L
Lujack
Guest
Treat it as uncertain? I certainly wouldn’t elevate every unclear tradition to the level of dogma, but nor would I go around debunking them.
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
I am happy to be corrected but its not a Church teaching therefore we are not obliged to believe it.
We must accept all Church teachings. We don’t have to accept small “t” traditions.
J
JRKH
Guest
It seems to me that the bottom line is that the Church supports Scripture and Scripture says this:
13 But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechari’ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth; 15 for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. (Luke 1:13-15)(RSV) (Bolding mine)
How can one be “Filled with the Holy Spirit” and still have original sin on his soul?
I don’t think this is possible, so the stain of original sin was either, a) never present, or b) removed before John’s birth.
Now evidently, according to a linked source earlier in the thread, the basic teaching is that origicnal sin was removed - and the time given for this was the visitation.
Fair enough. no problem with this at all.
So - it appears that the Church DOES teach that John was born without sin, but the Church does not yeach that he was conceived without sin.
Does that sound about right?
Peace
James
13 But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechari’ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth; 15 for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. (Luke 1:13-15)(RSV) (Bolding mine)
How can one be “Filled with the Holy Spirit” and still have original sin on his soul?
I don’t think this is possible, so the stain of original sin was either, a) never present, or b) removed before John’s birth.
Now evidently, according to a linked source earlier in the thread, the basic teaching is that origicnal sin was removed - and the time given for this was the visitation.
Fair enough. no problem with this at all.
So - it appears that the Church DOES teach that John was born without sin, but the Church does not yeach that he was conceived without sin.
Does that sound about right?
Peace
James
S
Shin
Guest
And how do you know it’s not a Church teaching? Please explain. Do you feel it’s not Church teaching, or do you -know- it’s not a Church teaching.
Please explain how you know if that’s the case. . .
A
At_Trent
Guest
Amen !It certainly is something that provokes thought isn’t it?
I don’t understand the matter.
I hope I find more information on the idea as time goes by.
God help us, from whom all blessings flow.
A
At_Trent
Guest
The Catholic Encyclopedia article states one must be free of sin to be filled with the Holy Spirit.
A
At_Trent
Guest
Sounds right to me.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Well, in the Eastern Catholic/Eastern Orthodox tradition, the “lex orandi” is that John the Baptist was sanctified by the Holy Spirit at his Conception.
We have a feast of the Conception of St John the Baptist and since only the feasts of Saints may be celebrated - this means he was sanctified then. That he was sanctified again at the Visitation - absolutely. Sanctification/Theosis is a dynamic process.
For the East, Original Sin isn’t about “stain” but about inheriting a weakened human nature from Adam as a result of his personal sin of disobedience.
So John the Baptist was sanctified by the Holy Spirit for his particular, exalted role in salvation history. We don’t have a feast of the Visitation and so the Eastern focus was always on his Conception and his Nativity.
In the Christian East, John the Baptist is what St Joseph is to the West. There are seven great annual liturgical feasts in the Forerunner’s honour and every Tuesday is dedicated to him in the weekly liturgical cycle.
This was never defined - but then again the liturgical tradition is its own teaching authority “lex orandi, lex credendi.”
In fact, that is the ultimate meaning of the term “Orthodox” - at once, right believing and right worshipping where how one believes is indicated in how one worships.
Alex
We have a feast of the Conception of St John the Baptist and since only the feasts of Saints may be celebrated - this means he was sanctified then. That he was sanctified again at the Visitation - absolutely. Sanctification/Theosis is a dynamic process.
For the East, Original Sin isn’t about “stain” but about inheriting a weakened human nature from Adam as a result of his personal sin of disobedience.
So John the Baptist was sanctified by the Holy Spirit for his particular, exalted role in salvation history. We don’t have a feast of the Visitation and so the Eastern focus was always on his Conception and his Nativity.
In the Christian East, John the Baptist is what St Joseph is to the West. There are seven great annual liturgical feasts in the Forerunner’s honour and every Tuesday is dedicated to him in the weekly liturgical cycle.
This was never defined - but then again the liturgical tradition is its own teaching authority “lex orandi, lex credendi.”
In fact, that is the ultimate meaning of the term “Orthodox” - at once, right believing and right worshipping where how one believes is indicated in how one worships.
Alex
C
cothrige
Guest
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. The faith is not subject to this kind of interpretation. The Assumption was a binding matter of faith before the publication of Munificentissimus Deus. The Church always believed, infallibly, that the Blessed Virgin was assumed into heaven, and the definition by the Pope did not create that dogma or even lend it an infallibility it didn’t have previously. It was never speculative, and always belonged to the treasury of her faith. Again, the Church infallibly teaches that women cannot be priests, and always has done so, and no apostolic constitution is required to make it so. The Church teaches it, and that is that. It is not an “opinion” until a pope invokes infallibility over it. The same is true for the birth of John the Baptist after having been cleansed from sin by our Lord while still in the womb.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
T
thistle
Guest
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.
If you can find it please point it out to me.
M
mardukm
Guest
How about CCC 717, which affirms the scriptural statement that the Forerunner was “filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb.” As others have pointed out, that reality is doctrinally incompatible with the idea that he was born with sin.
Is that enough?
Blessings,
Marduk
S
Shin
Guest
The CCC does not contain all Church teachings. There is no such book.
J
JRKH
Guest
This seems to be getting a little contentious here…So lets back off just a bit…
Do you agree that the Church teaches all that is contained in the Bible?
If yes then do you agree that the Bible says that John was “filled with the Holy Spirit even from His mother’s womb”? (CCC717 and Luke 1:15)
Would you agree that being “filled with the Holy Spirit” is incompatable with Sin?
If you agree with the above…then the logical conclusion is that the Church teaches that someone who is born “filled with the Holy Spirit” is not born with the stain of original sin.
John fits this description.
If there is still doubt, perhaps it should be submitted to “ask an Apologist”…
Peace
James
T
thistle
Guest
To first answer the other poster’s point.
The CCC does indeed contain a summary of** ALL** Church teachings (infallible and non-infallible).
To answer your point the Church does NOT teach that John the Baptist was born free from original sin. If it did it would say so in the CCC and reference that Bible verse as underpinning the teaching. There is none.
J
JRKH
Guest
You did not really answer my question as to whether you believe that Being “Filled with the Holy Spirit” is compatable with sin.
But -
As you wish…
Since it does not affect my faith walk, it is not worth disturbing our peace in Christ.
Peace
James
W
WFS5801
Guest
Not just St. John the Baptist but also Jeremiah the Prophet. Although I think the point is still debatable. Here’s an excerpt from St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject, who is debating St. Augustine as he writes. (I’m too lazy to type it in, so I just took a couple screen captures. Click on them to make them “readable size.”)
awesomescreenshot.com/0f8ankt45
awesomescreenshot.com/09fankx57
P
puzzleannie
Guest
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.
J
JRKH
Guest
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
S
Shin
Guest
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 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.
- Status