Author Topic: Was the Blessed Mother Baptized? (Read 2412 times)

Matto · « **on:** June 13, 2013, 02:06:47 PM »

That is my question. Since Mary was conceived without original sin and never sinned during her life she didn't need to have sins forgiven, so was she baptized? I don't think it is in scripture, but what does tradition say about this?

If I had to guess, I would say she was, but I don't know.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #1 on:** June 13, 2013, 02:07:55 PM »

Baptism of Perfection

Napoli · « **Reply #2 on:** June 13, 2013, 02:27:31 PM »

I have never thought about it.

Since the Blessed Virgin Mary is sinless and is the Mother of God amongst all of her other titles, I never thought it important to think about.

Pax

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #3 on:** June 13, 2013, 02:50:01 PM »

Did Ven. Anne Katherine Emmeriche mention it?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #4 on:** June 13, 2013, 02:50:17 PM »

Our Lady may not have needed Baptism, but just as she consented to the Jєωιѕн custom of Purification, which Catholics celebrate on Feb. 2, also one of the mysteries of the rosary, the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

My opinion is she was Baptised also.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #5 on:** June 13, 2013, 03:01:22 PM »

Baptism of Sacred Selection!

Myrna's correct and very apt in bringing up the Purification. Our Lady certainly didn't need any validation nor verification nor approval from men but she was obedient unto the Lord in all things and did submit to the Purification. So, it's likely she would have been overjoyed to be baptised. Those who are of the Spirit and not of the flesh drop to their knees in devotion to Our Lady. Those foolish souls who somehow think the Holy Rosary isn't "grown up" or "with our times" are of the flesh and it's a rotting flesh at that!

Stephen Francis · « **Reply #6 on:** June 13, 2013, 03:18:13 PM »

It pleased Our Lord to be baptized 'for thus we fulfill all righteousness'. There was no need for Our Lord Jesus Christ to repent or have sins forgiven, but He fulfilled every commandment of the Law and He demonstrated His submission to God Almighty by undergoing baptism the same as any other obedient Israelite.

Our Lady underwent the rite of purification in obedience to the Law. There is no account in Holy Scripture of any of the Apostles being baptized, either, but since at least two of them were following St. John at the time of Our Lord's undertaking of public ministry, we can assume they were.

Interesting observation!

O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Stubborn · « **Reply #7 on:** June 13, 2013, 04:49:09 PM »

From Bl. Mary of Agreda's Mystical City of God:

CHAPTER XXIX.
CHRIST RETURNS WITH THE FIVE FIRST DISCIPLES TO NAZARETH; HE BAPTIZES HIS MOST HOLY MOTHER; OTHER INCIDENTS DURING THIS TIME.

319. The most blessed Lady also asked Him for the Sacrament of Baptism, which He had now instituted, and which He had promised Her before. In order that this might be administered with a dignity becoming as well the Son as the Mother, an innumerable host of angelic spirits descended from heaven in visible
forms. Attended by them, Christ himself baptized his purest Mother.

Immediately the voice of the eternal Father was heard saying: "This is my beloved Daughter, in whom I take delight". The incarnate Word said: "This is my Mother, much beloved, whom I have chosen and who will assist Me in all my works." And the Holy Ghost added: "This is my Spouse, chosen among thousands." The purest Lady felt and received such great and numerous effects of grace in her soul, that no human words can describe them; for She was exalted to new heights of grace and her holy soul was made resplendent with new and exquisite beauty of heaven. She received the characteristic token impressed by this Sacrament, namely, that of the children of Christ in his holy Church. In addition to the ordinary effects of this Sacrament (outside of the remission of sins, of which She stood in no need), She merited especial graces................

Anthony Benedict · « **Reply #8 on:** June 13, 2013, 05:35:08 PM »

Agreda ( whose cause was stopped aeons ago ) and Emmerich ( who offers the indiciations of telepathy but little else of substance, according to some reports ) are neither authoritative or decisive in this question, the necessity of which is entirely problematic, as well.

Were it vital for salvation or efficacious in the spiritual life to have known, it would have been resolved long ago.

It isn't, so it wasn't.

Anthony Benedict · « **Reply #9 on:** June 13, 2013, 05:43:05 PM »

From: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/privaterevelation/medja.htm

"...Poulain explains therefore that "the revelation can be regarded as Divine in its broad outlines, but doubtful in minor details. Concerning the revelations of Marie de Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich, for example, contradictory opinions have been expressed; some believe unhesitatingly everything they contain, and are annoyed when anyone does not share their confidence; others give the revelations no credence whatsoever (generally on a priori grounds); finally there are many who are sympathetic, but do not know what to reply when asked what degree of credibility is to be is to be attributed t the writings of these two ecstatics. The truth seems to be between the two extreme opinions indicated first. If there is question of a particular fact related in these books and not mentioned elsewhere, we cannot be certain that it is true, especially in minor details. In particular instances, these visionaries have been mistaken: thus Marie de Agreda teaches, like her contemporaries, the existence of crystal heavens, and declares that one must believe everything she says, although such an obligation exists only in the case of the Holy Scriptures. In 1771 Clement XIV forbade the continuation of her process of beatification ‘on account of the book’.

"Catherine Emmerich has likewise given expression to false or unlikely opinions: she regards the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius as due to the Areopagite, and says strange things about the terrestrial Paradise, which, according to her, exists on an inaccessible Mountain towards Tibet. If there be question of the general statement of facts given in these works, we can admit with probability that many of them are true...."

Sigismund · « **Reply #10 on:** June 13, 2013, 08:33:23 PM »

Quote from: Anthony Benedict

Agreda ( whose cause was stopped aeons ago ) and Emmerich ( who offers the indiciations of telepathy but little else of substance, according to some reports ) are neither authoritative or decisive in this question, the necessity of which is entirely problematic, as well.

Were it vital for salvation or efficacious in the spiritual life to have known, it would have been resolved long ago.

It isn't, so it wasn't.

That is true, but they have never been condemned either. It seems to me that it is a perfectly legitimate pious opinion that they are genuine.

donkath · « **Reply #11 on:** June 14, 2013, 02:51:05 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

Our Lady may not have needed Baptism, but just as she consented to the Jєωιѕн custom of Purification, which Catholics celebrate on Feb. 2, also one of the mysteries of the rosary, the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

My opinion is she was Baptised also.

And her Son was baptised.

Stubborn · « **Reply #12 on:** June 14, 2013, 04:23:25 AM »

Quote from: Anthony Benedict

Agreda ( whose cause was stopped aeons ago ) and Emmerich ( who offers the indiciations of telepathy but little else of substance, according to some reports ) are neither authoritative or decisive in this question, the necessity of which is entirely problematic, as well.

Were it vital for salvation or efficacious in the spiritual life to have known, it would have been resolved long ago.

It isn't, so it wasn't.

Certainly we are not bound to believe Our Blessed Mother was baptized, or everything that Bl. Mary of Agreda wrote, but there is nothing in those volumes that conflict with the faith, nothing that I found when I read them anyway - but I found an awful lot of things written in there that helped my faith.

As far as all that goes, there are a lot more reasons to believe the things she wrote are authentic than there are to think she was a fraud of some sort.

I case anyone wants to read them online: http://www.themostholyrosary.com/mystical-city.htm

Venerable Mary of Agreda's Body has Remained Incorrupt for more than 340 years

Sigismund · « **Reply #13 on:** June 14, 2013, 11:28:32 AM »

Quote from: donkath

Quote from: MyrnaM
Our Lady may not have needed Baptism, but just as she consented to the Jєωιѕн custom of Purification, which Catholics celebrate on Feb. 2, also one of the mysteries of the rosary, the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

My opinion is she was Baptised also.

And her Son was baptised.

There is that.

Sigismund · « **Reply #14 on:** June 14, 2013, 11:30:31 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Anthony Benedict
Agreda ( whose cause was stopped aeons ago ) and Emmerich ( who offers the indiciations of telepathy but little else of substance, according to some reports ) are neither authoritative or decisive in this question, the necessity of which is entirely problematic, as well.

Were it vital for salvation or efficacious in the spiritual life to have known, it would have been resolved long ago.

It isn't, so it wasn't.

Certainly we are not bound to believe Our Blessed Mother was baptized, or everything that Bl. Mary of Agreda wrote, but there is nothing in those volumes that conflict with the faith, nothing that I found when I read them anyway - but I found an awful lot of things written in there that helped my faith.

As far as all that goes, there are a lot more reasons to believe the things she wrote are authentic than there are to think she was a fraud of some sort.

I case anyone wants to read them online: http://www.themostholyrosary.com/mystical-city.htm

Venerable Mary of Agreda's Body has Remained Incorrupt for more than 340 years

And the fact that she has been declared Venerable is some measure of Church approbation. Not for her visions specifically, perhaps, but for her holiness of life.