Was Mary ever baptized or at the Last Supper?

[Memaw]

Well, she would have needed it, I suppose, if she wanted to receive communion. I have no doubt that she was baptized. Remember, baptism does more than just forgive sins - it incorporates us into the body of Christ, it gives us the power to receive the other sacraments, and it gives us the graces to live our Christian vocation, all things which Mary could very much have used (her sinlessness didn’t mean God didn’t expect her to use the means to those ends). It is to be noted that, given her excellent dispositions, more excellent than any other saint, she would have also received more grace in her baptism than any other saint.

I don’t know if she was at the Last Supper.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

Isn’t it strange how we try to bring Mary and even sometimes Jesus, down to our own level, instead of trying to raise ourselves up to what God wants of us. Mary was born “Full of Grace!” She was the “Body” of Christ, she gave him His human body. Let’s don’t try to put our own imaginations into Sacred Scripture. All these will be answered when we get to Heaven. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Simca]

Just my :twocents:

As others have said, I don’t think we can know for sure. We know she would have eaten the Passover somewhere, as it was commanded by God. And as the Passover is usually a family meal, she might have celebrated with other family members, such as her step-children and their families.

As far as Mary being baptised, we can’t know that either, but as baptism became more and more of a rite in which people identified themselves as Christians, she might have been baptised for those reasons.

Mary was immersed in water in the Jewish rite at least once a month. During a woman’s cycle, a woman became “unclean” and would have been immersed in water (in a Mikveh to use the Jewish term) each month after her cycle. Becoming “unclean” wasn’t necessarily indicative of sin. For example, Mary would have become “unclean” when, in touching Jesus’ dead body, she helped prepare him for burial. Jesus also became unclean each time he touched a dead body, or when the woman who had a constant flow of blood touched him. In each instance, the law would have to be obeyed and sacrifices offered, or the ritual followed for whatever would make the person clean again.

 

[Memaw]

Just my :twocents:

As others have said, I don’t think we can know for sure. We know she would have eaten the Passover somewhere, as it was commanded by God. And as the Passover is usually a family meal, she might have celebrated with other family members, such as her step-children and their families.

As far as Mary being baptised, we can’t know that either, but as baptism became more and more of a rite in which people identified themselves as Christians, she might have been baptised for those reasons.

Mary was immersed in water in the Jewish rite at least once a month. During a woman’s cycle, a woman became “unclean” and would have been immersed in water (in a Mikveh to use the Jewish term) each month after her cycle. Becoming “unclean” wasn’t necessarily indicative of sin. For example, Mary would have become “unclean” when, in touching Jesus’ dead body, she helped prepare him for burial. Jesus also became unclean each time he touched a dead body, or when the woman who had a constant flow of blood touched him. In each instance, the law would have to be obeyed and sacrifices offered, or the ritual followed for whatever would make the person clean again.

There is NO proof that Mary ever had step-children. Being “immersed” in water is in NO way the same as being Baptized. As a Catholic we should understand that!! I am “immersed” in water every time I take a bath or go swimming, (which I don’t do anymore) Good grief we do let our imaginations get away from us. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Dorothy]

Is that an official Church teaching, or a pious belief? Was never taught that, and the good sisters didn’t miss much.

Luke 1: 13-15

"The angel said to him ‘Do not be frightened Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth shall bear a son whom you shall name John. Joy and gladness will be yours, and many will rejoice at his birth; for he will be great in the eyes of the Lord. He will never drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb.’ "

I understand that last sentence as saying that John was baptized while in his mother’s womb.

 

[peter26]

During a woman’s cycle, a woman became “unclean” and would have been immersed in water (in a Mikveh to use the Jewish term) each month after her cycle. Becoming “unclean” wasn’t necessarily indicative of sin. For example, Mary would have become “unclean” when, in touching Jesus’ dead body, she helped prepare him for burial. Jesus also became unclean each time he touched a dead body, or when the woman who had a constant flow of blood touched him. In each instance, the law would have to be obeyed and sacrifices offered, or the ritual followed for whatever would make the person clean again.

There is quite a good summary of the laws on uncleanliness here for anyone interested. Of course, we see one example when Mary would have been regarded as unclean (different from being in a state of sin) at the presentation of Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:22–27).

 

[Memaw]

There is quite a good summary of the laws on uncleanliness here for anyone interested. Of course, we see one example when Mary would have been regarded as unclean (different from being in a state of sin) at the presentation of Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:22–27).

I never heard of women having to be declared “unclean” and immersed after each cycle. That would be quite a parade I’m afraid. NOt at all the same as being Baptized. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Simca]

There is NO proof that Mary ever had step-children. Being “immersed” in water is in NO way the same as being Baptized. As a Catholic we should understand that!! I am “immersed” in water every time I take a bath or go swimming, (which I don’t do anymore) Good grief we do let our imaginations get away from us. God Bless, Memaw

Since baptism is the fulfillment of the Mikveh, I thought someone would have seen it as an interesting sideline–but that someone just wasn’t you. (It’s not exactly the same as taking a bath though, as the Mikveh was a sacred ritual commanded by God.)

And as far as Mary having step-children, The gospels say in one instance that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were there, and since we believe that Mary was Ever-virgin, these would have been Joseph’s children, so they would have been her step-children (not her natural children).

 

[Simca]

I never heard of women having to be declared “unclean” and immersed after each cycle. That would be quite a parade I’m afraid. NOt at all the same as being Baptized. God Bless, Memaw

actually it was quite private and considered very sacred.

 

[Memaw]

Oh, I know all that. I just thought someone would have seen it as an interesting sideline–but that someone just wasn’t you. (It’s not exactly the same as taking a bath though, as the Mikveh was a sacred ritual commanded by God…and I’m not just “imagining” all of that)

And as far as Mary having step-children, The gospels say in one instance that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were there, and since we believe that Mary was Ever-virgin, these would have been Joseph’s children, so they would have been her step-children (not her natural children).

In the original language of those days there was no word for brother or sister, that is an English translation that is misleading. I don’t know the word they used in those days but it would be very similar to kinsman, even people from the same village. A priest from EWTN explained that very clearly. Not sure but I think it was Fr. Pacwa.
Please let me know where you got that information about women having to take a “bath” immersion, after each cycle. God Bless, Memaw

 

[pianistclare]

I never heard of women having to be declared “unclean” and immersed after each cycle. That would be quite a parade I’m afraid. NOt at all the same as being Baptized. God Bless, Memaw

I believe it’s the Orthodox Jews who do this. Maybe Meltzerboy can correct me as to which brank it is…
I saw a television special on this topic.

Here’s’ a link explaining the process and reasoning:

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5490415

But yeah, people get all kinds of strange notions about Mary.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Isn’t it strange how we try to bring Mary and even sometimes Jesus, down to our own level, instead of trying to raise ourselves up to what God wants of us. Mary was born “Full of Grace!” She was the “Body” of Christ, she gave him His human body. Let’s don’t try to put our own imaginations into Sacred Scripture. All these will be answered when we get to Heaven. God Bless, Memaw

I think you’re being unfair and maybe even prejudiced based on your own understanding.

You are perfectly correct that Mary was “full of grace,” but she herself is not the “Body” of Christ. The entire Church of baptized believers is the body of Christ. This is doctrine of the Catholic Church.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with supposing that the Virgin Mary would have wanted the benefits of every Christian Sacrament available to her. In fact I think it is very dubious to suppose that the Virgin Mary exempted herself from any necessary Christian sacrament because she imagined herself superior and in no need.

You should also be aware that the Bible is NOT the only source of knowledge with regard to the Virgin Mary. The Church and her Tradition is also an oracle from God. That is why, as Catholics we can celebrate the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, although it is NOWHERE mentioned in Sacred Scripture.

Therefore I believe it is inconceivable that the Virgin Mary was not Baptized according to the Trinitarian formula, just as we are.

Likewise I believe it is inconceivable, that the Virgin Mary did not receive the Holy Eucharist, and very likely that she received at the Last Supper. However, that is not Church teaching, but personal opinion. How this was accomplished may indeed be a mystery.

I think, in order to keep a balanced view, it is necessary to always remember the Virgin Mary’s profound humility in all things. She would have considered herself to be in as much need of the Sacraments as anyone.

The example of the Purification is a perfect argument. She was in no need of Purification after the birth of Jesus, yet she submitted to the Mosaic Ordinance.

 

[Simca]

I never heard of women having to be declared “unclean” and immersed after each cycle. That would be quite a parade I’m afraid. NOt at all the same as being Baptized. God Bless, Memaw

Here’s a good quote from this site: jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/mikveh

Jewish law prescribes that women immerse themselves in the waters of the mikveh following their menstrual periods or after childbirth in order to become ritually pure and permitted to resume sexual activity. The observance of this ritual has declined in modern times, but still remains an important element in the ritual practice of many Jewish women. In the United States, where most Jewish women have not observed the laws of menstrual purity, the mikveh continues to be an important institution of Jewish life. The uses and interpretations of the mikveh have evolved and changed along with the acculturation and modern sensibilities of contemporary Jewish women.

Before the destruction of the Temple, when ritual purity was intimately connected with the Land of Israel and Temple practices, the laws of purity and impurity (tumah and taharah) were much more far-reaching than in contemporary times. Ritual impurity might result from contact with the dead, loss of menstrual blood, loss of semen through nocturnal emission, or leprosy. Immersion in the waters of the mikveh provided a means of transforming an individual (male or female) from a state of ritual impurity to a state of purity. After the Destruction of the Temple, the rabbis curtailed most of the laws of purity, but elaborated those laws applying to women and menstruation.

In today’s world The Mikveh is more associated with the Orthodox, but this wasn’t so at the time of Jesus, where it was the norm.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

In the original language of those days there was no word for brother or sister, that is an English translation that is misleading. I don’t know the word they used in those days but it would be very similar to kinsman, even people from the same village. A priest from EWTN explained that very clearly. Not sure but I think it was Fr. Pacwa.
Please let me know where you got that information about women having to take a “bath” immersion, after each cycle. God Bless, Memaw

That’s true about Aramaic and Hebrew and even Koine Greek - no word for cousin. Almost everyone was a brother or a sister.

As for immersion, Orthodox Jews do it today. A woman’s menses, having a baby, etc. causes her to be ritually unclean. The Jews I know will not even cook milk-based items in the same kitchen as meat. They at minimum have two sets of utensils:

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0001_0_00161.html

 

[Lily_Bernans]

""Immersion for women following menstruation and childbirth is a rabbinic, not a biblical, requirement. The halakhic regulations appear particularly in tb Niddah, which discusses the practical consequences for male ritual purity of women’s menstrual and non-menstrual discharges. On the eighth “white day, following the cessation of menstrual flow, the wife must immerse in the mikveh (ritual bath) before marital relations can resume. Jewish girls were traditionally taught to comply strictly and promptly with the regulations connected with the niddah (the menstruating woman). Ablution, which took place only after the body and hair had been thoroughly cleansed, had to be complete. Halakhah demanded a single immersion but three became customary. Post-menstrual and post-partum women usually visited the mikveh at night, often accompanied by other women.”

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0001_0_00161.html

Not at all the same thing as baptismal immersion, though.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Well, she would have needed it, I suppose, if she wanted to receive communion. I have no doubt that she was baptized. Remember, baptism does more than just forgive sins - it incorporates us into the body of Christ, it gives us the power to receive the other sacraments, and it gives us the graces to live our Christian vocation, all things which Mary could very much have used (her sinlessness didn’t mean God didn’t expect her to use the means to those ends). It is to be noted that, given her excellent dispositions, more excellent than any other saint, she would have also received more grace in her baptism than any other saint.

I don’t know if she was at the Last Supper.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

I don’t think Mary could receive more grace. She was already “fully” human i.e. perfect in every way.

 

[Neofight]

Is there anything official on this or is it a theological theory (like limbo)?

Theological theory? I think you might be confusing theology with dogma.

The claim is not dogmatically contrived, but dogma is not an absolute requirement for what is considered even “good” theology.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Here’s a good quote from this site: jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/mikveh

In today’s world The Mikveh is more associated with the Orthodox, but this wasn’t so at the time of Jesus, where it was the norm.

I didn’t see you post before I posted since Memaw’s is on the previous page. Apologies.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: Baptism –

First off, if Mary did get baptized (which is likely), she probably got baptized during the time when Jesus was Himself baptizing people, instead of having His apostles and disciples do it:

John 3:22-26 (the followup to Jesus’ explanation to Nicodemus of His Baptizing, which was done with “water and spirit”:

"After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea: and there He abode with them, and baptized.

"And John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim; because there was much water there; and they came and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison.

“And there arose a question between some of John’ s disciples and the Jews concerning purification. And they came to John, and said to him, “Rabbi, he that was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you gave testimony - behold, he baptizes, and all men come to him.””

(And then John the Baptist replies with the whole “I’m the friend of the Bridegroom and I must decrease while He increases” speech.)

Not much later on, John tells us in John 4:2 that by that point “Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples.”

So yes, Mary didn’t need to be baptized for her sins (not having any), but she did need to be baptized for incorporation into the Body of Christ and to be “born from above” or “born again by water and the Holy Spirit” in order to enter into the Kingdom of God. The nature of her Immaculate Conception was pretty much the same as being baptized at her conception; but she would want to do whatever her Son was commanding, and to follow His new Law just like she followed the old one.

OTOH, it is possible that Jesus would have commanded her not to be baptized because what happened at her conception meant that she already had been. In this case, it is likely that neither Jesus nor Mary would publicize this, because it wasn’t something that would apply to other women or men who followed Jesus (except maybe St; John the Baptist, as has been noted above, whose baptismal status is also not explicit in the Gospels).

Second, the thing that we know about St. John the Baptist is that he said to Jesus publicly, “I ought to be baptized by You, yet You come to me?” OTOH, we know that Peter said he ought to get washed all over again when Jesus had already done it once, and Jesus had to say “No, you don’t need that.” (At the footwashing at the Last Supper.) So even though St. John the Baptist was the greatest of the prophets, it’s possible he was wrong about needing baptism, and it’s possible that Jesus said so at a different time; because we don’t hear about him being baptized by Jesus, and this would have been a great argument to use during the controversies between John’s followers and Jesus’ followers. (Which continued after both John’s execution and Jesus’ Resurrection; there are still some Jewish people around who claim to follow John the Baptist’s teachings.)

I suspect that in all the early Christian controversies about whether one was allowed to re-baptize, there are probably a lot of good teachings about stuff like this. But I’m not familiar with that part of the Fathers.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: the Last Supper

Folks will probably find it helpful to look at the work of Brant Pitre, if they want to understand what Jesus’ signs and works meant to J. Random Jewish Guy (or girl) who was waiting for the Messiah to come. He talks a lot about how the Wedding at Cana, the various multiplications of loaves and fishes, and the Last Supper fit into messianic expectations and Biblical prophecy.

What most scholars think about the Last Supper is that Jesus really did have Passover with only His Twelve Apostles at table. Why? Because that was one of the things that rabbis did with their closest disciples (the rabbis taking the part of the father of the family, and the disciples acting as their “sons” - which probably made St. John the Evangelist the “kid” of the group who asked the seder questions), and because it was a Messianic banquet where the Twelve Apostles represented the Twelve Tribes of Israel. (And many of the weird differences from normal Passover practice apparently were another case of Jesus using signs to say, “Yo! I’m the Messiah! This is the time when messianic stuff happens! I’m doing what the prophecies said I’d do!”)

Since Jesus was holding Passover at a weird time (and again, scholars and Fathers get into various possible rabbinical and Galilean reasons for this), we don’t know if the other disciples (including the Virgin Mary) were having Passover at the same time, or if they waited until the normal time (which would have been the sad night of Good Friday). Most seem to think they probably all did it on the same night, but we don’t know for sure. Probably they did whatever was normal for “people who follow a rabbi, but didn’t get invited to his seder as a son.” If we had lived back then, we would probably know what they did; but it apparently wasn’t a big enough deal for us to be told.

So Mary probably ate Passover in a way that was normal in Jerusalem for a popular rabbi’s mom. Whatever that was. Probably the rabbi Gamaliel’s wife and daughter were doing the same thing, whatever it was – like fixing and serving and eating dinner for and with the rabbi’s less-favored students, since any full-time disciples were now part of the rabbi’s family and household, and not the household of their parents or wives. The wives and kids of disciples may have been there too, and maybe even their parents and grandparents.

So between looking after her son’s seder and getting everything cooked for that, and actually running the bigger seder for everybody else as the household mom, I suspect that the Virgin Mary was rather busy on Good Thursday night. But nobody living today really knows, because we just aren’t told that part of the history. Them’s the breaks.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: mikveh/mikvah -

Yes, Jewish women used to go to take ritual baths after their cycle was done for the month, as a sign that they were done with being sequestered in certain ways during their cycles, and also done with resting from certain kinds of work. There were special prayers involved.

A different sort of purification was done 40 days after childbirth, which is why we have the feast of Candlemas (aka the Feast of the Purification of the Virgin Mary) on February 2. This is also the source of “churching” blessings done on pregnant ladies when they start coming back to Mass.

When it comes to Jewish/Mosaic Law, it’s not quite right to say that it’s a case of “ritually pure” or “ritually clean” versus “ritually impure” or “ritually unclean.”

There were some very good things you could be doing that made you “ritually impure,” for example, like close contact with God. Helping birth a baby and helping bury a body would both make you “ritually impure,” because they both were contact with blood. So you had to make yourself ready for contact with other human beings afterward, because blood was a big thing (and obviously, so is God!).

So it might be better to think of “impure things” as “things that temporarily set you apart from other Jewish people, unless they are being set apart by the same thing.” Good things, bad things, all the same category of apartness.

And yes, archaeologists have found a mikveh in Nazareth, just like they’ve found one in almost every Jewish village and town. It was one of those basic things that you had to have.

Here’s a story from the Times of Israel just the other week about finding a mikveh that was probably used by St. Elizabeth and the Virgin Mary, in Elizabeth’s village up in the hill country of Judea.

There’s also some interesting info about vessels used for ritual purification, which of course ties into the vessels that Jesus had the servants use at Cana for the water that He turned into wine:

John 2:6-7 –

“Now there were set there six stone waterjars, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece. Jesus says to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” And they filled them up to the brim.”

(Stone jars weren’t just used for purifying women after their cycles, but that was one of their uses. They would also have been used for washing all the diners’ hands before eating the meal, and for purifying the bride and groom before the wedding and after their consummation. So it’s yet another way that women and men are both “there” in the Cana story.)