What is "Baptism in the Spirit"?

[Allyson]

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.

Claire for DE,

I apologize for my delayed response. I have been very busy, and I wanted to take the proper time to respond.

You respond here with exactly the kind of conception of the spiritual life to which I was objecting in the first place. As an opening caveat, I would like to point out that I do believe that it is possible for someone to fall away from the faith and return to it through some sort of conversion experience or for someone to come to recognize the presence of grace in their life as they spiritually mature. However, IT IS NOT NECESSARY for something outside of the Sacramental economy, i.e. Baptism, Confirmation, and The Eucharist (etc.), to bring this about.

Since I believe that the Charismatic practice of “Baptism in the Spirit” is outside the the Sacramental economy of the Church, it is NOT NECESSARY. It is sometimes presented in such a manner, that it would seem that the Sacraments of Initiation and Eucharist are not sufficient. The Eucharist is the spiritual food which sustains us in our life in the Body of Christ. BiS adds nothing to that.

For a more poignant example of how BiS can be presented in a way that downplays the sufficiency of the sacraments, we have in this very thread the following:

Jesus is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with FIRE.
People only baptize people with water as symbolism.
You will know if you are baptized when you receive the gifts and power/manifestations of the Holy Spirit.
Initially, this is the evidence of speaking in tongues, a sign to the unbelievers.

Jewelz presents us with a protestant understanding of baptism. It is immediately evident that the graces received in the Rite of Baptism are denied in this person’s understanding of the Baptismal economy. No grace can be conferred by baptism by water because it is only a symbol. Only God baptizes by the Holy Spirit and that is NOT part of the “symbolic baptism.”

This is very obviously the opposite of the Catholic understanding of Baptism in which the Holy Spirit does come down upon the baptized and real grace is received. When Catholics adopt the Protestant BiS practice, I fear that they also adopt some of the erroneous understanding of the sacraments to.

You also say later:

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.

This brought to mind the following, which is not an objection to what you say, but another idea you might find interesting.

I am an Eastern Catholic, and in the East the infant receives all three “Sacraments of Initiation.” They are Baptized, then Confirmed, and then receive Christ in the Eucharist. At this point they are seen as perfect icons because they have received all the graces sufficient to make them Holy, and as they are as yet unable to sin, grace shines forth from them.* As the infant grows up, they regularly receive Eucharist. It is not seen as necessary to the reception of the sacraments that they are received by an individual only when they are ready to understand or mature enough to receive graces and gifts as actualized. Rather, it is the reception in infancy and the continuation of Eucharist which leads them to understanding (along with proper catechesis). You do not mature on your own strength and power, but on God’s given in the graces of the sacraments. WIthout the graces of the Sacraments, you could not sufficiently mature and utilize the gifts.

I hope that I have given a sufficient presentation in this last thought about the East, if anyone knows of an error, please say.

God Bless,
R.

• If you are familiar with the Theology of Icons, you will recognize that what I have just described is the idea that Icons are windows to heaven which send forth graces to those who venerate them - although NOT sanctifying graces. Those sanctifying graces are only received in the Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist.

 

[guanophore]

You respond here with exactly the kind of conception of the spiritual life to which I was objecting in the first place. As an opening caveat, I would like to point out that I do believe that it is possible for someone to fall away from the faith and return to it through some sort of conversion experience or for someone to come to recognize the presence of grace in their life as they spiritually mature. However, IT IS NOT NECESSARY for something outside of the Sacramental economy, i.e. Baptism, Confirmation, and The Eucharist (etc.), to bring this about.

Since I believe that the Charismatic practice of “Baptism in the Spirit” is outside the the Sacramental economy of the Church, it is NOT NECESSARY. It is sometimes presented in such a manner, that it would seem that the Sacraments of Initiation and Eucharist are not sufficient. The Eucharist is the spiritual food which sustains us in our life in the Body of Christ. BiS adds nothing to that.

I think I am in agreement with you, except that I don’t think the release of the HS in the life of the believer (often erroneously described as "baptism) is “outside the sacramental economy”. On the contrary, I think it is part and parcel of the sacraments. A person receives the baptism of the Spirit through the sacraments, but may not, at that time, experience the empowerment infused by them.

For a more poignant example of how BiS can be presented in a way that downplays the sufficiency of the sacraments, we have in this very thread the following:

Jewelz presents us with a protestant understanding of baptism. It is immediately evident that the graces received in the Rite of Baptism are denied in this person’s understanding of the Baptismal economy. No grace can be conferred by baptism by water because it is only a symbol. Only God baptizes by the Holy Spirit and that is NOT part of the “symbolic baptism.”

I agree. I think the error that has crept in stems from a lack of understanding of the Sacraments, and the erroneous perception that the Power of God is not at work in, with, and through those sacraments.

This is very obviously the opposite of the Catholic understanding of Baptism in which the Holy Spirit does come down upon the baptized and real grace is received. When Catholics adopt the Protestant BiS practice, I fear that they also adopt some of the erroneous understanding of the sacraments to.

I don’t think it is necessary to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Clearly the Samaritans were baptized, but did not experience the Spriit “falling” upon them until the Apostles came and prayed for them. I agree that it is misleading to refer to this as a “baptism” that is separate from the one already experienced. Perhaps “release of the Spirit” is more appropriate?

I am an Eastern Catholic, and in the East the infant receives all three “Sacraments of Initiation.” They are Baptized, then Confirmed, and then receive Christ in the Eucharist. At this point they are seen as perfect icons because they have received all the graces sufficient to make them Holy, and as they are as yet unable to sin, grace shines forth from them.* As the infant grows up, they regularly receive Eucharist. It is not seen as necessary to the reception of the sacraments that they are received by an individual only when they are ready to understand or mature enough to receive graces and gifts as actualized. Rather, it is the reception in infancy and the continuation of Eucharist which leads them to understanding (along with proper catechesis). You do not mature on your own strength and power, but on God’s given in the graces of the sacraments. WIthout the graces of the Sacraments, you could not sufficiently mature and utilize the gifts.

This is very well said.

I think the problem is that not all infants who are brought into grace are properly catechized. They are not taught how to release the gifts of the Spirit in their lives (unwrap the package) and experience the power of the Spirit that was placed and maintained in them through the sacramental life. The charismatic renewal has helped those of us that had this experience to reconnect with the power of the sacramental life.

I hope that I have given a sufficient presentation in this last thought about the East, if anyone knows of an error, please say.

God Bless,
R.

Thank you for your post.

 

[jewelz]

I think the Catholic Charismatic movement is in many ways similiar to revivalism in the Protestant churches:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revivalism

Revivals bring many good things: an increased personal devotion to the teachings of Scripture and/or the Church, rooting out of sin, personal repentance, missionary activity, etc.

I attended a “charismatic”-oriented Catholic school for about two years. Many people were truly involved with the charismatic movement and thought it great, but I noticed that a good number of people eventually left it or altered their views of it at least. Some people told me about the problem of the spiritual highs; one cannot always be “alive” in the Spirit. One may attend a Festival of Praise and feel as though the Spirit is filling you and lifting you up, but afterwards, one returns to the normal world, and experiences a sense of spiritual dryness, until the next Festival of Praise… Some other friends became wary of the speaking in tongues, believing that many people were speaking gibberish instead of actually having the gift of tongues…

In short, I think it great that people are coming back to the church after long lapses, but I fear what others have pointed out, that revivals are often short-term gains, and the very people drawn in by the revival are often the ones who return to their previous way of life after the revival has died down.

it is the Holy Spirit who cause this Revivalism.
He tried to revive the Catholic Church, and so came the Charismatics (who remained Catholic), the Lutherans, Anglicans, then Presbyterians, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc…

In every Revival, things change, people change, but it is still up to the people if they will follow the leading of the Holy Spirit or
if they will remain dry in their current state and the current dryness of their church. People will always go dry on God, that is why the Holy Spirit causes Revival to come to His People so that they would remember their God and their salvation and their purpose/mission on earth.

(Psalm 19:7; Psalm 80:18; Psalm 85:6; Isaiah 57:15; Hosea 6:2)
It is the perfect WORD of GOD that Revives the Soul, gives joy to the heart, gives light to the eyes, and makes us wise.

 

[guanophore]

it is the Holy Spirit who cause this Revivalism.
He tried to revive the Catholic Church, and so came the Charismatics (who remained Catholic), the Lutherans, Anglicans, then Presbyterians, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc…

In every Revival, things change, people change, but it is still up to the people if they will follow the leading of the Holy Spirit or
if they will remain dry in their current state and the current dryness of their church. People will always go dry on God, that is why the Holy Spirit causes Revival to come to His People so that they would remember their God and their salvation and their purpose/mission on earth.

(Psalm 19:7; Psalm 80:18; Psalm 85:6; Isaiah 57:15; Hosea 6:2)
It is the perfect WORD of GOD that Revives the Soul, gives joy to the heart, gives light to the eyes, and makes us wise.

Such comments reveal an inability to recognize the Body of Christ. The Chuch of Christ never “goes dry”. She is ensouled by the Holy Spirit, and is therefore, incapable of going dry. I agree, however, that people always need revival, and that they need to be “stirred up”.

 

[Allyson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allyson
You respond here with exactly the kind of conception of the spiritual life to which I was objecting in the first place. As an opening caveat, I would like to point out that I do believe that it is possible for someone to fall away from the faith and return to it through some sort of conversion experience or for someone to come to recognize the presence of grace in their life as they spiritually mature.

I think that we might agree more than it seems. Because I was creating a response based on what I have learned through the years about the Charismatic movement, I have been emphasizing in this thread the sufficiency of the Sacraments and the Sacramental economy in themselves for bring the action of the Holy Spirit to work in the life of a Christian. I did not want to suggest that there is not a process at work in the Christian life, so I have highlighted above a relevant passage from my opening caveat to my last post. (I would add that part of “recognizing” is also utilizing the gifts God gives in the sacraments.)

It is not that I don’t think that our relationship with God and his grace does not change (for the better we all hope), rather I do not think that what is called “Baptism in the Spirit” is in anyway necessary to the release of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian.

I agree that it is a misnomer to call it baptism, especially because Catholic Charismatics do cartwheels to say that it is not a second Baptism. But why then use the Protestant terminology which downgrades the true Baptism as just a symbol? I think that it is because of the close working relationship that they have with charismatic protestants, and so they bring in an erroneous conception of what it takes to have the Holy Spirit be at work in the Christian life.

Originally Posted by Allyson
For a more poignant example of how BiS can be presented in a way that downplays the sufficiency of the sacraments, we have in this very thread the following:
Jewelz presents us with a protestant understanding of baptism. It is immediately evident that the graces received in the Rite of Baptism are denied in this person’s understanding of the Baptismal economy. No grace can be conferred by baptism by water because it is only a symbol. Only God baptizes by the Holy Spirit and that is NOT part of the “symbolic baptism.”

I agree. I think the error that has crept in stems from a lack of understanding of the Sacraments, and the erroneous perception that the Power of God is not at work in, with, and through those sacraments.

Exactly, thank you for putting it in these terms. This is why BiS is so “necessary” for Charismatic Protestants, because it is the only way they can conceive of God truly acting in their lives. It also seems to become necessary for Catholics in the Charismatic movement.

God Bless,
R.

 

[guanophore]

I do not think that what is called “Baptism in the Spirit” is in anyway necessary to the release of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian.

I agree that it is a misnomer to call it baptism, especially because Catholic Charismatics do cartwheels to say that it is not a second Baptism. But why then use the Protestant terminology which downgrades the true Baptism as just a symbol? I think that it is because of the close working relationship that they have with charismatic protestants, and so they bring in an erroneous conception of what it takes to have the Holy Spirit be at work in the Christian life.

perhaps. It may also be that they have had no Catholic teaching or language to describe or communicate about these experiences, so they default to what they have learned from protestants.

Exactly, thank you for putting it in these terms. This is why BiS is so “necessary” for Charismatic Protestants, because it is the only way they can conceive of God truly acting in their lives. It also seems to become necessary for Catholics in the Charismatic movement.

God Bless,
R.

I think, if Catholics learned other language to use that was more appropriate, they would probably do so. I remember when the archbishop out here, presiding over a local charismatic gathering, announced that “priests are all charismatic too, you know”. You could have heard a pin drop! Many Catholics don’t experience their priests as full of zeal and “fire” as can be found in some Protestant circles, so they assume the cause of such zeal is not present, perhaps?

 

[sambos671]

perhaps. It may also be that they have had no Catholic teaching or language to describe or communicate about these experiences, so they default to what they have learned from protestants.

Yes this is so.

The protestant end of things is dangerous. As can be seen from the outgrowth of the “charasmatic” denominations Pentecostals. Fist they make it a doctrinal statement of belief that their followers accept the truth of the Pretrib rapture of the church. Speaking in tounges is the primary and only evidence of the “baptism” in the HS (some are even dogmatic about calling the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost). I could go on and on. Lets look at the groups coming out of these denominations: Snake handlers, Mega Churches (entertainment is key also songs with a repretior of causing minor hyperventalation to cause a euphoric feeling they call the Holy Ghost.), That Isreali Preacher who waves his hankercheif to “heal” people. And many more nonsense don’t forget that Jimmy Swaggart was one (Assemblies of God) and he despised Catholics! How far he tumbled. I’m sorry the early church dealt with Montanus and his prophets. Why so accepting of this type of movement now? I find the Protestant Pentacostals dangerous to christianity. The Catholics have this one advantage. Moderated by the oversite of the bishop which should prevent heretical nonsense.

 

[Allyson]

perhaps. It may also be that they have had no Catholic teaching or language to describe or communicate about these experiences, so they default to what they have learned from protestants.

I think, if Catholics learned other language to use that was more appropriate, they would probably do so. I remember when the archbishop out here, presiding over a local charismatic gathering, announced that “priests are all charismatic too, you know”. You could have heard a pin drop! Many Catholics don’t experience their priests as full of zeal and “fire” as can be found in some Protestant circles, so they assume the cause of such zeal is not present, perhaps?

This could be for some Catholic Charismatics, however, I went to a Catholic University (Franciscan University of Steubenville), which is known as being a center of the Catholic Charismatic movement, where I learned most of what I learned about the Catholic Charismatic Movement (extracurricular lectures); however, the sacraments classes I had were certainly solid, even if some of the spirituality there on campus wasn’t (in my opinion). So for the Charismatics in Steubenville, there is no lack of access to solid Latin Catholic theology of sacraments, especially if they are students. The city is also the seat of the Diocese.

So rather than making up for a lack of solid sacramental by utilizing protestant language, my experience is that there is an attempt to synchronize the two sacramentologies. This is more than problematic.

God Bless,
R.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Yes this is so.

The protestant end of things is dangerous. As can be seen from the outgrowth of the “charasmatic” denominations Pentecostals. Fist they make it a doctrinal statement of belief that their followers accept the truth of the Pretrib rapture of the church. Speaking in tounges is the primary and only evidence of the “baptism” in the HS (some are even dogmatic about calling the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost). I could go on and on. Lets look at the groups coming out of these denominations: Snake handlers, Mega Churches (entertainment is key also songs with a repretior of causing minor hyperventalation to cause a euphoric feeling they call the Holy Ghost.), That Isreali Preacher who waves his hankercheif to “heal” people. And many more nonsense don’t forget that Jimmy Swaggart was one (Assemblies of God) and he despised Catholics! How far he tumbled. I’m sorry the early church dealt with Montanus and his prophets. Why so accepting of this type of movement now? I find the Protestant Pentacostals dangerous to christianity. ** The Catholics have this one advantage. Moderated by the oversite of the bishop which should prevent heretical nonsense.**]

i certainly hope you are right here.
i read an article about the charismatic church in Brasil. this article criticizes how this movement within the catholic is following the footsteps of the protestant movement, even preaching a gospel of prosperity too. how sad it is for us.

Lord, you have done great things for us. Lord what have we done for you?