Nadieimportante's Errors of St. Alfonsus

Four Errors of St. Alphonsus:

First off, he is stating an error, for everyone acknowledges that even baptism of desire of the catechumen is not defide. So this entire quote is wrong. The fact that defenders of baptism of desire keep bringing it up, highlights the reality of what little evidense they have. They are highlighting an error by St. A.L.

Secondly, they always cutout the most importantpart that says (Sess.
14, Chap. 4), from the entire quote, here is the complete version:

St. Alphonsus: “Baptism by fire, however, is the perfect conversion to God
through contrition, or the love of God above all things, with the explicit desire, or
implicit desire, for the true river of baptism. As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor take away all the debt of punishment. It is called fire because it is made under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, who is given this name… T us it is of faith (de fide) that men are saved even by the baptism of fire, according to Canon Apostolicam, “de ####o non baptizato”. and the Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4, where it is said that no one can be saved without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”


2nd Error
The passage Sess. 6, Chap. 4 of Trent which St. Alphonsus thought taught baptism of desire is from the session on Justification. It makes no mention whatsoever of what happens to a man who dies in that state of justification, therefore, it does not teach baptism of desire, and moreover, affirms: as it is written, unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

3rd Error
To substantiate his position on baptism of desire, St. Alphonsus first makes reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent. He says:

“As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter
with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor
take away all the debt of punishment.”

This is completely wrong. Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent does not say that baptism of desire “takes the place of the latter (i.e., baptism) with regard to the remission of the guilt,” as St. Alphonsus claims. Let’s look at the passage:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 4, on the Sacrament of Penance:
“The Council teaches, furthermore, that though it sometimes happens that this
contrition is perfect because of charity and reconciles man to God, before this
sacrament is actually received, this reconciliation must not be ascribed to the
contrition itself without the desire of the sacrament which is included in it.”

The Council here defines that perfect contrition with the desire for the Sacrament of Penance can restore a man to the grace of God before the sacrament is received. It says nothing of Baptism! St. Alphonsus’s very premise – that baptism of desire is taught in Sess. 14, Chap. 4 – is erroneous. Trent says nothing of the sort. If the very premises upon which he argued baptism of desire were flawed and erroneous, how can one be
bound to the conclusions that flow from such false premises?

In fact, the SSPX's Fr. Francois Laisney, does not include St. Alphonsus’s erroneous reference to Sess. 14, Chap. 4 of Trent when Laisney quotes in his book, the passage from St. Alphonsus on baptism of desire! This is incredibly dishonest, of course, but Fr. Laisney of the SSPX omits it because he knows
that St. Alphonsus was wrong in referencing Trent in that way; and, therefore, he knows that it pokes a big hole in his argument in favor of baptism of desire based on the obviously fallible St. Alphonsus.

4th Error
Incredible enough, the other source which St. Alphonsus quotes to substantiate his position that baptism of desire is de fide, is a forged letter! He says:

“Thus it is of faith (de fide) that men are saved even by the baptism of fire, according to Canon Apostolicam, "de presbitero non baptizato" … where it is said that no one can be saved without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”


This “Canon Apostolicam, "de presbitero non baptizato is another common source repeatedly referenced by BODers, despite the fact that it has been shown over and over and over again, that it is a document of suspect authenticity.


BODer OBJECTION: Pope Innocent II in Canon Apostolicam, "de presbitero non baptizato" ( the unbaptized priest) 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).”

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 ludicrous. Secondly, the date of this document 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 document ever prove anything? No. It remains a mystery why a document 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 documents, 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. “

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=17057&min=70#p1