No Vigil for Some, is this right?

[SMHW]

smhw:

The nature of instruction classes is such that much of the same information is valuable to catechumens, candidates, and baptized but un-catechized Catholics. But I think it would be best if the classes were not labeled “RCIA classes” or “formation classes” because I think that is misleading.

First let me say that I think instruction is very important! The less catechised the individual, the greater value of the instruction will be. As to a preference between individual versus group instruction, there are pros and cons to both.

IrishGal49:

Are we talking about people who were baptized Catholic? I am talking about people who were baptized in another faith. I was baptized at a Lutheran Church when I was one month old. I never stepped foot in a Lutheran Church. I became a Methodist clergy

I’m saying instruction is so important that it should not be viewed as something only those who are going through RCIA need but rather that those going through RCIA are a small group out of all the people who could benefit from the instruction.

I’d like to see the acronym RCIA be more associated with liturgical rites rather than with stuff that happens in a classroom.

IrishGal49:

…long story on the journey but I honestly can say if you miss out on RCIA you REALLY miss out. All the things another poster talked about that are part of RCIA were necessary. I really believe they can go together and most people, who will probably argue, NEED more instruction, heck people in the pews seem very ignorant of what and why the Church believes things and when asked, often have no answers. I just think the education I got was excellent and churches (and Priests) who are already overrun with things to do would be better served having everyone go through the same process. Do what you want at your parishes but I really think I had it tons better than the people who weren’t even acknowledged at the parish I attend. There is also no standard of measurement, leaving it totally up to the individual to decide when they are"ready". I feel sad for them, they missed out on a lot. Heck I know people who were members for a decade who sat in RCIA for a refresher.

My husband (baptized Lutheran) went through RCIA and greatly benefited from it so I don’t mean to knock the experiential aspect.

But baptism so radically changes a person that those who are baptized just can’t be compared to those who are not. Sure, many, if not most, need the same instruction. But to emphasize the difference in knowledge over presence or absence of the sacrament of baptism itself? I think some of the current models of RCIA DO emphasize education over sacraments.

I am not against receiving baptized adults into the Church at the Easter Vigil so long as the parish is clear on the huge difference between the baptized and unbaptized.

 

[FrDavid96]

The confusion here is because in everyday usage in parishes of the English speaking world, the acronym RCIA is (too often) being misused.

The RCIA program actually takes several different forms.
There is an RCIA for the unbaptized
RCIA for the previously baptized as non-Catholics
RCIA for baptized Catholics who never completed Confirmation and/or First Communion
RCIA for those in danger of death

All of those different types are forms of RCIA (and a few more that I didn’t mention).

What makes the topic confusing is when people say things like “the previously Baptized should not be in RCIA” because that’s not accurate. They certainly do belong in RCIA, because that’s how they are received into the Church and receive First Communion and Confirmation.

We should not be confusing catechumens (never baptized) with candidates (baptized). But at the same time, it’s not helpful, for discussion purposes, when we do not use an accurate vocabulary to express what we mean.

 

[Irishgal49]

The confusion here is because in everyday usage in parishes of the English speaking world, the acronym RCIA is (too often) being misused.

The RCIA program actually takes several different forms.
There is an RCIA for the unbaptized
RCIA for the previously baptized as non-Catholics
RCIA for baptized Catholics who never completed Confirmation and/or First Communion
RCIA for those in danger of death

All of those different types are forms of RCIA (and a few more that I didn’t mention).

What makes the topic confusing is when people say things like “the previously Baptized should not be in RCIA” because that’s not accurate. They certainly do belong in RCIA, because that’s how they are received into the Church and receive First Communion and Confirmation.

We should not be confusing catechumens (never baptized) with candidates (baptized). But at the same time, it’s not helpful, for discussion purposes, when we do not use an accurate vocabulary to express what we mean.

Thank you Fr, that clarification helps tremendously.