T
thistle
Guest
I agree.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Della & thistle,
Is there a doctrinal statement that you can cite which states this?
Scripture seems to say something subtly different. It looks there like a series of consecutive events:
ὡς ἤκουσεν τὸν ἀσπασμὸν τῆς Μαρίας ἡ Ἐλεισάβετ, ἐσκίρτησεν τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐπλήσθη Πνεύματος Ἁγίου ἡ Ἐλεισάβετ, καὶ ἀνεφώνησεν κραυγῇ μεγάλῃ καὶ εἶπεν Εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν, καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου.
- ὡς ἤκουσεν τὸν ἀσπασμὸν τῆς Μαρίας ἡ Ἐλεισάβετ, ἐσκίρτησεν τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ αὐτῆς, * as Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby in her womb leapt
- καὶ ἐπλήσθη Πνεύματος Ἁγίου ἡ Ἐλεισάβετ, * and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
- καὶ ἀνεφώνησεν κραυγῇ μεγάλῃ * and she cried out with a loud voice
D
Della
Guest
Catholic Encyclopedia:Della & thistle,
Is there a doctrinal statement that you can cite which states this?
Scripture seems to say something subtly different. It looks there like a series of consecutive events:
ὡς ἤκουσεν τὸν ἀσπασμὸν τῆς Μαρίας ἡ Ἐλεισάβετ, ἐσκίρτησεν τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐπλήσθη Πνεύματος Ἁγίου ἡ Ἐλεισάβετ, καὶ ἀνεφώνησεν κραυγῇ μεγάλῃ καὶ εἶπεν Εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν, καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου.
Unless you’re saying that this is just a Greek idiom, the text seems to be pretty clear: Mary greets Elizabeth and John leaps; then Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and cries out. In other words, John’s leaping happens before the Holy Spirit comes to Elizabeth. If it is the grace of God – the having been filled with the Holy Spirit – that causes John to leap, then he seems to be already in possession of this grace before his mother is.
- ὡς ἤκουσεν τὸν ἀσπασμὸν τῆς Μαρίας ἡ Ἐλεισάβετ, ἐσκίρτησεν τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ αὐτῆς, * as Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby in her womb leapt
- καὶ ἐπλήσθη Πνεύματος Ἁγίου ἡ Ἐλεισάβετ, * and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
- καὶ ἀνεφώνησεν κραυγῇ μεγάλῃ * and she cried out with a loud voice
“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.
G
Gorgias
Guest
With all due respect to the fine folks who put together the 1917 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, and to those whom they cite in their article on John the Baptist*, this isn’t a source of doctrinal teaching of the Church. Therefore, it might fall under the category of theological opinion, or pious exposition, but… is there any doctrinal source that you might offer, that might lead us to understand that the Church teaches this (as you’ve claimed)?
Thanks!
Blessings,
G.
** Namely: (Unspecified) Gospel Commentaries, JOSEPHUS and the many Lives of Christ, EUSEBIUS, Church History I.11; Acta pour servir a l’histoire eccles., I (Brussels, 1732), 36-47; notes p. 210-222; HOTTINGER, Historia Orientalis (Zurich, 1660), 144-149; PACIANDI, De cultu J. Baptistae in Antiq. Christ., III (Rome, 1755); LEOPOLD, Johannes der Taufer (Lubeck, 1838); CHIARAMONTE, Vita di San Giovanni Battista (Turin, 1892); YESTIVEL, San Juan Bautista (Madrid, 1909).*
R
Richca
Guest
A couple of thoughts. Sanctifying grace and the Holy Spirit are not the same. The Council of Trent defined sanctifying grace as “God’s justice, not by means of which He is Himself just, but by which He makes us just.” This definition excludes the identity of sanctifying grace with the Holy Spirit (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott), for God’s justice and the divine nature are one and the same and what is not God is a creature and something created by Him. The catechism of the Council of Trent calls sanctifying grace “a divine quality inhering in the soul.” and the CCC#1999-2000 defines sanctifying grace as a “gratuitous gift…infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul” and " a habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God." Sanctifying grace is a supernatural gift that God infuses into our souls such as at baptism and it makes us partakers of the divine nature. It elevates our human nature to a supernatural order. This participation in the divine nature does not make us God himself but a likeness to God and a participation in His beatitude. With the infusion of sanctifying grace, the Trinity makes their abode in us and thus we are able to have an intimate relationship with God. Sanctifying grace also makes us a new creation as St Paul says and creation is something created. Theologians and masters of the spiritual life tell us that sanctifying grace can and should increase in our souls too through our good works and cooperating with God’s graces. Now, if sanctifying grace and the Holy Spirit were the same, how could sanctifying grace increase in us? The Holy Spirit who is God cannot be increased.
T
thistle
Guest
All I can refer to is the Church’s actual teaching.Della & thistle,
Is there a doctrinal statement that you can cite which states this?
Scripture seems to say something subtly different. It looks there like a series of consecutive events:
ὡς ἤκουσεν τὸν ἀσπασμὸν τῆς Μαρίας ἡ Ἐλεισάβετ, ἐσκίρτησεν τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐπλήσθη Πνεύματος Ἁγίου ἡ Ἐλεισάβετ, καὶ ἀνεφώνησεν κραυγῇ μεγάλῃ καὶ εἶπεν Εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν, καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου.
Unless you’re saying that this is just a Greek idiom, the text seems to be pretty clear: Mary greets Elizabeth and John leaps; then Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and cries out. In other words, John’s leaping happens before the Holy Spirit comes to Elizabeth. If it is the grace of God – the having been filled with the Holy Spirit – that causes John to leap, then he seems to be already in possession of this grace before his mother is.
- ὡς ἤκουσεν τὸν ἀσπασμὸν τῆς Μαρίας ἡ Ἐλεισάβετ, ἐσκίρτησεν τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ αὐτῆς, * as Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby in her womb leapt
- καὶ ἐπλήσθη Πνεύματος Ἁγίου ἡ Ἐλεισάβετ, * and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
- καὶ ἀνεφώνησεν κραυγῇ μεγάλῃ * and she cried out with a loud voice
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.
D
Della
Guest
When you provide a doctrinal source other than commentaries. Thistle did, now you do.
And, I claim nothing. You are the one making the unsubstantiated “claims.”
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
I agree. not that it really matters but I think John was filled with the holy spirit at some point prior. If this was the moment that he was filled with the holy spirit, I think Luke would have made mention of itDella & thistle,
Is there a doctrinal statement that you can cite which states this?
Scripture seems to say something subtly different. It looks there like a series of consecutive events:
ὡς ἤκουσεν τὸν ἀσπασμὸν τῆς Μαρίας ἡ Ἐλεισάβετ, ἐσκίρτησεν τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐπλήσθη Πνεύματος Ἁγίου ἡ Ἐλεισάβετ, καὶ ἀνεφώνησεν κραυγῇ μεγάλῃ καὶ εἶπεν Εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν, καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου.
Unless you’re saying that this is just a Greek idiom, the text seems to be pretty clear: Mary greets Elizabeth and John leaps; then Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and cries out. In other words, John’s leaping happens before the Holy Spirit comes to Elizabeth. If it is the grace of God – the having been filled with the Holy Spirit – that causes John to leap, then he seems to be already in possession of this grace before his mother is.
- ὡς ἤκουσεν τὸν ἀσπασμὸν τῆς Μαρίας ἡ Ἐλεισάβετ, ἐσκίρτησεν τὸ βρέφος ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ αὐτῆς, * as Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby in her womb leapt
- καὶ ἐπλήσθη Πνεύματος Ἁγίου ἡ Ἐλεισάβετ, * and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit
- καὶ ἀνεφώνησεν κραυγῇ μεγάλῃ * and she cried out with a loud voice
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
I wasn’t meaning does S.G. equal the H.S. I know they are different. I worded it poorly. I simply meant, in the text, when Luke writes “filled with the Holy Spirit”, is that the same as receiving S.G.
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
Thistle did not post anything that stated that John was filled up at the visitation.
T
thistle
Guest
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.
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
Sorry but maybe we just comprehend things differently. That doesn’t say he was filled with the spirit at the visitation. Simply sayed what we already know…that he was filled in the womb. That sentence doesn’t give a time frame of when it happened.
On second thought, maybe by christ himself they mean at the visitation but I think based on scripture, that is just conjecture. I don’t see anything in scripture that is definite.
G
Gorgias
Guest
As CatholicSooner has pointed out, the citation from the Catechism only asserts that John was filled with the Holy Spirit “from the womb”, and does not say whether it was before the Visitation or not.
Moreover, unless I misunderstand what you’re trying to say here, then you’re mistaken: I did not provide a “doctrinal source”. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a magisterial document, and therefore, it is not a source of doctrine. None of the sources it cites are magisterial, either. Therefore, my post simply demonstrates that the encyclopedia entry does not have the force of doctrinal teaching.
You’ve been claiming this particular interpretation throughout this whole thread. But yeah, I get it – it’s not your claim, it’s the Church’s. Nevertheless, if it’s the Church’s doctrinal claim, then we should be able to find a magisterial source that says what you say… right? No one’s done that yet. Rather, all we’ve been able to uncover are the facts that are undisputed: John was filled with the Holy Spirit while in the womb; Elizabeth was filled by the Holy Spirit at the Visitation. But, we don’t have any Church document asserting that John was filled with the Holy Spirit beginning with the Visitation.
T
thistle
Guest
You have to understand that it is not your or my interpretation of Scripture that counts but rather it is what the Church actually teaches that counts.
It is a Church teaching that John was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb and if you read the footnotes in the CCC which show what underpins that teaching you will see it is the Scripture verses about the Visitation. The Church uses that to support its teaching.
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.
Luke 1:
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,
16 and he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God.
41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirit,
42 cried out in a loud voice and said, "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.
43 And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yes – precisely!
And yet, while you (continue) to point to doctrinal teachings, these teachings do not say what you assert that they say. The teachings – in this case, what the CCC says about John the Baptist – do not answer the question at hand. Rather, your interpretation of what they say is what you’ve put in play here…
No one is disputing this. Yes, “in his mother’s womb”, John is filled with the Holy Spirit. The question we’re debating here is when, precisely, during his nine months in the womb, is John filled with the Holy Spirit? Subsequent to his conception, we seem to agree. But, is it prior to the Visitation? At the moment of the Visitation? Or, at some time following the Visitation?
The footnotes don’t prove your case, it would seem. I think it’s possible for you to make an interesting case here; but you seem to think that it’s self-evident (and, I would argue, it is not manifestly the case).
Certainly, the account of the Visitation is in play here. Does it demonstrate what you think it does? That is somewhat unclear…
No – you’re claiming that the Church is using it to support your assertions – there has been no clear Church teaching here that says what you and Della have claimed (that is, that John was filled with grace at the Visitation). In other words, what ya’ll say is Church teaching – not what we see is explicit Church teaching – is what you claim the CCC supports.
Let’s parse this out:
- John was filled with the Holy Spirit. Check.
- John was filled with the Holy Spirit prior to birth. Check.
- It was Christ who filled John with the Holy Spirit. Check.
- Since Christ was just conceived, and was already incarnate, Mary’s visit to Elizabeth was a “visit from God to his people.” Check.
The big question, given CCC 717, is whether the phrase “whom the Virgin Mary had just conceived by the Holy Spirit” – in its temporal expression – refers strictly to Christ vis-a-vis the Visitation, or if it refers to the timing of the “being filled by the Holy Spirit” of John the Baptist. Both seem like they might stand a chance of being successfully argued. However – and here’s where the rubber meets the road – the CCC doesn’t make a claim one way or the other. It only says what you’ve quoted, without asserting anything else.
So, that’s why your claims don’t really hold water: you’re using a text that doesn’t make a definitive statement as your proof of the definitive statement that you’re claiming. It just doesn’t hold up.
Clearly, we could discuss the timing of John’s ‘being filled with the Holy Spirit’, and you could make the claims that you’ve made here. But, those claims would require some sort of substantiation. It’s this kind of substantiation that has been requested, but hasn’t yet been provided here.
T
thistle
Guest
Can you give us a better explanation for the Church quoting the Visitation verses with its teaching that John was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb. If he was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb prior to the Visitation why would the Church not say that?Yes – precisely!
And yet, while you (continue) to point to doctrinal teachings, these teachings do not say what you assert that they say. The teachings – in this case, what the CCC says about John the Baptist – do not answer the question at hand. Rather, your interpretation of what they say is what you’ve put in play here…
No one is disputing this. Yes, “in his mother’s womb”, John is filled with the Holy Spirit. The question we’re debating here is when, precisely, during his nine months in the womb, is John filled with the Holy Spirit? Subsequent to his conception, we seem to agree. But, is it prior to the Visitation? At the moment of the Visitation? Or, at some time following the Visitation?
The footnotes don’t prove your case, it would seem. I think it’s possible for you to make an interesting case here; but you seem to think that it’s self-evident (and, I would argue, it is not manifestly the case).
Certainly, the account of the Visitation is in play here. Does it demonstrate what you think it does? That is somewhat unclear…
No – you’re claiming that the Church is using it to support your assertions – there has been no clear Church teaching here that says what you and Della have claimed (that is, that John was filled with grace at the Visitation). In other words, what ya’ll say is Church teaching – not what we see is explicit Church teaching – is what you claim the CCC supports.
Let’s parse this out:
There’s nothing here that says that John must have been ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’ at the time of the Visitation. We could just as validly claim that he was filled with the Holy Spirit after his conception but prior to the Visitation. (It would seem that we can’t claim that he’s filled with the Holy Spirit after the Visitation, however.)
- John was filled with the Holy Spirit. Check.
- John was filled with the Holy Spirit prior to birth. Check.
- It was Christ who filled John with the Holy Spirit. Check.
- Since Christ was just conceived, and was already incarnate, Mary’s visit to Elizabeth was a “visit from God to his people.” Check.
The big question, given CCC 717, is whether the phrase “whom the Virgin Mary had just conceived by the Holy Spirit” – in its temporal expression – refers strictly to Christ vis-a-vis the Visitation, or if it refers to the timing of the “being filled by the Holy Spirit” of John the Baptist. Both seem like they might stand a chance of being successfully argued. However – and here’s where the rubber meets the road – the CCC doesn’t make a claim one way or the other. It only says what you’ve quoted, without asserting anything else.
So, that’s why your claims don’t really hold water: you’re using a text that doesn’t make a definitive statement as your proof of the definitive statement that you’re claiming. It just doesn’t hold up.
Clearly, we could discuss the timing of John’s ‘being filled with the Holy Spirit’, and you could make the claims that you’ve made here. But, those claims would require some sort of substantiation. It’s this kind of substantiation that has been requested, but hasn’t yet been provided here.
C
CatholicSooner
Guest
I’m not really sure which side is right. Was it possible for John to be filled with the HOly spirit BY CHRIST if Christ was not conceived yet? If he was filled prior to the visitation wouldn’t have Luke said filled by God?
On the other side, maybe he leaped because he was already filled and recognized the presence of the Christ b/c he was already full of the holy spirit?
I don’t know but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t seem that important
On the other side, maybe he leaped because he was already filled and recognized the presence of the Christ b/c he was already full of the holy spirit?
I don’t know but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t seem that important
M
michaelhager
Guest
Let us not forget that the Bible is not an historical document in the sense that we understand history today. Its facts are correct, but a strict linear timeline is not necessary to its teaching. We see in the very first two chapters of the bible that it is the facts, not the timeline which are important: in Chapter 1 God made Adam and Eve last in the creation sequence, but in Chapter 2 Adam is created at the beginning. The lesson is that God created man, not precisely when He did it.
It is likewise of no importance when John was filled with the Holy Spirit, what is of great importance was that he was, and that it occurred in his mothers womb, at some point in time before his birth.
My take on it, as previously stated, is that when Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, so was her womb and all of its contents. It makes logical sense, but it is also possible that the baby alone was filled with the Holy Spirit at some time before Elizabeth was.
As for Jesus not being around at Johns conception, only His human form was not yet around, but His spiritual form was there form the beginning in the Trinity since God is outside of time.
Jesus could certainly have bestowed any grace He chose on John at any point in our limited understanding of time.
It is likewise of no importance when John was filled with the Holy Spirit, what is of great importance was that he was, and that it occurred in his mothers womb, at some point in time before his birth.
My take on it, as previously stated, is that when Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, so was her womb and all of its contents. It makes logical sense, but it is also possible that the baby alone was filled with the Holy Spirit at some time before Elizabeth was.
As for Jesus not being around at Johns conception, only His human form was not yet around, but His spiritual form was there form the beginning in the Trinity since God is outside of time.
Jesus could certainly have bestowed any grace He chose on John at any point in our limited understanding of time.
M
michaelhager
Guest
Because the Church, or the scriptures or any other source does NOT say something, is not proof of its existence, occurrence or lack thereof.
As I stated before, the strict linear occurrence of events is completely unimportant to the teaching.
G
Gorgias
Guest
thistle,
I’m disappointed. When a non-believer comes around here, offering a theory that disproves God, we ask him to prove his case. When he cannot, we explain why his statements fail to prove his case. Often, he retorts, “oh yeah? Well, fine – then you show me why my theory is wrong!” And that’s just wrong: if a person makes a claim, it’s not on his audience to support or rebut it; he has to prove it! He can’t ask someone else to disprove it, or even to provide an alternate claim! When a non-believer tries this tack, we (naturally), call him to task. If you make a claim, you have to prove it… not ask us for alternatives.
You and Della have made a particular claim: that the Church teaches the interpretation that you have asserted. We’ve asked you to prove it. Instead, you’ve merely quoted the catechism and Scriptures. We have, in fact, already done what you’ve asked: we’ve provided a plausible alternative – the ‘support’ you’ve cited also supports the claim that John was filled with the Holy Spirit prior to the Visitation. So, that’s two strikes against you: not only does your proof not hold, but also an viable alternative has been demonstrated.
Is this viable alternative one that has been proven? No; but the burden of proof does not lie on us – you’ve made a claim, and you must prove it (or, be honest and abandon it). Might John have been filled with the Holy Spirit at the Visitation? Perhaps. But, if you want to claim that not only is that the case but also that the Church teaches it… well, to do that, you’ll have to demonstrate that your case is true. You haven’t.
- Status