John the Baptist born without original sin

[yablabo]

Originally Posted by robin hood

My Father in law recently told me that he was taught by a Priest who told him that John the baptist was conceived WITH original sin but after leaping in Elizabeths womb when Mary (and Jesus) visited he was BORN with no original sin.The Priest also mentioned there were also some old testament figures who were also born without original sin.The priest said this comes from Sacred Tradition.
I always thought that Jesus and Mary were the only ones (other than Adam and Eve) who were BORN with original sin. Adam and Eve of course were not born as we are but an act of Creation.
Confused any ideas

Some people do contend that St. John the Baptist, the prophet Jeremiah, etc. were sanctified in the womb and had their original sin wiped away. However, I do not know of a single binding teaching that actually compells us to believe this.

I also find it unlikely to be true, since Christ himself referred to St. John the Baptist as if he were not yet in the kingdom of heaven while St. John was yet living (Matt. chapter 11 verse 11). If St. John was born without original sin, and retained his state of grace throughout his life, in order to be named amongst those in the Beatific Vision, then while he was living he would have been amongst those in the kingdom of heaven.

That's merely my two cents.

The Holy Mother of God was not only born without original sin, she was free from original sin from the very first instant of her conception. Our Lord, whose humanity was from the substance of his mother, could not possibly be conceived in original sin since he had no earthly biological father to pass the original sin on to him.

-- Nicole

[jrgiancola]

My church does not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. However, it believes that at the point she agreed to be the mother of Christ, she was instantly cleansed from original sin.

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by jrgiancola

My church does not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. However, it believes that at the point she agreed to be the mother of Christ, she was instantly cleansed from original sin.

The only problem with this thinking, in my opinion, is that Mary is already fully graced ("Kecharitomone") prior to saying, "Let it be done to me as thou said". Even the word itself indicates a prior gracing.

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by yablabo

I also find it unlikely to be true, since Christ himself referred to St. John the Baptist as if he were not yet in the kingdom of heaven while St. John was yet living (Matt. chapter 11 verse 11). If St. John was born without original sin, and retained his state of grace throughout his life, in order to be named amongst those in the Beatific Vision, then while he was living he would have been amongst those in the kingdom of heaven.

That's merely my two cents.

But I don't know of a Church teaching that claims he "retained his state of grace". He could be born sinless, which would place him on par with a Christian today at Baptism. But without the continued Graces, such as those received in Communion, John didn't stay in a state of Grace.

[yablabo]

Originally Posted by NotWorthy

But I don't know of a Church teaching that claims he "retained his state of grace". He could be born sinless, which would place him on par with a Christian today at Baptism. But without the continued Graces, such as those received in Communion, John didn't stay in a state of Grace.

It's hard then to make an argument for a man to be called a saint if he once had the state of grace only to die outside of it (since those who once have the state of grace only to die outside of it are damned to the fires of hell). I think it's better explained if one understand that St. John the Baptist lived his entire life in original sin only to die, await Christ in hell (the abode of the dead) with the rest of the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets and then rise with Christ when he rose on the third day...and to consider St. John's life one of heroic virtue in light of the fact that he was only working with actual grace, not habitual grace.

That's how things go, though, when you have no binding doctrine on which to establish your belief. My guess is as good as yours. I don't bind my interpretation on you or anyone else, I merely state what makes sense to me. I do not assume, however, that St. John the Baptist sinned against charity if he once had it, since I have no good reason to accuse him of mortal sin.

-- Nicole

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by yablabo

It's hard then to make an argument for a man to be called a saint if he once had the state of grace only to die outside of it (since those who once have the state of grace only to die outside of it are damned to the fires of hell). I think it's better explained if one understand that St. John the Baptist lived his entire life in original sin only to die, await Christ in hell (the abode of the dead) with the rest of the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets and then rise with Christ when he rose on the third day...and to consider St. John's life one of heroic virtue in light of the fact that he was only working with actual grace, not habitual grace.

But remember, all things are powerful with God. Look at the Bad Thief on the Cross (Didymus?). What about King David. Isn't he considered a Saint.

Just because John didn't have the Church to dispense Graces to him, doesn't mean he didn't receive them.

Originally Posted by yablabo

That's how things go, though, when you have no binding doctrine on which to establish your belief. My guess is as good as yours. I don't bind my interpretation on you or anyone else, I merely state what makes sense to me. I do not assume, however, that St. John the Baptist sinned against charity if he once had it, since I have no good reason to accuse him of mortal sin.

-- Nicole

Yes, Nicole, I understand. And I believe that, like you, I'm just discussing my opinion. Neither one of us can claim that we know we are right. But discussions like this are great for learning. God Bless!

[rinnie]

I used to think that this was possible for a long time. Then It hit me. John the Baptist was not saved from original sin at the moment of his conception. If he was we would known it would have been a teaching of either Traditon or Scripture and I do not remember this ever being taught.

I do not recall scripure saying that he was full of Grace or that he found favor with God. If you look back to the scripture of the angel with Mary it says BEFORE the angel appeared to her that she was full of grace and found favor with God.

[yablabo]

Originally Posted by NotWorthy

But remember, all things are powerful with God. Look at the Bad Thief on the Cross (Didymus?). What about King David. Isn't he considered a Saint.

Just because John didn't have the Church to dispense Graces to him, doesn't mean he didn't receive them.


Yes, Nicole, I understand. And I believe that, like you, I'm just discussing my opinion. Neither one of us can claim that we know we are right. But discussions like this are great for learning. God Bless!

The point is not that he didn't have grace. He certainly had grace dispensed to him. Actual grace.

I gave a scenario in which the Good Thief could also be considered a saint...and that is because he died before Christ and waited amongst the souls in hell (not the hell of the damned, but in Abraham's Bosom) for Christ to free him...and because he exhibited heroic virtue through actual grace, we now call him a saint.

This was only possible for those who died before Christ to reach sainthood in this fashion. After Christ's death and ressurection, unless one died and rose with him in the laver of regeneration (the Sacrament of Baptism), one could not possibly be a saint.

-- Nicole

[rinnie]

Originally Posted by yablabo

The point is not that he didn't have grace. He certainly had grace dispensed to him. Actual grace.

I gave a scenario in which the Good Thief could also be considered a saint...and that is because he died before Christ and waited amongst the souls in hell (not the hell of the damned, but in Abraham's Bosom) for Christ to free him...and because he exhibited heroic virtue through actual grace, we now call him a saint.

This was only possible for those who died before Christ to reach sainthood in this fashion. After Christ's death and ressurection, unless one died and rose with him in the laver of regeneration (the Sacrament of Baptism), one could not possibly be a saint.

-- Nicole

I am not sure of this, but something you said did make sense to me. You made me remember John the Baptist died BEFORE Jesus remember. Now in order for ANYONE to enter heaven they had to be PERFECT without SIN. We needed a Savior. Even the Blessed Mother was made perfect free from sin by the virtue of Christ. She was still saved by what her son would do.

Now back to the Point it was CHRIST that had to pay for our sins, all of us, And because of our sins we could not enter heaven. John the Baptist had to have had original sin also because if not he would have gone straight to heaven before Christ died. ANd we know that CHRIST opened up heaven by paying for the sins of ALL. See what I am saying?

[japhy]

Originally Posted by yablabo

I gave a scenario in which the Good Thief could also be considered a saint...and that is because he died before Christ

Technically, I think the Gospels state that the two thieves died after Christ: the soldiers came to break the legs of the two thieves (to speed their dying), but did not do so to Christ, because He was already dead.

[rinnie]

:

Originally Posted by japhy

Technically, I think the Gospels state that the two thieves died after Christ: the soldiers came to break the legs of the two thieves (to speed their dying), but did not do so to Christ, because He was already dead.

Yes I believe this is true. The one thief I do agree did become a Saint because Jesus said you will be with me in Paradise. But it still took Jesus dying the blood of an inocent Man to pay for the sins of all.

That is why I do not think John the Baptist was without sin simply because as he himself stated he was not worthy to strap the sandles of the feet of Christ. Now if John the Bapt. who was a GREAT example was not worthy look where that puts us

[yablabo]

Originally Posted by japhy

Technically, I think the Gospels state that the two thieves died after Christ: the soldiers came to break the legs of the two thieves (to speed their dying), but did not do so to Christ, because He was already dead.

Yes, technically you're right, he died after Christ. I did not render my thought correctly. But, to my knowledge, the Good Thief died before Christ arose on the the third day... We all know that Christ descended into hell after his death to free the souls there that awaited him, and I see it reasonable to believe that the Good Thief was freed from hell at the same time as when Christ was there. Sorry about the error.

-- Nicole

[Huiou Theou]

Originally Posted by NotWorthy

But remember, all things are powerful with God. Look at the Bad Thief on the Cross (Didymus?). What about King David. Isn't he considered a Saint.

Interesteing -- but King David's TOMB was not opened -- although the tombs of the Saints were opened during the crucifixion; and many saints appeared in Jerusalem.
I think some of the Orthodox call him a saint in the Liturgy, which would be his "canonization" if used at certain parts; I wonder when they began doing that -- before or after the schism?

In the Latin Church, he is in the Martyrology -- which is a study of witnesses/prototypes of christ. I am not up on details of Canonization in the Latin church for David -- but he did not die a literal Matryrs death; I wonder if anyone has a link to what being in the matryrology book actually means...

Just because John didn't have the Church to dispense Graces to him, doesn't mean he didn't receive them.

Yes, Nicole, I understand. And I believe that, like you, I'm just discussing my opinion. Neither one of us can claim that we know we are right. But discussions like this are great for learning. God Bless!

Hey Nicole!!!! I like your opinions, I tend to think the same way.

[telmab7]

Originally Posted by Ron Conte

Baptism entirely wipes away original sin. Those persons conceived with original sin, after Baptism, still retain concupiscence, which is not original sin itself, but an effect of original sin. So all the baptized are free from original sin itself.

There is no teaching in the Catholic Faith that John the Baptist was free from concupiscence, or that after birth he was the same as the Virgin Mary in the sense of being without any effects at all of original sin.

Scripture indicates that John the Baptist had concupiscence, which obscures the mind and heart. For even after John had baptized Jesus, he still was confused to a certain extent as to who Jesus is.

[Matthew 11]
{11:1} And it happened that, when Jesus had completed instructing his twelve disciples, he went away from there in order to teach and to preach in their cities.
{11:2} Now when John had heard, in prison, about the works of Christ, sending two of his disciples, he said to him,
{11:3} “Are you he who is to come, or should we expect another?”

----------------------
Just so that no one else gets confused
and we all confuse each other

Don't forget we have the American Catholic Church and then we have "The Roman Catholic Church" and before large attempts were taken Protestantize us with the institution of pastoral "advisory" council council in the late 1960s that we all have to continually rewind prior to in order to discover authenticity (on all subjects outside that of the Blessed Mother to which there were some gems)

It must be remembered foremost that the "Word of God" is Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture wedded together and inseparable without damage

In Sacred Tradition not only is Saint John the Baptist born without original sin so is Saint Joseph the spiritual Father of our Lord

This teaching nor the Immaculate Conception can be confused with the teachings on "concupiscence" which is "theology" and which, in it's various forms, make up the gradations of differences between Catholic theology and Protestant theology as does
Apophatic theology and Cataphatic theology When you get underneath that you find further the differences between Sacramental Liturgical Christianity of our Judao-Christian Faith and that of Dispensational Christianity of Radicalized non-liturgical Christianity.
Or in Catholic circles of the orthodox vs. the liberal ranks of the heterodox the debate would be on par with the ever liberalizing exegesis of Romans and Galatians on the law
It would be an abuse of the healthy debate between Augustinian and Aquinas theology camps

Therefore the questions at hand run a bit a deeper than which Saint or were there any other saints besides the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mother of God that were born without Original Sin

I only wish more people would read more and turn off their televisions and find out what is really going on ...

In short they are trying to take away your Faith little by little and in the case of this country, there is an obvious concerted effort by social architects to abolish the Catholic religion in the United States .

Psalm 46 God is in the midst thereof, she shall not be moved: God will help her in the morning early.

......Praise God

[Huiou Theou]

Originally Posted by telmab7

----------------------
Just so that no one else gets confused
and we all confuse each other

Don't forget we have the American Catholic Church and then we have "The Roman Catholic Church" and before large attempts were taken Protestantize us with the institution of pastoral "advisory" council council in the late 1960s that we all have to continually rewind prior to in order to discover authenticity (on all subjects outside that of the Blessed Mother to which there were some gems)

There is a traditional Catholics section of the site which you might find interesting as there tend to be people which align more with your views there.

It must be remembered foremost that the "Word of God" is Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture wedded together and inseparable without damage

In Sacred Tradition not only is Saint John the Baptist born without original sin so is Saint Joseph the spiritual Father of our Lord

This has never been the case in Tradition that I have seen. John the baptist received the blessing of a Nazarite in the womb; just as Sampson did. St. John the baptist is called the "greatest figure of the old testament." -- but by that very token, he is still under the covenant of Grace offered to them through the Law of Moses.

The Holy Spirit opened the mouth of a Donkey in order to prove that he can make a prophet of anyone or anything in order to give his prophet Balaam a chance to repent of his greed. But this appearance of the Holy Spirit on the Donkey does not equate to the donkey becoming rational being like a human, or receiving baptism of the new Covenant -- rather it prefigures that a rational being, Balaam, would be forced to say the very things he didn't want to say by that same spirit.

Note: Balaam is condemned as a particularly stubborn sinner in spite of the Holy Spirit using him.

St. John the baptist was beheaded at the end of his life (obviously...!) and that is on account of his prophecies against Herod in preparation for the coming of Christ the true King. He is therefore a martyr; and in the book of Revelation -- the martyrs are found under the altar in heaven crying out to God before the resurrection. St. John, therefore, would be in heaven regardless of what happened in the womb.

This teaching nor the Immaculate Conception can be confused with the teachings on "concupiscence" which is "theology" and which, in it's various forms, make up the gradations of differences between Catholic theology and Protestant theology as does
Apophatic theology and Cataphatic theology When you get underneath that you find further the differences between Sacramental Liturgical Christianity of our Judao-Christian Faith and that of Dispensational Christianity of Radicalized non-liturgical Christianity.

!

Or in Catholic circles of the orthodox vs. the liberal ranks of the heterodox the debate would be on par with the ever liberalizing exegesis of Romans and Galatians on the law
It would be an abuse of the healthy debate between Augustinian and Aquinas theology camps

Therefore the questions at hand run a bit a deeper than which Saint or were there any other saints besides the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mother of God that were born without Original Sin

I only wish more people would read more and turn off their televisions and find out what is really going on ...

In short they are trying to take away your Faith little by little and in the case of this country, there is an obvious concerted effort by social architects to abolish the Catholic religion in the United States .

Psalm 46 God is in the midst thereof, she shall not be moved: God will help her in the morning early.

......Praise God

Psalm 48:13 And man when he was in honour did not understand; he is compared to senseless beasts, and is become like to them.
Psalm 48:14 This way of theirs is a stumblingblock to them: and afterwards they shall delight in their mouth.
Psalm 48:15 They are laid in hell like sheep: death shall feed upon them. And the just shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their help shall decay in hell from their glory.
Psalm 48:16 But God will redeem my soul from the hand of hell, when he shall receive me.

Psalm 72:14 And I have been scourged all the day; and my chastisement hath been in the mornings.
Psalm 72:15 If I said: I will speak thus; behold I should condemn the generation of thy children.
Psalm 72:16 I studied that I might know this thing, it is a labour in my sight:


The pastoral council of the 60's has binding power over Latin rite Catholics regardless of whether they are Augustinian or Thomistic.

Rome, remember, is not the Vatican itself... which is on the other side of the river.
Calling one's self a "Roman" Catholic is a bit of a misnomer, which I think comes (itself) from Protestants trying to associate us with Babylon and the Whore of Babylon.

Some Protestants love to confound anything true found in the Catholic Church, even if it means pretending to be a Catholic while mouthing blasphemous words they know nothing about.