In Utero Baptism

114 thoughts on “In Utero Baptism”

1. In Jewish culture they circumsized on the 8th day. Every Jew knew that it was not salvific, but a sign of the covenant. Maybe we are overclocking infant baptism a wee bit?

2. That is very interesting. I am not sure how many in the hospital would be willing to do this and I applaud the nurse.
   One thing that has been comforting to me, correct me if I am wrong, is that we have the desire for our children to be baptized, and that desire covers areas we have no control over, child dying before born/during birth.

3. I’m a little unclear on what the dubium meant when it said the mixture was poisonous. Was this a situation where the baby as truly in danger of death, and so this poisonous mixture wasn’t hastening his death?

4. Regardless of a pre-born infant receiving a water baptism, doesn’t the Church teach that baptism of desire would be sufficient?

5. A few points and questions, coming from a medical student:
   1) As far as I can see, the 1901 letter concerns itself only with the matter of the sacrament, i.e. if the use of water containing a mercurium chloride solution would render the baptism invalid. It does not state that any baptism administered in utero would be valid. It would seem that the positive answer to question I of the dubium is conditional upon the actual feasability of valid administration of the sacrament.
   2) Mercuric chloride is poisonous. What case of necessity would make it morally acceptable to administer poisonous substances to a woman’s womb, even if it was for the good cause of baptizing a pre-born infant? There is not only a risk of permanent damage to the mother, but also a risk to the life of the child. It seems to me that that would only be permissible if it were quite certain that the child was in imminent danger of death. It puzzles me that the Holy Office assumed that one could make such a judgment about a child in utero in 1901. It is not easy to do so even now.
   3) If the condition for valid baptism mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia is anything to come by (and the Encyclopedia probably quotes contemporary – i.e. ca. 1910 – canon law), water must be made to flow upon the head of the infant, which is not possible if the administered water and head are separated by the amniotic sac. The Encyclopedia quotes St. Alphonsus as saying that if the ablution were administered toward another part of the body, the baptism would probably be valid, but if the child survived he would have to undergo conditional re-baptism. However, as long as the amniotic sac is intact, this principle cannot apply here anyway. (Current canon law is not so specific as to the mode of baptism, but the dubium is based upon the law then in force)
   4) The amniotic sac can not for this purpose be considered as part of the infant, because it is only the inside of the sac that is lined with foetal cells. The outer membrane, which is what is immediately accessible to others, is composed of maternal cells. As far as the placenta goes, this is tricky. It, also, is made up of both foetal and maternal cells. As long as it is inside the uterus the foetal part of it would always by inaccessible to such a procedure. On the other hand, once it is expelled from the uterus, it loses its contact with the mother and belongs unambiguously to the infant, so the principle of St. Alphonus might possibly apply in such a case – that could be the subject of a new dubium.
   Based on the above, it is my professional opinion that it is not possible to validly baptize an infant in utero unless the amniotic sac has been ruptured. It is, of course, possible to puncture the sac with a needle as is done for amniocentesis, but that is a risky procedure and should not be done without very good cause, just as in the case of the administration of mercury chloride solution. Good cause would in my view only be the certain and imminent danger of death ante partum (before birth). (One should note that I consider amniocentesis to be in most cases unnecessary and, given the risks, morally illicit)

6. This issue is of course connected to the whole issue of the necessity of the sacraments, particularly Baptism, for salvation.
   In the case of persons with the use of reason, the Church teaches that desire for Baptism – even if only implicit – suffices for salvation.
   On the other hand, the Church has never to date made a judgment regarding the status of persons who have not reached the age of reason who die without Baptism. The long debate on limbus infantorum is an indicator that neither theologians nor the Magisterium have been willing to accept that persons without the use of reason may be saved without Baptism. This is curious because the Church has always taught, conversely, that actual Baptism suffices for the salvation of persons without the use of reason, regardless of the desire of the person in question, or even of his parents for that matter.
   I tend to take this great readiness to welcome everyone, as long as there is not opposition grounded in the exercise of free will, as a sign of God’s mercy. While emergency Baptism, even in utero, may be a good thing to do for the sake of the parents, failure to do so should not make us despair of the state of the infant’s soul. We should absolutely not frantically employ in utero Baptism as a routine procedure ‘just in case’. If Our Lord had thought that such a thing was absolutely necessary to win as many souls as possible for His kingdom, I do think He would have instructed us to do so.

7. Dear E. C.
   You wrote:
   Regardless of a pre-born infant receiving a water baptism, doesn’t the Church teach that baptism of desire would be sufficient?
   Babies cannot desire baptism since they have no knowledge of it or anything related to baptism, presumably.
   The Chicken

8. As a science geek, I have to correct something Gideon Ertner wrote, above [a small nit]:
   In the original dubium, the substance was refered to as:
   hydrargyrus bichloratus corrosives
   Clearly, this is mercury in the +2 oxidation state and refers to HgCl2, which, in more modern (although now, archaic) nomenclature would be designated mercuric chloride, as Jimmy wrote, not mercury chloride or mercurium chloride, as Gideon wrote. Even more commonly and currently correctly, this would be refered to as mercury (II) chloride. Mercury (II) chloride was used, at the time, as were silver chloride compounds as antibiotics. Mercuy (II) chloride was used as a treatment for syphillus, but once its toxic properties were known, it was abandoned.
   On with the discussion.
   The Chicken

9. “Every Jew knew that it was not salvific, but a sign of the covenant.”
   Baptism is held to be salvific, so even if what you say were true about circumcision, it would not apply to Baptism. If there is danger of death, baptism is the appropriate immediate Christian response to a child’s distress.
   Secondly, I think that you are mistaken, theologically-speaking, concerning circumcision. It is not clear in the old testament that the Jews in Abraham’s time had firmly formed in their minds a notion of what the afterlife entailed. However, circumcision wasn’t just a “sign” of the covenant — it was what sealed a child with the covenant. Any male not circumcised would be cast out of his people, bereft of the covenant. Therefore, insofar as the covenant is salvific in an eternal sense, as the Jews later came to understand and articulate, circumsision — much like baptism — is salvific (in an instrumental sense, not as the source of salvation). In all cases, God does the saving, but He applies His grace _through_ the instrumental operation of the sacraments.

10. In Tristram Shandy, the narrator says that he had to be born to be baptized and later observes that the reader should know he was not Catholic and after some banter points out what he said — because Catholics even then baptized babies in utero at need.

11. In Jewish culture they circumsized on the 8th day. Every Jew knew that it was not salvific, but a sign of the covenant. Maybe we are overclocking infant baptism a wee bit?
    This analogy was considered in Patristic times as an argument that babies should be baptized on the eighth day — and rejected. Babies should be baptized as quickly as possible.

12. Regarding “poisonous” solutions – there are different types of poisonous. Alcohol is poisonous in great enough quantities, but it’s used as a disinfectant. It’s also taken by mouth. The compound mentioned may be poisonous if taken by mouth, but not on the skin. If so, it’s not “water” in the normal sense where it’s potable. So the question at the time may have meant whether it’s sufficiently water to be valid matter.
    As for baptising in-utero. Today cesarian section are all too (much) common. If you pick your doctor right, the baby (even soon to die) can be born alive, and hence baptised the normal way. And we want it done so without doubt.
    If it’s natural childbirth, the only in-utero way would be as the head’ crowning, all the other ways presuppose a hospital environment.

13. Tzard,
    You wrote:
    The compound mentioned may be poisonous if taken by mouth, but not on the skin.
    Mercury (II) chloride is a CNS poison, among other things.
    Here is the material safety data sheet. The emergency note says:
    DANGER! MAY BE FATAL IF SWALLOWED. HARMFUL IF INHALED OR ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. CAUSES SEVERE IRRITATION TO EYES, SKIN AND RESPIRATORY TRACT; MAY CAUSE BURNS. MAY CAUSE ALLERGIC SKIN REACTION. MERCURY COMPOUNDS AFFECT THE KIDNEYS AND CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. BIRTH DEFECT HAZARD. CAN CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS.
    One problem during birth, among many, is that the material might be skin absorbed at low concentrations or even get into the blood stream.
    The Chicken

14. “So the question at the time may have meant whether it’s sufficiently water to be valid matter.”
    I think this is the case too.
    Btw, when posting my first post I had not thought of the fact that the poisonous qualities of mercury were not known in 1901. It should be kept in mind that the response to the dubium does not deal with the issue of danger to the child or mother at all.

15. “One should note that I consider amniocentesis to be in most cases unnecessary and, given the risks, morally illicit”
    Wouldn’t this fall under the principle of “double effect” that has been discussed previously here? As long as the amnio is done for good reason, with full awareness of the potential effects, and not to cause a miscarriage (or to decide to have an abortion), I don’t see how it is morally illicit.
    In my particular case, an amnio indirectly saved my first son’s life. We learned he had Down Syndrome, which caused us to monitor the pregnancy very carefully even though outwardly it appeared perfectly normal, which caused us to notice the very early signs of fetal distress, which caused us to induce labor in the nick of time (and still he had to be revived when he was born). I’m sure (heck, I know) there are amnios that are done for morally illicit reasons, but I don’t think all are.
    As for baptism, I was under the belief that baptisms could be performed on babies that are stillborn or die soon after birth, before there is time for a traditional baptism. If this is true, what would be the purpose of an in utero baptism except to comfort the parents?

16. If the baby is already dead, he/she cannot be baptized. Only the living can receive sacraments.

17. The whole idea of introducting water into the womb is not only terribly unsafe, but logically speaking, perhaps totally unecessary. The fetus is already suspended in water. It is a Church teaching that John the Baptist was born without the stain of Original Sin because he was baptised in his mother’s womb at the Visitation. Since the water already in the womb was sufficient for his baptism, it seems to follow that it should be sufficient for any in-utero baptism, doesn’t it?

18. Dear Chicken,
    I bow to your superior knowledge of all things poisonous. 🙂

19. “Babies cannot desire baptism since they have no knowledge of it or anything related to baptism, presumably.
    The Chicken”
    That makes perfect sense when evaluating baptism of desire until one considers that a prerequisite to baptism by water is consent and it is the consent of a parent that is attributed to the baby. As to the baptism of desire, The Constitution on the Church, Second Vatican Council teaches:
    “The baptism of desire applies both to those who, while wishing to be baptized, die before receiving the sacrament and “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of conscience”
    Wouldn’t the question presented be whether, at least under some circumstances, the parent’s desire can be attributed to the baby in the way that consent is? I have no idea, I’m just asking. Frankly, I’d be surprised if the Church has a direct teaching on this, which would mean that the faithful may be permitted to believe either way as long as they understand that such belief is just a personal one — not a matter of faith and not confirmed by the Church. I’m just guessing though. Probably wrong.

20. Georgette,
    You wrote:
    The whole idea of introducting water into the womb is not only terribly unsafe, but logically speaking, perhaps totally unecessary. The fetus is already suspended in water. It is a Church teaching that John the Baptist was born without the stain of Original Sin because he was baptised in his mother’s womb at the Visitation. Since the water already in the womb was sufficient for his baptism, it seems to follow that it should be sufficient for any in-utero baptism, doesn’t it?
    St. John was not baptized in the now normal way, since, in fact, baptism hadn’t yet been created as a sacrament. He was not abluted, since he existed “in water” from the moment of his conception. It is the teaching of the Church that St. John the Baptist was born without stain of original sin because of a special dispensation given due to his unique position in salvation history. He was not, normally speeching, baptized.
    Also, amneotic fluid is not pure water, but more of a water/protein mix. It is doubtful matter for baptism.
    Tzard,
    Well, I have given my students internet scavenger hunt questions to find the third deadliest poison. A colleague and I are having a disagreement over what the second deadliest poison is, however. No, I am not a poison nut. I do know the properties of certain compounds, however. I am nowhere near the Agatha Christie level of poison knowledge, however.
    Mike Petrik,
    The difference is that in the case of baptizing a baby, one has correct form and ritual. The ritual is the ablution of the baby and the speaking of the words of baptism. These acts, which are, in addition to ex opera operatus actions, also acts of faith by the parents and substitutes for the babies faith. In the case of the possible baptism of desire of an unborn infant, the correct form is present – an unbaptized individual, but the ritual for baptism of desire is a conscious act of the will (however nebulous) that seeks the truth and a relationship with God as he demands it. Since reason seeks the truth and a baby is incapable of reasoning, even in part, it cannot seek the truth, properly speaking and it cannot form a conscious act. The ritual, which must be an individual and not corporate expression of faith in the case of baptism of desire, is what is deficient in the case of a baby in the womb.
    There is the thought, from St. Catherine of Sienna, that everyone will be given a choice, at the moment of death, to accept God or not. If there is a baptism of desire for unborn babies, it would, logically, happen here, but not in the womb, since, while in this life, desire implies knowledge, however remote.
    My take, for what its worth.
    The chicken

21. TMC,
    You may be right; heck if I know. But I do call your attention to the qualifier “at least under some circumstances.” I was not suggesting some extension of the baptism of desire dogma to apply as the cure for the problem of unbaptized infants generally. What I was speculating is that if a parent’s consent can be imparted to an infant for purpose of baptism by water, then perhaps a parent’s desire can be similary imparted for baptism of desire, if such desire is genuine and consistent with the dogma’s requirements. But perhaps this is a stretch. In any case, I don’t fully understand the significance of ritual in the analysis. The baptism of desire is without ritual. In the end I suspect you are right — I’m just speculating out loud.

22. It is the teaching of the Church that St. John the Baptist was born without stain of original sin because of a special dispensation given due to his unique position in salvation history.
    This is not true.
    Only the Blessed Virgin was preserved from original sin.

23. Mary, I believe the confusion lies in the distinction between conception and birth. Aside from Christ Himself of course, only Mary was conceived without original sin — i.e., the Immaculate Conception. But John the Baptist was cleansed from the stain of original sin when, filled with the Holy Ghost, he “leaped for joy in his mother’s womb” in the presence of the yet unborn Jesus.

24. I’ve often wondered, if one can theologically speculate that infants or others lacking reason and unbaptized may have their reasons “enlightened” by God at death in order to be able to make the act of desire for Him and so enter heaven (as per Catherine of Sienna, above), then might one also speculate that baptized persons lacking reason could possibly also reject their salvation at death? It is hard to imagine such a scenario, but will God only grant enlightenment of conscience to those lacking reason whom he foresees will make the right choice? Hmm.

25. Dear Mike Petrik,
    You wrote:
    The baptism of desire is without ritual.
    There must, as far as I understand, be a ritual for every sacrament. The normal ritual for baptism is immersion and the Trinitarian formula. For baptism of desire, there is a ritual in a more hidden sense in that the turning of the will to baptism is a type of ritual. That’s my guess, but we are both speculating, of course, until the Church further clarifies the issue.
    Thank you for explaining my explanation to Mary. Both Mary and St. John the Baptist were born without sin, but only Mary was conceived without sin. St. John received the equivalent of baptism (although, not technically baptism) while in the womb (unlike Mary who received the equivalent at the moment of conception). In other words, there was never a time when Mary had Original Sin, but there was a short, but finite time when St. John did.
    The Chicken

26. Dear Anon,
    The answer is, no. There is no defect in charity in an unreasoning baptized infant, whereas there is one, due to Original Sin, in the unreasoning unbaptized infant. This defect must be removed, even if after death, by a free choice on the part of the infant (if St. Catherine is correct in that they are given a choice). In the case of the unreasoning baptized infant, since there is no defect, there is no need of a choice.
    The Chicken

27. I am retired after 50 years of obsterical nursing.God alone knows how many fetuses, infants I have baptized. Most physicians know how to baptize infants, as the head is delivered. Sterile water is sufficient -an 1901 solution is an anomaly. I have questioned a hospital chaplain, many years ago, about baptism of desire on the part of the parents -who ultimately make that decision for their child. The amniotic sac must be broken so that the water can reach the infant or fetus.
    I am a graduate of a catholic nursing school and attended a Jesuit college. Hopefully, I have done the right thing all these years.
    I agree with St. Catherine -never diminish the passion of our God for each soul!

28. Is it really “church teaching” that John the Baptist was cleansed of original sin when he “leapt for joy” in his mother’s womb, or is that simply a pious tradition or commonly held opinion of theologians? We should not assume they are one and the same.
    Lumping pious traditions or theological theories NOT formally defined as Church doctrine together with genuine matters of doctrine has caused a lot of confusion in the past. An excellent example of this was the notion that babies who die before they can be baptized spend eternity in limbo and cannot go to heaven.
    From what I understand (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), the Church never formally defined limbo as a matter of faith, but simply stated back in the late 18th century or so that it was a theory not contrary to the faith which Catholics were free to embrace. It gained traction at a time in Church history when the Jansenists and others were claiming that all unbaptized persons, even babies, went to hell; the idea of limbo (which had been around for centuries; it’s mentioned in Dante’s Divine Comedy) was obviously a big improvement over that.
    However, for generations, as recently as the 1950s and 60s, this was presented as something that “the Church teaches” without question, which caused untold grief to many parents who had lost children in utero or shortly after birth. Today the consensus seems to be very strongly that God takes care of these children in some way perhaps not known to us.
    Another example of this distinction is with regard to Mary’s Assumption. It is a defined doctrine that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul. However, whether she died and was later resurrected (like her Son) or simply passed into heaven without dying (like Elijah and Enoch) remains an open question. In fact Pius XII carefully avoided taking any sides in that dispute, he said only that Mary was assumed into heaven “when she had finished the course of her earthly life.”
    I have nothing against the idea that John the Baptist was cleansed of original sin before birth, I’m just saying, it shouldn’t be presented as a “must believe” aspect of the Catholic faith, on par with Mary’s Immaculate Conception, if it isn’t.

29. Dear Elaine,
    Thanks for making the distinction between de fide statements and what are known as pious beliefs (there is a technical term in theology for these, but it escapes me).
    That having been said, there are different degrees of certainty regarding theological statements by the Church (could someone look up the status of this belief in Ott, if it is there?). That St. John was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb is certain, since it is stated in Scripture. The discussion is what that statement, “filled with the Holy Spirit,” implies. It was this sort of language, only more intensely stated (“full of grace” and “filled with the holy spirit” are related) that led the Church to define Mary’s Immaculate Conception.
    The thinking is that since St. John was filled with the Holy Spirit and since the Holy Spirit can only fill those in a state of grace and one can only be in a state of grace if one is without Original Sin, then when St. John was filled with the Holy Spirit, he was, at that moment capable of receiving the Holy Spirit, which meant that he was in a state of grace, so that Original Sin must have been removed antecedently.
    Another thought [take with caution – I may be wrong]:
    Since the Church has defined that Mary was immaculately conceived, a corollary to this, I think, is that it has also defined, de fide, that God can preserve some people (at least one – Mary) from Original Sin at any moment of his choosing and without baptism, since the one statement is need for the other. Thus, [this is subtle, please follow] the fact that God could have preserved St. John the Baptist from original sin in his mother’s womb, is de fide. The fact that he did preserve St. John from original sin, is not, but is strongly supported by the constant belief of the Church.
    Hope that clears things up and hope I haven’t made any mistakes, myself in stating things.
    The Chicken

30. Just for the medical students information – If the placenta exits before the baby, the baby has already died.

31. I liked Gideon Ertner distinctions in the medical area and the Masked Chicken and others about mercury(or its various forms)is poisonous(mercury is still used as a disinfectant in vaccines! http://www.wxyz.com/content/news/investigators/story/Wilson-Some-Vaccines-Still-Contain-Mercury/2qKdWV73REiVLhJB8ztX_Q.cspx).
    On the theological side I am with St. Alphonsus and the water must be made to flow upon the head of the infant, which is not possible if the administered water and head are separated by the amniotic sac.
    Posted by: Beadgirl :
    “As for baptism, I was under the belief that baptisms could be performed on babies that are stillborn or die soon after birth, before there is time for a traditional baptism. If this is true, what would be the purpose of an in utero baptism except to comfort the parents?”
    Posted by: leah:
    “If the baby is already dead, he/she cannot be baptized. Only the living can receive sacraments.”
    Beadgirl is right a priest explained that the soul is thought by the Church to remain possibly in the body even after apparent death and a doctor friend said the medicine says something similar. The best source I could find on the net is from the old Baltimore Catechism under Exteme Unction:
    “450. In case of sudden or unexpected death, should a priest be called?
    In case of sudden or unexpected death a priest should be called always, because absolution and Extreme Unction can be given conditionally for some time after apparent death.”
    This would apply to child death and baptism.
    Limbo is a doctrine of the Faith. 2 councils have ruled on it Lyons and Florence:
    Council of Lyons II: “…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished with different punishments…– (Denzinger 464)
    Council of Florence: “…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.— (Denzinger 693)
    Different punishments = Limbo = loss of Beatific Vision and live in natural paradise. Speculation against the necessity for water baptism for infant salvation was condemned by the Holy Office under Pius XII (cf. New Catholic Ecyclo. 1967;art.”Limbo”)
    Mike Petrik said:”prerequisite to baptism by water is consent”
    No, it is no opposition to receiving the sacrament for infants or mentally incapable as Gideon Ertner states.
    John the Baptist did not receive Baptism but only Sanctifying Grace.The Church celebrates only 3 birthdays in the Church all were born without original sin:Mary, John the Baptist, and Jesus. We recieve a mark in Baptism and that is why Jesus says: “Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” The Mark of Baptism (entrence to the kingdom of heaven = the Church) makes it possible for us to receive all the other sacraments. Without this mark they have no effect.

32. Consent of parents has no effect on the validity of baptism. In fact, the Catholic church claims that babies can be validly baptized even against the will of the parents. In cases of danger death, such is not only valid but also licit according to the church, but in every case it is valid.
    The Catholic theological account for why babies can be validly baptized is that the sacraments take effect as long as no obstacle is placed in the way. In an adult, absence of faith is an obstacle but in a baby, for some reason, it is not.
    Jesus did not come to establish elaborate theologies and contingency baptism operations. Jesus came to enlighten, to give hope to the poor. There is no dubium in my mind. Pharisee like obsession over whether a sacrament is valid is not the way of Jesus. In Reformed Christianity, preachers are servants of the word of God and not its masters or custodians. There is no sacramental checklist to get to heaven. There is only faith.

33. Posted by: Christian Hedonist:
    “There is no sacramental checklist to get to heaven. There is only faith.”
    Not according to Jesus:
    “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5].=Sacrament of Baptism
    “He said to them, “Go into the entire world and preach the good news to all
    creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not
    believe will be condemned.” (Mark, 16:15-16)
    We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as
    Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a
    new life.(Romans 6:4)
    “Peter answered them, “Every one of you must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins.”(Acts 2:38)

34. TMC
    Is “theologoumena” the word you are looking for pious beliefs?

35. “In Reformed Christianity, preachers are servants of the word of God and not its masters”
    Is a preacher a servant of the Word of God when he interprets it in any way that strikes his fancy, and is free to call that “being led by the Spirit”? When he teaches private interpretations under what amounts to his own authority?
    Jesus did indeed make us subject both to a visible Church and to the sacraments. Though He is not bound by the sacraments, we are, because they are His revealed will. He may save anyone He likes, in any way He likes, but the fact that HE is free to improvise does not mean that WE are. We are not free to make things up as we go along or adopt a minimalist (“reformed”) approach to salvation.
    Yes, one might be saved by faith alone, in a pinch (only God knows the heart), but to maintain that this is sufficient when we reject God’s grace offered in the sacraments through His body, the Church, is reckless, presumptuous and prideful.
    If the sacraments are *ever* efficacious, then there remains the radical possibility that they may be made non-efficacious through some lack or abuse. Therefore, discussing how and why they are efficacious is a holy and righteous effort.

36. “In Reformed Christianity, preachers are servants of the word of God and not its masters”

    Sounds suspiciously like Catholic Christianity regarding the Magisterium: “This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.” (Dei Verbum 10)

37. Slight correction to Bill Strom. The verse in John3:5 omits the word again and should read: John3:5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit(NIV). Born of water can also mean a natural birth. Normally a child is born via the breaking of the mother’s water. A similar breaking occurs via the Spirit and this is what is probably meant by born again.

38. Crusoe–Then why mention ‘water’ in the first place, if it’s supposed to be read as part of the natural birth process? The only reasons I can see to read it that way are:
    1) to exclude people born by Caesarean section from Heaven;
    or 2) to deliberately exclude any suggestion of baptism as necessary.
    The first is silly, the second strikes me as a bad case of eisegesis.

39. Martin,
    Observe that the previous verse John mentions the womb : 4″How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”
    Now observe how Jesus responds in versus 5 and 6:
    5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit.
    The early church did not universally practice infant baptism. The requirement for infant baptism was not instituted until much later. Maybe if it was necessary for salvation, the Apostles should have made it more clear. Just a thought.

40. “The early church did not universally practice infant baptism.”
    Evidence?

41. See wikipedia article on baptism, especially section 2.6 as it pertains to the Early Church.

42. The wikipedia article shows that less than 100% of Christians in the early church were baptized as infants. That would be true in any era. There is nothing in the wikipedia article which says that infant baptism was not the norm.

43. I am in California for an academic conference this week actually, not that far away from San Diego, but I won’t get to visit Jimmy, alas), so I won’t be posting very often (I have to use campus facilities and time is strictly monitored 🙁 )
    Skygor wrote:
    Is “theologoumena” the word you are looking for pious beliefs?
    Yes, thank you.
    I have much more to say about what being filled with the Holy Spirit might have meant for St. John the Baptist (Bill Strom is, essentially, correct, but there is much more good theology that can be teased out of the passage). If anyone is still reading when I get home (about next Tuesday, i will try to flesh it out.
    The Chicken

44. I think the article makes it clear that the early practice was of an adult. John 3 could not refer to sacramental baptism, since Judaism, according to Cardinal Newman, were the only non-sacramental religion in the ancient world.

45. Food for thought…
    John 3:5 and the Necessity of Water Baptism
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

46. It is a truth of the Catholic faith that baptism, in water, blood, or desire, is necessary for salvation.
    The necessity of baptism is a dogma.
    The appropriate punishment for those dying in original sin alone was a matter for discussion. Limbo is an opinion about the punishment for original sin.
    So to say Limbo was an opinion is true, but not to the point.
    We would do well to heed these words of Pope Pius XII, in his Allucution to Midwives:
    “If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. Therefore, if it is considered that charity to our fellowman obliges us to assist him in the case of necessity, then this obligation is so much the more important and urgent as the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided is the greater, and in the measure that the needy person is incapable of helping or saving himself with his own powers; and so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death’s threshold.
    Undoubtedly this duty binds the parents in the first place, but in case of necessity, when there is no time to lose or it is not possible to call a priest, the sublime office of conferring baptism is yours.”
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

47. John 3:5 brings up an interesting point. None of the English, German, and Russian translations provided at BibleGateway.com have the expression ‘born again’ in them, they only say ‘born’. The only logical conclusion is that there is a mistranslation.

48. “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”
    The original reads of “water and wind.” Both water and wind are allusions to the spiritual nourishment that comes from God. Jesus speaks of “living water.”
    The Catholic church may say it serves the word of God but it also says it is its master and custodian. As I said, in Reformed Christianity, preachers are but servants of the word of God, not its masters or custodians. In Reformed Christianity, preachers are not an authority; they are but vehicles of God’s word and individual Christians form their own theology based on their understanding. No one’s understanding is perfect or without error, but it is not understanding that saves, but faith. Not just “in a pinch” but always. We cannot please God with our good works for all that we do falls short of God’s glory. The only way to be saved is through opening your heart to God’s mercy through faith alone.
    The word of God is authoritative on its own. It needs no magisterium to stamp it with its seal or to add to it by claiming a separate authority to teach on philosophy and natural law not even in God’s word. The word of God is as free as the spirit of God of which the bible says no one knows from where it blows or to where it is blowing.
    If you place your faith in baptism, you cannot be saved. Our faith is to be in God alone and having faith in God alone means that one trusts God as a little child who need not worry about whether a ritual is done according to spec or worry about whether water would be available in the desert. It is not any physical manna or water that saves; it is only the manna from heaven and the living water of the divine wind that saves.

49. Screwtape’s back.

50. Both water and wind are allusions to the spiritual nourishment that comes from God
    Then why do the apostles repeatedly resort to real, material, earthly water to baptize?
    The Catholic church may say it serves the word of God but it also says it is its master and custodian.
    A lie.
    First off, we do not serve the word of God. We serve God. You ought to, too.
    Second off, we never claim to be “its master and custodian.”
    Third off, Jesus said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church. And Paul says that the Church of the living God is the pillar and the foundation of the truth. That’s what the word of God says. Not your fantasy about the word of God requiring us to be its servants.
    The word of God is authoritative on its own. It needs no magisterium to stamp it with its seal or to add to it by claiming a separate authority to teach on philosophy and natural law not even in God’s word
    How do you identify the word of God when you run across it? What do you say when someone quotes the Gospel of Judas at you? What do you say when someone says that the Letter of James is a letter of straw and contains nothing of the good news?

51. The early church did not universally practice infant baptism.
    Nonsense.
    It is true that in the early centuries of the Church, it became practice to delay baptism for infants who were in no danger of death so that they could be washed free of the sins they would commit in a stormy adolescence. However, even then, infants in danger of death were to be baptized at once.
    Tertullian, the first to argue for such practice, explicitly said that it should be deferred when not necessary. He also explicitly said that for the same reason, adult unmarried converts should put off baptism until they had lived chastely for several years or married. What was that reason? It was so that baptism could wipe away any sins of unchastity.

52. Rancor is not a fruit of the spirit.
    The water in baptism is a symbol of the spirit.
    As for the Catholic church serving the word of God, a Catholic above said it did so I’ll let the two of you sort that out.
    As for the Catholic church being the master or custodian of the word of God, you’re the only one who has said the church isn’t that and if you look, you’ll see the church does claim that
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_20020228_church-internet_en.html
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20031018_riflessioni-trujillo_en.html
    Your questions about identifying the word of God seem to betray an improper understanding of the power of God’s word. The bible says that when the word of God goes forth, it does not return a void. So your human worries are needless. If the bible says God will provide us our food, clothing, etc. and we should not worry about these cares as our loving Father takes care of us, how much less do we need to worry about how our loving Father will take care of the concerns you have about “What if?” “What about?”. If we unearth another authentic letter of Paul, then I’m sure God will guide the Christian church to recognize it and learn from it. That may be a problem for the Catholic church since the Catholic church has claimed, to have infallibly set the canon at Trent; but I don’t identify the Catholic church with the Christian church. The church is not the pastors. The church is the people of God and as the people of God we trust that God will guide us through every eventuality and we need not fret about the questions you raised.

53. The bible says that when the word of God goes forth, it does not return a void. So your human worries are needless.
    So John Doe says to you “Nonsense, the Bible doesn’t say that,” and you haul out your Bible and point to it, and he says, “That’s not God’s word. That’s a later interpolation.”
    What do you say about that?
    If the bible says God will provide us our food, clothing, etc. and we should not worry about these cares as our loving Father takes care of us, how much less do we need to worry about how our loving Father will take care of the concerns you have about “What if?”
    “If the bible says” Big if there. Does the Bible say that? How do we know that that passage is part of the Bible?

54. If we unearth another authentic letter of Paul, then I’m sure God will guide the Christian church to recognize it and learn from it.
    SPRONG!!!!
    Well, Christian Hedonist, you let the cat out of the bag with that one. You do not believe that the only thing is the word of God. You believe that the Church is divinely guided by God. That’s a Catholic doctrine. It’s not a Reformed doctrine.

55. That may be a problem for the Catholic church since the Catholic church has claimed, to have infallibly set the canon at Trent; but I don’t identify the Catholic church with the Christian church.
    So what do you think that canon is? Do you think we can know what it is? Or are we left orphans, ordered to rely solely on the word of God and yet having no way to discern what is the word of God?

56. “The Catholic church may say it serves the word of God but it also says it is its master and custodian.”
    Did you know that the Latin noun costodes means “guards”? So, you see, you attempt to undermine the Church has only reinforced the argument for her: the bible needs a “guardian” to keep it from being misused.

57. “Rancor is not a fruit of the spirit.”
    Nor is obfuscation.
    “The water in baptism is a symbol of the spirit.”
    Among other things The water of baptism is much more commonly a symbol of washing (like the ritual purifications of the Jewish law), of the Flood of Noah, of dying and rising…
    Besides, its being a symbol is neither here nor there, unless you can show why it must be ONLY a symbol, and is not efficacious, as the Church has always taught and the scriptures attest;
    “…and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also — not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”
    Baptism saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

58. Don’t feed the troll.
    “Christian Hedonist” is our old pal “Catholic Maverick”, aka “Ruse”, aka, “CT”.
    CT, you have already been disinvited from participation in the combox by this blog’s author. But rules are for the herd, I suppose, and not for enlightened spirits such as yourself. Undoubtedly you may practice deception and yet remain untouched by sin.

59. “are we left orphans…”
    The word of God answers this question. The word says God has not left us orphans but given us his spirit, not his church, not a magisterium, not baptism, but his spirit.
    Listen to the Christian song that goes “Word of God, Speak! Fall down like rain.”
    The word of God speaks to the human heart and gives consolation no matter what men say about you for the Christian finds his solace in God alone.

60. Why don’t trolls start their own blogs?

61. Humm. Perhaps his latest comment should be removed so it doesn’t remain to tempt us.
    (Despite the obvious. He’s ignoring everything that contradicts his little fantasy.)

62. “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5].=Sacrament of Baptism
    Does this not imply that one has to first be born?

63. The Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate both use the expression born again in John 3:5. This error has been corrected in modern texts. Unfortunately ancient documents used John 3:5 as a proof text to support baptism. It is interesting that the Latin Vulgate was commissioned to improve the poor translation of the Old Latin Bible. Notice that the Old Latin, which preceded the Latin Vulgate was less reliable than the Latin Vulgate that came later. So how could those who were allegedly with Peter and Paul in Rome make an inferior translation than Jerome?

64. cmbe,
    The language of Christian Rome was mainly Greek, up until the beginning of the 3rd century. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans in Greek. Of the first 15 bishops who presided over Rome only four had Latin names. Even emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote his Meditations in Greek.
    North Africa, not Rome provided that the earliest Latin literature of the church. Its list of Latin authors, whose Latin might sometimes be crude and mixed with foreign idioms. One of these was Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who had used an Old Latin Bible.
    The hotbed of Christian thought in the first 3 centuries was North Africa and Antioch.

65. You may wish that the Protestants on this site would keep to themselves. Yet the pro-Catholic site.
    http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7470&CFID=7673732&CFTOKEN=69523755
    confirms many of the issues that the Protestant brethren have mentioned with the Latin Vulgate. It is good to be informed because Protestants, especially Evangelicals, are stepping up their attack on Catholics. They see the coming shortage of Priests, Hispanic Invasion, lack of Church direction as a prime opportunity to grab sheep from the Catholic church. Pentecostals in Argentina now outnumber Catholics. While Catholics are using natural law and scholasticism to fight the culture wars. Protestants are using Hermeneutics to fight both Scholasticism and the culture wars and winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation. When it comes to the Hermeneutics battle, the Catholic Apologists are increasingly losing the war. As the Bible commands, ‘study and show thyself approved’. Don’t blindly trust a Catholic or a Protestant. Search the facts, examine your heart, and see if you have a ready defense, and not blind hope, for what you believe. My observation is that most people are scared to search for truth, because a radical paradigm shift would so shake their world, that they would rather stay in ignorance. The book of Revelation says, that the Lake of Fire will be filled with cowards.

66. THIS USER HAS BEEN BANNED FOR REPEATED BAD BEHAVIOR.

67. Christian Hedonist,
    Thanks for sharing. I grew up Catholic and tried to reconnect with the Church at various times. I also struggled with the logical inconsistencies and even worse the number of priests/Jesuits who were in spiritual crisis. I think when people realize that Christ created a Church that was Jewish and not Medieval scales would fall from their eyes. Remember 2/3 of the Bible was written before the Church ever existed.

68. Just what I long to see when I read the combox… a conversation between two banned individuals, congratulating one another for not being Catholic.

69. Ah, Courageous Thought, no doubt you will be back next week with a new moniker, a new worldview, and a new coat of paint on your killing-babies-is-okay argument. It’s not that I have anything against trying on different ideas for size; but how can we take you seriously when you proclaim with certainty one month that Jesus was absolutely not divine, and the next with equal certainty that Reformed Christianity is “logically sound?” If one’s convictions can change so easily, and truth remain the same, then how can such convictions be trusted in the future? Or are all your proclaimed worldviews simply sheep’s clothing or convenient Church-beating sticks?
    If you are using public debate fora to figure out what it is you truly believe, all well and good, but you might try using fewer criticisms of other people’s ideas in the process; after all, they may be your professed ideas too next time you log on. And you might also try it in fora from which you have not yet been disinvited.

70. Don’t forget his recent claim to be a satanist.

71. Bill and Tim,
    I have a question for both of you. As Catholics you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible. However does it not require private interpretation to determine which “apostolic tradition” is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches? All three claim that their organization alone can interpret scripture correctly.

72. “As Catholics you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible”
    No, that’s incorrect. I am free to interpret the vast majority of the Bible according to my best understanding of it… within the framework (which is quite broad) established under the authority of the Church. What I am NOT allowed to do is to teach that MY interpretation must be the correct one or that it carries any authority at all, or that it was vouchsafed to me by the Holy Spirit, or to set up my understanding over against the teaching of the Church in any way.
    So, if my sincere, dogged scholarship led me to believe that Jesus was not really Divine, I could insist it was the right view… but I could never with a straight face insist it was The Christian View.
    Everyone in the world has the freedom to understand the Bible however they want… but only the Church has the *authority* to proclaim doctrine.
    So, you and I are free to believe whatever, but neither you nor I have *any* authority to proclaim that belief in the name of Christ.

73. “If you are using public debate fora to figure out what it is you truly believe, all well and good, but you might try using fewer criticisms of other people’s ideas in the process; after all, they may be your professed ideas too next time you log on. And you might also try it in fora from which you have not yet been disinvited.”
    And the winner is…Sleeping Beastly by a knockout! (not to diminish others here. I’m a sucker for withering clock cleaning :-)).

74. I am free to interpret the vast majority of the Bible according to my best understanding of it… within the framework (which is quite broad) established under the authority of the Church.
    My point is that at some point a private interpretation is required to determine which is the correct ‘church authority’. Anyone can claim they are an apostolic teaching authority. Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, and Jehovah’s Witnesses all claim apostolic teaching authority. How does one arbitrate especially when history is fraught with forged documents, spurious epistles, church fathers contradicting themselves and each-other, anti-Popes, East-West split, and Catholics and Orthodox not agreeing what constitutes the 8th Church Council?
    I see only three options. 1. forget the whole mess and say Christianity is apostate. 2. Blindly attach oneself to one communion and hope for the best. 3. Or diligently studying the Bible, fathers, church history, and the rest to see which church was preserved by Christ.
    It is naive to think that Catholics and Protestants are brothers. I have done a lot of street preaching and have never seen an Evangelical consider another Evangelical as heretic. Yet it is almost universal among Evangelical clergy to not accept Catholics as brothers.

75. “…Or diligently studying the Bible”
    Whoa! Got to establish your own canon, first, since you apparently can’t take the word of the Church as being authoritative… you wouldn’t blindly attach yourself to that old tradition, would you?
    Who first told you that the Bible was the word of God? Why do you believe them?

76. Italics off!

77. AArgh! and… OFF
    Yes?

78. OFF!!! (?)

79. Please, yes?

80. (??)

81. Let’s all have a round of drinks on the behalf of the one who slay the HTML beast.

82. a comment

83. Sanatio in radice on the italics! 🙂

84. BTW, you can take the word of the Orthodox and the Catholic, or you take the word of the Protestants who cut several books out.

85. Mary,
    Or you can take the word of the Jews, who wrote 2/3 of the Bible and also of Jerome who could read Greek and Hebrew and reject the Apocrypha.
    Notice some of the incorrect historical facts.
    Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.” —Truth: he was king of Babylon
    Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.” – Truth: captivity only 70 years.
    The Catholic Council of Trent in 1546 AD recognized all the books of the Council of Carthage as being in the Bible — except for the Prayer of Manasses and 1 and 2 Esdras. Thus the Catholic Apocrypha today is three books shorter than the Apocrypha throughout most of history and the Orthodox Church today. So it looks like the Catholic church does not think to highly of the Council of Carthage either. So if the Catholic church got it wrong in 397 AD, maybe she is wrong in 2009?

86. The Jews who rejected the same books as the Protestants rejected — had already rejected Jesus. And were retranslating the Old Testament into Greek in less-friendly-to-Christian translations.
    And Jerome was not pope and so can not be binding on the faithful.

87. Mary,
    The reason that I left the Catholic Church was that the Bishops, Priests, and Jesuits would not even attempt to answer my honest questions. The Orthodox church at least accepts ALL the Apocrypha from 397 AD. Removing 3 books is a serious issue, especially when Catholics make the claim that they are the Church that Jesus founded.
    Furthermore the The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible even says in its Intro “The book of Judith in particular shows a bland indifference to history and geography.” This did not give me a lot of confidence that the translators thought very highly of this book either.

88. With regard to Judith 1:5, the owner of this blog pointed out in an article on his old website that the identification of Nebuchadnezzar as king of Assyria is a clue to the reader that the story is not meant to be taken as historical. It’s a parable.

89. Edward,
    “A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson.”-source Wikipedia, Parable.
    Judith is at best a non-historical novel considering it has at least 10 historical errors. Jews do not consider it part of the religious Canon.

90. Edward, how dare you contradict a troll with an inconvenient fact!

91. Jews do not consider it part of the religious Canon.
    Question, since you think Jews know better than Christians, why aren’t you a Jew?

92. The reason that I left the Catholic Church was that the Bishops, Priests, and Jesuits would not even attempt to answer my honest questions.
    That question I just asked, BTW, is a honest question.

93. BTW, the books you agree are in the bible think that the value of pi is 3. How do you cope?

94. THIS USER HAS BEEN BANNED FOR REPEATED BAD BEHAVIOR.

95. DELETED

96. Can Q/A read check the DA RULZ? Specifically, that part about using multiple handles. It makes things easier for all.

97. Hmm. Maybe since the Church brought the Canon together, the Church should be trusted as its interpreter.

98. THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD IS IN UTERO BAPTISM, NOT THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. PLEASE DESIST FROM THREAD HIJACKING.

99. Isn’t the thread hijacker’s handle one of the handles of a banned troll?

100. Jimmy, Sorry that I responded to KtR, and fed the thread-hijacking.

101. Jimmy, isn’t it time to take further (legal) action against this anti-Catholic bigot? Besides making reading the blog less enjoyable, he has also become an occasion of sin for me. I will continue to pray for him, but, please, take those further steps.

102. Bill912: I’m working on it; doing stuff behind the scenes.

103. Thanks

104. Since today is the Solemnity of the birth of St. John the Baptist, I thought I would take a few minutes and explain in more detail what the term, “filled with the Holy Spirit,” means as it pertains to St. John the Baptist in his mother’s womb. This will not be an exhaustive treatment of the term, in general.
     The exact passage is Luke 1:15
     for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.[RSV]
     In the Old Testament, the exact relationship of the Holy Spirit to God was somewhat nebulous. The original term for spirit was רוח ruwach, which literally, meant breath. In the Old Testament, there was little distinction between breathing and being animated (having a spirit). As we get closer to New Testament times, the meaning gets closer (but never exactly) the same as that in the New Testament, where the Holy Spirit becomes personalized.
     Compare this passage to that describing the conception of Samson [Jdg 13:12-14]:
     And Mano’ah said, “Now when your words come true, what is to be the boy’s manner of life, and what is he to do?” And the angel of the LORD said to Mano’ah, “Of all that I said to the woman let her beware.
     She may not eat of anything that comes from the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, or eat any unclean thing; all that I commanded her let her observe.”
     Not only is there a connection between wind and the spirit, but, also between the spirit and “spirits” because it was thought that strong drink would change the character (spirit) of the individual. Thus, St. Paul says:
     Eph 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit,
     There are various manifestations of the term, “filled with the Holy Spirit,” in the New Testament, but, generally, they fit into two basic categories: a) relationships to the character of the individual being filled, usually as a credential for the individual making prophetic utterances and b) as a signaling device that God is doing something new in a unique way.
     We see both uses in St. John the Baptist’s birth. He was going to be the penultimate prophet in stature, the greatest born of woman, and it was necessary as a sort of bona fide that he be recognized as being a chosen instrument for prophecy. Thus, the term, “filled with the Holy Spirit,” was meant to show God’s approval from even before the rest of the world would recognize him as a prophet. John recognized this mission: [Jhn 1:21-23]
     And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the prophet?” And he answered, “No.”
     They said to him then, “Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”
     He said, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.”
     Here, of course, the reference to, “the prophet,” was the one prophecied by Moses in Deut 18:15:
     “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me [Moses] from among you, from your brethren–him you shall heed–
     Thus, John recognized himself not as, “the Prophet (which was reserved for Christ),” but as the Malachian prophet:
     Mal 4:5-6 “Behold, I will send you Eli’jah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes.
     And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.”
     It was important that he be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb for another very interesting reason pertaining to character. St. John was to go forth in the spirit and power of Elijah and we see that reflected in the Visitation narrative.
     Going back to Deut 18: 15-18 and filling in the rest of the passage, we see:
     just as you desired of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’
     And the LORD said to me, ‘They have rightly said all that they have spoken.
     I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.[italics, mine]
     Now, when was the first time that this passage was enacted? It was enacted in 1Ki 19:11-13:
     1Ki 19:11 And he said, “Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD.” And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake;
     and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice.
     And when Eli’jah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. And behold, there came a voice to him, and said, “What are you doing here, Eli’jah?”
     The Lord did not reveal himself in either the wind, earthquake, or fire because he promised that he never would, again. The Lord promised not to reveal himself in power, so he took another tack – he revealed himself in weakness, for, as St. Paul would later say:
     1Cr 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
     Note, is it too impossible to think that if St. John were the new Elijah, that we should see a similar passage in the life of St. John the Baptist? When did the Lord pass by as a still small voice? When was St. John ever in a cave while this was happening?
     Consider that this happened at the Visitation. Here was St. John, in his mother’s womb. The word womb is beten in Hebrew and refers to not only the womb, but any place that is hollow or empty, the innermost part of something. Imagine what a baby feels in his mother’s womb – figuratively, the rush of blood, the mother’s heat, the earthquakes of the mother’s motion.
     God was not in any of these. Then, Jesus, the still small voice of one at most a week after conception, passes in front of the opening of the cave/womb. Just as Elijah encountered God at that moment, so did St. John in his moment of visitation.
     Also, even though his father’s voice was mute, St. John gave utterance to the Lord as a kind of foreshadowing of the canticle his father, Simeon, would later speak: “You, my child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the Lord to prepare the way of salvation.” Look at where St. John and the Lord were in relationship at the Visitation. St. John was, literally, before the Lord, both in time and space at that moment.
     As for the second use of the term, “filled with the Holy Spirit,” consider the case of St. Peter and Cornelius: [Acts 10:44-48]
     While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.
     And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.
     For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
     “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
     And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
     Some Pentecostals will disagree, but it seems clear that God was filling these people with the Holy Spirit as a way of signaling to St. Peter that something out of the ordinary were happening and that he should attend to it. Notice that, unlike the teaching of some Pentecostal groups, simply receiving the Holy Spirit was not enough for sanctification. St. Peter still insisted upon water baptism, even after they had received the Holy Spirit. Thus, the reception of the Holy Spirit, as evidence by tongues, must have been for a different purpose than sanctification, proper. It was a signal that God had done something new – allowed a people to participate in something that would establish a connection to him.
     Look, now at St. John the Baptist. The use of the term, “filled with the Holy Spirit,” also is a signaling device that something new is about to happen and that the listener should attend to it. The something new would establish a new connection to God. It was St. John’s mission to herald this new thing.
     Why was it, then, that St. John did not have to be baptized after receiving the Holy Spirit, unlike Cornelius’s household? The answer is the same as in Mary’s case: baptism was not yet possible. Sanctifying, sacramental baptism only became realized when the Holy Spirit fell on the apostles at Pentecost. Every sacrament must be received through the Church. The Church did not yet exist at either the Visitation or the Annunciation, but since Mary is the Mother of the Church and St. John is the Herald of the Church, they were cleansed by an act of prevenient grace as befitted their connection to the Church.
     Thus, the idea that St. John was cleaned from Original Sin in his mother’s womb is correct, but not because he was filled with the Holy Spirit, but by the nature of his relationship to the proto-Church. Remember, St. Elizabeth was also filled with the Holy Spirit, but no Church Father has ever commented that she was freed from Original Sin at the moment of the Visitation.
     Interestingly enough, Mary was present at the birth of the head of the Church, the Lord, as well as its body (at Pentecost). Mary’s presence is often a signal of the manifestation of the Church. Who better to be at Elizabeth’s side, since John was the Herald of the Church. At each instance, the Visitation, the Birth of the Lord, and Pentecost, a birth occurred and the light of the Holy Spirit is manifested. St. John’s leaping for joy is a close to speaking in tongues as he could manifest in his mother’s womb when he was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. There are other parallels to creation, but I will let these go.
     So, the question of did St. John being filled with the Holy Spirit mean that he had the equivalent of Baptism in his mother’s womb? The answer is almost certainly, yes. Was water involved? No. Was the action in anticipation of sacramental baptism? Almost certainly, yes. Were the author’s of both baptisms, the anticipatory and the sacramental present to each other at this moment? Of course. This was the first and last time they would be together, both in water, until they would meet, again, at the Jordan, thirty years later.
     Many other things can be said about all of these topics, but my post is too long, already and my connection to the topic of baptism in utero is tenuous, so I will stop, here.
     The Chicken

105. TMC is sounding an awful lot like CT, and our Lithuanian friend sounds awful familiar too.

106. Yup. He also doesn’t know (or, possibly, is lying, assuming Sleeping Beastly is right) anything about unfermented grape juice.

107. Dear Sleeping Beastly,
     You wrote:
     TMC is sounding an awful lot like CT, and our Lithuanian friend sounds awful familiar too.
     I have thought, in my darker moments, that, perhaps I have multiple personality disorder and I really am both The Masked Chicken and CT, but since some of his/her posts have occurred while I am lecturing in front of witnesses, that really isn’t possible (unless I have also learned to bilocate and in doing so, created two completely different locants).
     No, the comments on St. John the Baptist are really mine (TMC) and I really was writing it as a meditation in honor of the feast day. I mentioned in one of my posts, above, that I might comment more on what being filled in the Holy Spirit meant for St. John the Baptist. I have spent the last thirteen years studying Pentecostalism and Pentecostal theology in detail, so there is a lot to say.
     The comment about wine was not from me, but I suspect was from CT trying to throw smoke into the air and trying to draw people into another off-topic discussion. I, being in the sciences, know a fair amount about fermentation (but not so much about wine) and I would have discussed the matter differently. If Villnius is simply a new poster, then one would have assumed that he would have read the rest of the posts and found Jimmy’s request to stay on topic. IF VILLNIUS IS NOT THE PERSON FORMERLY KNOWN AS CT, PLEASE, READ THE POSTS, ABOVE, REGARDING STAYING ON TOPIC IN THIS THREAD.
     Don’t get too paranoid about CT, if Villnius is CT (otherwise, ignore my suspicion and Villnius, accept my apology, but also read my comment in bold letters, above). If Villnius is CT it might be part of his goal to disrupt the blog in any way he can (spreading uncertainty about who is posting is one way to do that); if Villnius is a new poster, he may simply be ignorant about what has been happening.
     I have thought of a way to ensure that the poster is who he says he is and I will discuss the matter with the appropriate people.
     The Chicken

108. Nah, villnius is just one of those who likes to post under different names so it will seem like lots of people agree with him.

109. Durh. My bad. That’s what I get for comboxing while tired. On first reading, your post didn’t make much sense to me and I saw references to different meanings of “spirit” and… I let my imagination run away with me. Sorry to both of ya.
     The Lithuanian’s post I know to come from someone of a different name, since I’ve seen the exact same words posted by someone with a different name.
     My head hurts. I’m going back to bed. 8P

110. I must have commented before my coffee kicked in. I thought Sleeping Beastly was referring solely to the Lithuanian. My remark was aimed at him and not at TMC, whom I hold in esteem.

111. Dear Bill912
     You wrote:
     My remark was aimed at him and not at TMC, whom I hold in esteem.
     Hold in esteem!? Now, I know you haven’t has enough coffee!
     The Chicken
     P. S. An interesting tangential question – in years to come, maybe some babies will be transgenetic. Not to spin off the thread, but can transgenetic babies be validly baptized?

112. I would suspect that you might want to make the baptism conditional.
     At least until some of them grow up. Then we can judge whether they have rational souls. I believe it was a couple of Zunis who convinced the Pope of their conversion to Christianity, and therefore that even though we could not see how they came from a common origin with people in the Old World, we could still judge that they were human.

113. Since CT was not the cause of the problem with the St. John the Baptist post nor the wine post, above, I apologize to him/her for dragging his/her name into my post, above and making any insinuations as to his/her possible intentions on the blog.
     It is thunderstorming. Must log off.
     The Chicken

114. Thank you for your article and comments of the guest as well.
     I just would like to give you additional sources, namely documents which spoke about this topic.
     This matter was issued by Pope Paul V in old “Rituale Romanum” dealt with the question of baptism of the unborn child. This document could be found in Rituale Romanum (old one) title II, c. 1, no. 20. Further information could be found in 1917 Code of canon law, canon 746. Since the 1983 is silent on this matter, it means the old law, e.g. 1917 law is still applied.
     You may find the 1917 code, canon 746 here: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0813/_P29.HTM (in Latin). Would be great if someone generously translate it into english.
     May Mama Mary pray for you and God bless you all! Amen!

Comments are closed.