John the Baptist in the Womb

[CatholicSooner]

So I was reading Luke last night an kept going back to one verse in chapter one when Gabriel announced God’s plans for the baby that will be conceived as John the Baptist

even from his mother’s womb he will be filled with the Holy Spirit,

This statement had to have been added for a reason. To me it means that this is a special blessing. That usually fetuses are not filled with the Holy SPirit in the womb.

So, is this a clue to why we have infant baptism? We are not full of the holy spirit until a point in our lives? Is this point baptism? Is the Holy Spirit in this verse the same thing as what we call sanctifying grace?

On a related note, was John conceived via natural relations with Zacharius? or was it like how Jesus was conceived?

In the first chapter alone, there are three times where Luke says somebody was full of the holy spirit. What i mentioned above is one. Another one is when Elizabeth is greeted by Mary, she is filled with the holy spirit. The third time is when Zachariah wrote that his son will be named John. His voice came back and he was filled with the holy spirit. On these latter two instances, immediately following the statement that they were filled with the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth and Zacharius recited very beautiful prayers aloud…as if the holy spirit was guiding them on what to say to inspire others. Just an interesting note I picked up on.

 

[Della]

So I was reading Luke last night an kept going back to one verse in chapter one when Gabriel announced God’s plans for the baby that will be conceived as John the Baptist

This statement had to have been added for a reason. To me it means that this is a special blessing. That usually fetuses are not filled with the Holy SPirit in the womb.

Yes, it means that St. JtB was born without the stain of original sin, as was Mary, but not conceived without the stain of original sin. The difference is important. He was filled with the Holy Spirit at the moment his mother Elisabeth beheld Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus. He was so blessed because of the special mission God had for him–that of being the forerunner of Christ before the people–to announce his coming to Israel.

So, is this a clue to why we have infant baptism? We are not full of the holy spirit until a point in our lives? Is this point baptism? Is the Holy Spirit in this verse the same thing as what we call sanctifying grace?

Interesting insight. I agree that it is sanctifying grace.

On a related note, was John conceived via natural relations with Zacharius? or was it like how Jesus was conceived?

St. Luke makes no mention of a special conception for St.JtB. It has always been Church teaching that he was conceived in the usual manner.

In the first chapter alone, there are three times where Luke says somebody was full of the holy spirit. What i mentioned above is one. Another one is when Elizabeth is greeted by Mary, she is filled with the holy spirit. The third time is when Zachariah wrote that his son will be named John. His voice came back and he was filled with the holy spirit. On these latter two instances, immediately following the statement that they were filled with the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth and Zacharius recited very beautiful prayers aloud…as if the holy spirit was guiding them on what to say to inspire others. Just an interesting note I picked up on.

Yes, again, good insight. The Holy Spirit indeed moved them to prophecy and to praise God for the deliverance of Israel and the whole world in the Incarnation of the Christ. :yup:

 

[Nelka]

Baby not foetus!

Luke 1:41 Now it happened that as soon as Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Easy!

 

[7_Sorrows]

Baby not foetus!

Luke 1:41 Now it happened that as soon as Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Easy!

Yes!

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, it means that St. JtB was born without the stain of original sin

This, of course, is theological speculation that’s not part of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Some have held to it – and there’s a reasonable case to be made here! – but, formally speaking, this isn’t something that the Church itself teaches.

[John] was filled with the Holy Spirit at the moment his mother Elisabeth beheld Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus.

Actually, that’s not what Scripture states. Rather, it’s Elizabeth who is filled with the Holy Spirit, which seems to be the reason that she is enabled to make the statements about Jesus that she makes.

 

[thistle]

This, of course, is theological speculation that’s not part of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Some have held to it – and there’s a reasonable case to be made here! – but, formally speaking, this isn’t something that the Church itself teaches.

Actually, that’s not what Scripture states. Rather, it’s Elizabeth who is filled with the Holy Spirit, which seems to be the reason that she is enabled to make the statements about Jesus that she makes.

I agree that the Church does not directly teach that John was born without original sin but it does teach:

CCC 717 “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.” John was “filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb” by Christ himself, whom the Virgin Mary had just conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary’s visitation to Elizabeth thus became a visit from God to his people.

If John was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb by Jesus I don’t see any other possible interpretation than the one meaning John was born without original sin because being “filled with the Holy Spirit” is not compatible with being in a state of sin.

 

[michaelhager]

How could a pregnant woman be filled with the Holy Spirit to the exclusion of her innocent child? John MUST have also been filled with the Holy Spirit and thus been free from sin since the two are not compatible.

Elizabeth and Zachariah have already been described as “…righteous in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly.”

 

[Gorgias]

I agree that the Church does not directly teach that John was born without original sin but it does teach:

CCC 717 “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.” John was “filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb” by Christ himself

Aah – Luke 1:15 (“He will be filled with the holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb”). Yes – good catch!

Yet, are we saying – with certainty – that John was “filled with the holy Spirit” at the Visitation? Scripture doesn’t say so, and it seemed that this is what Della was asserting.

If John was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb by Jesus I don’t see any other possible interpretation than the one meaning John was born without original sin because being “filled with the Holy Spirit” is not compatible with being in a state of sin.

Yet, it doesn’t say “from conception”, just “from the womb”. I’m picking nits, of course, but I think they’re important theological ones. The Church asserts that Mary was saved in a singular way – through her Immaculate Conception. This would seem to preclude the assertion that John was immaculately conceived as well, wouldn’t it?

One might suggest that John, too, was immaculately conceived, but in doing so, one would necessarily be arguing that his salvation wasn’t through the gift of freedom from original sin. The assertion of an immaculate conception, given that it wasn’t the means by which he was saved, would have to imply that John subsequently sinned, and therefore, his salvation was through the merits of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection. Is that really what’s being argued here?

On the other hand, if John was not immaculately conceived, but rather, inherited original sin at his conception and later was “filled with the Holy Spirit” in the womb of his mother, then we’re all good – his salvation came through this gratuitous gift of the Holy Spirit. The question of whether he was born with original sin really isn’t what’s in play here. We, as humans, are in need of Christ not because we’re born in original sin, but because we’re conceived in it…

 

[Della]

I agree that the Church does not directly teach that John was born without original sin but it does teach:

CCC 717 “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.” John was “filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb” by Christ himself, whom the Virgin Mary had just conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary’s visitation to Elizabeth thus became a visit from God to his people.

If John was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb by Jesus I don’t see any other possible interpretation than the one meaning John was born without original sin because being “filled with the Holy Spirit” is not compatible with being in a state of sin.

Yes, this is why the Church celebrates only three birthdays, that of Jesus, Mary, and John the Baptist. The teaching that he was born without the stain of original sin is tacit in what the Church practices.

 

[kkollwitz]

“And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant” — filled, like the mother, with the Holy Ghost — “leaped for joy in her womb”, as if to acknowledge the presence of his Lord. Then was accomplished the prophetic utterance of the angel that the child should “be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb”. Now as the presence of any sin whatever is incompatible with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul, it follows that at this moment John was cleansed from the stain of original sin."

newadvent.org/cathen/08486b.htm

 

[CatholicSooner]

“And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant” — filled, like the mother, with the Holy Ghost — “leaped for joy in her womb”, as if to acknowledge the presence of his Lord. Then was accomplished the prophetic utterance of the angel that the child should “be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb”. Now as the presence of any sin whatever is incompatible with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul, it follows that at this moment John was cleansed from the stain of original sin."

newadvent.org/cathen/08486b.htm

John was filled with the HOly spirit before this

 

[CatholicSooner]

“And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant” — filled, like the mother, with the Holy Ghost — “leaped for joy in her womb”, as if to acknowledge the presence of his Lord. Then was accomplished the prophetic utterance of the angel that the child should “be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb”. Now as the presence of any sin whatever is incompatible with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul, it follows that at this moment John was cleansed from the stain of original sin."

newadvent.org/cathen/08486b.htm

also, I don’t think it is true that the holy ghost can’t be in the presence of sin.

 

[SyroMalankara]

John was filled with the HOly spirit before this

when?

 

[thistle]

Aah – Luke 1:15 (“He will be filled with the holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb”). Yes – good catch!

Yet, are we saying – with certainty – that John was “filled with the holy Spirit” at the Visitation? Scripture doesn’t say so, and it seemed that this is what Della was asserting.

Yet, it doesn’t say “from conception”, just “from the womb”. I’m picking nits, of course, but I think they’re important theological ones. The Church asserts that Mary was saved in a singular way – through her Immaculate Conception. This would seem to preclude the assertion that John was immaculately conceived as well, wouldn’t it?

One might suggest that John, too, was immaculately conceived, but in doing so, one would necessarily be arguing that his salvation wasn’t through the gift of freedom from original sin. The assertion of an immaculate conception, given that it wasn’t the means by which he was saved, would have to imply that John subsequently sinned, and therefore, his salvation was through the merits of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection. Is that really what’s being argued here?

On the other hand, if John was not immaculately conceived, but rather, inherited original sin at his conception and later was “filled with the Holy Spirit” in the womb of his mother, then we’re all good – his salvation came through this gratuitous gift of the Holy Spirit. The question of whether he was born with original sin really isn’t what’s in play here. We, as humans, are in need of Christ not because we’re born in original sin, but because we’re conceived in it…

Yes we are saying that John was conceived in original sin but was born free from original sin because he was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the womb.

 

[thistle]

John was filled with the HOly spirit before this

When???

 

[CatholicSooner]

when?

I read it as at somepoint in the womb he was filled with the holy spirit. At the visitation I interpreted it to mean that Elizabeth was filled with the holy spirit, not John.

 

[Della]

I read it as at somepoint in the womb he was filled with the holy spirit. At the visitation I interpreted it to mean that Elizabeth was filled with the holy spirit, not John.

The Church teaches that John “leaping” in Elisabeth’s womb is the sign that he was filled with the Holy Spirit. His was a very special mission–one that had been foreseen by the prophets. Mary received the firstfruits of the redemption in her Immaculate Conception, John was the second, except that his came after his conception at Mary’s greeting to his mother.

 

[Gorgias]

The Church teaches that John “leaping” in Elisabeth’s womb is the sign that he was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Della,

Are you saying that the teaching is that John’s having leapt was a sign that he was already filled with the Holy Spirit, or that his leaping was a sign that he was *being *filled with the Holy Spirit by virtue of hearing Mary’s greeting?

Thanks!

G.

 

[CatholicSooner]

The Church teaches that John “leaping” in Elisabeth’s womb is the sign that he was filled with the Holy Spirit. His was a very special mission–one that had been foreseen by the prophets. Mary received the firstfruits of the redemption in her Immaculate Conception, John was the second, except that his came after his conception at Mary’s greeting to his mother.

seems pretty clear to me that Elizabeth was the one filled with the holy spirit at the visitation

41 Now it happened that as soon as Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Della]

Della,

Are you saying that the teaching is that John’s having leapt was a sign that he was already filled with the Holy Spirit, or that his leaping was a sign that he was *being *filled with the Holy Spirit by virtue of hearing Mary’s greeting?

Thanks!

G.

The latter, at the same moment his mother Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and affirmed that Mary was the Mother of the Lord and blessed for her (Mary’s) belief. This fulfilled the Angel Gabriel’s prophecy that John would be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb.