What is "Baptism in the Spirit"?

[Peter_J]

The “Baptism in the Spirit” is the initiation rite used by Charismatic Catholics. It is central to the Charismatic Renewal Movement, and one cannot separate the Charismatic Renewal Movement from the “Baptism in the Spirit.” The Pope has commended the Charismatic Renewal for its role in evangelization today.

“Baptism in the Spirit” isn’t a rite. I’d call it a special grace that Catholic Charismatics (and other Charismatics) pray for.

(That’s all I want to say about it, but others may wish to improve upon my description.)

 

[Howard_Roark]

***The Pope has commended the Charismatic Renewal for its role in evangelization today. ***

…without saying anything about their particular activities.

Or should we say peculiar activities?

 

[po18guy]

“Baptism in the Spirit” isn’t a rite. I’d call it a special grace that Catholic Charismatics (and other Charismatics) pray for.

(That’s all I want to say about it, but others may wish to improve upon my description.)

How about a procedure? “Baptism” is used as a euphemism for the procedure, since there is but one water baptism in Christianity. However, in many cases, a priest lays hands on, and prays over a person who is willing to make themselves completely available to the Holy Spirit, the intent being the release of the gifts of the Holy Spirit which were received at Confirmation. This is commonly known as being “slain in the Spirit”

For some reason, this is controversial in Catholicism. Likely it is because of some excesses in the charismatic movement. An example is where a leader insists that all speak in tongues. Now, tongues has its place, make no mistake. However, many do not receive the gift of tongues, as the Holy Spirit gives these gifts as He wills.

Saint Paul believes that the gift of prophecy is more to be desired than tongues. He writes of this at some length in 1 Corinthians. Catholicism has lost much of the use of charisms, and such use now causes controversy. It should not. We should see healings and other miracles routinely, as was observed in the early church. How can we say “nothing is impossible to God” and then resign ourselves to life as it is? Where is our faith?

Again, many Catholics see Penatcostalism as a danger or threat, even though the Pentacostals got everything they have from Catholicism! It’s time to take it back! I have seen minor miracles of healing in prayer before Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Why this is not stressed even more nowadays is beyond me.

Sadly, you may expect to be roundly criticized, if not condemned, in some circles because of the use of charisms. This is extremely sad, especially in this day and age. The Lord conceived of and gave these charisms for a reason. Should they be ignored while we expect His grace to flow automatically?

If there is a “Life in the Spirit” seminar offered at your parish, or a neighboring parish, I can only recommend most sincerely that you investigate. I had to be convinced to attend one. My faith life exploded ever since and bears no resemblance to the lukewarm Catholic I was before. Praise God!

Christ’s peace.

 

[Peter_J]

How about a procedure? “Baptism” is used as a euphemism for the procedure, since there is but one water baptism in Christianity. However, in many cases, a priest lays hands on, and prays over a person who is willing to make themselves completely available to the Holy Spirit, the intent being the release of the gifts of the Holy Spirit which were received at Confirmation.

No, I wouldn’t say Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a procedure either. The procedure you just described is the act of a Catholic (doesn’t have to be a priest) praying for the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

 

[swariffin]

“Baptism in the Spirit” isn’t a rite. I’d call it a special grace that Catholic Charismatics (and other Charismatics) pray for.

(That’s all I want to say about it, but others may wish to improve upon my description.)

Agreed, it is not a sacrament. Unless you are referring to the sacrament of confirmation.

 

[Madaglan]

How about a procedure? “Baptism” is used as a euphemism for the procedure, since there is but one water baptism in Christianity. However, in many cases, a priest lays hands on, and prays over a person who is willing to make themselves completely available to the Holy Spirit, the intent being the release of the gifts of the Holy Spirit which were received at Confirmation. This is commonly known as being “slain in the Spirit”

Just for clarification: slain in the Spirit may be the occasioning experience of Baptism in the Spirit, but it also happens at “healing Masses” to those persons not yet “Baptized in the
Spirit.”

 

[Claire_from_DE]

And being ‘baptized in the Spirit’ can happen without being ‘slain in the Spirit’. I look at it as a stirring up of the graces received in Confirmation. It isn’t automatic just because you are prayed over. It’s an action of the Holy Spirit so the timing is His. It should result in a conversion of your life to more closely follow Jesus.

 

[Publisher]

The One Baptism that truly effect change in our lives is through the baptism in the Holy Spirit. It is the work of God in our lives…it is the act, wrought through faith where by God regenerates the believer and infuses…baptises…immerses us in His Spirit filling us with newness of Life.

“A man can enter the waters of baptism a dry sinner and exit a wet sinner…but no one baptized in the Holy Spirit can remain the same…” It is the True Baptism which “saves” and “regenerates” and makes us “new creations”…“new creatures in Christ”. It is the act of God in our lives…this Baptism makes us One in Christ and makes us members of the Body of Christ.

 

[sambos671]

“Baptism in the Spirit” isn’t a rite. I’d call it a special grace that Catholic Charismatics (and other Charismatics) pray for.

(That’s all I want to say about it, but others may wish to improve upon my description.)

I can’t believe a Cahtolic would call it a "baptism of the Holy Spirit. That is protestant jargon. That resides with Pentecostals and Charasmatics. Which are too close to Montanistic beliefs to be trusted. In Pentecostal view there are two baptism each necissary for the believer. Baptism of obedience and recognition of salvation and a Baptism of the Holy Spirit for enabling the christian to do works which is evidenced in the speaking of tongues. I can’t believe catholics would agree with this.

 

[Allyson]

Hello,

I provide the following as a summary assessment of the practice in question in the title of the thread. It is not intended as a slam on anyone’s spirituality or belief system, but is a serious reflection on my experience and study. It is sorely brief. Please forgive.

Having spent some good long time (i.e. years) learning about the Catholic charismatic movement by going to seminars, participating in prayer activities, and being around Catholic charismatics, I have come to the conclusion that at best it is hooey and at worst puts some people in serious spiritual danger.

Baptism in the Spirit (BiS) is at best wholly redundant (see above for worst) and certainly is not essential in any way to the renewal of the Church. In fact, the Charismatic movement would be sorely out of place in a traditional Latin setting, ie - not the Novus Ordo as commonly done.

BiS in the later 20thC Catholic Church is an import from the Pentcostal Protestant tradition, and should be treated with great caution. Interestingly enough, the Catholic Church condemned similar practices (to the BiS) when it condemned the Albigensian heresy. (The consolamentum was their initiation rite and is similar to the BiS as used in Pentacostalism).

I have often heard BiS described as the stirring up of the graces of Baptism and Confirmation. This is a borderline idea as it suggests that the Sacraments of Initiation are not enough in themselves as sufficient sustainers of the Catholic spiritual life. Even more so, it would seem to down play the role of the Eucharist as Spiritual food.*

In conclusion, the BiS is the resurrection of a previously condemned practice born and reborn outside of the Church and perilously adapted within the fold of the Church.

God Bless,
R.

• On an side note. When I went to college there was a monthly charismatic prayer event at which the Eucharist was always present for adoration. When I went to graduate school (different university), there was a similar event monthly, but there was only adoration a one a semester. I inquired as to why. I was told, that it was so that focus would not be taken off of the Holy Spirit. I wasn’t aware that you could adore one Divine Person without the other Two?

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Hello,

I have often heard BiS described as the stirring up of the graces of Baptism and Confirmation. This is a borderline idea as it suggests that the Sacraments of Initiation are not enough in themselves as sufficient sustainers of the Catholic spiritual life. Even more so, it would seem to down play the role of the Eucharist as Spiritual food.*

I don’t agree. Fortunately there is such a thing as the revival of a sacrament. Someone who is in the state of grace when confirmed but not well prepared for the sacrament is not open at that time to all the graces the Holy Spirit has for them. Later in their life they become more open to God and the sacramental graces are still available to them.

The occasion for this may be any kind of personal conversion experience. Sometimes this experience is the result of a life change, making a cursillo, or a life in the spirit seminar. I imagine Catholics who were confirmed as infants have similar conversion experiences in their lives.

Being more responsive to the action of the Holy Spirit in our lives doesn’t make receiving Jesus in the Eucharist less important. This is the high point of my day or week. The sacramental graces of baptism, confirmation, and Eucharist are not in conflict.

 

[roanoker]

I thought “baptism in the spirit” only applied to Jesus, the apostles, and those whom the apostles personally baptised. For example, when Philip the Deacon went down to Samaria after the persecution in Jerusulem and baptized a bunch of people, a couple of apostles came down from Jerusulem later and re-baptised them “In the Spirit”. Although Philip had been baptised in the spirit, he himself couldn’t baptise others in the spirit. This is what the Book of Acts tells us…

 

[Madaglan]

Allyson;3830393:

Hello,

I have often heard BiS described as the stirring up of the graces of Baptism and Confirmation. This is a borderline idea as it suggests that the Sacraments of Initiation are not enough in themselves as sufficient sustainers of the Catholic spiritual life. Even more so, it would seem to down play the role of the Eucharist as Spiritual food.*

I don’t agree. Fortunately there is such a thing as the revival of a sacrament. Someone who is in the state of grace when confirmed but not well prepared for the sacrament is not open at that time to all the graces the Holy Spirit has for them.

Later in their life they become more open to God and the sacramental graces are still available to them.

The occasion for this may be any kind of personal conversion experience. Sometimes this experience is the result of a life change, making a cursillo, or a life in the spirit seminar. I imagine Catholics who were confirmed as infants have similar conversion experiences in their lives.
**
** Being more responsive to the action of the Holy Spirit in our lives doesn’t make receiving Jesus in the Eucharist less important. This is the high point of my day or week. The sacramental graces of baptism, confirmation, and Eucharist are not in conflict.

The bolded part concerns me. It suggests, in context, that all persons who did not receive the “charismatic” gifts at the sacrament of confirmation were not adequately prepared for that sacrament.

It seems to suggest that all Catholics who are baptized and confirmed are walking around with “unopened boxes” of special charismatic graces. In order to fully and truly experience the Holy Spirit, you need to tap into these unopened boxes.

 

[Madaglan]

I thought “baptism in the spirit” only applied to Jesus, the apostles, and those whom the apostles personally baptised. For example, when Philip the Deacon went down to Samaria after the persecution in Jerusulem and baptized a bunch of people, a couple of apostles came down from Jerusulem later and re-baptised them “In the Spirit”. Although Philip had been baptised in the spirit, he himself couldn’t baptise others in the spirit. This is what the Book of Acts tells us…

Where does it say that Philip the Deacon baptized a bunch of people in Samaria? I’m not finding it. I find in Acts 4:4-8 that Philip went to a city in Samaria and proclaimed Christ there, and did miracles of healing amongst the people. No explicit mention of baptism.

The Apostles go to Samaria (bigger than just one city) and find that the people have accepted the word of God but have not yet been “baptized”; they only were “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” To be honest, I don’t know what exactly this means. It may suggest that there were baptized but not in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It could also mean that they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus before Pentecost by the disciples, a baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but had not yet received the gift off the Holy Spirit. In John, Jesus goes with his disciples to Samaria, so this is possible. In any case, the point of difficulty is not that they had not been baptized by Jesus or an Apostle, but that the baptism they received was somehow not completed with the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Philip, interestingly enough, right after this episode, water baptizes an Ethiopian and, immediately afterwards, is swept away by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Madaglan]

Check out St. John Chrysostom’s take: newadvent.org/fathers/210118.htm

According to St. John Chrysostom, the Samaritans had indeed received the Spirit already (when baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus) but had not yet received the power of miracles. He defends this line of argument by pointing out how Simon wants this power of miracles.

 

[Madaglan]

I’m reading some of the other Church Fathers. They seem unanimous that Philip baptized the Samaritans. I thought about it. Although not explicitly mentioned, the later discovery that they had been baptized **in the name of the Lord Jesus **probably indicates more than the water baptism of John the Baptist that occurred before Pentecost. The description of the baptism of the Samaritans focuses on Simon the Magician who, although baptized, wanted the power of miracles–the very same power seen in those on whom the Apostles laid their hands–for his own pleasure.

 

[Madaglan]

Posted by me: Where does it say that Philip the Deacon baptized a bunch of people in Samaria? I’m not finding it. I find in Acts 4:4-8 that Philip went to a city in Samaria and proclaimed Christ there, and did miracles of healing amongst the people. No explicit mention of baptism.

This morning I looked at what I posted last night. I hadn’t read closely enough the episode of Simon. There is indeed baptism mentioned there–the Samaritans being baptized; but interestingly, it does not say directly that Phillip baptized them, but only that they “were baptized.” Of course, you can easily and with good reason assume that it was Philip who baptized them.

 

[Madaglan]

Here is the appropriate section from the St. John Chrysostom link I posted above:

They had received the Spirit, namely, of remission of sins: but the Spirit of miracles they had not received. For as yet He was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Of course, St. John Chrysostom is not talking about two different Spirits here, but only different gifts of the Spirit.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Claire from DE;3830487:

The bolded part concerns me. It suggests, in context, that all persons who did not receive the “charismatic” gifts at the sacrament of confirmation were not adequately prepared for that sacrament.

It seems to suggest that all Catholics who are baptized and confirmed are walking around with “unopened boxes” of special charismatic graces. In order to fully and truly experience the Holy Spirit, you need to tap into these unopened boxes.

I was talking about the sacramental graces in general as well as special charismatic gifts.

As for being well prepared, it may be a question of maturity (an infant or 11 year old child wouldn’t receive the gifts until they are ready for them), or spiritual maturity (not ready for them yet), or just not being open to receive them because of not being aware they are available.

I think we don’t ‘fully and truly experience the Holy Spirit’ automatically at Confirmation. We truly receive His power then but we may not experience it then. And we never fully experience Him.

I do think of some of the graces and/or charisms as unopened boxes and the impetus to ‘open the boxes’ comes from the Holy Spirit. And He gives graces and charisms as He will, and not all the same to every person. So one person may be moved by the Spirit to ask for a certain gift, say a gift of healing, and it is given to him. (Another person may ask and won’t be given it.) Another may gradually come to the awareness that he is already exercising the charism of encouragement or discernment of spirits or something else. Someone else may be prayed over and fall down and while lying there be filled with the gift of ease and delight in intercessory prayer, which was difficult for him to do previously.

I think the ‘baptism in the spirit’ is a way (but not the only way) that these graces and charisms are released.

When Our Lady appeared to St. Catherine Labore and showed her the design for the miraculous medal, Catherine saw many rings on Our Lady’s hands and rays of light were coming from many of them. Mary told her these represented the graces which God allowed to flow through her to the people. Catherine asked about the other rings, the dark ones. Mary answered that those represented the graces that were available but no one had prayed for.

I feel that way about the ‘unopened boxes’, the gifts that the Spirit has for us that we just need to ask for.

 

[Madaglan]

I was talking about the sacramental graces in general as well as special charismatic gifts.

As for being well prepared, it may be a question of maturity (an infant or 11 year old child wouldn’t receive the gifts until they are ready for them), or spiritual maturity (not ready for them yet), or just not being open to receive them because of not being aware they are available.

I think we don’t ‘fully and truly experience the Holy Spirit’ automatically at Confirmation. We truly receive His power then but we may not experience it then. And we never fully experience Him.

I do think of some of the graces and/or charisms as unopened boxes andthe impetus to ‘open the boxes’ comes from the Holy Spirit. And He gives graces and charisms as He will, and not all the same to every person. So one person may be moved by the Spirit to ask for a certain gift, say a gift of healing, and it is given to him. (Another person may ask and won’t be given it.) Another may gradually come to the awareness that he is already exercising the charism of encouragement or discernment of spirits or something else. Someone else may be prayed over and fall down and while lying there be filled with the gift of ease and delight in intercessory prayer, which was difficult for him to do previously.

I think the ‘baptism in the spirit’ is a way (but not the only way) that these graces and charisms are released.

When Our Lady appeared to St. Catherine Labore and showed her the design for the miraculous medal, Catherine saw many rings on Our Lady’s hands and rays of light were coming from many of them. Mary told her these represented the graces which God allowed to flow through her to the people. Catherine asked about the other rings, the dark ones. Mary answered that those represented the graces that were available but no one had prayed for.

I feel that way about the ‘unopened boxes’, the gifts that the Spirit has for us that we just need to ask for.

Yes, I understand. The charismatic graces themselves appear in Scripture, so no one can attack the validity of the gifts themselves. One thing I would suggest, however, is that the charismatic gifts may not be for everyone, and it just may be that God does not intend every baptized person to speak in tongues. “Charismatic” gifts such as glossolalia do not indicate spiritual maturity. The Corinthians who were well known for their glossolalia, were spiritually immature. In fact, as they are purely gifts, “charismatic” gifts are no indication of the level of sanctity or spiritual maturity of the person who has them.