Does the Church teach that John the Baptist was born without sin?

[PilgrimToChrist]

I hard on the Radio today that John the Baptist was born without sin. Is this a common teaching by the church? I had only heard that Mary, Jesus, Adam and Eve were born without sin.

It is not dogmatic but it is common teaching. It is based on the Gospel of Luke:
Lk 1:39-45:

And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda. And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth.

And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.

It is common teaching that when St. John the Baptist leaped in his mother’s womb, he was cleansed of Original Sin. Thus he was conceived with Original Sin but was born without it. It was kind of like he was baptized before he was born.
Lk 1:13-16:

But the angel said to him: Fear not, Zachary, for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John: And thou shalt have joy and gladness, and many shall rejoice in his nativity. For he shall be great before the Lord; and shall drink no wine nor strong drink: and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. And he shall convert many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God.

If St. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb, he never fell into mortal sin.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Icon of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

This conversations brings to mind the disconcerting tendency in modern Catholicism to see only “infallibly defined” dogmas as being taught or binding, or even infallible for that matter.

Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP, the Professor of Dogmatic and Moral Theology at the FSSP major and minor seminary in the US (and a parish priest!) talks about this:
Fr. Chad Ripperger:

As the theological community began to unravel before, during and after Vatican II, those who considered themselves orthodox were those who were obedient and intellectually submissive to the Magisterium, since those who dissented were not orthodox. Therefore the standard of orthodoxy was shifted from Scripture, intrinsic tradition (of which the Magisterium is a part) and extrinsic tradition (which includes magisterial acts of the past, such as Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors), to a psychological state in which only the current Magisterium is followed.

Neoconservatives have fallen into this way of thinking. The only standard by which they judge orthodoxy is whether or not one follows the current Magisterium. As a general rule, traditionalists tend to be orthodox in the sense that they are obedient to the current Magisterium, even though they disagree about matters of discipline and have some reservations about certain aspects of current magisterial teachings that seem to contradict the previous Magisterium (e.g., the role of the ecumenical movement). Traditionalists tend to take not just the current Magisterium as their norm but also Scripture, intrinsic tradition, extrinsic tradition and the current Magisterium as the principles of judgment of correct Catholic thinking. This is what distinguishes traditionalists and neoconservatives

Inevitably, this magisterialism has led to a form of positivism. Since there are no principles of judgment other than the current Magisterium, whatever the current Magisterium says is always what is “orthodox.” In other words, psychologically the neoconservatives have been left in a position in which the extrinsic and intrinsic tradition are no longer included in the norms of judging whether something is orthodox or not. As a result, whatever comes out of the Vatican, regardless of its authoritative weight, is to be held, even if it contradicts what was taught with comparable authority in the past. Source]

Scripture - Tradition - Magisterium , not “solum Magisterium”

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I don’t feel its not a Church teaching. I KNOW it is not a Church teaching.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains a summary of ALL Church teachings (infallible and non-infallible) but it contains no teaching about John the Baptist being born free from original sin.

 

[Shin]

Ah yes, I’ve enjoyed that article.

If you read Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, and see how dogmas come about…

You’d see why one might hesitate, and whether it might not be more than one first thinks.

 

[WFS5801]

the burden of proof is upon those who claim it is Church teaching. provide a source please, not pious opinion, not local tradition than is not part of the magesterial teaching.

I would say it’s more than “pious opinion” it’s in the Scripture.

[15] For he [St. John the Baptist] shall be great before the Lord; and shall drink no wine nor strong drink: and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. --Luke 1

He could not have been filled with the Holy Ghost if he was not sanctified in the womb. Which is why the Church celebrated St. John the Baptist’s nativity from early times.

The commemoration of his [St. John the Baptist’s] Nativity is one of the oldest feasts, if not the oldest feast, introduced into both the Greek and Latin liturgies to honour a saint. But why is the feast proper, as it were, of St. John on the day of his nativity, whereas with other saints it is the day of their death? Because it was meant that the birth of him who, unlike the rest, was “filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb”, should be signalized as a day of triumph.

newadvent.org/cathen/08486b.htm

Emphasis mine.

 

[mardukm]

The CCC… is one recent book.

The teachings of the Catholic Church, are spread over millennia. They are not all available in one handy book.

There are encyclicals, scriptures, bulls, common teaching of theologians, the spoken Word and the written Word…

Saying because you can’t find it in the CCC, it is not Church teaching is simply factually false.

I heartily concur.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ClamDigger]

I hard on the Radio today that John the Baptist was born without sin. Is this a common teaching by the church? I had only heard that Mary, Jesus, Adam and Eve were born without sin.

John the Baptist was born without sin. He was purified of original sin by Jesus at the Visitation. He was not *conceived *without sin like Mary and Jesus, but he was born without original sin.

 

[twf]

As others have noted, the very fact that the Church has, since the earliest times, celebrated the feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, is sufficent proof that the Church believes, and has always believed, that St. John was born free of original sin. Again, as other posters have already noted, the idea that we are only bound by solemnly defined dogmas is a serious error. We are bound by all of the Church’s ordinary magisterium, which includes those teachings that have always been taught but not necessarily dogmatically defined. The divinity of Christ was certianly an OBLIGATORY belief long before it was dogmatically defined at Nicaea!

lex orandi lex credendi…the law of prayer is the law of faith. If St. John was born with original sin, then the Church misleads us when she instructs us to celebrate the great feast of his nativity. We only celebrate saints…and the Church teaches, through this feast if nothing else, that St. John was a saint at his birth. One of our Eastern brothers pointed out earlier in this thread that the Byzantine Catholic Churches also celebrate the CONCEPTION of St. John the Baptist…but this is not a tradition found in the West (as far as I know) and thus not necessarily binding on Latin Catholics, but certainly worthy of discussion.

In terms of the Catechism, I heartily agree with other posters that it was never intended to cover all Catholic doctrine. It covers all those points which the magisterium of the time deemed prudent to emphasize for the faithful…the cover every single aspect of tradition in one document/book would be impossible. The magisterium of the present guides us, but we look also to what the popes and bishops of the past have proclaimed, taught, and lived. That being said, the catechism is a wonderful gift and it does, as others have already pointed out, verify this teaching…

CCC 717

“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.”9 John was “filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb”10 by Christ himself, whom the Virgin Mary had just conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary’s visitation to Elizabeth thus became a visit from God to his people.11

There can be no doubt. The Church could not be more clear. It seems clear that many priests have not clearly articulated this point during their homilies on June 24…

 

[JRKH]

Well - it seems that we are getting a bit jumbled up on this whole topic. I’m not even sure I’m clear on what is being argued…
First is the OP’s title question about John being born without sin.
The Bible and the Catechism say that he was “filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb”…To me this seems a pretty convincig argument that the Church teaches he was born without the stain of original sin.

Second seems to be the question of the Catechism, and whether it contains all Doctrinal teachings…Well it seems that those who compiled it DID intend it to contain all essential teachings of the Church as seen in the excerpted items below taken from the catechism approved by Pope John Paul II
From the Apostolic Letter:

…how fitting was the request submitted to me in 1985 by the Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops that a catechism or compendium of all Catholic doctrine regarding faith and morals be composed.

In this regard one can certainly understand that such a remarkable number of suggested improvements shows the extraordinary interest that the Catechism has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.

From the Apostolic Constitution:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion

From the body of the Catechism itself:
11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”.
(Bolding mine)
So - from the above it is obvious that both the intent and the result are accepted by The Holy father and The Church as containing all essential doctrine. This is esspecially true given that the person who headed teh commission compiling the Catechism is now our Holy Father.

So then the question becomes, based on what is recorded in the Catechism (along with any referenced documents), Does the Church teach that St John was born without sin?
This takes us back to the question, arising from the biblical text, "Can a person be born both with sin and at the same time filled with the Holy Spirit…

Peace
James

 

[mardukm]

In terms of the Catechism, I heartily agree with other posters that it was never intended to cover all Catholic doctrine. It covers all those points which the magisterium of the time deemed prudent to emphasize for the faithful…the cover every single aspect of tradition in one document/book would be impossible. The magisterium of the present guides us, but we look also to what the popes and bishops of the past have proclaimed, taught, and lived. That being said, the catechism is a wonderful gift and it does, as others have already pointed out, verify this teaching…

Thank you, brother Tyler.

The Prologue to the Catechism states:
“By design, the Catechism does not set out to provide the adaptation of doctrinal presentations and catechetical methods required by the differences of culture, age, spiritual maturity, and social and ecclesial condition among all those to whom it is addressed.”

HH JP2 of thrice blessed memory affirmed in the Apostolic Constitution to the CCC: “This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms.” The fact is, the CCC is presented according to the theological disposition of the Latin Catholic Church. It only sometimes contains the doctrinal teaching of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. To be sure, any local catechism should adhere to the dogmatic standard affirmed by the current CCC, even as it is expressed in different theological ways (i.e., “doctrine”) by local Churches. But surely the doctrines of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, even though not explicitly expressed in the current CCC, is just as “Catholic” as the predominantly Latin doctrines that makes up the bulk of the CCC.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[twf]

JRKH:
It may have been the intention of the Church to cover all essential doctrines, but that does not mean that every facet of every teaching is covered in this single document. It is, by definition, a summary of the Church’s teaching. In addition, as brother Mardukm has just reminded us, different Churches sui iuris of the Catholic communion have their own unique traditions and expressions of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith, which may not be articulated by the Catechism (even if the essence of faith is). That being said, I think it has now been established that the Catechism, the liturgy, and the tradition of the Church is clear on this important question concerning St. John. If there was any question on this matter, I would feel uncomfortable celebrating June 24…

 

[cothrige]

PilgrimToChrist:

That looks like a very interesting article, and I will certainly read it. Thank you very much for sharing the link.

 

[thistle]

The CCC… is one recent book.

The teachings of the Catholic Church, are spread over millennia. They are not all available in one handy book.

There are encyclicals, scriptures, bulls, common teaching of theologians, the spoken Word and the written Word…

Saying because you can’t find it in the CCC, it is not Church teaching is simply factually false.

The CCC contains a summary of ALL Church teachings that Catholics must accept and the footnotes in it reference Scripture and all relevant Church documents supporting the teachings.
There are no teachings not contained in the CCC which we must believe.

The CCC does not contain any teaching about John the Baptist being born free from original sin nor is there any Papal Encyclical/Bull or whatever that contains such a teaching.
If any poster here can produce any official Church document with a teaching Catholics must believe that states John the Baptist was born free from original sin then please direct us to it because so far everyone has come up empty. A reference to Luke 1:15 is not an official Church teaching.

By the way I am not saying John was not born free from original sin. I am saying it is not a teaching of the Church which we are obliged to believe.

 

[JRKH]

Well it appears obvious that no one is going to take a stab at whether a person can be born “Filled with the Holy Spirit” AND with sin (original sin)…

Peace
James

 

[puzzleannie]

Annie - I do respect your opinion and I am not trying to be disgreeable, but I would like to have an answer to the question I asked Thisle.

Perhaps you could clarify this for me.
The CCC confirms that John was "filled with the Holy Spirit even from His mother’s womb (CCC717 and Luke 1:15)

So - Is the above compatable with Sin? In this case original sin?

Peace
James

If church teaching is that this phrase means he was born without sin, the CCC would say so. It doesn’t so it isn’t. It is quite likely, and it is not wrong by any means to believe it, but it is not defined doctrine.

 

[JRKH]

If church teaching is that this phrase means he was born without sin, the CCC would say so. It doesn’t so it isn’t. It is quite likely, and it is not wrong by any means to believe it, but it is not defined doctrine.

That’s not what I’m asking…I am asking if you think that being "Filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb is compatable with being in born with sin? Can these two things co-exist…

Peace
James

 

[Elefar]

That’s not what I’m asking…I am asking if you think that being "Filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb is compatable with being in born with sin? Can these two things co-exist…

Peace
James

I know this is an old thread, but I have been off this board for quite a long time and have just recently become aware of the concept, this being the solemnity of the nativity of John the Baptist.

My answer - I believe it is incompatible for a mortal man to be filled with the Holy Spirit (filled with the presence of God Almighty) and having been born in sin, and not having gone through purgation. My pentecostal friends would disagree with me, however!