Was Mary baptised?

[Psychic]

She had no sin, but Jesus didn’t have as well and was baptised…

 

[Seatuck]

We don’t know . There is no record of it.

 

[Ron_Conte]

She did not need a formal Baptism because her Immaculate Conception was like a more excellent form of Baptism.

Jesus was baptised, even though he did not need Baptism, so that He could lead the way for His followers, and perhaps also so that he could receive the character on his soul that all receive from Baptism. It is possible that Mary received Baptism, for similar reasons; but she did not need Baptism.

 

[puzzleannie]

She did not need a formal Baptism because her Immaculate Conception was like a more excellent form of Baptism.

Jesus was baptised, even though he did not need Baptism, so that He could lead the way for His followers, and perhaps also so that he could receive the character on his soul that all receive from Baptism. It is possible that Mary received Baptism, for similar reasons; but she did not need Baptism.

Jesus was baptized so that baptism was estabished as a sacrament. he was not sanctified by water in his baptism by John. In ordering John to baptize him, he sanctified water for our baptism and in his appearance with the Father and Spirit established the matter and form of the sacrament. In ordaining the apostles to baptize, which the began doing quite early in their ministry he made clear its importance as initiation into all other means of grace he gave his church, and spelled it out in his Easter instruction to the apostles. by implication and context the apostles and those who were following Jesus were baptized early in his ministry so we assume that if Mary was among the followers she also was baptized but no where is there a list of those who were baptized.

 

[Gamera]

Okay, Mary did not need baptism to remove sin because she never hade any sin to remove in the first place. Great. Here’s the follow-up question, though. Anti-Catholics love to ask, “When did Mary join the Catholic Church?” Baptism is the moment when a person joins the Catholic Church – even non-Catholic trinitarian baptisms adjoin a person to the Catholic Church. So didn’t Mary need baptism for that reason? Hmm? Hmm?

And no, I don’t know the answer. I know just enough theology to really confuse myself.

 

[BRB]

Christ taught ALL followers to undergo baptism. He set example for us …so no one could ever say they didn’t need baptism.

Mary taught all to “Do whatever He tells you” …

Thus, we can rest assured she was baptized like all the rest of disciples and early Christians. Peter would of seen to it also.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Okay, Mary did not need baptism to remove sin because she never hade any sin to remove in the first place. Great. Here’s the follow-up question, though. Anti-Catholics love to ask, “When did Mary join the Catholic Church?” Baptism is the moment when a person joins the Catholic Church – even non-Catholic trinitarian baptisms adjoin a person to the Catholic Church. So didn’t Mary need baptism for that reason? Hmm? Hmm?

And no, I don’t know the answer. I know just enough theology to really confuse myself.

Mary Joined the Catholic Church the very moment it first existed whenever that was. No matter how you try and work the problem, you will find that Mary is part of the Catholic church as soon as you can say there is a Catholic church – or equivalently, as soon as there IS a body of Christ.

 

[FCEGM]

She had no sin, but Jesus didn’t have as well and was baptised…

Jesus did not undergo a Christian baptism, though; He submitted Himself to be baptized by John as the initiation of His mission - and for the sanctification of water that will be used to symbolize immersion into His death and resurrection in the Sacrament of Baptism.

Regarding a baptism of the Blessed Mother, the grace of justification is sanctifying grace, i.e., a grace that makes the recipient holy in the substance of the soul and in its essential faculties of mind and will. This occurred at her Immaculate Conception, therefore no reception of baptism is needed, since she was sanctified at conception. Nowhere in the Tradition is there mention of Mary being baptized. It is a totally novel idea. The reality of Baptism was applied to her soul justifying and sanctifying her, and the reality of the Mysteries of Incarnation, Redemption, Pentecost were experienced by her in the events. The Sacrament is both sign and reality. The reality was bestowed at her Immaculate Conception.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

She had no sin, but Jesus didn’t have as well and was baptised…

It becomes a problem only if you take an absurd view of sola scriptura, which too many Protestants do.

This version of SS says in effect that “We are only allowed to believe that which is expressly written in the Bible.” I say it is absurd because it is impossible to adhere to this. Once someone even formulates their belief in a wording that is not the exact wording that Scripture uses, then they are breaking their own code. Some take it even farther an equate silence with a negative statement. Eg: because the NT is silent on whether or not Mary was baptized (or assumed, immaculately conceived, etc.), they conclude that these things never happened, and thus baptism is not necessary, she was never assumed, etc.

True SS says that all that is necessary for our salvation is contained in Scripture. It may be that Mary was baptized, or maybe not. In fact, if Scripture indicates that it is necessary to be baptized to be a part of the Church, then one can conclude that Mary was baptized. One who believes in this form of SS might say that Mary was indeed assumed into heaven (though most probably will not) but belief in that is not necessary for our salvation.

 

[theistgal]

Mary is the mother of the Church; therefore, she didn’t need to “join” it.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Jesus did not undergo a Christian baptism, though; He submitted Himself to be baptized by John as the initiation of His mission - and for the sanctification of water that will be used to symbolize immersion into His death and resurrection in the Sacrament of Baptism.

Regarding a baptism of the Blessed Mother, the grace of justification is sanctifying grace, i.e., a grace that makes the recipient holy in the substance of the soul and in its essential faculties of mind and will. This occurred at her Immaculate Conception, therefore no reception of baptism is needed, since she was sanctified at conception. Nowhere in the Tradition is there mention of Mary being baptized. It is a totally novel idea. The reality of Baptism was applied to her soul justifying and sanctifying her, and the reality of the Mysteries of Incarnation, Redemption, Pentecost were experienced by her in the events. The Sacrament is both sign and reality. The reality was bestowed at her Immaculate Conception.

I would have to agree with you here. I would even suggest further that the Apostles felt this reality, in the sense of an unspoken consensus, although they may not have been able to put it into the now familiar words of the “Immaculate conception.” That that reality was always latent in the Deposit of Faith handed down by the Apostles due to this very question. Of course that is just a conjecture

 

[Cleopas]

It would stand to reason, and complement the emphasis of Scripture, to believe that she was.

If not prior to the resurrection then probably most certainly at or following Pentecost, when thousands were immersed in water.

 

[FCEGM]

It becomes a problem only if you take an absurd view of sola scriptura, which too many Protestants do.

This version of SS says in effect that “We are only allowed to believe that which is expressly written in the Bible.” I say it is absurd because it is impossible to adhere to this. Once someone even formulates their belief in a wording that is not the exact wording that Scripture uses, then they are breaking their own code. Some take it even farther an equate silence with a negative statement. Eg: because the NT is silent on whether or not Mary was baptized (or assumed, immaculately conceived, etc.), they conclude that these things never happened, and thus baptism is not necessary, she was never assumed, etc. . . . .

I agree with your basic point re the silence of Scripture, but what is also silent here is Sacred Tradition where one finds no recognition of either Mary’s baptism or her need of it. Chapter VIII of Lumen Gentium illustrates the Church’s understanding of Mary and one can see that it leaves no room for the novel notion of her receiving the Sacrament of Baptism (i.e., the physical sign of it) in order to be included as a member of the Church:

1. The Virgin Mary, who at the message of the angel received the Word of God in her heart and in her body and gave Life to the world, is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and Mother of the Redeemer. Redeemed by reason of the merits of her Son and united to Him by a close and indissoluble tie, she is endowed with the high office and dignity of being the Mother of the Son of God, by which account she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Because of this gift of sublime grace she far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth. At the same time, however, because she belongs to the offspring of Adam she is one with all those who are to be saved. She is “the mother of the members of Christ . . . having cooperated by charity that faithful might be born in the Church, who are members of that Head.”(3*) Wherefore she is hailed as a pre-eminent and singular member of the Church, and as its type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity. The Catholic Church, taught by the Holy Spirit, honors her with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother.

 

[FCEGM]

I would have to agree with you here. I would even suggest further that the Apostles felt this reality, in the sense of an unspoken consensus, although they may not have been able to put it into the now familiar words of the “Immaculate conception.” That that reality was always latent in the Deposit of Faith handed down by the Apostles due to this very question. Of course that is just a conjecture

And an excellent one! A very early sensus fidei.

 

[nablaise]

As someone said, I think she is the mother of the Church so she didn’t need to join it. Also. The Church being a member of the body of her son. This again put her outside of this body while being in perfect communion with it. I would say that she is part of the Kingdom as a Queen.

About Jesus. He was not baptized like us to be forgiven of sins, but to take our sins upon himself. His baptism had an opposite effect than our baptism. Remember John looking at him pointing: Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

God bless