First, it’s false to claim that the term “cradle Catholic” is not most often used in a pejorative way in these forums.
I don’t believe I said anything the pejorative use of the term “cradle Catholic” on this forum. But one can make a case that many (not all, of course, but many) in the rank and file “cradle Catholic” laeity (through catechesis that has often been described by none other than members of the magesterium as lacking) do not understand some of the basic tenents of Christianity, much less what makes Catholicism different and special.
Not so. What they have is a familiarity with quoting words from the Bible, not with anything else. The Bible is only one half of what Catholicism is about. It’s not unimportant, but it’s not everything, as it is to Protestants.
Now, of course, I am not implying that the rank and file of any denomination are head and shoulders above any other, but, there are many protestant denominations that do place a great deal of emphasis on bible study-although current trends may be indicating a shift away from this. It’s easy to setup the strawman argument to say they are just getting a “familiarity with quoting words from the Bible, not with anything else.” But there is some intense bible study that goes on in SOME protestant churches. Are they ultimately putting a Calvinist-influenced spin on things? Yes. The don’t have the wisdom of Tradition to frame their knowledge. But to say they don’t “know” the Bible is doing them a great injustice and it’s simply untrue.
This satire illustrates my point:
crisismagazine.com/enquirer.htm
I find that many former Protestants remain Protestants in their way of thinking. All they do is adopt Catholic linguo as they go about it. They remain Protestants in Catholic clothing…
As to the original question, I think “converts” are needed in many instances because it has been, in MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, that many inquirers/catechumens/candidates who actually take serious the conversion process want to get their personal protestant-formed issues with Catholicism settled. A number of times, whenever we’ve had a one of our deacons or priests give the weekly presentation, I’ve been in the situation where I’ve had to sort of act as an intermediary and expound on how the theology just discussed is different or similar to what they may have learned as a protestant. Given the fact that in this overwhelmingly Baptist-dominated area many of our converts are Baptist, it helps.
…and this is why they are so hung up about what people wear, whether they are carrying a water bottle into church, etc. They are often more concerned with the doing rather than with the thinking, and this is precisely why they may not be good choices as RCIA teachers.
As far as saying it’s converts to blame for nitpicking, yes, I can say that some of us are overzealous. But you can’t pile it all on us as you have many “cradle” traditionalists and others (many on here, actually) who are concerned all the little changes add up to make a big difference.
By and large, I think what puzzles and concerns many converts is that they encounter so many actions in their new local churches that seem counter to what they have just may have learned or been taught in RCIA comprise Catholic views of theology. Arguing over who’s holding hands when is one thing. But when some of us hear some of our “cradle” friends poo pooing the Real Presence, Mary, or other key issues, we get thrown for a loop. In my experience, it hasn’t been protestants who have put a protestant spin on Catholic teaching, it’s been Catholics trying to conceed too much and soften teachings to make them more palitable.
Your experience may be different, but that’s been mine.
