Scripture tells us the Apostles baptized others under the direction of Jesus. I’d imagine they would have baptized one another.
She didn’t need baptism, but following her perfect obedience to God’s will, she probably was baptized. I’d imagine that her baptism was carried out by an Apostle, either John or Peter, or carried about by the deaconesses (who were not ordained) who assisted the Apostles with the baptisms of women.
Lapey said** : “It may not be spelled out in Scripture, but we have every reason to believe that they were all, or most, baptized by John The Baptist as was Jesus. Is there any reason to think they were not?”**
YES, this is how I feel about it, too.
Jesus demanded that John the Baptist (in addition to Baptizing all of the other Jews) also Baptize Jesus Christ Himself.
It is NO stretch of the Imagination to assume that if John was Good-enough to Baptize Jesus, that he would be OK to Baptize the 12 Apostles too.
The other way I see it is that Jesus (now “officially” Baptized), called his Apostles together (some time After HIS 40 Days in the Desert), and personally Baptized them.
As far as Baptizing the Virgin Mary … at the Time of Christ there was NO such thing as Original Sin (or, rather, the Catholic Church had not YET decided that Original Sin existed).
So, Mary would NOT be Baptized to eliminate her Original Sin … but to participate in THE Ritual which stands for Conversion into Christianity.
This. It says in the Gospels some of the apostles were first disciples of John the Baptist before they met Jesus. So many of them had probably gone to listen to John the Baptist and were probably baptized by him.
Baptism is in part the removal of Original Sin. Mary was immaculately conceived, meaning she was conceived without sin, and without Original Sin. Her acceptance to be the Mother of the Lord was her acceptance into Christianity. She received Confirmation when the Holy Spirit came upon her to become pregnant, and she carried the Body and Blood of Christ in her for 9 months. She is sometimes referred to as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit and the Tabernacle of the Lord.
But is the Baptism of St. John the Baptist equivalent to a Christian baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”? There’s a passage in Acts (Acts 19) which suggests that those who have received it still need to be baptised “in the name of Jesus”.
The OP said** : “But is the Baptism of St. John the Baptist equivalent to a Christian baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”?”**
Well, I think that this is a Point … that has NO meaning.
John the Baptist made it PERFECTLY clear that his Baptism was only PART of a “COMPLETE” Baptism.
He said, HEY Guys, I am Baptizing you with Water … But one day a HOLY Man will come along, and then you can be Baptized by the Holy Spirit.
To me, this means, that this Baptism is the ONLY game in town, until 50 days after Easter Sunday, (the so-called Day of Pentecost).
THAT is the day that each Apostle’s “Complete Baptism” became available (and they GOT IT).
And, this is the DAY that the Catholic Church began (as the Church claims).
So, EVERY Baptism before Pentecost was with Water … you know, just like we STILL do today.
And, today, a few people actually receive that Complete Baptism (of Fire, by the Holy Spirit, like the Apostles received) … but the rest of us have to be content with our Water Baptism (began by John the Baptist).
Finally, a Water Baptism would have removed the Original Sin from each participant (even though they had NO idea that Original Sin existed).
As BIG John said at the Jordan River : REPENT, Repent, repent.
Then, right after John was killed, Jesus Christ Himself changed His Message a bit, and also said REPENT, Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.
So, splitting hairs (and dreaming up possibilities) aside . . . there was NO Trinity at the time (or, rather NO ONE knew that there was a Trinity) … so it would have been impossible for someone to perform a Baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
And, this also applies to someone Baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ (because Jesus had not “become” God yet … because Nobody knew He was God yet).
This is like asking why the Virgin Mary could be Baptized (because of her LACK or Original Sin).
As I also stated in my PP, Original Sin did not “Exist” at the time of Christ (nobody knew it, so it didn’t exist).
Only 100s of years later did Original Sin become a Dogma of the Catholic Church.
THEN, we had ANOTHER Reason to get Baptized : Get rid of that Original Sin.
Your post is a little unclear. The sacrament of Baptism that Christians receive today is BOTH water and spirit. And it is NOT the baptism of John. I would expect that several of the Apostles, if not all, received the baptism of John (a baptism of repentence) before they were called by Jesus. And all of them were given the sacrament of baptism as well, we just don’t know exactly when and who performed the sacrament because it isn’t spelled out in Scripture.
And Original Sin did exist at the time of Christ, it existed since Adam and Eve. And the sacrament of baptism removed Original Sin even before the doctrine and dogma about them were defined. Doctrine and dogma only better define the reality that already exists, it doesn’t create it.
zz912 said **: “Original Sin did exist at the time of Christ, it existed since Adam and Eve. And the sacrament of baptism removed Original Sin even before the doctrine and dogma about them were defined. Doctrine and dogma only better define the reality that already exists, it doesn’t create it.”
Yes, but that is what I said in my Post, that you are referring to, to wit : "Finally, a Water Baptism would have removed the Original Sin from each participant (even though they had NO idea that Original Sin existed)."
And zz912 said : "Your post is a little unclear. The sacrament of Baptism that Christians receive today is BOTH water and spirit. And it is NOT the baptism of John."
The current Baptism, offered by the Catholic Church is claimed to be both by Water and of the Holy Spirit.
But that is NOT the same as the Baptism by the Holy Spirit, which occurred for the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost.
Just as this is True, today’s Baptism is “NOT the baptism of John” … as you say.
But, when John the Baptist baptized Jesus, the Holy Spirit came down (like a Dove) and Baptized Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit.
And, of course, I agree with the rest of your Post : "I would expect that several of the Apostles, if not all, received the baptism of John …
And all of them were given the sacrament of baptism as well…"
Remember, Jesus wasn’t undergoing a Christian baptism (how could he?! ) ; He submitted to the baptism performed by John as a sign of His entry into His public life (and, as the Fathers teach, His entry into the water sanctified it as the sign of Christian baptism).
The baptism performed by John is that it is “a unique baptism in the desert in view of the repentance and pardon (Mk 1:4p). . .The baptism of John set up only a provisional economy: it is a baptism of water which is preparatory to the Messianic baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire,” Xavier Leon-Dufour,Dictionary of Biblical Theology. It was an external ritual signifying an effort of conversion of the baptized (much as many Protestant denominations look upon baptism today).
The baptism of John was the “mikveh”, a ritualistic bath which was a common “rite” in Jewish worship. However, in the case of the baptism of John, he was applying the mikveh in a particular sense: a sense of conversion TO Judaism. When one becomes a Jew (even today, in Orthodox Judaism), one has his head shaved and his fingernails and toenails closely cut - as if one is a baby again; and one is immersed into the mikveh (the ritualistic bath) so as to emerge and be “reborn” as a Jew. This is exactly what John was doing as the precursor to the Messiah.
For 2000 years God has asked the people of Israel to keep faith with His Commandments - and for 2000 years the Israelites had failed to do this. Yet, now St. John comes along preaching a baptism of repentance to prepare for the Messiah. Here, what St. John is saying is: "Okay, everybody! Come on back! Become REAL Jews and truly commit yourself to the Jewish Covenant to which you have been unfaithful. THIS is what is meant by the “baptism of John” - a baptism into Judaism, into the Jewish Covenant - in preparation for the Messiah’s coming.*
However, Jesus’ Baptism (the Baptism He instructs His Apostles to perform in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) will do something greater. It will be the Baptism into a NEW Covenant - a Baptism into His Church. The Greek work for “Church” (Ekklesia) means “those who are called out” - that is, out of Judaism, out of the old Covenant of law and into the New Covenant of love. Thus the Church will be that remnant of Israel which, along with the Gentiles, will accept Jesus as their Messiah and King. John’s baptism was not enough to accomplish this. While John’s baptism made one fit to be a Jew (one faithful to the Covenant), it did not make one “born again” into the new Covenant in Christ - just as Christ tells Nicodemus in John 3. So a new baptism was necessary.*
John’s baptism, therefore, was NOT for the removal of Original Sin and being born into the New Covenant; rather it was a preparation for the pouring out of the Holy Spirit through the Death and Resurrection of Our Savior. It is the Christian baptism by water and the Spirit into His Death and Resurrection that accomplishes in the soul (1 Cor. 1:13; Romans 6:3 & 9) what it signifies - a rebirth into Christ, the Sinless One, who signs us with His Cross and the power of His Resurrection. It is the new and greater “circumcision” that now joins together Jew and Gentile, male and female, adult and babe into the Familial Covenant of Christ.
Regarding Baptism for the Apostles, this was the experience of their 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. Paulwasbaptized; he, unlike the Apostles and the close disciples, wasn’t present as were the Apostles to all that Baptism signifies.)
YES … Don’t YOU think that it is True?
Well, if not, then that is your Opinion on the matter, and I will not dispute it.
**2. Where is the teaching that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was a baptism?
Couldn’t it be instead a Confirmation instead? **
YES, it could be a Confirmation.
Yet, when I taught Catechism, my Classroom materials said that the event at Pentecost was a Baptism for all of the people who were there in the Upper Room.
Certainly, those materials could be Wrong, and I am therefore passing on mis-information.
If any CAF’ers know for Sure on this one, I would appreciate a Citation to an Official document that says so (one way, or the other).