Below is the section on baptism of desire from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907. The author does not appear to be a priest, as he has no title.

This article's references from tradition are the typical ones, the template, repeated in all of the 20th century books in favor of BOD.

I will later expand on these references and show how they are all in error, and no proof at all.

The Baptism of Desire (by William Fanning)


The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.

We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.

We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it."

The eulogy for Valentinian is long, so I'll divide it up in my explanation:

"But I hear that you grieve because he did not receive the sacrament of Baptism. Tell me now, what else is in us, if not will, if not desire? He, in very truth had this wish that, before he came to Italy, he should be initiated into the Church, and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized by me very soon, and that is why he thought I had to be called before everything else. Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly, because he asked for it, he obtained it. "But the just man, if he be prevented by death, shall be in rest" (Wisd. 4:7).... (De Obitu Valentiniani, 51-53).

Out of the hundreds of Fathers of the Church, the only other one (besides two quotes from St. Augustine which I will show later) that the baptism of desire advocates even try to quote is St. Ambrose. They think that in his funeral speech for his friend the Emperor Valentinian, he taught that the emperor (who was only a catechumen) was saved by his desire for baptism.

But St. Ambrose’s funeral speech for Valentinian is extremely ambiguous and could be interpreted in a variety of ways. It is thus gratuitous for them to assert that it clearly teaches the idea of “baptism of desire.” If BOD was a "doctrine" of the Fathers, as the author states, surely he can quote many clear statements from the  Fathers no? Well, actually he can't. That is why he is forced to use this eulogy.

OK, here's the part that the author left out of from the eulogy:

"Or if the fact disturbs you that the mysteries have not been solemnly
celebrated, then you should realize that not even martyrs are crowned if they are catechumens, for they are not crowned if they are not initiated. But if they are washed in their own blood, his piety and desire have washed him, also."

Observe that St. Ambrose clearly says that “martyrs are not crowned (that is, not saved) if they are catechumens,” a statement which directly denies the idea of baptism of blood and is perfectly consistent with his other statements on the issue, which I  will quote below.

St. Ambrose then emphasizes the same point, by stating again that catechumens “are not crowned if they are not initiated.” “Initiation” is a term for baptism. Thus, St. Ambrose is repeating the apostolic truth that catechumens who shed their blood for Christ cannot be saved if they are not baptized. He then proceeds to say that if they are washed in their own blood, his (Valentinian’s) piety and desire have washed him also, which seems to directly contradict what he just said and seems to teach baptism of desire and blood, although it is not clear, since he did not say that Valentinian was saved without baptism. But if that is what St. Ambrose means, then his funeral speech is nonsensical, since he just clearly denied two times that martyrs can be crowned if they are catechumens. And this is the oldest “text” quoted in favor of the idea of baptism of desire!

It is, first of all, contradictory; secondly, it is ambiguous; and thirdly, if interpreted to mean that a catechumen is saved without water baptism, is opposed to every other statement St. Ambrose formally made on the issue.

But perhaps there is another explanation. St. Ambrose states that the faithful were grieving because Valentinian did not receive the sacraments of baptism. Why did he use the term “sacraments” instead of “sacrament”? Was he lamenting the fact that Valentinian was not able to receive Confirmation and the Eucharist, which were commonly administered together with Baptism in the early Church? This would correspond to his statement about the crowd being disturbed because the mysteries were not “solemnly” celebrated, in other words, with all of the formal ceremonies which precede the solemn celebration of Baptism.

Exactly what St. Ambrose meant in this speech, we may never know in this world, but we are permitted to assume that it was not his intention to contradict in an emotionally charged eulogy what he had written with much thought and precision in De Mysteriis and elsewhere.

Again, here is what St. Ambrose wrote with much thought and precision, which eliminates the very concept of baptism of desire and affirms the universal Tradition of all the fathers that no one (including catechumens) is saved without water baptism.

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390‐391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism
are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any
one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is
water without the cross of Christ? A common element without
any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any
mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be
born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in
the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but,
unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor
be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”

St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jєω or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed he must circuмcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved;...for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism.”

St. Ambrose, The Duties of Clergy, 391 A.D.:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”

And with that we come to the extent of the fathers’ teaching on the so-called “baptism of desire”! That’s right, one or at the most two fathers out of hundreds. St. Augustine who later changed his position, and this Valentinian eulogy.

St Alphonsus clearly teaches BOD as de fide.

St Alphonsus clearly teaches BOD as de fide.

Yes he did say it was defide. However, he was wrong.

If it was defide, it would be infallible, and the end of the discussion.

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: saintbosco13

·     St. Ambrose, a Doctor of the Church, writes on Baptism of Desire (4th Century): From his writing "De obitu Valentiniani consolatio": "But I hear that you are distressed because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what attribute do we have besides our will, our intention? Yet, a short time ago he had this desire that before he came to Italy he should be initiated [baptized], and he indicated that he wanted to be baptized as soon as possible by myself. Did he not, therefore, have that grace which he desired? Did he not have what he asked for? Undoubtedly because he asked for it he received it."

Of ALL of the Fathers, this is THE ONLY Father of the Church quote about explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen that you will come up with. That is the "eulogy of Valentinian". I did a large writing explaining that quote. Go to the thread Fathers Rejected Even Explicit BOD of the Catechumen , and see my third posting. Any questions leave them there.

Perhaps Ambrose was of the opinion that Valentine was, in fact, saramentally baptized, just not by him, Saint Ambrose.  So, when he said "did not receive the sacrament of baptism," he was referring to fact that he, Saint Ambrose, did not perform that sacrament but perhaps someone else did.

Yes indeed.

I posted above three quotes I have from St. Ambrose that are CLEAR and specific to baptism of desire. Here is a fourth:

St. Ambrose:  "One is the baptism which the Church administers, the baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, with which even catechumens need be baptized (Exposition on the Psalms 118, s.3)



So, we see from the four CLEAR quotes that Ambrose did not in fact teach even explicit baptism of desire of the catechumen. What then, did he mean by his speech over Valentinian?  

Excerpted from Desire and Deception , by Thomas Hutchingson

"Valentinian was killed in rather mysterious circuмstances (not fully explained even to this day) by a usurping military commander who held the preponderance of power in the province".

"Fr. Migne supplies the answer himself (Patrologia Latina, XV 412, N. 19): St. Ambrose in fact knew that Valentinian had indeed been baptized, but was not at liberty to reveal the circuмstances of the event, which presumably were bound up with his mysterious death. Seen in this light, the three sentences represent no departure from Ambrose's teaching elsewhere; moreover, they are in full keeping with the entire tenor of his speech: vague but reassuring. What was the "grace he desired?" Baptism of course! St. ambrose is assuring his listeners that Valentinian had indeed been baptized, and so they need not fear for him on that count".