Was Mary baptized?

[TK421]

1st generation Christians were called Christians at Antioch. It’s recorded in the book of Acts.

The baptism after Pentecost would have been a sacramental baptism, and sacramental baptism is definitionally what makes a person Christian. I know St John the Baptist didn’t give sacramental baptism, but that’s not the topic anyway.

 

[frangiuliano115]

1st generation Christians were called Christians at Antioch. It’s recorded in the book of Acts.

The baptism after Pentecost would have been a sacramental baptism, and sacramental baptism is definitionally what makes a person Christian. I know St John the Baptist didn’t give sacramental baptism, but that’s not the topic anyway.

Right. The converts were called Christian at Antioch in the latter part of the 1st century, Acts 11:19-26.

But soon after pentecost, the converts were called The Way. Because Jesus is The Way (the truth and the life).

Check out: Acts 9:2

Also, I’d have something to say on your second statement, but this is not the place.
Do you think ONLY baptism makes one Christian? Let’s leave it at that.

Fran

 

[patrick457]

1st generation Christians were called Christians at Antioch. It’s recorded in the book of Acts.

They were called ‘Christians’, but that doesn’t mean that ‘Christianity’ was already a completely distinct religion from ‘Judaism’ at that point. The process was just starting. (Speaking of which, Ioudaismos “Judaism” as it was understood in the 1st century wasn’t really a religion as we understand ‘religion’ to mean today; it was a religio-cultural way of life, although one that outsiders could imitate.)

In those days, when you are a Jew who became a ‘Christian’ you are not understood to switch from one religion to the other. You didn’t stop being a Jew; you simply assented to the idea that Jesus was really the Messiah (which the non-believing Jews didn’t). You might say that you simply considered yourself being a ‘fulfilled’ Jew. If you were a non-Jew, being a ‘Christian’ meant you adopted the Jewish religio-cultural way of life plus the belief in Jesus being the Messiah. Of course, as Christians and non-believing Jews started to drift apart, the concept started to change.

 

[frangiuliano115]

They were called ‘Christians’, but that doesn’t mean that ‘Christianity’ was already a completely distinct religion from ‘Judaism’ at that point. The process was just starting. (Speaking of which, Ioudaismos “Judaism” as it was understood in the 1st century wasn’t really a religion as we understand ‘religion’ to mean today; it was a religio-cultural way of life, although one that outsiders could imitate.)

In those days, when you are a Jew who became a ‘Christian’ you are not understood to switch from one religion to the other. You didn’t stop being a Jew; you simply assented to the idea that Jesus was really the Messiah (which the non-believing Jews didn’t). You might say that you simply considered yourself being a ‘fulfilled’ Jew. If you were a non-Jew, being a ‘Christian’ meant you adopted the Jewish religio-cultural way of life plus the belief in Jesus being the Messiah. Of course, as Christians and non-believing Jews started to drift apart, the concept started to change.

Let me add:

This is true even today. Some Jews become believers in Jesus as the Messiah but want to retain their Jewish customs. Although they do have to go to a Christian church. Messianic Christian churches do exist also.

Also, when someone tells you they’re Jewish, it means simultaneously both a religion and a nationality.

Fran

 

[TK421]

What do you mean it wasn’t a completely distinct religion from Judaism? (there are no ‘completely’ distinct religions anywhere though, especially among the Abrahamic ones) Because of a label preference? Did the apostles A) follow Christian doctrine or B) did they not.

If you go back a page, you’ll see I was responding to DaddyGirls’s statement of, “why would Mary want to get baptized, she was Jewish!”, because she obviously followed & believed her Son’s gospel. For some strange reason you started defending it with this narrative.

And I don’t really care how they saw themselves; converts & Christians is what they were/are. St Peter probably didn’t give himself the identification of '‘Catholic’ even in his late years, so I suppose he wasn’t Catholic? Even I’m called a “convert” since I was raised protestant, and that’s hardly the same leap of going from Jewish to Catholic. I already believed most of the creed beforehand.

 

[JM3]

And she had no need of baptism.

It’s not about need, it’s about obeying the will of God.

She didn’t need purification either, but obeyed God.

Luke 2:21 And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb. 22 And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord: 23 As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord: 24 And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons:

Maybe she didn’t need baptism, but she would willing obey Christ;

John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[TimothyH]

What do you mean it wasn’t a completely distinct religion from Judaism? (there are no ‘completely’ distinct religions anywhere though, especially among the Abrahamic ones) Because of a label preference? Did the apostles A) follow Christian doctrine or B) did they not.

It simply wasn’t a distinct religion. That is historical fact. They followed Christian doctrine but also participated in Jewish temple worship. They were Jews who believed that Christ was the Messiah.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

For those interested, there is an excellent talk by Rev. Paul Schenck about the topic of the various forms of Judaism in the first century and how the Christians fit in.

Rev. Schenck is a Christian convert from Judaism. His talks are both scholarly and extremely entertaining. Rev. Schenck is a frequent speaker at the Institute of Catholic Culture which has an excellent Catholic media library.

Feasts of the Jews: Understanding the Jewish Festal Cycle and its Fulfillment in Christ

The talk is worth listening to.

-Tim-

 

[TK421]

It simply wasn’t a distinct religion. That is historical fact. They followed Christian doctrine but also participated in Jewish temple worship. They were Jews who believed that Christ was the Messiah.

-Tim-

Well, from a Catholic perspective, we are following the continuous religious tradition of Adam & Eve (which was pre-Judaism by an enormous time span), into Moses in recent human history, and into the full revelation of Jesus Christ. There came successively more revelation throughout the Old Testament and into the ministry of Jesus Christ, and even after Jesus Christ, though public revelation is done with, doctrine continues to crystallize and sharpen in its focus.

Of course, not everybody sees it that way.

 

[TimothyH]

Well, from a Catholic perspective, we are following the continuous religious tradition of Adam & Eve (which was pre-Judaism by an enormous time span), into Moses in recent human history, and into the full revelation of Jesus Christ. There came successively more revelation throughout the Old Testament and into the ministry of Jesus Christ, and even after Jesus Christ, though public revelation is done with, doctrine continues to crystallize and sharpen in its focus.

Of course, not everybody sees it that way.

None of that has anything to do with whether Mary was baptized or whether Judaism and Christianity were distinct religions the moment after Pentecost.

 

[TK421]

None of that has anything to do with whether Mary was baptized or whether Judaism and Christianity were distinct religions the moment after Pentecost.

Hahaha.

No kidding!

Take 5 minutes to go back and read the progression of the discussion.

This is remarkably frustrating. I wasn’t the one that brought it up. Patrick did, after he started defending DaddyGirl’s comment that Mary allegedly wouldn’t want to get baptized “because she was Jewish”.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Well, from a Catholic perspective, we are following the continuous religious tradition of Adam & Eve (which was pre-Judaism by an enormous time span), into Moses in recent human history, and into the full revelation of Jesus Christ. There came successively more revelation throughout the Old Testament and into the ministry of Jesus Christ, and even after Jesus Christ, though public revelation is done with, doctrine continues to crystallize and sharpen in its focus.

Of course, not everybody sees it that way.

You’re a bit wrong TK421.

Jesus was Jewish. He was born into a Jewish culture. There were no catholics back then, which I’m sure you know.

Some Jews did not accept Him as the awaited messiah. And some did.
The ones who accepted Him as the Messiah were STILL Jewish. There was still no catholicism. It took many years to actually create a “different” religion which was called Christianity.

Your progression of divine revelation is correct but a totally different topic.

Patrick 457 and Timothy H are correct. It would be good if you reviewed this topic again since you’re pretty new to the faith. Read Acts, especially 1 to 11.

And, Welcome!

Fran

 

[commenter]

Obviously the most solid answer is, “We don’t know”.
It is not recorded in the Bible if she was baptized, nor does it specify she was not. I assume it is not in Sacred Tradition, as any kind of doctrine defined by the Catholic Church, or any other Church, to my knowledge.

But is there any non-authoritative traditions or customs around this? For instance, there are many, often competing, traditions about this or that aspect of Mary’s life, where events took place. Are there any sites that are claimed to be the location where it took place, or other legends about this event?

But again, the most solid answer is, “We don’t know”. (But it doesn’t hurt to wonder).

 

[Genesis315]

According to St. Vincent Ferrer in one of his Christological sermons, even though the Blessed Virgin and St. John the Baptism were previously sanctified, they were baptized to receive the indelible mark, the seal of Christ, which elsewhere he explains is the name of Christ on the forehead mentioned in the book of Revelation:
St. Vincent Ferrer:

It may be asked why the Baptist sought baptism since he had been cleansed and sanctified in his mother’s womb, and so he had no need of further cleansing as we read in St. Luke (1. 15): ‘And he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb.’ My answer is he desired the Character or seal, and the beauty that he knew would be given by Baptism, since he also knew well that he was sanctified, not stained by sin. Therefore he said to Christ: ‘I ought to be baptised by thee.’ It is supposed, for the same reason, that the Virgin was baptised, although conceived immaculate; the Apostles also were baptised, as St. Augustine says (Epist 108). The holy prophets did not receive this seal, this beauty. So, in heaven you will be able to distinguish: this man was baptised, this was not.

 

[AngelusDomini]

As previously stated ‘We don’t know’, however, the Church does recognise Baptism of Blood - namely for those who died for the faith before receiving sacramental baptism. Mary, experienced martyrdom in a mystical way when she saw her Son die. Ultimately, we can’t say if Mary was baptised with water but as Mary is Queen of martyrs and underwent martyrdom through seeing her own flesh and blood die on the cross for all, to my mind, she certainly received a baptism of blood. Just my own thoughts.