CathInfo.com

POPE INNOCENT II
OBJECTION?  Pope Innocent II taught that a priest could be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism by his desire for it and his confession of the true faith (Denzinger 388):

“To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where, among other things it is written, ‘Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.’ Read again in the book of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Apostolicam Sedem).”391

ANSWER? First of all, there is no such thing as a priest who has not been baptized. The Church teaches that one who has not been baptized cannot receive the priesthood validly. This problem alone demonstrates that the above statement is not infallible. Secondly, the date of this docuмent is unknown, the author is unknown – it is by no means clear that it was Innocent II – and the person to whom it is addressed is unknown! Could such a docuмent ever prove anything? No. It remains a mystery why a docuмent of such doubtful authenticity found its way into Denzinger, a handbook of dogmatic statements. This is probably because Denzinger was edited by Karl Rahner, a notorious heretic, whose heretical bias caused him to present this clearly non?magisterial statement as Magisterial, for he is a believer in baptism of desire.

To illustrate the lack of magisterial authority of the previous letter allegedly from Pope Innocent II, I will quote from Thomas Hutchinson’s book, Desire and Deception (pp. 31? 32):

“We speak of the letter Apostolicam Sedem, written at the behest of Pope Innocent II (1130?1143), at an unknown date to an unnamed bishop of Cremona. The latter had written an inquiry to the Pope regarding the case of a priest who apparently had died without being baptized. Of course, it has been defined that, in such a case, he was no priest, since the sacrament of orders may only be conferred validly upon the baptized.

???? Text of letter omitted because it has been listed already ????

“Now, there are more than a few problems connected with this letter. Firstly, it depends entirely on the witness of Saints Ambrose and Augustine for its conclusion. Its premises are false, as the Fathers in question did not actually hold the opinions herein imputed to them. (author: as noted a mere sentimental speculative utterance does not prove they hold to this as official teaching)…

“Lastly, there is even a question of who wrote this letter. Many authorities ascribe it to Innocent III (1198?1216). This question is mentioned in Denzinger. The letter is certainly not in keeping with the totality of his declarations either. In any case, a gap of 55 years separated the two pontificates. So a private letter of uncertain date, authorship, and destination, based upon false premises and contradicting innumerable indisputably valid and solemn docuмents, is pretended to carry the weight of the Magisterium on its shoulders. Were any other doctrine concerned, this missive (letter) would not even be given any consideration. As we shall see, however, mystification and deception are part and parcel of the history of this topic of Salvation. Perhaps this letter was attributed to Innocent III because of his statement that the words of consecration at Mass do not actually have to be said by the priest, but only thought internally ?? a sort of Eucharist by Desire. Later Saint Thomas Aquinas took him to task on this point.

“But Innocent III is indeed the key to understanding the original teaching of the Church on this topic. It was in his time (as always until the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore) forbidden to bury the unbaptized (whether catechumens or even children of Catholic parents) in consecrated ground. He explained the rationale for this law, writing: ‘It has been decreed by the sacred canons that we are to have no communion with those who are dead, if we have not communicated with them while alive’ (Decr. III, XXVIII, xii).” ? end of transcript from Desire and Deception.

These considerations dismiss any argument in favor of baptism of desire from this letter. The letter, while certainly not infallible, may indeed be a forgery.

POPE INNOCENT III

OBJECTION?  Pope Innocent III taught that a person who baptized himself could be saved by the desire for the Sacrament of Baptism.

Pope Innocent III, to the Bishop of Metz, Aug. 28, 1206: “We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when he says to the Apostles: ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name etc.,” the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another...If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.”392

This proves the theory of baptism of desire.

ANSWER? It is true that Pope Innocent III apparently said that a person who baptized himself could be saved by his desire for the sacrament, but it is false to say that this proves the theory of baptism of desire. Baptism of desire is disproved by the infallible teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation. But the first thing that should be said about this letter from Innocent III is that a letter to the Bishop of Metz does not meet the requirements for an infallible pronouncement. This is a fact hardly anyone would dispute.

To prove this point consider the following: In the letter Ex parte tua, Jan. 12, 1206, the same Innocent III teaches that original sin was remitted by the mystery of circuмcision.

Pope Innocent III, Ex Parte tua, to Andrew, the Archbishop of Lyons, Jan. 12, 1206: “Although original sin was remitted by the mystery of circuмcision, and the danger of damnation was avoided, nevertheless there was no arrival at the kingdom of heaven, which up to the death of Christ was barred to all.”393

This is definitely wrong, since the Council of Trent defined as a dogma (Session VI, Chap. 1 on Justification) that “not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise” from original sin.394

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 1 on Justification: “… whereas all men [*except the Blessed Virgin ? as Trent says in Sess. V*] had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam, ‘having become unclean’, and (as the Apostle says), ‘by nature children of wrath… but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom…”395

In other words, not even the observance of Circuмcision and the rest of the Mosaic Law enabled Jews to be freed from original sin (de fide), contrary to what Innocent III taught in his letter Ex parte tua. So we have Innocent III teaching blatant error in the letter Ex parte tua to Andrew, the Archbishop of Lyons. Since Ex parte tua is at least as authoritative as the other two statements allegedly from Innocent II and Innocent III, which are often quoted by baptism of desire supporters, it proves that they are likewise fallible and non?Magisterial. And this is the kind of “evidence” which baptism of desire supporters try to bring forth from the Papal Magisterium: a dubious letter alleged to be from Innocent II – with no date or addressee – and a letter from Innocent III to an archbishop, which ranks on the same level as Ex Parte Tua which contains things contrary to Catholic dogma. The evidence in favor of baptism of desire from the infallible Papal Magisterium is  zero.

In fact, as mentioned already, it was during Innocent III’s time forbidden to bury the unbaptized (whether catechumens or even children of Catholic parents) in consecrated ground. And it is the infallible teaching of the same Pope at the Fourth Lateran Council which affirms the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”396

“The faithful” only includes those baptized with water, as section 6 of this docuмent proves.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the Church.”397

And here is another statement from the same Pope which, though not infallible, insists on the absolute necessity of rebirth in water.

Pope Innocent III, letter to Thorias, Archbishop of Nidaros: “You have asked whether children ought to be regarded as Christians whom, when in danger of death, on account of scarcity of water and absence of a priest, the simplicity of some has anointed on the head and the breast, and between the shoulders with a sprinkling of saliva for baptism. We answer that since in baptism two things always, that is, ‘the word and the element,’ are required by necessity, according to which Truth says concerning the word: ‘Going into the world etc.’ [Luke

16:15; Matt. 28:19], and the same concerning the element says: ‘Unless anyone etc.’ [John 3:5] you ought not to doubt that those do not have true baptism in which not only both of the above mentioned (requirements) but one of them is missing.”398

Perhaps Pope Innocent III’s blunders in his fallible capacity as pope are the reason we read the following vision about him barely avoiding Hell and being allegedly condemned to suffer in Purgatory until the end of the world.

“In The Mourning of the Dove, St. Robert Bellarmine (+ c. 1600) tells us about a person appearing to St. Lutgarde all clothed in flame and in much pain. When St. Lutgarde asked him who he was, he answered her: ‘I am [Pope] Innocent III, who should have been condemned to eternal Hell?fire for several grievous sins, had not the Mother of God interceded for me in my agony and obtained for me the grace of repentance. Now I am destined to suffer in Purgatory till the End of the World, unless you help me. Once again the Mother of Mercy has allowed me to come to ask you for your prayers.’”399