John the Baptist born without original sin

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

– Nicole

Yablabo
I like where you have gone with this and agree. It may be splitting hairs to also note that it was Elizabeth who was named as being filled with the Holy Spirit.

It is strange that the giver of baptism (along with those he baptised) may have been one of the few persons in the world to be cleansed of original sin without at the same time receiving sanctifying grace as members of Jesus’s Kingdom do.

It is also interesting to note that Mary, who had no original sin nor the stain of original sin, was also without sanctifying grace before the Annunciation (perhaps I am wrong on this).
Actually I still wonder about attribution of “the stain” to Mary. It seems she did suffer at least some of the effects/consequences of original sin (eg aging and getting wrinkles?) simply by being born of Adam. If you have any thoughts on this difficulty I would be appreciative.

WRT your use of the word “hell” in the above context perhaps a better word for new Catholics may be “Hades” or “Sheol” though “bosom of Abraham” is one I never thought of! Personally I would hate to see the very old theology enunciated in Jesus’s “harrowing of hell” taken off the books. Great aliteration.

Finally I am not so sure about the O.T. “saints” waiting in a layby for Jeus express train to take precedence before they can follow if you will excuse my cutesy way of putting this.

Perfectly acceptable of course but I think in our post-Einstein era we fairly well educated masses are able to handle more abstract concepts of time and push the boundaries of theology a little further without danger to faith and morals.

I have always felt that history marches around the time-bound outer-circumference of a circle. But at death we cross the “historical time barrier”,as it were, and enter the centre of the circle where 1 day is a 1000 years and vice-versa. In other words, here all earthly history has already played out. All causes and all effects and consequences are done.
From the inner side of the circle all those who die enter the centre at the same time. Jesus’s redemptive act has (or is at least concurrently) already happened. I would go far as to say that the general resurrection has already happened…or rather is happening as we die. Judgement is now, our glorified bodies are already waiting for us (if we have the ticket).

The above would certainly solve the difficulties that theologians still have in trying to explain how on earth humans can exist as pure souls in the hiatus between death and the general resurrection still to come. Even Aquinas didn’t really answer that one convincingly.

Anyhow that is my personal take, I think I am still Catholic in spite of it!

 

[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

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.

– Nicole

Yablabo
I like where you have gone with this and agree. It may be splitting hairs to also note that it was Elizabeth who was named as being filled with the Holy Spirit.

It is strange that the giver of baptism (along with those he baptised) may have been one of the few persons in the world to be cleansed of original sin without at the same time receiving sanctifying grace as members of Jesus’s Kingdom do.

It is also interesting to note that Mary, who had no original sin nor the stain of original sin, was also without sanctifying grace before the Annunciation (perhaps I am wrong on this).
Actually I still wonder about attribution of “the stain” to Mary. It seems she did suffer at least some of the effects/consequences of original sin (eg aging and getting wrinkles?) simply by being born of Adam. If you have any thoughts on this difficulty I would be appreciative.

WRT your use of the word “hell” in the above context perhaps a better word for new Catholics may be “Hades” or “Sheol” though “bosom of Abraham” is one I never thought of! Personally I would hate to see the very old theology enunciated in Jesus’s “harrowing of hell” taken off the books. Great aliteration.

Finally I am not so sure about the O.T. “saints” waiting in a layby for Jeus express train to take precedence before they can follow if you will excuse my cutesy way of putting this.

Perfectly acceptable of course but I think in our post-Einstein era we fairly well educated masses are able to handle more abstract concepts of time and push the boundaries of theology a little further without danger to faith and morals.

I have always felt that history marches around the time-bound outer-circumference of a circle. But at death we cross the “historical time barrier”,as it were, and enter the centre of the circle where 1 day is a 1000 years and vice-versa. In other words, here all earthly history has already played out. All causes and all effects and consequences are done.
From the inner side of the circle all those who die enter the centre at the same time. Jesus’s redemptive act has (or is at least concurrently) already happened. I would go far as to say that the general resurrection has already happened…or rather is happening as we die. Judgement is now, our glorified bodies are already waiting for us (if we have the ticket).

The above would certainly solve the difficulties that theologians still have in trying to explain how on earth humans can exist as pure souls in the hiatus between death and the general resurrection still to come. Even Aquinas didn’t really answer that one convincingly.

Anyhow that is my personal take, I think I am still Catholic in spite of it!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is an old post but a goodie.

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.

Yablabo
I like where you have gone with this and agree. It may be splitting hairs to also note that it was Elizabeth who was named as being filled with the Holy Spirit.

It is strange that the giver of baptism (along with those he baptised) may have been one of the few persons in the world to be cleansed of original sin without at the same time receiving sanctifying grace as members of Jesus’s Kingdom do.

It is also interesting to note that Mary, who had no original sin nor the stain of original sin, was also without sanctifying grace before the Annunciation (perhaps I am wrong on this).
Actually I still wonder about attribution of “the stain” to Mary. It seems she did suffer at least some of the effects/consequences of original sin (eg aging and getting wrinkles?) simply by being born of Adam. If you have any thoughts on this difficulty I would be appreciative.

WRT your use of the word “hell” in the above context perhaps a better word for new Catholics may be “Hades” or “Sheol” though “bosom of Abraham” is one I never thought of. Personally I would hate to see the very old theology enunciated in Jesus’s “harrowing of hell” taken off the books. Great aliteration.

Finally I am not so sure about the O.T. “saints” waiting in a layby for Jeus express train to take precedence before they can follow if you will excuse my cutesy way of putting this.

Perfectly acceptable of course but I think in our post-Einstein era we fairly well educated masses are able to handle more abstract concepts of time and push the boundaries of theology a little further without danger to faith and morals.

I have always felt that history marches around the time-bound outer-circumference of a circle. But at death we cross the “historical time barrier”,as it were, and enter the centre of the circle where 1 day is a 1000 years and vice-versa. In other words, here all earthly history has already played out. All causes and all effects and consequences are done.
From the inner side of the circle all those who die enter the centre at the same time. Jesus’s redemptive act has (or is at least concurrently) already happened. I would go far as to say that the general resurrection has already happened…or rather is happening as we die. Judgement is now, our glorified bodies are already waiting for us (if we have the ticket).

The above would certainly solve the difficulties that theologians still have in trying to explain how on earth humans can exist as pure souls in the hiatus between death and the general resurrection still to come. Even Aquinas didn’t really answer that one convincingly.

Anyhow that is my personal take, I think I am still Catholic in spite of it!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

TEST

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Sorry for the above repeats.
The forum database threw a wobbly when i first posted.
then it crashed - I hope I wasn’t the cause .

 

[deaconsteve56]

Some people do contend that St. John the Baptist, the prophet Jeremiah, etc. were sanctified in the womb and had their original sin wiped away. However, I do not know of a single binding teaching that actually compells us to believe this.

I also find it unlikely to be true, since Christ himself referred to St. John the Baptist as if he were not yet in the kingdom of heaven while St. John was yet living (Matt. chapter 11 verse 11). If St. John was born without original sin, and retained his state of grace throughout his life, in order to be named amongst those in the Beatific Vision, then while he was living he would have been amongst those in the kingdom of heaven.

That’s merely my two cents.

The Holy Mother of God was not only born without original sin, she was free from original sin from the very first instant of her conception. Our Lord, whose humanity was from the substance of his mother, could not possibly be conceived in original sin since he had no earthly biological father to pass the original sin on to him.

– Nicole

Sanctifying grace works the same for everybody. It puts us in relationship with God. And as long as we remain in a state of grace we remain in relationship with God. We received our sanctifying grace for the first time when we were baptised. After that point, if we lost our sanctifying grace through mortal sin, it is restored through confession.
While John may have been born in a state of sanctifying grace because of the visitation (I am still waiting on a definitive answer for that as well) if he sinned during his life grace could only be restored by confession or through the mercy of God. There is no teaching (that I am aware of) that John the Baptist was perfect during his life.

 

[NotWorthy]

…
While John may have been born in a state of sanctifying grace because of the visitation (I am still waiting on a definitive answer for that as well) if he sinned during his life grace could only be restored by confession or through the mercy of God. There is no teaching (that I am aware of) that John the Baptist was perfect during his life.

If the Bible says “he was filled with the Holy Spirit, even from within the womb”, then what is the question? I assume he didn’t sin prior to exiting the womb!

 

[deaconsteve56]

If the Bible says “he was filled with the Holy Spirit, even from within the womb”, then what is the question? I assume he didn’t sin prior to exiting the womb!

My question was if John was sanctified in the womb. LK 1:41 states that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Are we to also assume that John was likewise filled with the Spirit? I have heard some say that when John leaped for joy, that was the moment he was filled with the Spirit. Is this Church teaching, or speculation?
I do agree that no sin can be committed in the womb by the child, nor can they sin as infants…they don’t know what act is sinful or not sinful, so sin would be impossible at that state, until they reach the age of reason.

 

[rinnie]

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.

It is not the teaching of the Church that Mary was conceived without Original sin. It is taught that AT THE MOMENT of her conception she was SAVED from original sin by the merits of her Son Jesus our Lord.

I believe that John was also saved from Original Sin sometime when he was in the womb of his Mother. Rather it was at the moment of his conception, I am not sure.

But please be clear to not say the Blessed Mother was conceived without Original Sin, because in order for that to be possible her Mother could not have been stained by it.

The only person conceived without Original Sin is Christ Jesus. But Mary was indeed the spotless and indeed without sin.

Before Original sin could hit her God stepped in and saved her. But she was indeed saved as we all our, by the Merits of Christ. But hers was indeed at the MOMENT of her conception, not before.

 

[rinnie]

My question was if John was sanctified in the womb. LK 1:41 states that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Are we to also assume that John was likewise filled with the Spirit? I have heard some say that when John leaped for joy, that was the moment he was filled with the Spirit. Is this Church teaching, or speculation?
I do agree that no sin can be committed in the womb by the child, nor can they sin as infants…they don’t know what act is sinful or not sinful, so sin would be impossible at that state, until they reach the age of reason.

I think you heard that from me, and it is indeed my thinking it could be at the moment the Blessed Mother and Elizabeth met. Again my thinking, not sure if its Church teaching.

With that said, although no sin cannot be committed in the womb. Original Sin is not Actual sin which is committed.

Original Sin is given to all of us inherited from Adam and Eve.

That is why we must be clear to say even the Blessed Mother and John had to be saved by the merits of Christ.

We know from Church teaching its a the Moment of her conception for the Blessed Mother, but not sure on John. I have not found that answer yet.

 

[DebChris]

It is not the teaching of the Church that Mary was conceived without Original sin. It is taught that AT THE MOMENT of her conception she was SAVED from original sin by the merits of her Son Jesus our Lord.

I believe that John was also saved from Original Sin sometime when he was in the womb of his Mother. Rather it was at the moment of his conception, I am not sure.

But please be clear to not say the Blessed Mother was conceived without Original Sin, because in order for that to be possible her Mother could not have been stained by it.

The only person conceived without Original Sin is Christ Jesus. But Mary was indeed the spotless and indeed without sin.

Before Original sin could hit her God stepped in and saved her. But she was indeed saved as we all our, by the Merits of Christ. But hers was indeed at the MOMENT of her conception, not before.

Mary revealed herself to Bernadette as the Immaculate Conception.
The prayer on the Miraculous Medal is “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.”
catholictradition.org/Mary/miraculous-medal.htm
The Catholic Church teaches dogmatically that Mary was preserved immune from the stain of original sin.
justforcatholics.org/immaculate.htm
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm23.htm
catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

http://www.myreligiousitems.com/ProductImages/large/18953_Pendant.jpg

And yes, Jesus is Mary’s savior as well as our own.

 

[NotWorthy]

My question was if John was sanctified in the womb. LK 1:41 states that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Are we to also assume that John was likewise filled with the Spirit? I have heard some say that when John leaped for joy, that was the moment he was filled with the Spirit. Is this Church teaching, or speculation?
I do agree that no sin can be committed in the womb by the child, nor can they sin as infants…they don’t know what act is sinful or not sinful, so sin would be impossible at that state, until they reach the age of reason.

Oh, Ok. I see your dilemma. What you are not seeing is that Luke 1:41 confirms the promise that Gabriel gave to Zechariah in Luke 1:15.

---

13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall name him John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of [the] Lord. He will drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will be filled with the holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb

***,

It is rather safe to assume that it is in Luke 1:41 that Gabriel’s promise was fulfilled.

 

[deaconsteve56]

Oh, Ok. I see your dilemma. What you are not seeing is that Luke 1:41 confirms the promise that Gabriel gave to Zechariah in Luke 1:15.

---

It is rather safe to assume that it is in Luke 1:41 that Gabriel’s promise was fulfilled.***

Thank you Not Worthy. This is exactly what I was looking for to confirm what I had presumed.

 

[grannymh]

i have been stuck or puzzled on something about this myself. Something I am confused about is how ‘original sin’ and ‘concupiscence’ relate to one another.

Even though original sin is removed from our souls through baptism, we are still left with concupiscence which is a tendency to sin.

I don’t get it.

i believe that mary jesus adam and eve were born without original sin and possibly without concupiscence. I believe that st john the baptist’s original sin was also removed at the visitation of Mary. but what about concupisence? was that removed from him too?

is concupisence and original sin the same thing? or are they different?

were adam and eve created with concupisence or is this what they inherited when they ate the bad fruit of knowledge of good and evil?

For information, read all the paragraphs 355 - 421 of the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*.

 

[rinnie]

Mary revealed herself to Bernadette as the Immaculate Conception.
The prayer on the Miraculous Medal is “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.”
catholictradition.org/Mary/miraculous-medal.htm
The Catholic Church teaches dogmatically that Mary was preserved immune from the stain of original sin.
justforcatholics.org/immaculate.htm
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm23.htm
catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

http://www.myreligiousitems.com/ProductImages/large/18953_Pendant.jpg

And yes, Jesus is Mary’s savior as well as our own.

The Blessed Mother was saved from Original sin at the first instance of her conception. That is why we say she was conceived without sin.

But lets not take the words conceived without sin out of context. She was saved at the Instance of her conception which is what WE as Catholic’s know and understand when we say conceived without sin.

But she was not conceived without sin, because as I stated her Mother had original sin. But the Blessed Mother was not touched by that original Sin because at the second of her conception she was saved by God.

That is why we say she was never touched by Original Sin because of the merits of her Son.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Oh, Ok. I see your dilemma. What you are not seeing is that Luke 1:41 confirms the promise that Gabriel gave to Zechariah in Luke 1:15.

It is rather safe to assume that it is in Luke 1:41 that Gabriel’s promise was fulfilled.

Notworthy
What is your take (or sources?) on “yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” if John received sanctifying grace and presumably perservered in it?

Explanations I have previously seen are:
(1) He was justified but not sanctified by the Holy Spirit (see forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=313013 post #8).
(2) “greater than he” refers to the privilege of knowing God through Christ and his teaching. I find this one a bit weak because it suggests “more privileged” which isn’t quite the same as “more great”.

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy
What is your take (or sources?) on “yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” if John received sanctifying grace and presumably perservered in it?

Explanations I have previously seen are:
(1) He was justified but not sanctified by the Holy Spirit (see forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=313013 post #8).
(2) “greater than he” refers to the privilege of knowing God through Christ and his teaching. I find this one a bit weak because it suggests “more privileged” which isn’t quite the same as “more great”.

Good question! I’ll see what I can find on that one.

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy
What is your take (or sources?) on “yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” if John received sanctifying grace and presumably perservered in it?

Explanations I have previously seen are:
(1) He was justified but not sanctified by the Holy Spirit (see forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=313013 post #8).
(2) “greater than he” refers to the privilege of knowing God through Christ and his teaching. I find this one a bit weak because it suggests “more privileged” which isn’t quite the same as “more great”.

I think the reasoning is that it is not “sanctifying grace” that John the Baptist received in the womb. Remember, not all “Grace” is “Sanctifying Grace”. For instance, John the Baptist was never Baptized “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”.

Here’s what the Navarre says:

St. John was the greatest in the sense that he had received a mission unique and incomparable in the context of the Old Testament. However, in the Kingdom of heaven (the New Testament) inaugurated by Christ, the divine gift of grace makes the least of those who faithfully receive it greater than the greatest in the earlier dispensation. Once the work of our redemption is accomplished, God’s grace will also be extended to the just of the Old Alliance. Thus, the greatness of John the Baptist, the Precursor and the last of the prophets, will be enhanced by the dignity of being made a son of God.

And the Ignatius Study Bible says:

John is the greatest OT prophet. In the New Covenant, however, even the least NT saint outshines the most illustrious saints of old. These prophets looked ahead to the New Covenant but did not share fully in its blessings. Jesus thus contrasts the Old and New Covenants; he does not undermine the saintly life of John.

As a prooftext, they site 1 Peter 1: 10-12 - *** Concerning this salvation, prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and investigated it, investigating the time and circumstances that the Spirit of Christ within them indicated when it testified in advance to the sufferings destined for Christ and the glories to follow them. ***It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you with regard to the things that have now been announced to you by those who preached the good news to you [through] the holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels longed to look.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think the reasoning is that it is not “sanctifying grace” that John the Baptist received in the womb. Remember, not all “Grace” is “Sanctifying Grace”. For instance, John the Baptist was never Baptized “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”.

NotWorthy
Thanks for offering this - this position makes the most sense to me.

On a related theme this raises the question of whether Mary received sanctifying grace at her IConception or at the Annunication. I believe the former is the case - would you concurr?

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy
Thanks for offering this - this position makes the most sense to me.

On a related theme this raises the question of whether Mary received sanctifying grace at her IConception or at the Annunication. I believe the former is the case - would you concurr?

As the Church dogmatically teaches, Mary was conceived without Original Sin. The word checharitomone, from what I understand, certainly implies this as well. Hence, Mary would have received sanctifying Grace at her conception.

As someone pointed out, when Mary appeared to the young girl at Lourdes (Bernadette?), she introduced herself with the title, “I am the Immaculate Conception”. The local bishop was stunned when Bernadette told him Mary’s words, for he knew that the young girl would have had no clue what those words meant.