Showing posts with label EENS: Defended against Jimmy Akin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EENS: Defended against Jimmy Akin. Show all posts

Monday, March 16, 2009

Tower of David Critique of "The Necessity of Being Catholic," by James Akin. Parts I & II

Dear Reader, a friend of Tower of David Ministry asked if I would critique an article by James Akin of "Catholic" Answers in San Diego, CA. I offer it here mainly to fortify, edify and educate. The article contains the usual garbage and, as liberals usually do, Akin subjects that which is subject to nothing -INFALLIBLE DOGMATIC DEFINITIONS- to fallible non-definitive statements.

What you may find of extra value are the quick summaries provided at the end of both Part I and Part II.

I do it for the Glory of God, His Blessed Mother, Holy Mother Church and the vindication of Truth.

In the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady, Tower of David,
Adam S. Miller
Tower of David Ministry

[James Akin begins]
>Subject: Baptism of Desire
>"The Necessity of Being Catholic"
>by James Akin (Catholic Answers)
>One of the most controversial papal documents ever released was the
>bull Unam Sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII. Today the most
>controversial part of the bull is the following infallible
>pronouncement: "Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and
>pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for
>salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff."

Dear Reader,
Do you notice the definitive clause "altogether necessary for salvation"?
The Latin is "omnino de necessitate salutis." The Latin word "omnino" is translated "altogether" here, which is an adequate translation. Other translations have the word "absolutely" for "omnino"(see "The Church Teaches," by Fathers J. F. Clarkson, J. Edwards, et al., TAN Books, 1955, 1973, p.75; also "The Christian Faith," ed. by J. Neuner, S.J. and J. Dupuis, S.J., NY: Alba House , 1990, p. 234).
However, just look up the word "altogether" in the dictionary. It means: completely, with NOTHING left out. The Latin "Omnino" means just this: "utterly," "in all," "completely."
In other words, with nothing missing and thus without ANY exceptions.
"Omnino" does NOT mean "normatively" or "in general" as James Akin will attempt to mislead his readers into thinking. The Latin language already has words for "normatively" or in general ("normae," "generalitas", "in universum"). However, Pope Boniface VIII, protected by the Holy Spirit from error, infallibly used "omnino" in this definition, NOT any of the other words which James Akin wishes were used, as you will see.
Keep this in mind as we proceed. You will see whether or not if James Akin is truly faithful to "THAT understanding which Holy Mother Church has ONCE declared" concerning its dogmas, as Vatican I binds upon the faithful (see Dei Filius, chap.4: DNZ 1800).
>This doctrine is extraordinarily controversial. Some Catholic
>extremists claim (contrary to further Church teaching, including a
>further infallible definition) that this means everyone who is not a
>full-fledged, professing Catholic is damned. Non-Catholics find the
>claim offensive, sectarian, and anti-Christian in sentiment.
>Most Catholics who are aware of the definition find it embarrassing,
>especially in today's ecumenical age, and many try to ignore or
>dismiss it, though even liberal Catholic theologians admit it is a
>genuine doctrinal definition and must in some sense be true.
>Its truth was reinforced by Vatican II, which stated: "This holy
>Council . . . [b]asing itself on Scripture and Tradition . . . teaches
>that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation. . . .
>[Christ] himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism
>(cf. Mark 16:16, John 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the
>necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a
>door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing the Catholic Church
>was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to
>enter it or to remain in it" (Lumen Gentium 14).
>Many moderns explain this doctrine in a way that robs it of its content.
>In the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, who admitted
>the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics,

Pope Pius XII did not admit such. This is simply an unsubstantiated statement, and in fact, untrue. On the contrary, Pope Pius XII condemned the very effort which James Akin is doing here. In # 27 from "Humani Generis," which was a document condemning numerous opinions which undermined Catholic doctrine, the Holy Pontiff stated:

"Some reduce to A MEANINGLESS FORMULA the necessity of
belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation."

Therefore, Pius XII condemns exactly what James Akin is attempting to do.

>Pope Pius XII, who admitted the possibility of salvation for
>non-Catholics, lamented that some Catholic theologians
>were "reducs an exclusivist view of salvation, this teaching
>does not mean that anyone who is not a full-fledged Catholic is damned.

Where does Pope Pius XII teach such? Akin’s provides no substantiation from this document. He cannot, for it is NO WHERE in Humani Generis.
Does James Akin presume that his readers are to take HIS word for it?
This is both arrogant and deceptive.
>As further Church teaching has made clear, including a further doctrinal
>definition, it is entirely possible for a person to be saved without
>being a professing Catholic. Formally belonging to the Church and
>formally being subject to the Roman Pontiff are normative rather than
>absolute necessities.

Two points here:
A. The phrase used here, "further Church teaching has made clear," exposes James Akin's utter misunderstanding (or dishonesty) concerning the nature of a solemn infallible dogmatic definition such as Pope Boniface VIII's Bull Unam Sanctum.
This lack of proper understanding (or is it rejection?) is FATAL to Akin's entire argument and position.
Once a dogma, and those dogma directly related to it, is defined by the extraordinary Magisterium, then the meaning of that (those) dogma(s) has ALREADY been determined and DEFINED for all time. This is the very PURPOSE AND NATURE of a dogmatic definition: TO DEFINE for ALL time what the Church means and HOW we are to understand and believe it. And, as Vatican II confirmed, these definitions are irreformable by their very nature" (Lumen Gentium, 25).
Pope Pius IX made it clear that:
The very definition of a dogma must be held to be BY ITSELF a SUFFICIENT
demonstration, very sure and adapted to all the faithful. Moreover, this is why
such dogmatic definitions have always been and are necessarily an unchangeable
rule of faith. (Inter Gravissimas, 1870)

So what the Church has declared in each dogma is sufficient in itself to teach what it is we are to believe. This necessarily means that that understanding which the Church has of her sacred dogmas, and by which we must believe them, is exactly what she has once declared. Again, this is precisely what was infallibly defined at Vatican I (Dei Filius, ch.4):
Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be
perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared;
and there must never be recession from that meaning under the
specious name of a deeper understanding. (DNZ 1800)

The Church at Vatican I has made it clear that what She means to teach and define is precisely what She "has once declared," and that this declared understanding can never change. There is no meaning to these or any dogmas beyond what the words themselves state and declare. In other words, there is no "meaning" distinct from the words of the formula, for this is the VERY POINT of a dogmatic definition -to make clear, to define what She does mean and believe. Thus, the Church at Vatican I has made clear that what She means to teach and how she understands it is exactly what she "has once declared."

B. The idea of "normative" vs. "altogether/absolute" in regards to what conditions the Church teaches as necessary for salvation are simply the personal (and erroneous) notions of theologians. This idea is NOT contained or presumed in ANY infallible Church document. This is why Akin does not (because he cannot) produce such a document which makes the distinction between normative and absolute on matters concerning salvation.
Notice, James Akin presumes that YOU-the-reader have already forgotten that the Pope says "ALTOGETHER necessary for salvation." As you will see, he builds his entire case upon ignoring this definitive word.
Don’t be deceived by his omissions!
>An absolute necessity is a necessity which holds in all cases with no
>exceptions. A normative necessity is usually required, though there
>are exceptions. An example of normative necessity in everyday American
>life is the practice of driving on the right hand side of the road. This
>is normally required, but there are exceptions, such as emergency
>situations. For example, if a small child darts out from behind parked
>cars, it may be necessary (and legally permitted) to swerve into the
>left hand lane to avoid hitting him. Thus the necessity of driving on
>the right hand side of the road is a normative rather than an
>absolute necessity.
>Whether it is a normative or an absolute necessity to be united to the
>Catholic Church depends on what kind of unity with the Church one has
>in mind, because there are different ways of being associated with the
>Catholic Church.
>A person who has been baptized or received into the Church is fully
>and formally a Catholic. Vatican II states: "Fully incorporated into the
>society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ,
>accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with
>her entire organization, and who -- by the bonds constituted by the
>profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and
>communion -- are joined in the visible structure of the Church of
>Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops"
>(Lumen Gentium 14, Catechism of the Catholic Church 837).
>But it is also possible to be "associated" with or "partially
>incorporated" into the Catholic Church without being a fully and
>formally incorporated into it. Vatican II states: "The Church knows
>that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the
>name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety
>or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter"
>(Lumen Gentium 15). Those "who believe in Christ and have been
>properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion
>with the Catholic Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3; CCC 838).

Notice that none of these documents say that those with "imperfect communion" or those who are "partially incorporated" can actually be saved, WHERE THEY ARE. Akin fails to demonstrate with Magisterial documentation that these persons can be saved while having this status of imperfect/partial incorporation.
At the same time, a very important point must be made concerning the use of documents from Vatican II and other non-definitive, non-infallible statements.
The Catholic principles of authority and interpretation demand that EACH of these NON-definitive and NON-infallible documents/statements MUST be interpreted in light of and in subjection to previous infallible definitions, decrees and canons. Otherwise, the authority of the Church is turned upside-down and nullified and the protective benefits of infallibility are lost.
The Church is well aware of this and this is why in NONE of these statements do you actually see stated that those with "imperfect" communion will be saved WHERE THEY ARE. So we cannot read into these statements what James Akin wants his readers to see.
Akin is undermining Church authority in this way:
a. he is subjecting an infallible pronouncement to statements which are not necessarily
protected from error, but which are fallible;
b. he is subjecting a dogmatic definition to NON-definitive statements.
  • as if NON-definitive statements (i.e. encyclicals, Vatican II) can DEFINE for us what definitive statements mean -which they can't do, otherwise definitions are NOT definitions, and thus become obsolete;
  • as if infallible definitions can be determined and modified by NON-infallible statements, which would then make the NON-infallible statement the final authority and NOT the infallible statement -which is self-contradicting and thus, impossible.
Therefore, in accord with the Catholic principle of interpretation we MUST hold that: 1) NON-definitive statements cannot DEFINE for us what definitive statements mean,
otherwise definitions are NOT definitions, and thus the very concept and practice
becomes obsolete. Besides, the nature and intent of a dogmatic definition already
accomplishes this for us.

2) Infallible dogmatic definitions cannot even be interpreted or modified by NON-infallible
statements. Otherwise, two problems would follow from this:

A) We would have a document NOT protected from error determining for us the
meaning of a document which IS protected from error, which nullifies the entire notion of infallibility.

B) We would have a statement of higher authority made subject to a statement of lower
authority. This would turn upside-down (i.e. invert) the entire notion of authority.

As a result of Akin's use of non-infallible and non-definitive statements to determine for us how to interpret an infallible dogmatic definition, he is guilty of these very errors.
All that follows on his part thus has no foundation.
>Those who have not been baptized are also put in an imperfect communion with the
>Church, even if they do not realize it, if they possess the virtues of faith, hope, and
>charity. Pope Pius XII explains that the "juridical bonds [of the Church] in themselves
>far surpass those of any other human society, however exalted; and yet another
>principle of union must be added to them in those three virtues, Christian faith,
>hope, and charity, which link us so closely to each other and to God. . . .
>[I]f the bonds of faith and hope, which bind us to our Redeemer in his
>Mystical Body are weighty and important, those of charity are certainly no
>less so. . . . Charity . . . more than any other virtue binds us
>closely to Christ" (Mystici Corporis 70, 73).
>Understanding this distinction between perfect and imperfect
>communion with the Church is essential to understanding the necessity of
>being a Catholic. It is an absolute necessity -- no exceptions at all -- to
>be joined to the Church in some manner, at least through the virtues of
>faith, hope, and charity. However, it is only normatively necessary
>to be fully incorporated into or in perfect communion with the Catholic
>Church. There are exceptions to that requirement, as the Council of
>Trent taught (see below), though it is still a normative necessary.

Akin presumes that this "other principle of unity... added" nullifies the necessity of Baptism. But the document nowhere says nor implies this. And again, he adds the word (and notion) of normative where no such notion is put forth in the document. We know that Pope Pius XII did not teach what Akin says he was teaching because elsewhere he clearly states:

"Only those are to be included as REAL (Latin is "reapse") members of
the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and have
not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body."
(DNZ 2286)

His predecessor also repeated this doctrine previously defined at the Councils of Florence and Trent. Pope Pius IX declared in Quas Primas (1925):

"The Catholic Church, is the kingdom of Christ on earth... The Gospels present
this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by penance, and CANNOT
ACTUALLY enter EXCEPT by faith and by Baptism..."

So, there is no REAL or ACTUAL membership in the Church without sacramental Baptism (which is in water only as infallibly defined by the CHurch).

>In our discussion below, the word "necessary" will mean "normatively
>necessary," not "absolutely necessary."

Says who? Other than James Akin and liberal theologians, says who? By what authority does he say this?
Certainly not by THE CHURCH in her infallible definitions, decrees and canons! The Church’s infallible statements on this topic are stated for us WITHOUT ANY exceptions being allowed. The ONLY time this concept is ever allowed by the Church is in reference to the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance/Confession for salvation. At no other time and in no other document is this distinction ever used or allowed.
Shame on James Akin!
>>Necessity of Means and Precept
>Theologians also differentiate between things that are necessary by
>precept and things that are necessary as a means.

Be careful here. We are NOT bound in conscience to theologians, nor to ANY of their ideas, categories, distinctions, etc. We are bound ONLY to the Magisterium and to what SHE has declared. Pope Pius XII made this clear in "Humani Generis" (#21) when he stated:

"God has given to His Church a living Teaching authority to elucidate and
explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly.
This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation
not to each of the faithful, NOR EVEN TO THEOLOGIANS, but ONLY to
the Teaching Authority of the Church."


>The same example of driving on the right hand side of the road serves to illustrate
>both. In America driving on the right hand side of the road has a necessity of
>precept because the law requires us to do so. However, it is also necessary as
>a means because if one wishes to safely navigate the highways in America then
>one must drive on the right hand side of the road. If you wish to arrive safely at your
>destination, the means to that end is driving on the right hand side.
>Thus driving on the right side of the road is a normative necessity by precept
>(because the law normally requires it) and a normative necessity of means
>(because it is normally necessary to safely arrive at one's destination).
>However, it is not an absolute necessity of precept (because the law makes
>exceptions for emergencies) or an absolute necessity of means (because safely
>arriving at one's destination sometimes requires a swerve into the other lane as an
>emergency maneuver).

Dear Reader, carefully read the above again. All James Akin has done is explain what HE means by this distinction between normative necessity and absolute necessity. He has not yet shown WHERE the Church uses this distinction in any of her definitions, decrees or canons on salvation.
In other words, His explanation does not PROVE his position represents THE CHURCH"S position, it only explains what HE means by it. Do not be fooled by this ploy. (If it is not a ploy, then Akin simply does not know what he is doing.)
>When it comes to the question of being a Catholic, that is both a
>necessity of precept and a necessity of means. It is a necessity of
>precept because God commands it, for "the Catholic Church was founded
>as necessary by God through Christ," Lumen Gentium 14 (CCC 846). It is a
>necessity of means because the Catholic Church is the sacrament of
>salvation for mankind, containing all the means of grace. "As sacrament,
>the Church is Christ's instrument. 'She is taken up by him also as
>the instrument for the salvation of all,' 'the universal sacrament of
>salvation,' by which Christ is 'at once manifesting and actualizing
>the mystery of God's love for men'" (CCC 776, citing Vatican II's Lumen
>Gentium 9:2, 48:2, and Gaudiam et Spes 45:1).
snip, snip........
[James Akin simply expounds upon this with Protestants in mind. It does not have any bearing on our particular topic. So I have snipped it out. -Adam Miller]
>Akin’s continues]
>A Catholic thus might construct an argument for Unam Sanctam's
> definition like this:
>1) To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
>2) To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ's Church.
>3) To be a member of Christ's Church it is necessary to be a member
>of the Catholic Church.
>4) To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to
> the Roman Pontiff.
>5) Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
>In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and
>the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership.

Again, SAYS WHO? Who says that these "necessities are all normative necessities," other than James Akin? What authority does he have to make such a qualification? Where is his documentation?
Where does the Church teach that "necessities are all normative necessities" is in fact "THAT understanding which Holy Mother Church has ONCE declared"(Vatican I: Dei Filius, chap.4: DNZ 1800) concerning this dogma?
James Akin has once again made his own personal statement that certain necessities are only "normative' and not absolute WITHOUT ANY Magisterial documentation to buttress his statement. On this account alone, his entire argument fails. He is ignoring the VERY WORDS of the document he makes us believe he is explaining.
So far, he has failed to provide ONE infallible Magisterial statement which teaches that the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff (and membership in the Church) is NOT necessary without exception, that is, that it is not ALTOGETHER necessary as Pope Boniface infallibly defined. Whereas we DO have other popes declaring the ABSOLUTE necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff for salvation.
-Pope Clement VI (1342-52) in Super Quibusdam (1351) declared:

"No man outside the faith of the Roman Catholic Church and outside obedience to the Pope of Rome can finally be saved."
-Pope Leo XIII made it clear in Officio Sanctissimo (1887) that there is absolutely no salvation without submission to the pope when he declared (quoting St. Thomas Aquinas)the importance of being:
"docile to the Roman Pontiff... and to whom it is absolutely necessary for salvation to remain subject."
Notice in the quote from Clement VI where he declares that NO MAN outside obedience to the pope can be saved. This is an unqualified declaration. The term "no man" is thus all inclusive, which, by definition, means that there are no exceptions.
I ask Mr. Akin: Why do the vicars of Christ -according to your assessment- keep making declarations with terms that do not mean what they state, nor state what the Pontiffs mean? Are these guys exercising poetic license? Are they deceivers? Or did they in fact mean what they said and said what they meant? The nature of dogmatic teaching makes it clear that it is always the latter.

Concerning Pope Leo XIII's quote, need I say any more? His declaration clearly refutes Akin's arguments, and exposes his position as being contrary to infallible Catholic teaching. Sorry, Mr. Akin, but "absolutely necessary" means ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY!
I could provide more quotes, but, as Blessed Pope Pius IX declared in Amantissimus (1862):

"It would be impossible to multiply indefinitely citations from the best witnesses, all of whom openly and clearly declare the necessity of submission and obedience which must be accorded the Apostolic See and the Roman pontiff in order to obtain salvation."

>The argument has a logically valid form ...snip, snip...
[Same point as above, this portion of his article is not germane to what we are discussing.]
>The Nature of the Church
>[In this section, Akin’s presents a basic Catholic apologetic in defending the nature of the Church >against Protestants. It is also not germane to our discussion.]

We conclude part I of this critique with a summary conclusion. James Akin is guilty of the following:
  • Draws attention of reader away from actual words used in document: #1, 9, 10;
  • Approaches dogmas contrary to what Church teaches on how we are to believe them: #4;
  • Draws conclusions not actually present in document: #2, 3, 5, 6;
  • Fails to provide documentation to back up his own statements: #3, 6, 8, 9, whereas I provide two papal quotes which directly contradict and refute his entire argument: #10.
Akin is guilty of subjecting: a. that which is infallible to that which is not infallible;
b. that which is definitive to that which is not definitive
He thus subverts and inverts the Church's Teaching Authority.
This ends Part I of the Tower of David critique of James Akin’s article. Please continue on to Part II for the rest of this critique and its conclusion.
Adam S. Miller
Tower of David Ministry
Onto Part II
Tower of David Critique of "The Necessity of Being Catholic," by James Akin. Part II [James Akin writes]
>Union with the Pope
(snip, snip...Same as above.)
>It is normatively necessary for salvation to be subject to the pope.

Section I:
Again, James Akin makes this statement- "normatively necessary"- with NO authority, no magisterial documentation to back it up. It is completely unsubstantiated. It is simply HIS own statement. Where is the documentation? Please provide it, Mr. Akin, if we are to have us take you seriously.
>This is not because of any special quality of the pope himself, but
>because he is the leader Christ appointed for his Church, and because
>full membership in his Church is normatively necessary for being a
>Christian, which is normatively necessary for salvation.

Section II:
He does it again. He adds the word (and concept) "normatively" where NO SUCH qualification exists in ANY infallible Church document on this matter. He sure is full of his own distinctions.
In fact, do you recognize what James Akin is doing here?
He is actually submitting Pope Boniface IV's infallible dogmatic pronouncement to HIS OWN qualifications and distinctions. This can ONLY mean that James Akin has higher authority than the infallible statement itself.
Dear Reader, do you recognize this deception?
>Exceptions to the Rule
>It is possible in some instances for a person to be saved without
>fulfilling these obligations. If a person is innocently ignorant of
>his obligation to join the Church then God will not hold this against
>him, but will make it possible for him to be saved anyway.

Section III:
Simply a restatement of James Akin's personal (and heretical) beliefs. It denies the power (or desire) of God to get the truth to those open to it. However, see if he substantiates it with any infallible Magisterial documents.
>One is innocently ignorant if he has not seen sufficient evidence for
>the truth of the Catholic faith (given his mental faculties and any
>opposing evidence he has been given by anti-Catholics). But if one has
>seen sufficient evidence, or if he has seen enough evidence that he
>should investigate further but has failed to do so, his ignorance is
>not innocent.

Section IV:
How terribly ambiguous, Mr. Akin. What, pray tell, would qualify for "sufficient evidence"? What amount is enough to be considered "enough evidence"?
Akin fails to define for his readers what "sufficient evidence" means.
What kind of talk is this? What kind of doctrine is this? It is surely not Catholic. This is NOT how Mother Church talks to her children on matters of life and death.
Doesn't James Akin believe that God is All-mighty and All-knowing?
Nothing can keep God from getting truth to a person, for God desires that ALL men come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim.2:4), THUS God promised that HE WOULD DO SO, if they are open to it (Jn18:37), if they sincerely desire it and seek it (Mat.7;7ff). God does not fail on His promises for he is truthful.
God is always pouring out his grace and truth to those who will accept. It was declared at Vatican I (On The Catholic Faith, chap.4: DNZ 1794) that:

"an efficacious aid to the testimony of the Faith comes from supernatural
virtue. For the most benign God both excites the erring by His grace and
aids them so that they can `come to a knowledge of the truth' (I Tim. 2:4)..."

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

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

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.
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
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 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:
"If anyone says that the Sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for
SALVATION, but are superfluous, and that, without them or without the
votum for them, men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of
JUSTIFICATION ... Let him be anathema."
(Canons on the Sacraments, 4: DNZ. 847 [DS1604])

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

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:

"The Lord has determined that the Kingdom of Heaven should be conferred
only on baptized persons. If eternal life can accrue only to those who have been
baptized, it follows, of course, that they who die unbaptized incur
everlasting death" (de Anima, IV, 11); and St. Augustine affirms
elsewhere: "What is the Baptism of Christ? `The washing with water,
in the word.' Take away the water and it is not Baptism."
(Hom. On John, 15,4).
Which is the stronger representation, a source (used by James Akin) where he elsewhere contradicts himself or a source where he does not do such a thing? Obviously, to use a source in which a contradiction is present cannot be a trustworthy example for presenting this source as representing the Church's official, unchanging and binding teaching. 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.)

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,
Adam S. Miller
Tower of David Ministry
Catholic Apologetics and Evangelism