Pope Innocent III

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 circumcision. 

Pope Innocent III, Ex Parte tua, to Andrew, the Archbishop of Lyons, Jan. 12, 1206: “Although original sin was remitted by the mystery of circumcision, 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.”[2]

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.[3] 

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…”[4]

In other words, not even the observance of Circumcision 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.”[5]

The faithful” only includes those baptized with water, as section 6 of this document 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.”[6]

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.”[7]

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.’”[8]