John the Baptist born without original sin??

[twf]

Carol Marie: It’s obvious from Scripture that St. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit before birth. Does this mean he was concieved without original sin? No. The Church clearly teaches that only Jesus and Mary were; however, obviously St. John was a special case in some way or another. How many people do you know who were filled with the Holy Spirit BEFORE birth? This would lead me to speculate that he was indeed baptized by the Holy Spirit in the womb, which would mean he’d be forgiven of the guilt of original sin we inherit, but would still have a tendency towards sin.

God can do whatever He wants. If He wanted to concieve someone without original sin, He could. The fact is that it is only Jesus and Mary, but if it were more, what would be the problem? Help us to understand what your issue would be.

 

[Maccabees]

Yeah when John the Baptist leapt in the womb he was reborn in the spirit therefore sanctified of original sin.

Like others here have been stresing he was conceived in original sin so he was not Immaculate such as Mary and he his was not a virginal birth which would have the same effect no origianl sin.
Catholic Tradition has him of not guilty of any venial sins.
The fact that he was sanctified in the womb would go a long way in explaining that tradition.
I don’t know think any of this stuff is dogmatic (like maria dogma) and you could disagree with the teaching. but it is the majority consensus teaching of catholic tradition supported by many fathers of the church and such. I think I will go with tradition on this one God can sanctify anyone he wants at anytime. John the Baptist was the greatest of the prophets says Jesus to say he given a special favor by God would not be out of line given the great task he was given to be the precursor to Jesus.

 

[Vincent]

I wonder if I’m misundestanding the discussion.

Is someone claiming that John the Baptist didn’t have the tendency to sin for the reason that he was forgiven of Original Sin before birth?

If so, that doesn’t seem to be correct. If the tendency to sin remains in those whose Original Sin is removed after birth, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t remain in those whose Original Sin is removed before birth.

That is, unless God specifically grants an *additional *Grace which preserves a person from such tendencies. This seems to be St. Thomas’s position on whether the Blessed Virgin was free from concupisence (for the reason that he couldn’t find a way to conclude that she was conceived without Original Sin).

There’s no indication in the deposit of faith that John the Baptist was freed from the tendency to sin if he was indeed forgiven of Original Sin between conception and birth.

 

[Maccabees]

Vincent I think your not understanding the jist of sainthood.
I also mistyped what I was thinking (brain fart)
I wrote that he (John the Baptist) didn’t have venial sins I didn’t mean that.

The theory here is not that John the Baptist never sinned but that he had no mortal sins. Considering he was sanctified in the womb. No small feat. The likelihood that he never commited mortal sin is not farfetched. He was supernaturally graced probably for a very good reason.

Also there are other saints that this idea has been proposed such as Saint Joseph as having no mortal sin. They don’t call themseves Saints for nothing. After Saint Francis reconversion to the Church he too was speculated to not have mortal sin in his life unlike his wild younger days. I think this is the idea of sainthood to come to a point that you no longer sin mortally.

Now some of this is specualtion and ulnike the Immaculate Conception is not dogma but is catholic tradition.
If you disagree with It what I can I say I can’t point to infalliable decrees or anything just that this is the oral tradtion of the church.

Why Saint Joseph didn’t sin mortally? Why didn’t Saint John the Baptist didn’t sin mortally? How about Saint Francis and other Saints which reached a point in their holiness they no longer sinned mortally?
I don’t have these answers. God alone knows why. The church has her traditions and you can accept them as true or argue that it is just speculation.

 

[Fergal]

In the book “Divine Mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary” taken from the “City of God” by Mary of Agreda (read more here http://murraycreek.net/agreda/agredachp12.htm ), she indeed makes reference to the fact that John was born without original sin.

He was conceived like us in original sin. He carried that happy fault until Mary visited Elizabeth. The purpose of which was, amongst other things, to sanctify the pre-cursor of the Lord.

It is stated that when Elizabeth heard Mary’s salutation the infant John leapt in Elizabeths womb. This was the moment where John was cleansed of this necessary sin of Adam. The reading from the above mentioned book states:
***“At this moment God looked upon John in Elizabeths womb and gave him perfect use of reason, enlightening it with His Divine Light, in order to prepare himself by foreknowledge for the blessings he was to receive. Together with this preparation he was sanctified from original sin and made an adopted son of God and filled with the Holy Spirit” ***

---

All this is very much in keeping with scriptures which state in Lk1:14-17 that the son of Zacharias would be filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb of His mother.

John was delivered from Original Sin through a personal encounter with Christ although both were as yet unborn. This personal encounter was John’s baptism with the Holy Spirit through the presence of Christ. Why do you think Jesus did not baptise John at that great moment of the Baptism in the Jordan?? John did ask for Baptism from Jesus and Jesus submitted to the will of the Father that He should be the one to go down and sanctify the waters. Remember His words to John? “Leave it as this for now so as to fulfill all righteousness.”

You and I are also cleansed from original sin at our Baptism through a personal encounter with Christ through His Priest or Deacon

AS I have stated John was conceived naturally with original sin. (He was cleansed from it before birth through the presence of Jesus!)
Mary was conceived naturally without original sin.
Christ was conceived supernaturally without original sin.

Since John had a big part to play in the revelation of the Christ to those that God wanted to call His own, does it not make perfect sense?

As Francis Bacon once said,
Read not to contradict and
confute nor to believe and
take for granted, but to
weigh and consider.

My thoughts are very scattered on this but I hope you get my general drift!!!

---

 

[Fergal]

Fergal:

In the book “Divine Mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary” taken from the “City of God” by Mary of Agreda (read more here http://murraycreek.net/agreda/agredachp12.htm ), she indeed makes reference to the fact that John was born without original sin.

He was conceived like us in original sin. He carried that happy fault until Mary visited Elizabeth. The purpose of which was, amongst other things, to sanctify the pre-cursor of the Lord.

It is stated that when Elizabeth heard Mary’s salutation the infant John leapt in Elizabeths womb. This was the moment where John was cleansed of this necessary sin of Adam. The reading from the above mentioned book states:
***“At this moment God looked upon John in Elizabeths womb and gave him perfect use of reason, enlightening it with His Divine Light, in order to prepare himself by foreknowledge for the blessings he was to receive. Together with this preparation he was sanctified from original sin and made an adopted son of God and filled with the Holy Spirit” ***

---

All this is very much in keeping with scriptures which state in Lk1:14-17 that the son of Zacharias would be filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb of His mother.

John was delivered from Original Sin through a personal encounter with Christ although both were as yet unborn. This personal encounter was John’s baptism with the Holy Spirit through the presence of Christ. Why do you think Jesus did not baptise John at that great moment of the Baptism in the Jordan?? John did ask for Baptism from Jesus and Jesus submitted to the will of the Father that He should be the one to go down and sanctify the waters. Remember His words to John? “Leave it as this for now so as to fulfill all righteousness.”

You and I are also cleansed from original sin at our Baptism through a personal encounter with Christ through His Priest or Deacon

AS I have stated John was conceived naturally with original sin. (He was cleansed from it before birth through the presence of Jesus!)
Mary was conceived naturally without original sin.
Christ was conceived supernaturally without original sin.

Since John had a big part to play in the revelation of the Christ to those that God wanted to call His own, does it not make perfect sense?

As Francis Bacon once said,
Read not to contradict and
confute nor to believe and
take for granted, but to
weigh and consider.

My thoughts are very scattered on this but I hope you get my general drift!!!

---

 

[carol_marie]

Thanks to all who responded. I can see from scripture that something miraculous happened while he was in the womb so I’ll just file that in the catagory of a God-thing and leave it at that. I agree that God can do whatever he wants, who am I to say that He couldn’t have baptized John if he wanted to? It just goes on the list of yet another thing that, although I’ve been a Christian for years, and read the Bible front & back, I’ve never heard of. (Makes me feel a little better that some of you Catholics have never heard of it either) It seems that you can just accept whatever the church says as it comes your way. I envy that trust. I get this knee jerk response of: PROVE IT! THAT’S A BUNCH OF MADE UP GARBAGE! Which is so irrational because over the past two years I’ve been able to see the truth in SO MANY Catholic teachings… why am I ready to jump ship at as soon as I come across something new that my mind can’t comprehend?

 

[MariaG]

Thanks for asking the question. Like I said, I had never heard that John had been baptized in the womb. I did know he had been conceived in sin. But the other? Live and learn.

As to the site being junk? It is certainly wrong when it says he was conceived without sin. That is a pretty big mistake that doesn’t appear to just be a typo.

Some people have a more difficult walk to the Catholic Church. You seem to be one of them. But it has helped me see how blessed I have been. My walk to the Catholic Church has been much simpler.

posted by Carol Marie
It seems that you can just accept whatever the church says as it comes your way. I envy that trust.

I think many Catholics have an understanding that the Church is Christ. Col 1:18 - He is the head of the body, the church
I do not consider my faith in the people or leaders of the church, my faith is in Christ and His promises about the church, His body. A seemingly small distinction, but with huge implications, one that allows me to trust that the Church is right. Why? Because it is Christ’s body, and He would not allow that which is supposed to be taught to be corrupted. (Note not practiced but the real beliefs).

Keep seeking. The peace you are seeking will come. It will probably so simple it will be what I like to call my “Duh” moments.

God Bless
Maria

 

[tru_dvotion]

(Makes me feel a little better that some of you Catholics have never heard of it either) It seems that you can just accept whatever the church says as it comes your way. I envy that trust. I get this knee jerk response of: PROVE IT! THAT’S A BUNCH OF MADE UP GARBAGE! Which is so irrational because over the past two years I’ve been able to see the truth in SO MANY Catholic teachings… why am I ready to jump ship at as soon as I come across something new that my mind can’t comprehend?

I am sure people will tell you these knee jerk reactions of yours are just the enemy not wanting you to become a Catholic. That is nonsense, because the enemy is after all of us all the time and at any chance he gets. What is different in your case is you are studying and weighing what you are in the study of. That is where most of us cradle Catholics differ, many times we do not even take notice… and really, differences in theology can be just a the usage of a few words… and the reason we do not take notice is simply because we were not looking for an explanation or confirmation on a particular topic. In the final analysis, what Mary Agreda said about the Baptist maybe correct, but then maybe not? Saints who see the mysteries of God do make mistakes from time to time. Plus this is not an infallible Dogma that we Catholics are bound to accept without question? I for one still have difficulty with it. All basic truth has a solid unshakable quality to it, and this one is a mere possibility, a possibility that may or may not be true. All infallible dogma has been arrived at with much study, examination and debate by theologians. This one… well, it is not that important. John the Baptist did his work two thousand years ago… it is not imperative for the Church today that we know everything about him.

 

[Hesychios]

I am surprised that no Eastern Catholics or Orthodox have jumped on this.

Yes, John the Forerunner was born without original sin. The church has always held this, even before the ideas about Mary’s sinlessness were fully understood.

It comes directly from the words of Christ!

"Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptiser"Mtt 11:11

In every Byzantine temple you will find in the Deisis, right above the Royal doors and as it were, over and before the altar an icon of John the Forerunner to the right and Mary the God Bearer to the left interceeding with Jesus the Just Judge.

This is integral to Byzantine theological constructs.

I quote Sergius Bulgakov (1871-1944)

First among all the saints, nearest to the throne of God, is John the Baptist, the friend of the Bridegroom, the greatest among those born of woman. This closeness evolves first of all from the significance granted to the Baptist at Epiphany and the descent of the Holy Spirit upoln the Baptised. This was like a second spiritual birth from the Holy Spirit. The closeness also comes from the special ministry of John the Forerunner himself, whose whole life was devoted to preparing the way for the Other"

There is much more than can be said on this topic but I will stop here.

 

[Vincent]

Maccabees:

The theory here is not that John the Baptist never sinned but that he had no mortal sins.

I have absolutely no problem what that.

What I was wondering about was whether it was claimed in this thread that the tendency to sin doesn’t remain if one is sanctified between conception and birth.

It’s more than possible for John the Baptist to have been sanctified before birth, and that he lived a life free of mortal sin. But I would think that he would still have the tendency to sin that remains in all the baptized (unless God specifically gave him a grace that removed that tendency, too).

 

[Vincent]

carol marie:

why am I ready to jump ship at as soon as I come across something new that my mind can’t comprehend?

It might be helpful to realize that Catholics believe what they believe because of the authority of God, who has revealed it, not because it’s something they’ve figured out all by themselves.

 

[tru_dvotion]

It comes directly from the words of Christ! "Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptiser"Mtt 11:11

And how do you suppose that “among those born of women there has risen no greater than John the Baptiser” also means he was born wihout original sin? This could simply mean that he was the greatest. Or could it not?

 

[Hesychios]

Vincent:

What I was wondering about was whether it was claimed in this thread that the tendency to sin doesn’t remain if one is sanctified between conception and birth.

It’s more than possible for John the Baptist to have been sanctified before birth, and that he lived a life free of mortal sin. But I would think that he would still have the tendency to sin that remains in all the baptized (unless God specifically gave him a grace that removed that tendency, too).

Some things are just better left alone…

We have a tendency to want to know everything.

WE WANT EXPLANATIONS!

We don’t really need to know everything. We become preoccupied with these details and then we have arguments about the details and boy oh boy we have trouble in River City!!

I am reminded of the Philosopher, St Thomas Aquinas. One of the most influential minds in the Christian West with expansive theological writings.

On 6 December, 1273, he laid aside his pen and would write no more. That day he experienced an unusually long ecstacy; he said: “I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value”!

As for John the Forerunner, the Eastern Catholic churches see him as Diefied. “So what does that mean exactly?”

Well, he made it what more should be said?

 

[tru_dvotion]

It might be helpful to realize that Catholics believe what they believe because of the authority of God, who has revealed it, not because it’s something they’ve figured out all by themselves.

Beware all those who believe this. For there are many alien influences, many heresies, many false beliefs and false practices prevailing in the Catholics Church these days that do not come from God, but originated outside of God and were planted in the Church by the enemy. Jesus warned us to be smart as foxes and not to follow false teachers who come in sheep’s clothing. Paul said the same thing, he said to test everything. Not everything that appears Catholic is Catholic. Just as not everything that appears to be from God is from God. Only a fool will follow in blind trust.

 

[Vincent]

tru_dvotion:

Beware all those who believe this. For there are many alien influences, many heresies, many false beliefs and false practices prevailing in the Catholics Church these days that do not come from God, but originated outside of God and were planted in the Church by the enemy. Jesus warned us to be smart as foxes and not to follow false teachers who come in sheep’s clothing. Paul said the same thing, he said to test everything. Not everything that appears Catholic is Catholic. Just as not everything that appears to be from God is from God. Only a fool will follow in blind trust.

I was paraphrasing what Vatican I defined on Faith:

"Since human beings are totally dependent on God as their creator and lord, and created reason is completely subject to uncreated truth, we are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith.

“This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the catholic church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us,** we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.**”

(emphasis added)

 

[tru_dvotion]

I was paraphrasing what Vatican I

defined on Faith:"Since human beings are totally dependent on God as their creator and lord, and created reason is completely subject to uncreated truth, we are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith. “This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the catholic church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us,** we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.**” (emphasis added)

But your application was faulty. Because as you know it as well as I do, Jesus also predicted that many will be mislead even those of the elect. Who is the elect? Generally those in the Church with authority.

 

[Hesychios]

tru_dvotion:

And how do you suppose that “among those born of women there has risen no greater than John the Baptiser” also means he was born wihout original sin? This could simply mean that he was the greatest. Or could it not?

I agree that this is not the quote that would define John’s birth without Original (or Ancestral) Sin. It reveals Our Lord’s verification of his holiness.

The church has traditionally viewed the point of John leaping in the womb of Elizabeth as the point that would make such an indication.

But this presupposes an argument from the Western perspective of Original Sin the Western (Roman) Catholics and Protestants implicitly agree upon, and therefore they constantly lock horns over it.

The East has a quite different way of looking at the matter. See the multitude of threads on Original Sin in this board for insight.

The East presupposes that the goal is to become “more and more holy” while the West (Catholic and Protestant) presupposes that the goal is to become “less and less sinful”.

As far as the East is concerned most theologions would probably argue that John was deified from the womb, at least from the point that he 'leapt for joy". He was sanctified and his whole life revealed the fruits of his sanctification: his ascetic life, his preaching metanoia and his baptising. His death as well marked him out, because he died due to his preaching against the sin of Herod.

He was deified.

The West insists that this must mean he was born without Original Sin, and so we say “how could this be?!?!!”.

But in the Eastern concept of Ancestral Sin there is no guilt. Rather we are all victims of Adams Sin and we suffer the effects of it: we have inherited suffering and death, and a propensity (or weakness) to sin that we must struggle against all our lives.

When we say one has been deified we say that the person has overcome those things. For John it seems to have happened in the womb, and he was so dearly loved and respected by Our Lord that he is shown in place opposite Mary interceeding for us.

 

[rarndt01]

That’s a good question. I don’t think John the Baptist was ever baptized. So how was original sin removed?

 

[tru_dvotion]

Hesychios,

That is all great about the eastern and western applications. But then let me ask you a question. If he is truly mirroring our Lady, why was he not assumed to heaven as Our Lady was? He was not; therefore the judgment of original sin applied to him the same as to anybody else.