Baptism In The Spirit...

[Jake Huether]

Anna,

Your thought prossess in regard to this specific issue is coming out very protestant:

"If it doesn't say it, then it is bad".

The quote's you provided may not have SUPPORTED "Baptism in the Spirit", but neither do they reject that phrase. While you've assumed that they MUST reject "Baptims in the Spirit" simply because it contains the word "Baptism", actually, it would be more logical to assume that they support it because they support the Charismatic Renewal (from which comes that phrase).

If Popes have supported the Charismatic renewal, then I think it is safe to say that they MUST have understood it well in order to publicly support it. And since these Popes have not specifically stated that "Baptism in the Spirit is wrong", yet they support the renewal (thus, they MUST have at least heard the concept), then we'd assume that they were okay with this phrase.

The quotes that I have provided served to support what I am saying. The quotes you have provided did nothing of the sort.

You must have missed my question:

Please show me scripture or Church teaching that specifically says, Christians cannot use "Baptism" to refere to anything other than the Baptism which they recieve in the Name of the Trinity.

The Church NOWHERE teaches that there exists only ONE Baptism. It teaches that there exists ONE Baptism for the forgivness of sins. It teaches that this same Baptism is the only ONE that will bring us into the Family of God. But the Church does not teach that it is the only Baptism period.

Anna, just logically, I fail to see how several Catholic theological priests (that I have listened to and listed for you) along with several Catholic theological teachers, might have missed something that you didn't.

On the contrary, I think that you are missing something that these people know.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I wouldn't say the thought process is becoming protestant, Jake. The terms you use are very misleading. THATS the big problem.

If the charismatic "baptism of the Holy Spirit" was that same event referenced by Jesus, there would be no problem. If it is not the same event, then they're confusing people.

What other Baptism IS there aside from THE Baptism we receive when we become members of Christ's Church???? NONE!!!!!

[Azriel]

Actually, I don't think the terms are misleading at all. If you attend a Life in the Spirit seminar, which is part of the Charismatic Renewal...it is quite clear that Baptism of the Holy Spirit, is in no way THE Sacramental Baptism.

I'm really failing to see what the problem is. The Charismatic Renewal has been using this phraseology for a very long time ... and I've never heard objection before.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Az, the problem is with the term "Baptism" it is being used in the wrong context. It is misleading. There is nothing that I can see wrong with the even that it describes, the term used to describe is the problem. It is especially misleading to those who don't know the difference.

[Jake Huether]

I am concerned for the poorly catechized, who inDouche, do become confused by it, thinking that there are two baptisms: one of water at church, which sybolically washes away sin and another one later, in which the Holy Spirit comes into us. What safeguards does the Charismatic Renewal Movement have in place to properly catechize the faithful fromsuch an error?

First of all, you are making it more confusing just by the way you word it. We don't say that Baptism symbolically washes away sin. It actually does. If someone is "catechized" to believe that it is symbolic, then it wasn't the fault of the Cherismatic renewal. And again, the Baptism in the Holy Spirit isn't when the Holy Spirit "comes into us". If you think so, then you have ignored the websites AND what I have clearly posted before. The Holy Spirit comes to us IN HIS FULLNESS in Confirmation. If a Catholic doesn't know that then it was not the fault of the Cherismatic Renewal, but rather the RCIA team.

So, you see Anna, a Catholic would have to have been taught bad from the very begining in order to confuse Baptism in the Holy Spirit with the Sacrament of Baptism.

The "safeguard"? Well, let's analyze our RCIA programs first. What safeguard does the RCIA programs (in each respective Parish) have? They have the same safeguards that the Charismatic Renewal has! They have the Catechism and the Bible (in effect, Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium). But does that ENSURE that Catholics in the RCIA are taught right? Does it ensure that the RCIA team leaders are teaching correctly? Or that the Candidates and Catechumans are understanding what they're taught? NO! I can tell you first hand. My wife went through the RCIA for Confirmation and I sat in on it. I had to bring up SEVERAL points of error in their teaching (which deviated from the Catechism). Same with the Catholic Charismatic renewal I'm sure.

Again, you state that you have a problem not so much with the Renewal, but only with the wording.

And so, therefore, I would urge you to consult someone who might know why it was called that (maybe one of the people I listed).

I have said all I can, Anna. If you are confused it isn't the Renewals fault. If Joe Catholic is confused about Confirmation, is it the fault of the RCIA? NO. It is the fault of the dorks who are teaching wrong. A Catholic has the obligation to learn His/Her faith from the source.

If you are concerned with Catholics confusing the Sacrament with the outpouring of the gifts of the Spirit, then you are concerned with much more than the Charismatic renewal. I'd say you should be concerned with the Catholic Schools and the RCIA (which I am).

[Jake Huether]

I wouldn't say the thought process is becoming protestant, Jake. The terms you use are very misleading. THATS the big problem. 

Firstly, I didn't say her throught process is becoming protestant. I was very careful to say that it was in regards to this phrase ONLY.

And Which specific terms, please - that I might clear them up.

If the charismatic "baptism of the Holy Spirit" was that same event referenced by Jesus, there would be no problem. If it is not the same event, then they're confusing people.

Jesus did reference this (acts 1:5), when He told them that they would be Baptised with the Spirit. But the Sacrament of Baptism was when Jesus told them (Matthew 28:19) to baptise all nations in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

So, it is not the same event.

What other Baptism IS there aside from THE Baptism we receive when we become members of Christ's Church????

The baptism in the Holy Spirit.

We don't "become members of Christ's Church" in this baptism. So it doesn't conflict. One is Baptism in the Name of Jesus (the formula for which is, "...in the name of the Father...). The other one is Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

The former is a Sacrament, the other is not.

[Anna]

So, Jake, are you saying that the Baptism Jesus refers to in Acts is not the sacramental baptism, but the charismatic renewal baptism?

[Anna]

B)

Edited November 11, 2003 by Anna

[Jake Huether]

So, Jake, are you saying that the Baptism Jesus refers to in Acts is not the sacramental baptism, but the charismatic renewal baptism?

First, it isn't the "charismatic renewal baptism", it is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. You are purposely trying to confuse people into thinking that Charismatics simply call it "Baptism". There is one Sacramental Baptism, known simply as Baptism. There is a non-Sacramental Baptism which is called Baptism in the Spirit (it is not simply refered to as Baptism, and it belongs not to the charismatic renewal but to everyone).

Now...

Depends on which part of Acts.

As you can see from my previous posts...

When Jesus tells the Apostles that He will baptise them with the Holy Spirit, he cannot be refering to the Sacrament of Baptism, because by the time Acts comes around they had all been Baptised. The very best one could argue is that Christ is refering to Penticost. And then they could say that "being Baptised in the Holy Spirit" is confirmation. But we know this isn't so, because later on, Gentiles are being "Baptised in the Spirit", yet they hadn't even been Baptised with water (as St. Peter states), or confirmed.

Jesus institutes the Sacrament in the quote I provided in Matthew.

So, the Apostles Baptised people "in the name of Jesus" (meaning as He had commanded them to - in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit).

But when these people accept Jesus (God that is), then whether or not they have been baptised or confirmed they may be Baptised in the Spirit (that is done by Jesus - as John had fortold). This is NOT a Sacrament, and it is not the Baptism that is necessary for salvation (for the forgivness of sins, and for becoming a Child of God). There is only one baptism that forgives sins - the Sacramental Baptism.

Anna, I have a feeling you are simply trying to catch me in messing up words or something.

Have you even considered the meaning of what I'm saying?

You seem not to be trying to understand. That's just my perception. Are you honeslty trying to understand the meaning? It doesn't contradict Church teaching, and you haven't found a quote to PROVE that it does.

Az, seemed to get it. Though I don't want to drag her into this (only if she wants) The priests I mentioned seemed to get it. I just emailed Fr. Hampsch, so maybe he will respond and I can post it.

[hyperdulia again]

*slightly off subject ----> i pray in tongues, quietly and privately. if there is no one to interpret one shouldn't do so in the presence of others.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Firstly, I didn't say her throught process is becoming protestant.  I was very careful to say that it was in regards to this phrase ONLY.

And Which specific terms, please - that I might clear them up.

Thats why I said "the thought process" referring back to what you said, not "HER thought process." Anna understands PERFECTLY what you are describing, as she already told you, she was a part of it way back when you and I were infants! Its the terminology thats wrong. She gets it just as well as Az, if not better. She's said numerous times its the term thats used thats the problem.

(I said "term" singular, not "terms plural" ) The confusing term is "Baptism in the Holy Spirit." My husband, born and raised Catholic, read this and turned to me and said "What the hell is he talking about?" It's not what the outpourings of the Charisms is that is confusing, its the term the Charismatic movement has invented to describe it. The TERMS Baptism and Baptism qua Outpouring of Charisms DO conflict because "Baptism" only has one definition, that of the Sacrament. Its like eating an apple but calling it a banana. They are two different things with different meanings, we should not use the same words to describe them.

[Anna]

I find the way you're describing things to be very confusing, Jake.

And the more you insist that there are two baptisms called for in the Scriptures, one sacramental, and the other, in the Holy Spirit, the more confounded I become.

Anna,

Your thought prossess in regard to this specific issue is coming out very protestant:

"If it doesn't say it, then it is bad".

The Church doesn't teach it. (the phrase)

It (the phrase) is an invention of men.

I provided the quote from the website you gave me which details how a few people got together in the US in 1967, had a prayer meeting, experienced the outpouring, and COINED THE PHRASE, "Baptism in the Holy Spirit."

Thank you for your evaluation of my thought processes. You couldn't be more wrong. There is nothing "protestant" about checking with the Popes, Early Church Fathers, Saints, and Catechism, to verify the meaning of a term that people are calling "Catholic," finding that it isn't there, and claiming that the term may confuse some.

Pax Christi. <><

[Jake Huether]

*slightly off subject ----> i pray in tongues, quietly and privately. if there is no one to interpret one shouldn't do so in the presence of others.

okay...

But what if we are praying TO God (all of us) in tongues. Does that mean we shouldn't. We aren't trying to speak to others, so we aren't necessitating an interpriter.

St. Paul is refering to the gift of tongues which was used to spread the Gospel. If you are speaking in tongues to others, but there is no interpriter, yes I agree that it is worthless. But, in a group, you can speak in tongues to God.

I don't. I like you chose to privately.

[hyperdulia again]

ahh...i didn't know that jake, that's why i've stayed away from charismatic prayer ggroups...thanx for the clarification

[Jake Huether]

ahh...i didn't know that jake, that's why i've stayed away from charismatic prayer ggroups...thanx for the clarification

Yeah. I'm kinda shy. I actually am not a big Charismatic persona either. That is, I don't dig the "loudness" so to speak. But I believe that God works even with us shy folks. Just as St. Paul says one gift is for one person, and to another a different one.

But I will defend the renewal, because I know that it is important. The Spirit has given us gifts (at Baptism and Confirmation), and He begs us to OPEN them. The renewal has that in mind. To teach people to recognize the gifts and open them.