When was Peter baptized?

[Tridentinus]

Is there a verse that talks about Peter’s baptism? And…who baptized all of the apostles “in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit”?

 

[guanophore]

Is there a verse that talks about Peter’s baptism? And…who baptized all of the apostles “in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit”?

There is no record of a Trinity Baptism of the apostles. Some of them were baptized by John, though.

They were made clean by their reception of His Word

Luke 7:7-8
But say the word, and let my servant be healed.

John 15:3-4
3 You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you.

John 13:10-11
and you are clean, but not every one of you." 11 For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “You are not all clean.”

Jesus pronounced them clean by His word but then commands them to initiate new disciples by Baptism.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Baptism of John was not a Sacrament of Baptism. At least one of the Apostles must have been baptized by Jesus, and they all must have received the Sacrament of Baptism at some time after the Baptism of Jesus.

 

[FCEGM]

Is there a verse that talks about Peter’s baptism? And…who baptized all of the apostles “in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit”?

Baptism for the Apostles was the experience of going through the Passion and Death of Our Lord and His breathing the Holy Spirit on them on the Resurrection Sunday Evening (cf. St. Paul’s teaching that baptism is a sharing in the Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ).

The Twelve were baptized in the experience of the death and resurrection of Our Lord. Thomas was specifically reconciled to Christ the week after by faith in the experience of meeting the Risen Lord. At Pentecost the completion of this occurred for the Twelve gathered in prayer. (And we know that St. Paul was baptized; he, unlike the Apostles and the close disciples, wasn’t present as were the Apostles to all that Baptism signifies.)

 

[EphelDuath]

Baptism for the Apostles was the experience of going through the Passion and Death of Our Lord and His breathing the Holy Spirit on them on the Resurrection Sunday Evening (cf. St. Paul’s teaching that baptism is a sharing in the Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ).

This is incorrect. Luke and John reference the apostles being clean before Good Friday.

 

[guanophore]

Baptism for the Apostles was the experience of going through the Passion and Death of Our Lord and His breathing the Holy Spirit on them on the Resurrection Sunday Evening (cf. St. Paul’s teaching that baptism is a sharing in the Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ).

The Twelve were baptized in the experience of the death and resurrection of Our Lord. Thomas was specifically reconciled to Christ the week after by faith in the experience of meeting the Risen Lord. At Pentecost the completion of this occurred for the Twelve gathered in prayer. (And we know that St. Paul was baptized; he, unlike the Apostles and the close disciples, wasn’t present as were the Apostles to all that Baptism signifies.)

This theory would have more merit if they had actually really gone through the experience. Really the only one this could apply to would be John, since they all ran and hid!

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Maybe Peter’s baptism is implied when he receives the other sacraments from the Lord (Holy Orders and Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, Confirmation at Pentecost). Since we cannot receive these other sacraments until we are baptized, we can assume the necessary requirements for baptism have been met.
And,even if there was no water baptism, Peter’s martyrdom would qualify as a baptism by blood, also a valid form of the sacrament.

 

[Zenas]

Nowhere in scripture does it expressly say that Peter was baptized but we can infer from John 3:22 that Jesus baptized Peter and the other disciples.

After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing.

Later, we read in John 4:2 that Jesus was no longer baptizing but his disciples were. The clear implication is that Jesus baptized his disciples and then the disciples began to baptize in his name.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think it is open to question whether the baptism by Jesus or His disciples was the sacrament of baptism or just a baptism of repentence like John’s. I don’t think there is a definite teaching on that.

 

[FCEGM]

This is incorrect. Luke and John reference the apostles being clean before Good Friday.

The main point is that the Apostles did not undergo the rite of baptism (while St. Paul did) but did experience the reality of it. So when? Perhaps in stages. The verses referring to their being clean at the Last Supper clearly meant their personal relationship with Him was as of then intact, except for one. But did it also mean that they had the justifying grace of the Holy Spirit which brings the Indwelling of the Holy Trinity (and thus the removal of Original Sin) in their souls? were they not like catechumens? That grace is actually bestowed through the risen humanity of Christ as personally to them on Easter Sunday night (and Thomas on the Vigil) and we know they received as confirmation and plenitude of that at Pentecost after His Ascension.

Baptism is a very mysterious thing insofar as the Church’s relationship to Judaism goes. The OT patriarchs were somehow mysteriously “Baptized” into Christ (or else they would have been damned), as was John the Baptist (John 1:15) and the Blessed Mother (Luke 1:28) - all of them pre-Christian Jews. So these references to them being “clean” could be references to Baptism -a mysterious form of Baptism, which the Apostles possessed; it could be that the Apostles were Baptized into Christ within this dynamic somehow. In taking them to be His disciples, Christ, the Messianic King and the personification of the Torah (the Truth itself, Who embodied the Covenant and the Sacrifice), made them (to the exclusion of other Jews) parts of the true Israel (the Church), and partakers of His ministry, and intended participants in His Passion. Their Baptism was indeed through the experience of His death and resurrection; but, this may not have been limited to a temporal or chronological dynamic - just as Mary’s Baptism was not. She was Baptized into Him outside of time so that she could be His mother - the one who provided the Body and Blood that would be Sacrificed and rise again.

 

[FCEGM]

This theory would have more merit if they had actually really gone through the experience. Really the only one this could apply to would be John, since they all ran and hid!

All of them were experiencially shattered by Our Lord’s arrest, passion and death, just knowing what was going on. Some were more involved in that than the rest. It just so happens that they abandoned Him in His Passion. But, this could not take away from the fact that they experienced the “one Baptism” of being intimately joined to Him in Covenant.

 

[Pious_Mat]

I think it is open to question whether the baptism by Jesus or His disciples was the sacrament of baptism or just a baptism of repentence like John’s. I don’t think there is a definite teaching on that.

If the baptism of the Apostles was not sacramental, then it is not sacramental today; our Bishops have recieved their powers in a line of succession beginning with them. In turn, the Apostles must have got it from somewhere, and since Jesus explicitly tells them to go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it must have been Him. Jesus is not a member of John’s faction, and their baptisms were very different.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

If the baptism of the Apostles was not sacramental, then it is not sacramental today; our Bishops have recieved their powers in a line of succession beginning with them. In turn, the Apostles must have got it from somewhere, and since Jesus explicitly tells them to go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it must have been Him. Jesus is not a member of John’s faction, and their baptisms were very different.

Note that the episode I mentioned was very early in Jesus’s public life. It is not at all clear that He had commissioned the disciples to administer sacraments at that time. The explicit order to go forth and baptize came some two to three years later and may be the same baptism. Nor is it certain that the disciples who were baptizing at that time were later named as apostles and given that commission.

 

[LilyM]

If the baptism of the Apostles was not sacramental, then it is not sacramental today; our Bishops have recieved their powers in a line of succession beginning with them. In turn, the Apostles must have got it from somewhere, and since Jesus explicitly tells them to go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it must have been Him. Jesus is not a member of John’s faction, and their baptisms were very different.

Yes but if the Good Thief didn’t need water baptism then neither did the Apostles - Jesus can confer the benefits and grace of a sacrament any way He chooses without being bound by the form He gave to us.

For example He sent the Holy Spirit upon them directly at Pentecost, no need for the oil and laying on of hands that we use today. Same with their priestly ordination.

And if the Apostles didn’t need Trinitarian baptism as they were taught to do to others, then they certainly could’ve received something similar to John’s baptism.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Since I already breached this subject on the study of John in the scripture study, there are some points which may help this discussion.

No one is baptized twice, yet the Holy Spirit which is given in two ways after the resurection had not been given to the Apostled in any known way before then.
But the formula of baptism requires water AND the Holy Spirit.

The scriptures are quite clear the Holy Spirit had not come in this way until AFTER the resurrection – and the baptism of John was of repentence, which is not the same thing. Before that the Holy Spirit was present in a different manner (I have no other explanation yet).

Nita, too, would like to say that he gave them the grace secretly – but if so, and baptism is not repeatable – then there would be no point in giving them the holy spirit twice later on. In the upper room after the resurrection Jesus breathes on them and says, receive the Holy spirit. At the same time, he confers on them the authority to bind and loose sin – the very essence of baptism. For even confession is called “a laborous form of baptism” because unlike the first gift, it requires penance.

I think the problem is clearly that Jesus started the Last supper as the Jewish seder, and finished it as the sacrifice on calvary. A pious Jew could receive the one, but not the other.

Notice: when Jesus washed the feet of the apostles, he did not say to Peter who strenuously objected – that he was in “original” sin or any sin at all. What he replied to Peter is that he was clean EXCEPT the feet.

Now, if that were just dirt – why does Jesus threaten to ex-communicate Peter if he doesn’t allow his feet to be washed. But, if it is JUST the feet preventing him from getting into heaven – he can always cut them off later and be saved.

But think again:

Abraham himself was clean, undoubtedly, for in the parables of Jesus he is not in the “hell of punishment” and fire — BUT he isn’t in heaven either. That they were clean isn’t the real question – but whether they had received sanctifying grace is the question.

So, the cleanliness mentioned by Jesus was sufficient for the Jewish passover – but not for entering heaven. The only problem I have with arguing “secret” baptism is that after his resurrection Jesus explicitly repeats the Gift – which is not possible if the Gift were truly given beforehand.

Thoughts?

 

[mbrislawn]

Of course the command to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit was the very last of Jesus’ commands. It came from the resurrected Jesus just before He ascended to heaven, and the command was given to the apostles for them to do to others.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Of course the command to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit was the very last of Jesus’ commands. It came from the resurrected Jesus just before He ascended to heaven, and the command was given to the apostles for them to do to others.

Right, so one might argue that trinitarian baptism as a method of baptizing was not formally available until the command was given. But that really doesn’t help determine when Peter was first baptized, as being able to baptize others does not require one is baptized themselves. Intention and formula are all that are required.

Along the same problem, one of the earlier posters noticed that priestly ordination, which happened at the last supper ( The command “do this in memory of me” ) requires baptism according to church teaching, and so it is implied that baptism occured sometime before then. But one can argue, they were not yet consecrating anything – Jesus did it himself, so although that is a very strong argument – it doesn’t quite guarantee the baptism didn’t occur later in time in some way – eg: there is some kind of identity between the Holy Spirit coming and Jesus Leaving bodily which suggests that their role is interchangable, such that up to that pont Jesus’ presence on Earth may have fulfilled the role of the Holy Spirit who would come to replace him as personal counselor / paracletos later.

Because the Holy Spirit is involved in Baptism in multiple ways, and the exact language of the councils does not explain the role of confirmation in ordination of priests, that I remember, we’re really tripping over what role the Holy Spirit and Confirmation plays with respect to priesthood – and what role the Holy Spirit plays with respect to water baptism. Apparently, sanctifying Grace is a complicated subject. One poster would like to say baptism happens in degrees,
yet although that is very tempting – the equivalence of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as incarnational presence on earth may still negate that view, or perhaps we have overlooked something.

I would also Note St. Paul speaks about the offspring of a Christian spouse with a non-Christian spouse is to be considered “clean” – rather than unclean – when in fact, all children whether from purely christian couples, or mixed ones still must undergo baptism according to church teaching to be cleansed of “original sin”.

So, there is a way of speaking that is unclear both scripturally and in church teaching about the exact meaning of “clean”, “holiness”, 'Justice", and sanctifying grace and how they relate to each other in terms of baptism and confirmation.

Water batism and confirmation are two sepeate sacraments, although in the East they are celbrated together. In the Latin rite, one is permitted to receive Eucharist after a mere water baptism – so that seems to figure in here too, but the person already has sanctifying grace at water baptism, which is called the sacrament of “faith”. Noah and Abraham had faith, but were not in heaven – which testifies to the time based dimension of something which happened at the last supper.

thoughts?

 

[guanophore]

All of them were experiencially shattered by Our Lord’s arrest, passion and death, just knowing what was going on. Some were more involved in that than the rest. It just so happens that they abandoned Him in His Passion. But, this could not take away from the fact that they experienced the “one Baptism” of being intimately joined to Him in Covenant.

Yes, I agree that they were shattered, but Baptism is a public profession of faith, and this behavior could hardly be considered such. In fact ,when the persecutions began, those that denied him when accused were considered faithless.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Luke 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.