John the Baptist in the Womb

[thistle]

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.

I’m sorry you feel that way. Look at the teaching in the CCC. The footnote reference to the Visitation is directly attached to the teaching. Frankly I do do not know how it could be interpreted any other way than that John was filled with the Holy Spirit at the Visitation.
Since my last post I spoke to my old (late 70’s now) friend who is a priest and he told me without any hesitation that John being filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb was at the Visitation. I asked if it could have occurred prior to the Visitation and he said no.

Of course you might say well that’s just one priest’s view. Okay then I invite others in this thread to talk to their priests and get their views on this and report back to us.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m sorry you feel that way.

So am I. It’s always disappointing when someone fails to prove their case, and instead asks me to disprove their assertions for them.

Look at the teaching in the CCC. The footnote reference to the Visitation is directly attached to the teaching.

Of course it is! After all, CCC 717 explicitly references the Visitation!

Frankly I do do not know how it could be interpreted any other way than that John was filled with the Holy Spirit at the Visitation.

We’ve already shown you a plausible interpretation: John was already filled with the Holy Spirit, and so, at the Visitation, he leapt in his mother’s womb (immediately). When Elizabeth (subsequently) was filled with the Holy Spirit, she reacted, too – but already after Mary’s greeting.

Since my last post I spoke to my old (late 70’s now) friend who is a priest and he told me without any hesitation that John being filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb was at the Visitation. I asked if it could have occurred prior to the Visitation and he said no.

I’m sure he’s a wonderful priest. Yet, I asked you for a magisterial statement that expresses doctrine. None have yet been forthcoming. I’ll presume that this means that you have none.

Of course you might say well that’s just one priest’s view. Okay then I invite others in this thread to talk to their priests and get their views on this and report back to us.

Again: that would be more non-magisterial, anecdotal evidence. Perhaps if one priest could provide us with a reference to a magisterial document, we would know what the Church teaches, rather than what you say the Church teaches…

 

[thistle]

So am I. It’s always disappointing when someone fails to prove their case, and instead asks me to disprove their assertions for them.

Of course it is! After all, CCC 717 explicitly references the Visitation!

We’ve already shown you a plausible interpretation: John was already filled with the Holy Spirit, and so, at the Visitation, he leapt in his mother’s womb (immediately). When Elizabeth (subsequently) was filled with the Holy Spirit, she reacted, too – but already after Mary’s greeting.

I’m sure he’s a wonderful priest. Yet, I asked you for a magisterial statement that expresses doctrine. None have yet been forthcoming. I’ll presume that this means that you have none.

Again: that would be more non-magisterial, anecdotal evidence. Perhaps if one priest could provide us with a reference to a magisterial document, we would know what the Church teaches, rather than what you say the Church teaches…

The Church teaches that John was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb and the Church directly references the Visitation as support for that claim. There is no other explanation.
Your view is that it could have happened prior to the Visitation with nothing to back that up. The CCC at least backs up the Church teaching by referencing the Visitation.

 

[Gorgias]

The Church teaches that John was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb and the Church directly references the Visitation

Yes, it does.

the Church directly references the Visitation* as support for that claim.*

This is your interpretation of what the reference to the Visitation is meant to do.

There is no other explanation.

Of course there is: it’s that the Visitation is an end-point, such that, by the Visitation, it’s clear that John is “filled with the Holy Spirit”. Your claim that the Visitation is the ‘filling with the Holy Spirit’ is viable… but not taught (explicitly) by the Church.

Your view is that it could have happened prior to the Visitation with nothing to back that up.

Right. Because the analysis of the Koine Greek text is “nothing”.

The CCC at least backs up the Church teaching by referencing the Visitation.

No – your interpretation of the intent of CCC 717 is that it backs up your interpretation of Church teaching. Big difference, thistle…

 

[CatholicSooner]

I wonder if there is a way to edit the thread title? Just make this a Luke discussion thread

What do you guys think about the end of Luke chapter 12? Specifically this:

'Why not judge for yourselves what is upright?

58 For example: when you are going to court with your opponent, make an effort to settle with him on the way, or he may drag you before the judge and the judge hand you over to the officer and the officer have you thrown into prison.

59 I tell you, you will not get out till you have paid the very last penny.’

Is this to be taken literally? Or could it be a metaphor for purgatory?