.
There is nothing wrong with supposing that Our Blessed Mother received
holy Baptism. After all, she received the Holy Ghost at least twice, once
at the Incarnation of Our Lord and then again at the Descent of the Holy
Ghost upon the Apostles in the upper room. In our time, confirmation
cannot be given to a candidate until first he has been baptized -- why
would it have been otherwise for the Apostles, or, for Our Lady?
She was ritually purified at the 4th Joyful Mystery of the Rosary, the
Presentation, not because she "needed it," but because it was an
important part of sacred Tradition and Jєωιѕн law.
It would be impossible for her to have been given absolution with the
Sacrament of Penance for her sins, because she had no sins to confess.
That fact alone would have been something the Apostles understood
because they lived with her.
We have no problem believing she received Holy Communion, even
though It was the same Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity that she had kept
in her own personal and immaculate womb for 9 months.
And you can be pretty sure she received Extreme Unction from St. John
himself, or one of the other Apostles, before her 'dormition.' I used to
wonder why they would have put her body in a tomb if they were not
absolutely sure she was dead. But perhaps they wanted to protect her
from criminals or something, and so would not leave her body outside
the protection of a tomb.
Anyway, as for Baptism, Our Lord was baptized in the Jordan by St.
John the Baptist, but that was not holy Baptism, but only the baptism
of John, which was a precursor to holy Baptism. St. John did not say,
"I baptize you, __(name)__, in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In fact, it would be a bit odd
for Our Lord to be baptized in the name of Himself, don't you think?
It is universally concluded that holy Baptism was instituted when Our
Lord ascended into heaven, saying, "Going therefore, teach all nations:
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost" (Mt. xxviii. 19). But that doesn't mean he could not have
made exactly one exception for His own mother. On the other hand,
it could be that they went into the Upper Room for 9 days and baptized
each other, including even the women and the other disciples who were
with them.
We don't have any definitive teaching on this, but neither do we have
any definitive prohibition.
The part quoted above in Agreda's Mystical City of God (certainly a
marvelous compendium of holy writing but not a source of definitive
doctrine) where it has Our Lord giving His mother baptism when He
had collected 5 off the 12 Apostles, is curious to say the least. Was
it the baptism of John that is alluded to? It doesn't have Jesus saying
the necessary words of holy Baptism there, which is a good thing,
because if it did, the entire 4 volumes may have been put on the
Index as a result!! As it is, it is one of the most effusively commended
books in all of Christian history, for several popes have awarded it
great praise.
Jesus COULD have baptized His mother before he instituted the
sacrament of Baptism, but we are not required to believe that He did.
We don't know if all the Apostles were baptized by John in the Jordan,
either, or if the women were so baptized by John. And if they were,
then surely Our Blessed Mother would have been among them.
We don't have any reason to think that many of those who had been
baptized by John the Baptist were then later baptized by the Apostles
or the priests they ordained, because the baptism of John was not a
sacrament, since it was not instituted by Christ.
But the one thing that would be a reason for her to be Baptized is,
that holy Baptism does two things. It cleanses the soul from the
stain of original sin (which Our Lady did not need to have done), and
it also marks the soul with the indelible mark of holy Baptism, which
endures for all eternity. Now, why would Our Lady be the only
exception, and lacking that special grace, when she is 'full of grace'?
Topic: Was the Blessed Mother Baptized? (Read 2919 times)