John the Baptist born without original sin

[yablabo]

But I don’t know of a Church teaching that claims he “retained his state of grace”. He could be born sinless, which would place him on par with a Christian today at Baptism. But without the continued Graces, such as those received in Communion, John didn’t stay in a state of Grace.

It’s hard then to make an argument for a man to be called a saint if he once had the state of grace only to die outside of it (since those who once have the state of grace only to die outside of it are damned to the fires of hell). I think it’s better explained if one understand that St. John the Baptist lived his entire life in original sin only to die, await Christ in hell (the abode of the dead) with the rest of the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets and then rise with Christ when he rose on the third day…and to consider St. John’s life one of heroic virtue in light of the fact that he was only working with actual grace, not habitual grace.

That’s how things go, though, when you have no binding doctrine on which to establish your belief. My guess is as good as yours. I don’t bind my interpretation on you or anyone else, I merely state what makes sense to me. I do not assume, however, that St. John the Baptist sinned against charity if he once had it, since I have no good reason to accuse him of mortal sin.

– Nicole

 

[NotWorthy]

It’s hard then to make an argument for a man to be called a saint if he once had the state of grace only to die outside of it (since those who once have the state of grace only to die outside of it are damned to the fires of hell). I think it’s better explained if one understand that St. John the Baptist lived his entire life in original sin only to die, await Christ in hell (the abode of the dead) with the rest of the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets and then rise with Christ when he rose on the third day…and to consider St. John’s life one of heroic virtue in light of the fact that he was only working with actual grace, not habitual grace.

But remember, all things are powerful with God. Look at the Bad Thief on the Cross (Didymus?). What about King David. Isn’t he considered a Saint.

Just because John didn’t have the Church to dispense Graces to him, doesn’t mean he didn’t receive them.

That’s how things go, though, when you have no binding doctrine on which to establish your belief. My guess is as good as yours. I don’t bind my interpretation on you or anyone else, I merely state what makes sense to me. I do not assume, however, that St. John the Baptist sinned against charity if he once had it, since I have no good reason to accuse him of mortal sin.

– Nicole

Yes, Nicole, I understand. And I believe that, like you, I’m just discussing my opinion. Neither one of us can claim that we know we are right. But discussions like this are great for learning. God Bless!

 

[rinnie]

I used to think that this was possible for a long time. Then It hit me. John the Baptist was not saved from original sin at the moment of his conception. If he was we would known it would have been a teaching of either Traditon or Scripture and I do not remember this ever being taught.

I do not recall scripure saying that he was full of Grace or that he found favor with God. If you look back to the scripture of the angel with Mary it says BEFORE the angel appeared to her that she was full of grace and found favor with God.

 

[yablabo]

But remember, all things are powerful with God. Look at the Bad Thief on the Cross (Didymus?). What about King David. Isn’t he considered a Saint.

Just because John didn’t have the Church to dispense Graces to him, doesn’t mean he didn’t receive them.

Yes, Nicole, I understand. And I believe that, like you, I’m just discussing my opinion. Neither one of us can claim that we know we are right. But discussions like this are great for learning. God Bless!

The point is not that he didn’t have grace. He certainly had grace dispensed to him. Actual grace.

I gave a scenario in which the Good Thief could also be considered a saint…and that is because he died before Christ and waited amongst the souls in hell (not the hell of the damned, but in Abraham’s Bosom) for Christ to free him…and because he exhibited heroic virtue through actual grace, we now call him a saint.

This was only possible for those who died before Christ to reach sainthood in this fashion. After Christ’s death and ressurection, unless one died and rose with him in the laver of regeneration (the Sacrament of Baptism), one could not possibly be a saint.

– Nicole

 

[rinnie]

The point is not that he didn’t have grace. He certainly had grace dispensed to him. Actual grace.

I gave a scenario in which the Good Thief could also be considered a saint…and that is because he died before Christ and waited amongst the souls in hell (not the hell of the damned, but in Abraham’s Bosom) for Christ to free him…and because he exhibited heroic virtue through actual grace, we now call him a saint.

This was only possible for those who died before Christ to reach sainthood in this fashion. After Christ’s death and ressurection, unless one died and rose with him in the laver of regeneration (the Sacrament of Baptism), one could not possibly be a saint.

– Nicole

I am not sure of this, but something you said did make sense to me. You made me remember John the Baptist died BEFORE Jesus remember. Now in order for ANYONE to enter heaven they had to be PERFECT without SIN. We needed a Savior. Even the Blessed Mother was made perfect free from sin by the virtue of Christ. She was still saved by what her son would do.

Now back to the Point it was CHRIST that had to pay for our sins, all of us, And because of our sins we could not enter heaven. John the Baptist had to have had original sin also because if not he would have gone straight to heaven before Christ died. ANd we know that CHRIST opened up heaven by paying for the sins of ALL. See what I am saying?

 

[japhy]

I gave a scenario in which the Good Thief could also be considered a saint…and that is because he died before Christ

Technically, I think the Gospels state that the two thieves died after Christ: the soldiers came to break the legs of the two thieves (to speed their dying), but did not do so to Christ, because He was already dead.

 

[rinnie]

:

Technically, I think the Gospels state that the two thieves died after Christ: the soldiers came to break the legs of the two thieves (to speed their dying), but did not do so to Christ, because He was already dead.

Yes I believe this is true. The one thief I do agree did become a Saint because Jesus said you will be with me in Paradise. But it still took Jesus dying the blood of an inocent Man to pay for the sins of all.

That is why I do not think John the Baptist was without sin simply because as he himself stated he was not worthy to strap the sandles of the feet of Christ. Now if John the Bapt. who was a GREAT example was not worthy look where that puts us

 

[yablabo]

Technically, I think the Gospels state that the two thieves died after Christ: the soldiers came to break the legs of the two thieves (to speed their dying), but did not do so to Christ, because He was already dead.

Yes, technically you’re right, he died after Christ. I did not render my thought correctly. But, to my knowledge, the Good Thief died before Christ arose on the the third day… We all know that Christ descended into hell after his death to free the souls there that awaited him, and I see it reasonable to believe that the Good Thief was freed from hell at the same time as when Christ was there. Sorry about the error.

– Nicole

 

[Huiou_Theou]

But remember, all things are powerful with God. Look at the Bad Thief on the Cross (Didymus?). What about King David. Isn’t he considered a Saint.

Interesteing – but King David’s TOMB was not opened – although the tombs of the Saints were opened during the crucifixion; and many saints appeared in Jerusalem.
I think some of the Orthodox call him a saint in the Liturgy, which would be his “canonization” if used at certain parts; I wonder when they began doing that – before or after the schism?

In the Latin Church, he is in the Martyrology – which is a study of witnesses/prototypes of christ. I am not up on details of Canonization in the Latin church for David – but he did not die a literal Matryrs death; I wonder if anyone has a link to what being in the matryrology book actually means…

Just because John didn’t have the Church to dispense Graces to him, doesn’t mean he didn’t receive them.

Yes, Nicole, I understand. And I believe that, like you, I’m just discussing my opinion. Neither one of us can claim that we know we are right. But discussions like this are great for learning. God Bless!

Hey Nicole!!! I like your opinions, I tend to think the same way.

 

[telmab7]

Baptism entirely wipes away original sin. Those persons conceived with original sin, after Baptism, still retain concupiscence, which is not original sin itself, but an effect of original sin. So all the baptized are free from original sin itself.

There is no teaching in the Catholic Faith that John the Baptist was free from concupiscence, or that after birth he was the same as the Virgin Mary in the sense of being without any effects at all of original sin.

Scripture indicates that John the Baptist had concupiscence, which obscures the mind and heart. For even after John had baptized Jesus, he still was confused to a certain extent as to who Jesus is.

[Matthew 11]
{11:1} And it happened that, when Jesus had completed instructing his twelve disciples, he went away from there in order to teach and to preach in their cities.
{11:2} Now when John had heard, in prison, about the works of Christ, sending two of his disciples, he said to him,
{11:3} “Are you he who is to come, or should we expect another?”

---

Just so that no one else gets confused
and we all confuse each other

Don’t forget we have the American Catholic Church and then we have “The Roman Catholic Church” and before large attempts were taken Protestantize us with the institution of pastoral “advisory” council council in the late 1960s that we all have to continually rewind prior to in order to discover authenticity (on all subjects outside that of the Blessed Mother to which there were some gems)

It must be remembered foremost that the “Word of God” is Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture wedded together and inseparable without damage

In Sacred Tradition not only is Saint John the Baptist born without original sin so is Saint Joseph the spiritual Father of our Lord

This teaching nor the Immaculate Conception can be confused with the teachings on “concupiscence” which is “theology” and which, in it’s various forms, make up the gradations of differences between Catholic theology and Protestant theology as does
Apophatic theology and Cataphatic theology When you get underneath that you find further the differences between Sacramental Liturgical Christianity of our Judao-Christian Faith and that of Dispensational Christianity of Radicalized non-liturgical Christianity.
Or in Catholic circles of the orthodox vs. the liberal ranks of the heterodox the debate would be on par with the ever liberalizing exegesis of Romans and Galatians on the law
It would be an abuse of the healthy debate between Augustinian and Aquinas theology camps

Therefore the questions at hand run a bit a deeper than which Saint or were there any other saints besides the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mother of God that were born without Original Sin

I only wish more people would read more and turn off their televisions and find out what is really going on …

In short they are trying to take away your Faith little by little and in the case of this country, there is an obvious concerted effort by social architects to abolish the Catholic religion in the United States .

Psalm 46 God is in the midst thereof, she shall not be moved: God will help her in the morning early.

…Praise God

 

[Huiou_Theou]

---

Just so that no one else gets confused
and we all confuse each other

Don’t forget we have the American Catholic Church and then we have “The Roman Catholic Church” and before large attempts were taken Protestantize us with the institution of pastoral “advisory” council council in the late 1960s that we all have to continually rewind prior to in order to discover authenticity (on all subjects outside that of the Blessed Mother to which there were some gems)

There is a traditional Catholics section of the site which you might find interesting as there tend to be people which align more with your views there.

It must be remembered foremost that the “Word of God” is Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture wedded together and inseparable without damage

In Sacred Tradition not only is Saint John the Baptist born without original sin so is Saint Joseph the spiritual Father of our Lord

This has never been the case in Tradition that I have seen. John the baptist received the blessing of a Nazarite in the womb; just as Sampson did. St. John the baptist is called the “greatest figure of the old testament.” – but by that very token, he is still under the covenant of Grace offered to them through the Law of Moses.

The Holy Spirit opened the mouth of a Donkey in order to prove that he can make a prophet of anyone or anything in order to give his prophet Balaam a chance to repent of his greed. But this appearance of the Holy Spirit on the Donkey does not equate to the donkey becoming rational being like a human, or receiving baptism of the new Covenant – rather it prefigures that a rational being, Balaam, would be forced to say the very things he didn’t want to say by that same spirit.

Note: Balaam is condemned as a particularly stubborn sinner in spite of the Holy Spirit using him.

St. John the baptist was beheaded at the end of his life (obviously…!) and that is on account of his prophecies against Herod in preparation for the coming of Christ the true King. He is therefore a martyr; and in the book of Revelation – the martyrs are found under the altar in heaven crying out to God before the resurrection. St. John, therefore, would be in heaven regardless of what happened in the womb.

This teaching nor the Immaculate Conception can be confused with the teachings on “concupiscence” which is “theology” and which, in it’s various forms, make up the gradations of differences between Catholic theology and Protestant theology as does
Apophatic theology and Cataphatic theology When you get underneath that you find further the differences between Sacramental Liturgical Christianity of our Judao-Christian Faith and that of Dispensational Christianity of Radicalized non-liturgical Christianity.

!

Or in Catholic circles of the orthodox vs. the liberal ranks of the heterodox the debate would be on par with the ever liberalizing exegesis of Romans and Galatians on the law
It would be an abuse of the healthy debate between Augustinian and Aquinas theology camps

Therefore the questions at hand run a bit a deeper than which Saint or were there any other saints besides the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mother of God that were born without Original Sin

I only wish more people would read more and turn off their televisions and find out what is really going on …

In short they are trying to take away your Faith little by little and in the case of this country, there is an obvious concerted effort by social architects to abolish the Catholic religion in the United States .

Psalm 46 God is in the midst thereof, she shall not be moved: God will help her in the morning early.

…Praise God

Psalm 48:13 And man when he was in honour did not understand; he is compared to senseless beasts, and is become like to them.
Psalm 48:14 This way of theirs is a stumblingblock to them: and afterwards they shall delight in their mouth.
Psalm 48:15 They are laid in hell like sheep: death shall feed upon them. And the just shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their help shall decay in hell from their glory.
Psalm 48:16 But God will redeem my soul from the hand of hell, when he shall receive me.

Psalm 72:14 And I have been scourged all the day; and my chastisement hath been in the mornings.
Psalm 72:15 If I said: I will speak thus; behold I should condemn the generation of thy children.
Psalm 72:16 I studied that I might know this thing, it is a labour in my sight:

The pastoral council of the 60’s has binding power over Latin rite Catholics regardless of whether they are Augustinian or Thomistic.

Rome, remember, is not the Vatican itself… which is on the other side of the river.
Calling one’s self a “Roman” Catholic is a bit of a misnomer, which I think comes (itself) from Protestants trying to associate us with Babylon and the Whore of Babylon.

Some Protestants love to confound anything true found in the Catholic Church, even if it means pretending to be a Catholic while mouthing blasphemous words they know nothing about.

 

[DebChris]

So basically what you are saying is: St John the Baptist was conceived in sin. When our Blessed Mother came to visit Elizabeth John was cleansed of original sin (like baptism) and therefor was born without original sin?

Confusing!

You have it. John the Baptist’s being born without sin is not something that I thought about until a discussion with my brother last summer. He asked me how many people had been born without sin. Naturally, I thought only of Mary and Jesus.
When I pray the rosary, I add a single word or phrase after the name of Jesus in the Hail Mary. It is a technique I learned in catechist training that helps me keep focused on Christ and on the mystery. The word I use for the second Joyful mystery is “sanctifying.”
When Mary visits Elizabeth, the child within her womb, John, is filled with the Holy Spirit. He is sanctified and made holy even before his birth. John is born without sin.

All have sinned sometime in their lives with the exceptions of Mary and Jesus. Mary was protected from sin even from her conception by the power of the Holy Spirit. Like Adam and Eve, even with the Holy Spirit dwelling inside us, we maintain our own wills. It is when we lean upon our own understanding, instead of depending on God, that we fall into sin. Mary relied on God. It is not necessarily that John, or that everybody else, has fallen into mortal sin. Mortal sin requires knowledge and forethought. Mortal sin is a deliberate turning away from God. Most of us commit venial sins throughout our lives. “The righteous man sins seven times a day.”
One way of understanding “I must decrease that He might increase,” is that we must put aside our own egos in order to allow the Holy Spirit to more fully work in our lives. One of the ways that the Holy Spirit works is to convict us our sinfulness even as we neglect the protection that He offers. Even venial sin takes us away from “glory of God.”

 

[telmab7]

Although this off topic of the thread it is at the root of the interpretation I would ask that on the following comment

The pastoral council of the 60’s has binding power over Latin rite Catholics regardless of whether they are Augustinian or Thomistic.

You please share with us where it says that – What you will find is …that you can ’t find it A pastoral council is just that – “pastoral” an advisory
A doctrinal council which both Council of Trent and Vatican I were and still are is infallible
I would urge all Catholics to write to their Bishop’s office to confirm that fact for themselves as it is at the source of much heart ache in the Catholic Church
When you take some of the sections of Lumen Gentium on the Blessed Mother however it is so beautiful it would make you want to cry .
All through history – the prophets and scripture a renewal movement is promised to the Church established by the Lord – and every couple hundred years it comes and the Holy Spirit sets to work in the work of renewal

For those unaware at various grassroots levels and greater one has begun in our Church It is not about Traditionalists vs. liberalists at all. It is the Charismatic Renewal movement – It is the Liturgical Renewal of the Liturgy that has already begun , it is the renewal of monastic orders and the roots of our asceticism cultures .
At the heart of it is the recognition of the mistakes of the perception of the very first set of comments here in what is binding and non-binding – and abandoning these liberal advisories and coming together as Paul calls us to become “One”
and let the renewal begin. Let us get back to the Truth of our Traditions and proper Sacred Scripture exegesis and become One again

Everyone should have to read as required reading for all Catholics the Holy Father’s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy” and then we should all come back and have a discussion about it and then we can understand how in this one rite the Liturgy has gone awry by his frank admissions and what we must do and how it is related to the interpretations of everything else including the mass falling away from the Church.

There are 18 approved Rites of the Catholic Church and the WRR is the only one that is out of synch with the other 17
If it’s news to people of our traditions of Saint Joseph and Saint John The Baptist it will also be of news of news to many that Cardinals and Bishops in the east have written on the topic of warning that the American Catholic Church is headed in the direction of a split from the mother Church within a generation !
2 Peter 1:20 There is no personal interpretation of Scripture

This cultural generation is the same that has minimized the Sacrament of Confession to an option not on par with the other Sacraments – A culture where Divine Mercy overshadows our existing infallible plenary indulgence system that still remains in affect despite the fact that the majority of practicing Catholics under the age of 30 have never heard about it !. A culture whose children do not know what it means to accept the blessings of venerating a Holy Relic for the cause or ailment of its intentions or even where, for the many parishes, where they would find one – Even in a province or parish where the Masses are over 75% full ….”when was the last time 10% to 20% of that number of a Parish pilgrimaged’ to some other US site or Parish to venerate a relic ?!”

Any Bishop in the Church will confirm for you that what is not binding is behaving the way we as a Church are behaving – what is not binding and optional is the new invention of eating meat on Fridays and the whole host of different now optional abstinences and fasts and Holy Days of Obligations …e.tc… and the list is quite long ….that were never part of our Church is the entire majority of the history of the Church …

Have you seen the new Church Calendar for 2012–?! there are more asterisks (* Exception for the American Catholic Church – (*Exception for the……… ) etc….than a court legal document And the majority of them are subtractions not additions ….
So when we hear that Saint John the Baptist and Saint Joseph and Saint Michael the Archangel are the same level as every other Saint and that in reaction to the people who are commenting that they are not is a surprise to everyone else – all we can say, euphemistically, is how shocking ……what a surprise ………!

Then we can try as best as possible to pretend that at the core of it is not all of the above and it is not intrinsically related
And for those re-directors that would say this is out of topic thread I would pre-respond by saying – It at the core of the thread’s new interpretation. I say let us renew ourselves in the Faith of the Church established by Jesus Christ himself

Isaiah 41:1 "Be silent before me, you islands! Let the nations renew their strength! Let them
come forward and speak; let us meet together at the place of judgment. …

St. Ignatius of Antioch
Be subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for “he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to God.” Wherefore also, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that, by believing in His death, you may by baptism be made partakers of His resurrection. It is therefore necessary, whatsoever things you do, to do nothing without the bishop. And be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found.
…May your Christmastide continue to go well and May the Holy Mother of God continue to intercede for us to the feet of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
..........Mark

 

[djd83]

^^ Interesting.

Well, I’m on this thread because I just read a quote by Catherine of Siena, from “The Dialogue”, chapter 66.

The quote says:
“How wretched I am! John the Baptist never sinner. He was made holy in his mother’s womb, yet he did such great penance. But I have committed so many sins and have not yet even begun to acknowledge it with tears and true contrition, seeing who God is who is offended by me and who I am who offend him!”

I’m not sure what affect this has on the discussion (probably not much since her words aren’t infallible), but I found it interesting .

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Although this off topic of the thread it is at the root of the interpretation I would ask that on the following comment

The pastoral council of the 60’s has binding power over Latin rite Catholics regardless of whether they are Augustinian or Thomistic.

You please share with us where it says that – What you will find is …that you can ’t find it A pastoral council is just that – “pastoral” an advisory

Pastoral means that it relates to particular leaders in the church, eg: some “Pastors”, and not others. It doesn’t mean the council is merely “advisory”. The pastors it affects are Latin Rite; and the council was not intended to bind disciplinary changes over Oriental varieties of Catholics who have a different liturgy. etc.

It was never meant to “suppress” the Tridentine, If that’s what you are alluding to, – and I know that many bishops clearly tried to use it that way over the next 30+ years.

However, It’s binding (AND LOOSING) power comes from the fact that a Pope ratified it:

CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY
/ SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM/
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 4, 1963

The documents do not talk about “Thomistic” or “Augustinian”, I will admit, but that doesn’t stop it from having authority over them since both Thomas and Augustine were CLEARLY Latin Rite Catholics Historically.

The documents, themselves, do inform us repeatedly that they are talking about the Latin Rite and not all Catholics in all Rites eg:throughout the world. So, you are correct, it isn’t an Ecumenical Council … but that doesn’t mean it has no authority.

Here’s one example where the Vatican Councils make clear which rite they are revising:

The work of revising the psalter, already happily begun, is to be
finished as soon as possible, and is to take into account the style of
Christian Latin, the liturgical use of psalms, also when sung, and the
entire tradition of the Latin Church.

etc.


None of the Councils states that St. John the Baptist was born without original sin; or that he was sanctified from it in a way equivalent to Christian Baptism. Perhaps that is because devotion to St. John the baptist is more of an Eatern Rite issue? ()

 

[GaryTaylor]

^^ Interesting.

Well, I’m on this thread because I just read a quote by Catherine of Siena, from “The Dialogue”, chapter 66.

The quote says:
“How wretched I am! John the Baptist never sinner. He was made holy in his mother’s womb, yet he did such great penance. But I have committed so many sins and have not yet even begun to acknowledge it with tears and true contrition, seeing who God is who is offended by me and who I am who offend him!”

I’m not sure what affect this has on the discussion (probably not much since her words aren’t infallible), but I found it interesting .

Good Book to read on St Catherine of Siena.

 

[rinnie]

I believe that John the Baptist was not a sinner. That I truly agree with.

But the more I read the more I am beginning to believe that he like the Blessed Mother was saved from Original Sin in his Mothers womb. Here is why.

Luke 1:41 says As soon as Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting the child leapt in her womb and Elizabeth was fillled with the Holy Spirit.

Now we know that John baptised with Water, but as he told us Jesus baptised us in the Spirit. Now we also know Baptism is our way of being free from Original sin.

Now go back to Luke 1:80 It says the child grew up and his SPIRIT grew strong.

Okay his Spirit is the Holy Spirit that was mentioned in Luke 1:41

Now I am guessing here, could it be that when Elizabeth met with Mary, could that be the moment John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit and saved from Original sin?

Now of course John was circumcised but that was of course the Law. So was Jesus. But as we know that did free you from Original sin. Baptism did.

But I do believe he was saved from Original Sin the same as the Blessed Mother, I just don’t know when for sure.

But the only person who was completely never even conceived or saved from Original Sin is of course Jesus, because he was God.

Mary and John were saved from Original Sin, Jesus of course had no sin to be saved from.

 

[rinnie]

^^ Interesting.

Well, I’m on this thread because I just read a quote by Catherine of Siena, from “The Dialogue”, chapter 66.

The quote says:
“How wretched I am! John the Baptist never sinner. He was made holy in his mother’s womb, yet he did such great penance. But I have committed so many sins and have not yet even begun to acknowledge it with tears and true contrition, seeing who God is who is offended by me and who I am who offend him!”

I’m not sure what affect this has on the discussion (probably not much since her words aren’t infallible), but I found it interesting .

This is why I believe this can be completely true. I believe he was indeed made Holy in his Mothers womb because he was filled with the Holy Spirit, because as he grew up as a child the Holy Spirit grew stronger. So he had to indeed be filled with the Holy Spirit.

That makes it possible for him to be saved like the Blessed Mother.

 

[DebChris]

Mary was the only person conceived without sin. This made her a holy receptacle for our Lord. She became the Ark of the New Covenant.
John the Baptist, on the other hand, was conceived with original sin. He leaped in his mother’s womb. It is Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, who cried out in recognition “And how does this happen to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me” (Luke 1:43).
When asked if he were the messiah, John said that he was “not worthy to untie His sandals.” This would be a statement that John, like the rest of us, was also a sinner in need of a Saviour. He hesitates, but is obedient to Jesus, when Jesus seeks baptism.
So, when Mary visits Elizabeth, both mother and the child in the womb are sanctified. St. John also said, “I must decrease that He might increase.” Like John, we too are called to let go of our sense of self and allow God greater control in our lives. We continue to sin, despite being sealed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism. “For the righteous man sins seven times a day.”
Yet, I would also say that John was indeed filled with the Holy Spirit (not doctrine) with his mother. When I pray the rosary, I add a single word or simple phrase to the words “…and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus_________” for each mystery. For the second joyful mystery, the Visitation, the word is indeed “sanctified.” Although conceived with original sin, this sin could well have been removed when John the Baptist recognized Jesus while yet in the womb. It is this recognition and sanctification that led him to leap with joy in his mother’s womb.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The point is not that he didn’t have grace. He certainly had grace dispensed to him. Actual grace.

I gave a scenario in which the Good Thief could also be considered a saint…and that is because he died before Christ and waited amongst the souls in hell (not the hell of the damned, but in Abraham’s Bosom) for Christ to free him…and because he exhibited heroic virtue through actual grace, we now call him a saint.

This was only possible for those who died before Christ to reach sainthood in this fashion. After Christ’s death and ressurection, unless one died and rose with him in the laver of regeneration (the Sacrament of Baptism), one could not possibly be a saint.

– Nicole

Yablabo
I agree with you that John was cleansed of original sin in the womb.
I also agree that the least in Jesus’s Kingdom is greater than earthly John. Your distinction between actual and sanctifying grace wells explains that the Spirit mentioned when John leapt in the womb was not the same that we speak of as given to us at baptism. It is also worth noting that it was Elizabeth who was filled with the Holy Spirit which may be splitting hairs.

Thus, strangely, John the baptist is himself one of the few persons cleansed of original sin who did not receive sanctifying grace at the same time. (Perhaps this was the same for all those he baptised).

This raises the question of whether Mary possessed sanctifying grace before the Annunciation even if she was without original sin or its stain? (Actually I am not sure of how the “stain” applies to Mary as she did suffer some of the consequences that such a stain gives to all humans. Perhaps she is deserving of another word as “stain” presumes original sin was at one time present which it was not).
I would presume she did not possess sanctifying grace before the Annunciation but maybe I am wrong?

I am not too sure re your use of the word “hell” above. Wouldn’t “Sheol” or Hades be more helpful for readers? “Hell” in theology since medieval times means a place of no return or redemption - despite the fact that Jesus’s “harrowing of hell” is wonderful aliteration I would hate to lose.

Re the Patriachs waiting in hell (or Hades) for Jesus’s death which is their release…
This is of course perfectly sensible and acceptable but I think one of the benefits of our post-Einstein education/age is that most of us can think a little more abstractly wrt time and space now. Maybe I am wrong but I have no problem seeing the Old Testament saints going straight to wherever we redeemed christians go at death.

It seems to me that all earthly history marches around the outer circumference of a circle. At death we enter another dimension where time is by no means the same as on earth. All persons who have died throughout history effectively cross the circumference and enter the centre of the circle at the same time.All historical causes and effects and consequences have already been played out in that centre, including Christ’s redemptive acts. Perhaps the general resurrection of the dead has also already taken place when we enter the centre also. Our glorified bodies are ready and waiting (if we have the ticket).

This concept would solve a lot of problems theology has always had trying to explain the hiatus between death and general resurrection and how we can have souls without bodies in the afterlife during this period.

I think this is still Catholic - though I may be wrong.