Is a separate baptism in the Holy Spirit necessary? Valid?

[Ordway]

Attending a charismatic group they claim being baptized in the Holy Spirit is necessary. My thought is when I was baptized originally it was in the name of the Father, Son AND Holy Spirit. I also know we are baptized ONCE.

What is the purpose of being re-baptized in the Holy Spirit? If there is a need for baptizing a second time in the Holy Spirit? If yes, why doesn’t original baptism cover that need?

This particular group is Ecumenical, meaning a large portion is Catholic (not that any Catholic traditions are visible within the group, like the sign of the cross, anything dealing with the rosary or other Catholic style prayers, etc.)

 

[SecretaryMonday]

My understanding of being “baptized in the Holy Spirit” is that it is more of an emotional/spiritual experience rather than a Sacrament. I am not familiar with charismatic denominations, but some other non-Catholic pastors have told me that they believe in two types of baptism, water baptism (in the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) which initiates a person into Christianity, and there is also the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” where a person may have a powerful experience of God, which might lead to conversion (or to greater conversion if they are already Christian). According to a former pastor, the “baptism of the Holy Spirit”, seperate from water baptism, is not necessary, but is only granted by God to those who need it for some great reason.

 

[Corki]

Attending a charismatic group they claim being baptized in the Holy Spirit is necessary. My thought is when I was baptized originally it was in the name of the Father, Son AND Holy Spirit. I also know we are baptized ONCE.

What is the purpose of being re-baptized in the Holy Spirit? If there is a need for baptizing a second time in the Holy Spirit? If yes, why doesn’t original baptism cover that need?

This particular group is Ecumenical, meaning a large portion is Catholic (not that any Catholic traditions are visible within the group, like the sign of the cross, anything dealing with the rosary or other Catholic style prayers, etc.)

As a baptized Catholic (or any other Christian), such a “re-baptism” would be purely symbolic. Not only would it not be an actual Baptism, it wouldn’t have any Sacramental character at all. It would essentially be a prayer to the Holy Spirit with a heightened emotional component.

 

[PatriceA]

Attending a charismatic group they claim being baptized in the Holy Spirit is necessary. My thought is when I was baptized originally it was in the name of the Father, Son AND Holy Spirit. I also know we are baptized ONCE.

What is the purpose of being re-baptized in the Holy Spirit? If there is a need for baptizing a second time in the Holy Spirit? If yes, why doesn’t original baptism cover that need?

This particular group is Ecumenical, meaning a large portion is Catholic (not that any Catholic traditions are visible within the group, like the sign of the cross, anything dealing with the rosary or other Catholic style prayers, etc.)

If you are really interested in Charismatic groups, I would search for a parish near you that is having a Life in the Spirit Seminar. I would stop attending the Ecumenical group ASAP.

There are CAF members here that are much more articulate in explaining the baptism in the Holy Spirit that takes place in the Charismatic movement. I have attended Charismatic masses myself from time to time, I’m not the biggest fan of the re-baptism. I do support the movement though and encourage those that are interested to attend a Life in the Spirit seminar when one is available at a Catholic parish.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

People see other people having such an experience, or hear them describing it, and want it for themselves, and feel left out without it. It’s a big reason for the growth in Pentecostal churches.

That’s why they say things like “Join the Church of What’s Happening!” in their outreach efforts. It feels new and exciting, and speaks to the part of human nature that wants to be part of an active community.

 

[MariaG]

A Catholic charasmatic group? Or Protestant?

And if Catholic, are they an approved group? There are abuses and misunderstandings in Catholic charasmatic groups, sometimes even by the approved ones.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

It is certainly not necessary. Baptism is completed in the sacrament of Confirmation, not by an extraordinary charismatic experience of any kind–though God may choose to bestow the latter on some individuals for their benefit or the benefit of others. Note that one need not be in a state of grace to exhibit charismatic gifts (e.g. Caiphas prophesied about Christ).

Validity of such an experience depends on the individual case.

As a rite (complete with laying on of hands, bestowing power to transmit the same experience to others) it is not only invalid but a mockery of the sacraments of Confirmation and of Holy Orders. Although not called a rite by its practitioners (many of whom despise liturgy and formality), that is essentially what it has become.

The “rite” of a second baptism is based on a false interpretation of Scripture imported from certain forms of Protestantism. Take, for example, Acts 8:14-17, fwhere Ss. Peter and John lay hands on the already-baptized Samaritans, so they would receive the Holy Ghost. This is traditionally understood to refer to the sacrament of Confirmation (cf. “Confirmation,” Catholic Encyclopedia). Protestants do not have that sacrament, so they came up with their own rite to explain the scripture passage.

I do not deny that some people genuinely experience a special touch of God apart from the sacramental rites. My point is that we cannot orchestrate such moments. The only guaranteed channels of grace for which the Church has prescribed rites are the seven sacraments.

 

[Ordway]

A Catholic charasmatic group? Or Protestant?

It was originally started as Catholic group, many years ago, but at some point became ecumenical. But, to me they are defining “ecumenical” more along the lines of being sensitive to others [Protestant] beliefs. I do not believe the Church intends ecumenical to be defined in that way, nor is the goal to water down Church teachings to appease others. My understanding with being ecumenical is to keep an open dialog, interact when and where appropriate, and keeping the main goal of reuniting the Church as a whole.

Any links with information from the Church in regards to charismatic movements and ecumenical defined within a lay group or in general, would be great!

 

[Ordway]

The “rite” of a second baptism is based on a false interpretation of Scripture imported from certain forms of Protestantism. Take, for example, Acts 8:14-17, fwhere Ss. Peter and John lay hands on the already-baptized Samaritans, so they would receive the Holy Ghost. This is traditionally understood to refer to the sacrament of Confirmation (cf. “Confirmation,” Catholic Encyclopedia).

This is very helpful, thank you very much for the link and explanation.

 

[PatriceA]

It was originally started as Catholic group, many years ago, but at some point became ecumenical. But, to me they are defining “ecumenical” more along the lines of being sensitive to others [Protestant] beliefs. I do not believe the Church intends ecumenical to be defined in that way, nor is the goal to water down Church teachings to appease others. My understanding with being ecumenical is to keep an open dialog, interact when and where appropriate, and keeping the main goal of reuniting the Church as a whole.

Any links with information from the Church in regards to charismatic movements and ecumenical defined within a lay group or in general, would be great!

Search CAF, the topic has been discussed multiple times with many links provided.

 

[MariaG]

Search CAF, the topic has been discussed multiple times with many links provided.

There really have. I am getting ready to go and celebrate Holy Saturday otherwise I would post some again. Probably Monday before I get to it.

Happy Easter!

 

[Slowride]

No. It is a teaching belonging to ‘some’ of the Pentacostal beliefs. Their main one is that if someone ‘does not’ have the gift of tongues, they have not received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. They also speak of ‘being filled’ with the Holy Spirit. This is why many sermons contain suggestions that people ‘leak’ and daily need a refilling of the Spirit. Paul does write about continuing in the filling of the Holy Spirit, but this too has been taken out of context with the Pentacostals.

[edited]

 

[ajeff]

I was involved with the Catholic Charismatic Renewal years ago. Many of the people I knew were sincere and were Catholic in belief and practice. Some became more oriented to Full Gospel (Holy Spirit Filled) and eventually left the church. I found the Life in the Spirit Seminar to be enriching of my faith, but I do believe we receive all we need in Baptism and Confirmation. We do pray however for the Holy Spirit to come again in Church novenas and other prayers. Do we actually expect it to happen? I think that the experience made my belief in God so much more emotional and real. However, that experience did pass and the Sacramental Church became more alive. My friends have asked why I remain Catholic. I have found the Church so full of Truth and Life and Wisdom since the experience. I don’t know why I did not find that before the Life in the Seminar and prayer for a fresh baptism of the Holy Spirit. Again, I see it as a long retreat for your faith, but not necessary for all.