The Visitation for the Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter adstrinity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The assumption of Mary into heaven is part of sacred Tradition which was later formally defined as dogma but was believed from early times.

IMO, if John was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb, he would have been freed from original sin. As someone else said, this would be as though he were baptized and confirmed. It wouldn’t matter that Jesus had not yet come and died on the cross. Mary was preserved from original sin at the time of her conception. This was because of Jesus’ death on the cross. God isn’t limited by time as humans are. To us, Jesus’ death had not yet happened. But God exists in eternity. To Him all things are NOW.
 
This thread illustrates the overimportance the West has placed on being born “without original sin”. Overcoming original sin and acquiring the Holy Spirit is the important thing.
 
I must impress on everybody once again that St. John the Baptist being born without original sin is a teaching of the Church. Just yesterday the priest reiterated that there are three people that the Church teaches were sinless: Jesus, Mary, and St. John the Baptist. Of course, there may be more, but, these are the three that the Church teaches are sinless.
 
I must impress on everybody once again that St. John the Baptist being born without original sin is a teaching of the Church. Just yesterday the priest reiterated that there are three people that the Church teaches were sinless: Jesus, Mary, and St. John the Baptist. Of course, there may be more, but, these are the three that the Church teaches are sinless.
I would love to see a quote from a valid authentic Catholic Church source for this…an encyclical, a Church Council, etc. A Catholic Encyclopedia is not an official Church document and a Catholic priest saying something is, unfortunately, no guarentee that it is what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Most Catholic priests do not teach the Catholic faith and many don’t even know what the faith is…all depends on whether or not they went to a “good” seminary or not.
 
So the St. Thomas story is not a part of Sacred Tradition? Alrighty than.

And yes I do know that the Assumption of Mary is a dogma. 🙂
 
I would love to see a quote from a valid authentic Catholic Church source for this…an encyclical, a Church Council, etc. A Catholic Encyclopedia is not an official Church document and a Catholic priest saying something is, unfortunately, no guarentee that it is what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Most Catholic priests do not teach the Catholic faith and many don’t even know what the faith is…all depends on whether or not they went to a “good” seminary or not.
I concur. Fortunately, St. John Cantius is devoted to the sacred. I can attest that he does speak the Truth of the Catholic Church and is in full communion with Rome, but, seeing as how you don’t know me and my testimony means nothing for you…

catholicculture.org/culture//liturgicalyear/activities/view.cfm?id=1106

newadvent.org/cathen/08486b.htm

catholicplanet.com/future/John-Baptist.htm

jimmyakin.org/2004/12/john_the_baptis.html

cny.org/archive/ch/ch011499.htm

catholictradition.org/Passion/john-baptist.htm

catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear/calendar/day.cfm?date=2006-06-24

traditioninaction.org/SOD/j026sdJohnBaptist6-24.htm

communityofhopeinc.org/Prayer%20Pages/Saints/john%20the%20baptist.html

catholicism.about.com/b/2008/06/24/a-voice-crying-out-in-the-wilderness.htm

thesacredheart.com/sts/stjohnbt.htm

While researching, I found out that the Church teaches it because of the way She has interpreted the Bible.
 
I spoke to my parish priest about it last night. He said that the only two to have no Original Sin per official Church Teaching are Mary and Jesus. He said that John was filled with the Holy Spirit, akin to baptism and confirmation.

This is from the Sacred Heart site just posted:
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.
Now, we are all cleansed from Original Sin (same terminology) at baptism, though the effects still remain (concupiscence and death). WE know that Jesus chose to die and he never drifted away from God, so clearly he had no effects of OS, which he never had in the first place. We do not know exactly about the BVM. We can choose to believe that she died a peaceful death, with no pain or suffering, or that at the end of her earthly life, God simply took her into heven as He did with Elijah and Enoch. However, we know that John did die, and not of his own free will. We have no proof that he ever drifted from God, but that does not mean that he did not.

What I am trying to say, and I think that the Church would agree, is that John the Baptist is a unique case but we should not associate his spiritual status with that of the BVM or Jesus.
 
This is from the Sacred Heart site just posted:

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.
That is interesting. I have been taught that we believe that the Holy Spirit takes up his dwelling place in the soul at the time of baptism and chrismation and never leaves the soul during its time on earth. The Holy Spirit, depite the greatest of our sins, still lives in the soul and leaves us only at the time of death if we are going to hell.
 
That is interesting. I have been taught that we believe that the Holy Spirit takes up his dwelling place in the soul at the time of baptism and chrismation and never leaves the soul during its time on earth. The Holy Spirit, depite the greatest of our sins, still lives in the soul and leaves us only at the time of death if we are going to hell.
Catholic understanding is not that different. He does take up residence, first at baptism, then in a more complete way at confirmation. However, we understand that when we are guilty of unrepentant mortal sin, he sort of leaves. Not completely, and not in a sense that we no longer can pray or receive grace (because repenting is due to grace), but in a way that reflects our separation from God. Our access to grace is greatly reduced while under a state of mortal sin.

He does depart completely if we die in a state of full separation from God.
 
Catholic understanding is not that different. He does take up residence, first at baptism, then in a more complete way at confirmation.
That is also interesting. I think that Catholic children have to wait about 10 or 12 years before they receive confirmation? In what sense is the Holy Spirit in them less than complete during the years they are waiting for confirmation? What do they lack?
 
Well, I clicked on one of the links and found this: “This is not something that the Catholic Church teaches,…” - my bolding. Case closed. It is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches - so no wonder none of us here have ever heard of such a silly thing.

BTW - the Orthodox Church continues to teach what the early Church taught before the Catholic Church went rogue about a 1,000 years after Christianity was established: that **every human being, after Adam and Eve were all born into a world which has been affected by Adam and Eve’s Original Sin namely has been subjected to those consquences of sickness and death **- including Mary the Theotokos and Jesus (both died, proof that they were subjected to the consequences of Original Sin - the Theotokos in the Dormition, where 3 days later her body had been taken up by Christ, her Son and God & Jesus through the crucifixion, where 3 days later He was found to be Resurrected); however, **no human being has ever been born into this world with the guilt of the sin of another which must be paid for with that person’s eternal life should he/she die without being baptized *as is believed by Catholics & many Protestant sects. Baptism does forgive sin, if *that person being baptized has ever committed a sin - Baptism is part of the initiation rite of becoming a Christian. That’s why Orthodox Christians have their children chrismated: Baptized, Confirmed and given Holy Eucharist as newborn infants - because they are Christians and want their children to be a Christian also.

So, yes Orthodox Christians believe that St. John the Baptist was not born with Original Sin - the way Catholic Christians misunderstand Original Sin - but it simply had nothing to do with the Visitation of Mary to her cousin Elizabeth when St. John leap for joy at the recognition of the presence of His God, because everyone, every human being, is born that way: not with Original Sin as Catholics misunderstand it, but they are born with the Consequences (sickness and death) of Original Sin - not even God Himself when He took human form was immune to the Consequences (not just death, but death on a cross) of Original Sin. He conquered death by death.
 
Well, I clicked on one of the links and found this: “This is not something that the Catholic Church teaches,…” - my bolding. Case closed. It is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches - so no wonder none of us here have ever heard of such a silly thing.
It’s funny, if you don’t believe me telling you what a priest says, that this IS what the Church teaches, why do you believe another non-Church document saying this isn’t what the Church teaches? Clearly you just want to believe what you want to believe. I listed all these links saying that this is what the Church believes, this is what has always been believed, this is what is taught, and you decide to go with another opinion that it isn’t. You would go with what is written on the internet rather than a priest as to what the Church teaches. St. John the Baptist was born without Original Sin, though not conceived without it. This is Catholic teaching. This is what the Bible says. I wanted to know the significance of how the Orthodox view this and I got that.
 
It’s funny, if you don’t believe me telling you what a priest says, that this IS what the Church teaches, why do you believe another non-Church document saying this isn’t what the Church teaches? Clearly you just want to believe what you want to believe. I listed all these links saying that this is what the Church believes, this is what has always been believed wrong, this is what is taught wrong, and you decide to go with another opinion that it isn’t. You would go with what is written on the internet rather than a priest as to what the Church teaches. St. John the Baptist was born without Original Sin, though not conceived without it. This is Catholic teaching. wrong This is what the Bible says. wrong
Wow there buddy, I asked you for a reference to an actual encyclical of a Pope, a reference to a Church Council or another official document that shows that the Catholic Church teaches what you claim it teaches…but instead you gave links to various Catholic people who do not reference any Official Catholic Documents & not only that, but the reference you gave actually specifically says that the Church DOES NOT TEACH what you are claiming.

The burden of proof is on you and you’ve come up short.
 
Wow there buddy, I asked you for a reference to an actual encyclical of a Pope, a reference to a Church Council or another official document that shows that the Catholic Church teaches what you claim it teaches…but instead you gave links to various Catholic people who do not reference any Official Catholic Documents & not only that, but the reference you gave actually specifically says that the Church DOES NOT TEACH what you are claiming.

The burden of proof is on you and you’ve come up short.
I’d believe your “wrong” there if you represented the Catholic position. Since you do not speak on behalf of the Church, you cannot say it is wrong, but only your opinion that you do not agree. I gave you Bible verses to back this up. The Church teaches it. Did you miss the Bible verses and CCC paragraph 717?

I gave multiple references, you decided to quote that one and ignore the Bible and the traditions. St. Marina, when I come back in two weeks with the reason the priest gave, will you believe it then?

I don’t care what you think, but, I don’t want any Catholic to think that the Church doesn’t teach this.

Again, I asked about how the Orthodox view this, in relation to how the Catholics believe.
 
I’d believe your “wrong” there if you represented the Catholic position. Since you do not speak on behalf of the Church, you cannot say it is wrong, but only your opinion that you do not agree. I gave you Bible verses to back this up. The Church teaches it. Did you miss the Bible verses and CCC paragraph 717?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P23.HTM "CCC 717 "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John."89 John was “filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb"90 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.91”

Many people of both the Old and New Testament Times were “fulled with the Holy Spirit”, even Bezalel: Exodus 31:2-4:"2 “See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, 3 and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts- 4 to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze,”

How is it that you are misinterpreting the CCC to mean that somehow St. John was born without the affects of Original Sin - again, not even Christ Himself was born without the affects of Original Sin - otherwise Christ would have been able to be killed on the Cross. St. John, according to Sacred Scripture DIED - he was beheaded - or have you missed: Matt 14:10 “and had John beheaded in the prison.”; Mark 6:14 "King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying,[a] “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”; Mark 6:16 “But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, the man I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”; Mark 6:27 " So he immediately sent an executioner with orders to bring John’s head. The man went, beheaded John in the prison,” and Luke 9:9 “But Herod said, “I beheaded John. Who, then, is this I hear such things about?” And he tried to see him.”

I gave multiple references, you decided to quote that one and ignore the Bible and the traditions. You are the one who gave that reference which proved yourself wrong. I simply pointed it out. You actually appear to be the one who is ignoring Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. St. Marina, when I come back in two weeks with the reason the priest gave, will you believe it then? If he can provide you with an actual Catholic Church document which specifically teaches that St. John was born without Original Sin, I’d love to see it. Yet, even if the Catholic Church had ever produced such a document, it is proven wrong by Sacred Scripture, since Sacred Scripture specifically states that St. John was Beheaded - which caused his death…death which is the consequence of Original Sin…if he were really born without OS then he would not have died.

Due to Adam and Eve’s Original Sin, God gave several curses - to all of creation - which can be found by reading: Genesis 3:14-39, specifically applicable here is part of that curse which is in verse 19: “until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”
As this Scripture clearly shows, Physical Death is one of the curses for Original Sin which all of humanity including: Adam, Eve, Christ, the Theotokos, St. John the Baptist, and everyone else born inbetween and after. Christ and the Theotokos are the two who have been risen from the Dead bodily, never to die again - some people have been raised from the Dead bodily by miracle from Jesus, the Apostles and various Saints through out the centuries; however, they have each at some point died later save Christ and the Theotokos.

I don’t care what you think, but, I don’t want any Catholic to think that the Church doesn’t teach this. But you’ve not been able to demonstrate that the Catholic Church does actually teach this doctrine. I’d be concerned about misleading Catholics if I were in your shoes since you are claiming something for which you have no evidence.

Again, I asked about how the Orthodox view this, in relation to how the Catholics believe. You must have missed that part of my post then. Go back and re-read it.
 
That is also interesting. I think that Catholic children have to wait about 10 or 12 years before they receive confirmation? In what sense is the Holy Spirit in them less than complete during the years they are waiting for confirmation? What do they lack?
This will sound funny, but I am not sure that I can fully answer, even though I teach the confirmation prep class in my parrish. If we look at scriptures, there are cases where people were baptised, but they had not received the SPirit until the Apostles laid their hands on them (confirmation).

Theologically, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not made available until confirmation. These would be Courage, Fear of the Lord, Knowledge, Wisdom, Right Judgement, Piety, and Understanding. Faith, Hope, and Charity are given at Baptism, as are the Cardinal Moral Virtues. The reception of the Holy Spirit at Confirmation is in the same nature as it was at Pentecost for the Disciples.

I hope this helps
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top