John the Baptist

[thistle]

It is indeed a Church teaching that St. John the Forerunner was sanctified in the womb.

Lets end this “its not infallibly defined” shenanigans. Not everything in our faith has been “infallibly defined”. A lot of our faith is based on traditions from the time of the Apostles. If we pray the faith in our Churches from the dawn of Christianity, why shouldn’t it be something we believe in? Waiting for something to be infallibly defined is needless legalism which trivializes our faith and leads to nothing but Phraiseeism.

Check the CCC. It contains a summary of infallible AND non-infallible teachings. There is no Church teaching that John was born free from original sin. Catholics are bound by both infallible and non-infallible teachings. We are not bound to believe John was born free from original sin.

 

[Sirach2]

Then don’t, Thistle. You’re free in that regard. Others are also free to believe it. What’s the big fuss?

 

[Cruikshank_s]

Check the CCC. It contains a summary of infallible AND non-infallible teachings. There is no Church teaching that John was born free from original sin. Catholics are bound by both infallible and non-infallible teachings. We are not bound to believe John was born free from original sin.

Not to push the issue much further and beat the proverbial dead horse, but what ever happened to “lex orandi lex credendi”? Does not the Church’s liturgy teach us what she believes? Is not her liturgy free from error? Again correct and stop me if I’m wrong.

Riddle me this: Why doesn’t the Church celebrate the earthly birthdays of her saints? Why is it ALWAYS their heavenly birthday (i.e. the day they died in the state of grace)?

Once you’ve answered the question affirming the fact that we do not celebrate the earthly birthday because it is the day in which they were born into sin, why then does the Church celebrate the nativity of John the Baptist? (Our Lady being the only other non divine person to have that honor)

Why would she celebrate his being born into sin?? On top of that, why is it a Solemnity in the ordinary form?? And why, to go further back, is it a First Class Feast in 1962. And why, to go even further back, was it a Double First Class with common Octave prior to the 1962 reform? In both instances taking precedence over a Sunday??? Seems odd when you insist that his sanctification in the womb isn’t a belief to be held by the faithful… very odd, especially more so since Holy Church would be celebrating the day a man was born into sin.

Antiphon at the Magnificat (1962):

The child that is born to us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior said: Among those born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.

Roman Martyrology (1962):

The Nativity of St. John Baptist, precursor of our Lord, son of Zachary and Elizabeth, who, while yet in the womb of his mother, was filled with the Holy Ghost.

If all of this is just a simple, pious, unfounded, unnecessary, and overly fanatical belief, why does the Church give it so much honor? Why does she pray the way she does when she clearly doesn’t believe him to be born sanctified?

If someone could address this I would be very much appreciative.

(I apologize in advance for my snarkyness, I just really love St. John the Baptist )

 

[thistle]

Then don’t, Thistle. You’re free in that regard. Others are also free to believe it. What’s the big fuss?

I happen to think John probably was born free from original sin. That’s not the issue. The fuss as you put it is that some posters are claiming it is a Church teaching. It is NOT a Church teaching.
If it were a Church teaching we would be bound to believe it. We are not.

 

[Sirach2]

Thistle, let me ask you a question . . .

1. What does it mean to be “filled with the Holy Spirit?”
2. Does the Holy Spirit indwell a soul that has NOT been cleansed of original sin?

This IS a teaching of the Church - that when we are cleansed of original sin, the Spirit is bestowed. In saying that we don’t have to believe John was cleansed in the womb, I suppose that is your opinion, but it makes absolutely no theological sense and does not fit what the scriptures teach us about the sublime grace John received.

Maybe you cannot find it in the CCC or any encyclicals. However, it is commonly believed by the the majority of the faithful, as you noted with Fr. Trigilio’s homily and the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia in the beginning of the thread, just to name two sources. Why not ask your priest to define the two questions I posed.

As I said before, you can believe whatever you want, for it is not dependent on your salvation whether or not you believe it. But please refrain from insinuating that the Church has not held this belief as St. Luke, moved by the Holy Spirit, taught in scripture. Now you’re getting into another area questioning the veracity of God’s Word.

 

[thistle]

Thistle, let me ask you a question . . .

1. What does it mean to be “filled with the Holy Spirit?”
2. Does the Holy Spirit indwell a soul that has NOT been cleansed of original sin?

This IS a teaching of the Church - that when we are cleansed of original sin, the Spirit is bestowed. In saying that we don’t have to believe John was cleansed in the womb, I suppose that is your opinion, but it makes absolutely no theological sense and does not fit what the scriptures teach us about the sublime grace John received.

Maybe you cannot find it in the CCC or any encyclicals. However,** it is commonly believed by the the majority of the faithful,** as you noted with Fr. Trigilio’s homily and the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia in the beginning of the thread, just to name two sources. Why not ask your priest to define the two questions I posed.

As I said before, you can believe whatever you want, for it is not dependent on your salvation whether or not you believe it. But please refrain from insinuating that the Church has not held this belief as St. Luke, moved by the Holy Spirit, taught in scripture. Now you’re getting into another area questioning the veracity of God’s Word.

This phrase always intrigues me because it implies all of the 1.2 billion Catholics have been asked the question which of course is totally untrue.
I live in the Philippines which is a Catholic country and I cannot speak for all or the majority of Catholics here but I can say that all of the Catholics I have spoken to about this issue were not even aware that John might have been born free from original sin. It was not even something that had ever crossed their minds.

I am glad you admit that the Church does NOT teach that John The Baptist was born free from original sin (although you are trying to wriggle your way round it by your interpretations), although its something I am more inclined to believe than not.

Scripture does not say John in the womb was filled with the Holy Spirit. It says that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb: and** Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost**:

 

[Sirach2]

Thistle:

I am glad you admit that the Church does NOT teach that John The Baptist was born free from original sin (although you are trying to wriggle your way round it by your interpretations), although its something I am more inclined to believe than not.

Scripture does not say John in the womb was filled with the Holy Spirit. It says that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. [Oh, really???]

I’ll bet you’re glad, for it seems highly important for you to win at all costs, even to the point of insult, by saying I’m simply wiggling. Well, here’s the scripture, which you obviously have never heard or read. Nor do you accept the witness of others who posted, nor the priest, nor the encyclopedia, nor anyone else whomsoever that is willing to open their hearts to correct you.

You remind me of Zachary, who would not accept the revelation of Angel Gabriel. In divine punishment, he was made mute.

Note well that the Angel was sent by God to announce the birth, and even bestow a God-given name upon him. John means “grace of God.” Now you can wiggle all you please, for your obstinence, Thistle. For all intents and purposes, this conversation is ended - on a sorry note,
I might add. Here’s the scripture, which, as we know, is correctly interpreted by Holy Mother Church, who has seen fit through Her ministers to reveal the truth we have tried to convey to you.

Unless you put your fingers in the nails, or see the words in print, you will not believe! Scripture records that many teachings were not committed to writing but were orally transmitted. This seems to be one of them, for indeed St. Luke learned it from Mary herself, traditionally, as he did many other infancy narratives. You may want to pray to him if you think he made a mistake.

2 Thess. 2:15: “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”

Luke 1:11: The angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right of the altar of incense. Zechariah was troubled by what he saw, and fear came upon him. 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. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 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, and he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of fathers toward children and the disobedient to the understanding of the righteous, to prepare a people fit for the Lord.

Then Zechariah said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” And the angel said to him in reply, “I am Gabriel, who stand before God. I was sent to speak to you and to announce to you this good news. But now you will be speechless and unable to talk until the day these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled at their proper time.

 

[Sirach2]

It was the firm belief among the faithful that John was freed from original sin at the moment when his mother met the Blessed Virgin (Luke 1, 45).

Saint Augustine mentioned this belief as a general tradition in the ancient Church. In any case, it is certain that he was “filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1, 15) and, therefore, born without original sin.

Accordingly, the Church celebrates his natural birth by a festival of his “nativity,” assigned exactly six months before the nativity of Christ, since John was six months older than the Lord. As soon as the Feast of Christmas was established on December 25 (in the fifth century) the date of the Baptist’s birth was assigned to June 24.

The Council of Agde, in 506, listed the Nativity of Saint John among the highest feasts of the year, a day on which all faithful had to attend Mass and abstain from servile work. Indeed, so great was the rank of this festival that, just as on Christmas, three Masses were celebrated, one during the vigil service, the second at dawn, the third in the morning. In 1022, a synod at Seligenstadt, Germany, prescribed a fourteen-day fast and abstinence in preparation for the Feast of the Baptist
catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/activities/view.cfm?id=1107&repos=3&subrepos=1&searchid=818456

 

[Sirach2]

My last post showed that the belief was held by the faithful, and also affirmed by St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church. (Although without extensive searching, there may be many more sources and references)

Maybe this will put the doubtful to rest as the words of Pope Leo XIII reaffirmed the Church’s traditional understanding in an official encyclical. Clearly, he believed it also.

Then St. John the Baptist, by a singular privilege,** is sanctified in his mother’s womb** and favored with special graces that he might prepare the way of the Lord; and this comes to pass by the greeting of Mary who had been inspired to visit her cousin.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13ro5.htm

 

[karaleigh]

The Catholic Church taught this? I am not sure I understand you but if you are saying the sin is because we have flesh than this was never taught. Perhaps you can explain more.

It’s not important. It an issue that has lost a connection with standard scripture. It has become more of a youngsters story of creation, which ultimately has to be thought in terms that will appease the greater majority especially when children are the main competition for religious monies.

 

[thistle]

I’ll bet you’re glad, for it seems highly important for you to win at all costs, even to the point of insult, by saying I’m simply wiggling. Well, here’s the scripture, which you obviously have never heard or read. Nor do you accept the witness of others who posted, nor the priest, nor the encyclopedia, nor anyone else whomsoever that is willing to open their hearts to correct you.

You remind me of Zachary, who would not accept the revelation of Angel Gabriel. In divine punishment, he was made mute.

Note well that the Angel was sent by God to announce the birth, and even bestow a God-given name upon him. John means “grace of God.” Now you can wiggle all you please, for your obstinence, Thistle. For all intents and purposes, this conversation is ended - on a sorry note,
I might add. Here’s the scripture, which, as we know, is correctly interpreted by Holy Mother Church, who has seen fit through Her ministers to reveal the truth we have tried to convey to you.

Unless you put your fingers in the nails, or see the words in print, you will not believe! Scripture records that many teachings were not committed to writing but were orally transmitted. This seems to be one of them, for indeed St. Luke learned it from Mary herself, traditionally, as he did many other infancy narratives. You may want to pray to him if you think he made a mistake.

2 Thess. 2:15: “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”

Luke 1:11: The angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right of the altar of incense. Zechariah was troubled by what he saw, and fear came upon him. 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. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 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, and he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of fathers toward children and the disobedient to the understanding of the righteous, to prepare a people fit for the Lord.

Then Zechariah said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.” And the angel said to him in reply, “I am Gabriel, who stand before God. I was sent to speak to you and to announce to you this good news. But now you will be speechless and unable to talk until the day these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled at their proper time.

Wow. You really must have some problems. Better take your blood pressure pills.
Personal attacks on me. That’s not allowed under forum rules.

I repeat. Catholics are BOUND by Church teachings. Catholics are NOT BOUND to believe John was born free from original sin because it is NOT a Church teaching.
That doesn’t change no matter how much you huff and puff.

So we are crystal clear here, do you agree Catholics are NOT BOUND to believe this?

 

[Sirach2]

Thistle:

So we are crystal clear here, do you agree Catholics are NOT BOUND to believe this?

I will not answer your question until you answer my two questions from post #25, which were asked first. And while you’re at it, this was the very same question posed by JRKH that you failed to answer in this post. I see that you had been rather testy there, as well, and it reveals a deep antipathy toward this revelation of scripture. Every known thread begun on the Baptist here at CAF you have entered with the same adamant message - you do not have to believe it. So the problem is not me; it’s something deeply troubling you that you feel called to enter every discussion regarding it and raise a ruckus.

In prayer, the Lord showed me some truths tonight about this scripture story, but I see clearly that you are of a mindset that will oppose them, so I’m wary about where I cast my pearls. And as I said rather distinctly a few posts ago, I believe our discussion is ended. I may consider returning if you consider answering my questions that you totally avoided.

 

[bmullins]

Why do both of you feel that anyone owes you an answer? In the end we have to admit that no one is required to believe it, it’s not a salvation issue. At the same time, we have to admit that it’s fairly evident that it’s truth from scripture and tradition, so why not believe it? It’s kind of silly to argue over it.

 

[thistle]

I will not answer your question until you answer my two questions from post #25, which were asked first. And while you’re at it, this was the very same question posed by JRKH that you failed to answer in this post. I see that you had been rather testy there, as well, and it reveals a deep antipathy toward this revelation of scripture. Every known thread begun on the Baptist here at CAF you have entered with the same adamant message - you do not have to believe it. So the problem is not me; it’s something deeply troubling you that you feel called to enter every discussion regarding it and raise a ruckus.

In prayer, the Lord showed me some truths tonight about this scripture story, but I see clearly that you are of a mindset that will oppose them, so I’m wary about where I cast my pearls. And as I said rather distinctly a few posts ago, I believe our discussion is ended. I may consider returning if you consider answering my questions that you totally avoided.

Okay. Let’s try it this way.

On the one hand I know that we are not bound to believe John The Baptist was born free from original sin. Catholics are free to believe that or not.
On the other hand you are saying we are bound to believe that being filled with the Holy Spirit means that we are free from original sin and therefore John must have been born free from original sin. Under this argument you imply that are we are bound to believe John was born free from original sin.
As we do not have to believe that I’m trying to understand this contradiction.

That’s why I’m asking if you believe Catholics are bound to believe that John was born free from original sin or if Catholics are free to believe or not. If we are bound it would mean we commit heresy by not believing it. Is this what you are saying or have I misunderstood you.

 

[Sirach2]

Okay, let’s try it this way.

[Luke 2:15] And it came to pass, after the angels departed from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another: Let us go over to Bethlehem, and let us see this word that is come to pass, which the Lord hath shewed to us.

1. And they came with haste; and they found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. 17. And seeing, they understood of the word that had been spoken to them concerning this child. 18. And all that heard, wondered, at those things that were told them by the shepherds.
   drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=2&l=15-18#x

The Divine Revelation so inspired the shepherds that they ran in haste to witness the miracle announced to them. They went forth and told many … who simply “wondered.”

No haste on their part to run to the stable … just indifferent, maybe apathetic, “wondering.” Perhaps saying, “I’m not bound to believe.”

Now review the post from Cruikshank_s, who gleamed defensively, “I just really love St. John the Baptist!”

Which camp would you find yourself in, Thistle? I have nothing further to say.

 

[JRKH]

Why do both of you feel that anyone owes you an answer? In the end we have to admit that no one is required to believe it, it’s not a salvation issue. At the same time, we have to admit that it’s fairly evident that it’s truth from scripture and tradition, so why not believe it? It’s kind of silly to argue over it.

I would submit to both sides here that they review Mt 18:15-18. I would further suggest from this that the issue has been sufficiently tried here to satisfy verses 15 and 16.
Since neither side seems satisfied in the matter, Verse 17 should be invoked…and the question submitted “To The Church”, in our case here through the “Ask An Apologist” forum.

The proper question appears to be - Does the Church have an official teaching on the matter of - Was John the Baptist born free from sin?

So - Who should do the honor’s of placing the question before the Apologists??
Thistle?? Sirach?? Would you prefer I do it?? or perhaps bmullins??

Let us know…

Peace
James

 

[Sirach2]

I sent a PM yesterday to Fr. Serpa asking, but I did not post the Q in AAA. I don’t believe he has received it yet. Nevertheless, Fr. Trigilio’s opinion was disregarded, as was the Pope’s encyclical and the explanation in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I doubt Fr. Serpa will be believed. So does verse 17 apply?

To save time looking up the scripture, I share it below.

15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

JRKH, If you note the progression in the thread, it started out to be an innocent light discussion until a personal belief/opinion opened up some ruffled feathers.

 

[Sirach2]

I have seen once again how true it is that God is always able to bring good out of a bad situation. How wonderfully blessed I was to have deeper contemplative insight into this most sacred incident in scripture, which would never have happened had I not participated in this debate. All praise and thanks be to God, and to my opponent for being the cause of this blessing!

I’m really out of here now, unless I hear from Fr. Serpa - but even then, his teaching may not be accepted, either.

Peace and thanks!

 

[JRKH]

I sent a PM yesterday to Fr. Serpa asking, but I did not post the Q in AAA. I don’t believe he has received it yet. Nevertheless, Fr. Trigilio’s opinion was disregarded, as was the Pope’s encyclical and the explanation in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I doubt Fr. Serpa will be believed.

Thank you Sirach.
Frankly I have not been following the conversation and would not have posted except for your contacting me that you had referenced my earlier post. But I do believe that when debates begin to reach a certain point, it is best to call in an arbiter of some sort to help sort through the opposing viewpoints.
Often times it is a matter of BOTH sides having good points that need to be drawn out to make a single good understanding.

So does verse 17 apply?

To save time looking up the scripture, I share it below.

15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Well it would depend on what “the Church” has to say on the matter…
It is my understanding that, unless something is dogmatically defined, we are free to entertain some differing views on a given matter so long as our views are properly formed by Church teaching in general and various Church writings.
As an example of this, there is another thread where someone asked if it was OK for them to not pray the rosary every day. The answer of course is that the rosary is a private devotion and we can choose to pray if or not pray it without fault.
The Rosary as a private devotion (not required) remains true regardless of the statements and writings within the Church - even by Popes - attesting to its benefits.

So - the bottom line is that unless the Church binds us to believe one way or the other, then both sides are loosed to hold varying views on the matter.

In this matter, regardless of what Fr Serpa might say, I think it unlikely that anyone will need to be treated as a tax collector…

JRKH, If you note the progression in the thread, it started out to be an innocent light discussion until a personal belief/opinion opened up some ruffled feathers.

As I mentioned earlier, I have not been following the conversation and would not have posted except for your contacting me that you had referenced my earlier post. Hopefully the feather can be smoothed out a bit and everyone part as friends and brothers in Christ.

Peace
James

 

[thistle]

Thank you Sirach.
Frankly I have not been following the conversation and would not have posted except for your contacting me that you had referenced my earlier post. But I do believe that when debates begin to reach a certain point, it is best to call in an arbiter of some sort to help sort through the opposing viewpoints.
Often times it is a matter of BOTH sides having good points that need to be drawn out to make a single good understanding.

Well it would depend on what “the Church” has to say on the matter…
**It is my understanding that, unless something is dogmatically defined, we are free to entertain some differing views on a given matter so long as our views are properly formed by Church teaching in general and various Church writings. **
As an example of this, there is another thread where someone asked if it was OK for them to not pray the rosary every day. The answer of course is that the rosary is a private devotion and we can choose to pray if or not pray it without fault.
The Rosary as a private devotion (not required) remains true regardless of the statements and writings within the Church - even by Popes - attesting to its benefits.

So - the bottom line is that unless the Church binds us to believe one way or the other, then both sides are loosed to hold varying views on the matter.

In this matter, regardless of what Fr Serpa might say, I think it unlikely that anyone will need to be treated as a tax collector…

As I mentioned earlier, I have not been following the conversation and would not have posted except for your contacting me that you had referenced my earlier post. Hopefully the feather can be smoothed out a bit and everyone part as friends and brothers in Christ.

Peace
James

A teaching does not have to be dogma for us to be bound. Catholics must believe both infallible and non-infallible teachings.
To reject infallible teachings is both a mortal sin and heresy.
To reject non-infallible teachings is a mortal sin but not heresy.

As for Sirach contacting Father Serpa I have also contacted a priest friend of mine but it might be a few days until he gets back to me. I too will bow out until then and give you his response.

By the way, I don’t know if some of you are deliberately ignoring the point I am trying to make. I am not saying John was not born free from original sin. In fact I am inclined to believe that.
The issue I am debating is whether Catholics are BOUND to believe it upon pain of sin.
I contend we are not. At least Sirach seems to contend the opposite. So let’s be clear on the issue. Its whether we are obligated to believe or not and not whether John was born free from original sin.