that he may be 'an heir according to the hope
>of life everlasting' [Titus 3:7]" (Decree on Justification 7).
>Thus desire for baptism brings justification and justification makes
>one an heir of life everlasting. If one dies in a state of justification, one
>will inherit eternal life. Period.

============================

Section XVIII:

A couple of points must be made here.

1. Akin's argument is logically invalid. His conclusion is dependant upon a deception.

The CHURCH says a justified man is 'an heir according to the hope of life everlasting' [Titus 3:7]" (Decree on Justification 7), which Akin does quote above.

But then his syllogistic-like argument fails to quote Trent properly. A justified man is NOT an "heir of life everlasting" as Akin says. A justified man is, as the Church declared, "an heir according to the HOPE of life everlasting."

So, justification makes one an heir according to the hope of salvation.

IF the state of justification is equivalent to salvation (life everlasting), or at least guarantees it, as Akin is arguing, THEN hope is NOT needed.

One can only hope for:

A) that which one does not yet posess

and /or

B) that which is NOT guaranteed.

The Church has decreed that the state of justification makes one an "heir according to the hope of life everlasting," and this can ONLY mean that the state of justification is not the same as the state of salvation. Otherwise, there would be absolutely NO need for hope and justification would NOT be "according to hope."

2. Again, the argument above (erroneously) presumes that justification (righteousness) and equivalent to salvation. The Church has defined for us the concepts and realities of both grace and righteousness -which is the same as justification (DNZ 799,800), and she has NEVER equated either with salvation. The "Decree on Justification" is just THAT - a decree on justification, NOT salvation.

So again, Akin COMPLETELY ignores Canons 2 and 5 "On Baptism" from Trent which condemn anyone who holds that Baptism in water may be optional and is not necessary for salvation for all.

Here is one conclusive reason why "becoming righteous" canNOT be the same as saying "they are saved:"

The Church has infallibly defined AS DOGMA that both grace and righteousness can be lost (DNZ 808,833,837, 862), but salvation, BY DEFINITION, can never be lost, for it is eternal (DNZ 429, 530). Hence, they are not to be equated and hence the need for hope.

=================

>This question of whether formal
>membership is necessary for salvation is thus definitively settled by
>Trent. It is not. Informal membership, the kind had by one with desire for
>baptism, suffices.

=========================

Section XIX:

There is no question. It is a solemnly defined dogma. What I quote above in Section IX conclusively demonstrates the error of Akin's position. There is only ONE kind of membership in the Church -and that is by means of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is in water only as the Council of Vienne infallibly declared (DNZ 482).

=============

>This was also the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. He stated that those who
>have no desire for baptism "cannot obtain salvation, since neither
>sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through
>whom alone can salvation be obtained. Secondly, the sacrament of baptism
>may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when
>a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by
>death before receiving baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation
>without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism,
>which desire is the outcome of 'faith that worketh by charity' [Gal.
>5:6], whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments,
>sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died
>while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate; but he
>did not lose the grace he prayed for'" (Summa Theologiae III:68:2,
>citing Ambrose, Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392]).

======================

Section XX:

As a result from what the highest authority in the Church has infallibly defined, the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas carries no weight in the matter. Catholics must know that the teachings of Church Fathers and Doctors must be seen in light of and subject to the infallible magisterial statements of the Church.

This fact, this principle, has always been recognized:
 

"The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent
Doctor, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the
principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and
Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but
she recognizes infallibility only in the inspired authors of the Sacred
Scriptures. By divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the
Sacred Scriptures, depository of Sacred Tradition living within her,
the Church alone is the entrance to salvation; she alone, by herself,
and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost, is the source
of truth."
Pope Pius XII (Allocution to the Gregorian University, Oct. 17, 1953)

Therefore, Akin is guilty of misleading his readers in bringing up a lower authority to support his own position. But nowhere does the Church teach that the Fathers or Doctors are infallible in what they teach. Aquinas was in error with this teaching. He died BEFORE the definitions from Councils of Florence and Trent, both which defined the necessity of water Baptism for salvation.

==============

>The question of whether desire for baptism needs to be explicit or
>implicit is a separate issue which was not raised by Trent, but which
>has been dealt with repeatedly by popes and councils since that time.
>Still, Trent alone shows that the statement in Unam Sanctam teaches a
>normative necessity for formal membership, not an absolute one. Those
>who desire but do not have baptism are not formally members of the
>Church, yet they are linked to the Church by their desire and can be
>saved.

=====================

Section XXI:

Again, no Magisterial document states this nor supports any of this. It is simply Akin forcing his opinion upon the Church. As I have proven, Trent teaches no such thing. The concept "normative necessity" is simply Akin's personal (and erroneous) opinion.

Also, as I demonstrated in Section IX above, Trent was protected from error in choosing the word "votum" (voto) which means a conscious/explicit vow or act of the will

==============

>What is absolutely necessary for salvation is a salvific link to the
>body of Christ, not full incorporation into it. To use the terms
>Catholic theology has classically used, one can be a member of the
>Church by desire (in voto) rather than in actuality (in actu).
>
>In A.D. 400, Augustine said, "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 . . . All who are within in heart are
>saved in the unity of the ark" (Baptism 5:28:39).
>
>And in the thirteenth century, Aquinas stated a person can obtain
>salvation if they are "sacramentally [or] mentally . . . incorporated
>in Christ, through whom alone can salvation be obtained," and that "a
>man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of
>his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of 'faith that
>worketh by charity' [Gal. 5:6], whereby God, whose power is not tied to the
>visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly" (ST III:68:2).

=========================

Section XXII:

Two very important points must be made here.

Point 1.

Section XX above makes clear that the Church condemns the idea that the teaching of a Father or Doctor of the Church is to be held over that of the teaching authority of what the Popes have declared.

Pope Alexander VIII declared:
 

"I hereby condemn as heretical the notion that when anyone finds a
doctrine clearly established in St. Augustine, he may absolutely hold
and teach it, disregarding any Bull of the Pope." (Denz. 1320)

So, we do not submit the infallible Magisterium to non-magisterial statements, for this would INvert the entire authority structure of the Church. Therefore, in light of what the in light of infallible Magisterial pronouncements on the necessity of water Baptism for salvation, it means they were simply mistaken.

None of the Father's writings are protected from error. Their writings are not infallible documents of the Church binding on all Catholics, and the topic is whether or not THE CHURCH teaches the sufficiency of baptism of desire for salvation, not simply Churchmen.

These writings are subject to what the Church has infallibly defined as dogma. And the Church, as already point out above, has solemnly defined as a dogma of Faith that outside the Catholic Church no one can be saved and no one is within the Church until they hold the Catholic Faith and are baptized in water.

Point 2.

In using St. Augustine, James Akin present us with a self-defeating example, for elsewhere the "Doctor of Grace" affirms the exact opposite: that without Baptism,
which is in water only, no one can be saved. He says:

James Akin defeats his own position with his own example.

===============

>Private Judgment?
>
>What the radical traditionalists have forgotten is that they are not
>the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is, and
>their personal interpretations may not go against the authoritative
>teaching of the current Magisterium.
>
>The idea that they can by private conscience interpret centuries-old
>papal decrees puts them in the same position as Protestants,
>interpreting centuries-old biblical documents. The radical
>traditionalist simply has a larger "Bible," but the principle is the
>same: private interpretation rules! This completely defeats the
>purpose of having a Magisterium, which is to provide a contemporary
>source that can identify, clarify, and explain previous authoritative
>statements, whether from the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, or itself.
>Much of the current flap over Feeneyism could be avoided if
>conservative Catholics would remind themselves of the fact that it is
>the Magisterium, not them and their private judgment, which is the
>interpreter of previous Magisterial statements.

==========================

Section XXIII:

Poor Mr. Akin. He assumes that dogmatic definitions need further interpretation. But they do not. They are to be understood and believed "by the very words Mother Church has used to declare them" (Dei Filius, chap.4: Vatican I: DNZ 1800). Hence no interpretation is needed, other than literal that is.

Re-read #4 from Part I of this critique which expounds upon this. Akin's working presumption is directly contrary to the nature and purpose of what dogmatic definitions accomplish. In fact his arguments depend upon a method of interpreting dogmas solemnly condemned by the Church.

Again, when the Church defines a dogma, in this very act (of defining) she is giving to us the exact way we are to believe it, profess it, spread and defend it. In other words, she IS giving us the one and only interpretation by which we must believe and understand it. Vatican I defined for us that dogmas are to be believed precisely as they are declared and that the Church "understands her dogmas by the very words she has once declared" (Vatican I, Dei Filius, ch.4). And the Church has solemnly condemned the notion that dogmas have a meaning which go beyond the words of the dogmatic formula (see Vatican I, Dei Filius, Canon 3 for Chap.4; Lamentabili, #22,26,54,64 and Pascendi: DNZ 2079-81, 2087 promulgated by Pope St. Pius X, 1907)

(For more Magisterial substantiation of this fact, see also # 4 from Part I above of this critique.)

============

>The Necessity of Evangelism
...............

======================

(After this point, Akin argues against liberals and this is not germane to our discussion.
He also again quotes the incorrect translation of Pius XII's encyclical Mystici Corporis.)

SUMMARY CONCLUSION TO PART II

Though a conclusion would be appropriate, this critique has gone on long enough. So, I will just say this: I hope you, Dear Reader, can see the many errors and deceptions of James Akin in this article and how often he makes assertions without actually backing them up with Magisterial statements. And how he defeated himself at least twice. However, I will provide a Conclusion to Part II by way of a summary outline for you to refer back and see for yourself:

*No Magisterial documentation to back up specific statements:

Sections I, II, III, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XXI;

* Ignores (and thus fails to address) other papal quotes which contradict and refute his argument that Pope Boniface VIII did not mean "necessary" in the absolute sense: 10 (Part 1 of this critique);

*Fails to exhibit faith by failing to consider God's attributes and promises:

Sections IV, XIII;

*Attempts to accomplish what Church condemns:

Sections VI, IX, XXIII

*Contrary to Catholic Principles, pits lower (fallible) sources against higher (infallible) sources:

Sections XX, XXI, XXII;

*Draws conclusions and/or uses significant words not found in actual documents quoted:

Sections VI, IX, X, XII, XVII, XVIII

*Proven wrong in equating justification and salvation:

Sections, VIII, IX

*Defeats himself with his own statements and/or examples:

Sections IX, XXII;

In defense of Truth and love for Mother Church,