Question for Converts - accepting the teachings of the Church

[InternetWoman]

I’d like to hear from converts (recent and long ago) about how their process (RCIA, individual study, whatever) dealt with presenting them with the teachings of the Church (both faith and morals) and how their acceptance (or rejection) was tested (or not). What I’d like to know is:

1. 
   *]Did you have to accept ALL the teachings of the Church? Or did they soft peddle some and let them slide?
   *]How was your acceptance “tested”? I know at the Rite of Initiation candidates make a statement of faith, but did you do something more?
   *]Did any of you admit rejecting some of the teachings but were accepted any way?
   *]If you rejected some of the teachings did that change later on so that you accept them now?
   *]Are there still teachings you reject? (Doubts don’t count).
   
   I want to make it clear that my personal opinion is that everyone should have all aspects of the faith fully and clearly explained and that they should not be received into the Church until they can fully accept these teachings. What I’m after is to see what the actual practice is out there.

 

[TimothyH]

I’d like to hear from converts (recent and long ago) about how their process (RCIA, individual study, whatever) dealt with presenting them with the teachings of the Church (both faith and morals) and how their acceptance (or rejection) was tested (or not). What I’d like to know is:

1. 
   *]Did you have to accept ALL the teachings of the Church? Or did they soft peddle some and let them slide?
   *]How was your acceptance “tested”? I know at the Rite of Initiation candidates make a statement of faith, but did you do something more?
   *]Did any of you admit rejecting some of the teachings but were accepted any way?
   *]If you rejected some of the teachings did that change later on so that you accept them now?
   *]Are there still teachings you reject? (Doubts don’t count).
   
   I want to make it clear that my personal opinion is that everyone should have all aspects of the faith fully and clearly explained and that they should not be received into the Church until they can fully accept these teachings. What I’m after is to see what the actual practice is out there.

1. 
   The last statement troubles me. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a spa for saints. If we waited until everyone had the faith explained to them fully and clearly, the pews would be empty and the number of Catholics in history would equal the number of Apostles who walked with Christ.
   
   For some, faith in Christ and trust in his Church as the compass which always points to Heaven comes only after many trials and tests. Such was my case. The death of a child. Wife walking out leaving me to raise two children by myself. I did not accept all of the teachings of the Church for many, many years unitl I reached a critical mass and realized that the Church had been right every time up till then. I just stopped beating my head against the wall, that’s all.
   
   Accepting the teachings of the Church means trusting God. Trust - It’s the theme of the entire Old Testament. Adam and Eve didn’t trust God and ate. Abraham didn’t trust God so he and Sarah devised a plan to have children through an Egyptian Servant, until God proved to Abraham that he was trustworthy and gave him a son at age 100. The tribes didn’t trust God and scoffed in the desert demanding meat and water. Israel didn’t trust God’s battle plans and so made alliances with foreign nations, marrying the daughters of their kings in the process and opening themselves up to the influence of pagan gods.
   
   Accepting the teachings of the Church does not end with the Rite of Initiation any more than it ends with the Creed at any given Mass.
   
   ***They brought the boy to him. And when he saw him, the spirit immediately threw the boy into convulsions. As he fell to the ground, he began to roll around and foam at the mouth. Then he questioned his father, “How long has this been happening to him?” He replied, “Since childhood. It has often thrown him into fire and into water to kill him. But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” Jesus said to him, " ‘If you can!’ Everything is possible to one who has faith." Then the boy’s father cried out, “I do believe, help my unbelief!” *(Mark 9:20-24)
   
   The boys father made a concious decision to trust Jesus. Yet he still asks for Jesus to help that part of him which does not have faith, which finds it hard to believe, which doubts.
   
   The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted. (Matthew 28:16-17)
   
   Doubt does count. It counts because you will never accept the teachings of the Church until you trust God. If you are looking for a process or practice, something you say to magically make it happen you will have a long hard road ahead of you.
   
   -Tim-

 

[TrueLight]

The last statement troubles me. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a spa for saints. If we waited until everyone had the faith explained to them fully and clearly, the pews would be empty and the number of Catholics in history would equal the number of Apostles who walked with Christ.

For some, faith in Christ and trust in his Church as the compass which always points to Heaven comes only after many trials and tests. Such was my case. The death of a child. Wife walking out leaving me to raise two children by myself. I did not accept all of the teachings of the Church for many, many years unitl I reached a critical mass and realized that the Church had been right every time up till then. I just stopped beating my head against the wall, that’s all.

Accepting the teachings of the Church means trusting God. Trust - It’s the theme of the entire Old Testament. Adam and Eve didn’t trust God and ate. Abraham didn’t trust God so he and Sarah devised a plan to have children through an Egyptian Servant, until God proved to Abraham that he was trustworthy and gave him a son at age 100. The tribes didn’t trust God and scoffed in the desert demanding meat and water. Israel didn’t trust God’s battle plans and so made alliances with foreign nations, marrying the daughters of their kings in the process and opening themselves up to the influence of pagan gods.

Accepting the teachings of the Church does not end with the Rite of Initiation any more than it ends with the Creed at any given Mass.

***They brought the boy to him. And when he saw him, the spirit immediately threw the boy into convulsions. As he fell to the ground, he began to roll around and foam at the mouth. Then he questioned his father, “How long has this been happening to him?” He replied, “Since childhood. It has often thrown him into fire and into water to kill him. But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” Jesus said to him, " ‘If you can!’ Everything is possible to one who has faith." Then the boy’s father cried out, “I do believe, help my unbelief!” ***(Mark 9:20-24)

The boys father made a concious decision to trust Jesus. Yet he still asks for Jesus to help that part of him which does not have faith, which finds it hard to believe, which doubts.

The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted. (Matthew 28:16-17)

Doubt does count. It counts because you will never accept the teachings of the Church until you trust God. If you are looking for a process or practice, something you say to magically make it happen you will have a long hard road ahead of you.

-Tim-

Tim,

My condolences on the death of your child.

What an excellent post, full of wisdom

It’s good to know that not all Catholics feel that one must be perfect before joining the Church. Otherwise, it would be quite discouraging.

 

[InternetWoman]

Tim,

It’s good to know that not all Catholics feel that one must be perfect before joining the Church. Otherwise, it would be quite discouraging.

Good heaven’s I NEVER said that one had to be perfect to enter the Church!!! I said one had to accept all the teachings of the Church. As in, one can’t be Catholic and yet believe there is no God. One can’t be Catholic and believe God is a woman. Heck, even the Holy Father said that Anglicans coming into the Church had to accept all that is contained in the CCC!

Why do you equate accepting the teachings of the church with perfection??? I might not always be loving but I know it is required of me as a Christian, even if I fail at it most days. I accept the teaching, I’m just having a little difficulty with the “putting it into practice” part.

 

[InternetWoman]

Doubt does count. It counts because you will never accept the teachings of the Church until you trust God. If you are looking for a process or practice, something you say to magically make it happen you will have a long hard road ahead of you.

-Tim-

I was contrasting doubt about a particular truth of the Church vs. outright rejection of that same truth. If you are struggling with a particular truth, but are faithful to that teaching while you struggle, then I consider you are faithful to the teaching of the Church. I didn’t want anyone to think that they have to rock-solid-certain about everything in the CCC, that they can struggle, as I’m sure we all do.

I’m not trying to reduce being Catholic to a simple list of teachings. But I am saying that being Catholic INCLUDES a list of teachings that we are to accept. What I’m trying to determine is how rigid that standard is being applied to converts and whether they found the requirement restrictive or not.

 

[TrueLight]

Good heaven’s I NEVER said that one had to be perfect to enter the Church!!! I said one had to accept all the teachings of the Church. As in, one can’t be Catholic and yet believe there is no God. One can’t be Catholic and believe God is a woman. Heck, even the Holy Father said that Anglicans coming into the Church had to accept all that is contained in the CCC!

Why do you equate accepting the teachings of the church with perfection??? I might not always be loving but I know it is required of me as a Christian, even if I fail at it most days. I accept the teaching, I’m just having a little difficulty with the “putting it into practice” part.

So anyway, let me ask you a question. In your opinion, what is the difference between a doubt and a rejection?

People going through the RCIA process tend to be optimistic and enthusiastic. I can’t see a candidate saying, “Heck no. I ain’t gonna accept that.” They’re more likely to say, “I really struggle with this or that”.

So is that doubt or rejection?

**Edited: Okay, I see you just answered my question. **

 

[choliks]

IMHO, the former is rejection, and the latter is doubt… doubt of one’s self and capability.

 

[quiet52]

Here is the profession of faith by candidates for full communion:

I believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.

Example of rejecting the faith:
I don’t fully understand why the Church teaches that contraception is wrong, and when I marry I will use the birth control pill.

Example of assesnting to the faith:
I don’t fully understand why the Church teaches that contraception is wrong, but though I am struggling with this, I will assent to her teaching and will not practice contraception.

 

[garyo49]

So anyway, let me ask you a question. In your opinion, what is the difference between a doubt and a rejection?

People going through the RCIA process tend to be optimistic and enthusiastic. I can’t see a candidate saying, “Heck no. I ain’t gonna accept that.” They’re more likely to say, “I really struggle with this or that”.

So is that doubt or rejection?

**Edited: Okay, I see you just answered my question. **

The difference is that it is OK to doubt as long as you are working on the problem.

 

[TrueLight]

Here is the profession of faith by candidates for full communion:

I believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.

Example of rejecting the faith:
I don’t fully understand why the Church teaches that contraception is wrong, and when I marry I will use the birth control pill.

Example of assesnting to the faith:
I don’t fully understand why the Church teaches that contraception is wrong, but though I am struggling with this, I will assent to her teaching and will not practice contraception.

Nice examples.

 

[KimberlyAnn0218]

I’d like to hear from converts (recent and long ago) about how their process (RCIA, individual study, whatever) dealt with presenting them with the teachings of the Church (both faith and morals) and how their acceptance (or rejection) was tested (or not). What I’d like to know is:

1. 
   *]Did you have to accept ALL the teachings of the Church? Or did they soft peddle some and let them slide?
   *]How was your acceptance “tested”? I know at the Rite of Initiation candidates make a statement of faith, but did you do something more?
   *]Did any of you admit rejecting some of the teachings but were accepted any way?
   *]If you rejected some of the teachings did that change later on so that you accept them now?
   *]Are there still teachings you reject? (Doubts don’t count).
   
   I want to make it clear that my personal opinion is that everyone should have all aspects of the faith fully and clearly explained and that they should not be received into the Church until they can fully accept these teachings. What I’m after is to see what the actual practice is out there.

1. 1. No…it wasn’t presented to me as necessary and the priest did not hold some of them either
   2. No testing
   3. The priest presented a church that accepted birth control over abortion and told me not to worry about learning the gestures during mass-the church was moving away from them
   4. Yes…I have grown to accept the teachings. It has been work, but worth it

 

[William_Pitts]

I’d like to hear from converts (recent and long ago) about how their process (RCIA, individual study, whatever) dealt with presenting them with the teachings of the Church (both faith and morals) and how their acceptance (or rejection) was tested (or not). What I’d like to know is:

1. 
   *]Did you have to accept ALL the teachings of the Church? Or did they soft peddle some and let them slide? I believe we have an obligation to submit to the teachings of the Church even when we don’t fully understand them.
   *]How was your acceptance “tested”? I know at the Rite of Initiation candidates make a statement of faith, but did you do something more? I was received into the Church when I was in the hospital in serious condition. I read the creed.
   *]Did any of you admit rejecting some of the teachings but were accepted any way? Absolutely not.
   *]If you rejected some of the teachings did that change later on so that you accept them now? There are no teachings that I would reject.
   *]Are there still teachings you reject? (Doubts don’t count). No, none.
   
   I want to make it clear that my personal opinion is that everyone should have all aspects of the faith fully and clearly explained and that they should not be received into the Church until they can fully accept these teachings. What I’m after is to see what the actual practice is out there.

1. 
   I was fully aware of the teachings of the Church. I attended RCIA as long as I could. I also took a correspondence course on the doctrines and teachings of the Church. I wish RCIA had been better but I was compelled by the Holy Spirit to respond to the Grace that was available in the Church.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I’d like to hear from converts (recent and long ago) about how their process (RCIA, individual study, whatever) dealt with presenting them with the teachings of the Church (both faith and morals) and how their acceptance (or rejection) was tested (or not). What I’d like to know is:

1. 
   *]Did you have to accept ALL the teachings of the Church? Or did they soft peddle some and let them slide?
   *]How was your acceptance “tested”? I know at the Rite of Initiation candidates make a statement of faith, but did you do something more?
   *]Did any of you admit rejecting some of the teachings but were accepted any way?
   *]If you rejected some of the teachings did that change later on so that you accept them now?
   *]Are there still teachings you reject? (Doubts don’t count).
   
   I want to make it clear that my personal opinion is that everyone should have all aspects of the faith fully and clearly explained and that they should not be received into the Church until they can fully accept these teachings. What I’m after is to see what the actual practice is out there.

1. 1. Not only were some issues mentioned vaguely in passing and let slide (or simply not discussed at all; not that everything can be discussed of course) some of the instructors, including the priest, openly voiced their own disapproval of various Church teachings. The worst was when the auxiliary bishop (note: not our diocesan bishop, thank God) came it to talk about Holy Orders and discussed the three steps he thought the Church “might” take in the future to reform Church discipline regarding holy orders, namely: 1) Allow married men to be ordained. 2) Allow ordained men to get married. 3) Allow women to be ordained. He predicted they would happen in that order, if they happened at all. Also the woman who came in to talk about marriage opined that contraception was only wrong if you used it to specifically set a definite number of children you would have.
   2. Besides a statement of faith at the end (the words of which I would love to find as I have all but entirely forgotten the contents) there were two one-on-one discussions, one with a lay member of the RCIA team and a later one with the priest, discussing how things were coming along in my faith/spiritual life and whether I was still interested in becoming Catholic. If I had said “I really don’t believe and am resolved never to believe such-and-such” I can only speculate what might have happened. I imagine the results would have varied according to whether the priest himself accepted or rejected the doctrine in question.
   3.No. I accepted all the Church’s teachings, at least as I then understood them (I think I still had a residual excessive anti-predestination attitude from my Methodist background which may have infringed a bit on the Catholic idea of God as the master of history, but I did not realize at the time that there was this tension). I also didn’t understand the role of Mary well at all, but accepted the Church’s teachings on her.
   1. N/A
   2. No. I do struggle to understand some tough theological issues, like the relationship between free will and predestination or the passing on of Original Sin, but I accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Pug]

I’d like to hear from converts (recent and long ago) about how their process (RCIA, individual study, whatever) dealt with presenting them with the teachings of the Church (both faith and morals) and how their acceptance (or rejection) was tested (or not). What I’d like to know is:

1. 
   *]Did you have to accept ALL the teachings of the Church? Or did they soft peddle some and let them slide?
   *]How was your acceptance “tested”? I know at the Rite of Initiation candidates make a statement of faith, but did you do something more?
   *]Did any of you admit rejecting some of the teachings but were accepted any way?
   *]If you rejected some of the teachings did that change later on so that you accept them now?
   *]Are there still teachings you reject? (Doubts don’t count).
   
   I want to make it clear that my personal opinion is that everyone should have all aspects of the faith fully and clearly explained and that they should not be received into the Church until they can fully accept these teachings. What I’m after is to see what the actual practice is out there.

1. 1. It is difficult to answer. I perceive it looking back as a soft-pedal, since one session was spent with a process that was akin to what is called “values-clarification”, but no answers were given other than our own that day. I did not emerge from RCIA with a clear understanding that the Church taught with an authority that they really meant. Perhaps that is my fault, though, being very obtuse.
   2. Not at all. I don’t remember it being discussed in advance what we would promise at the Vigil, so I just agreed to the line when requested to agree, not really knowing that they meant anything specific by it. I just felt called to be Catholic, and going through whatever ritual they requested was required to be Catholic. My answer signified to me that I meant to be Catholic, which was absolutely true.
   3. No. There was no opportunity to express disagreement, unless I were to have appropriated class time and interrupted the teacher to express it, which I would never, ever have done. Besides, I didn’t have some idea in my head indicating that I disagreed with anything. That wasn’t even in my view at the time. I suspect at the time I might have dismissed some of what they said as them not really meaning it, but I’m not sure.
   4. I eventually realized that the Church meant every word said, but I have to pay attention to *what *constitutes something the Church says. A poor catechism does not constitute something the Church says.
   5. I accept them all, to the best of my knowledge. My biggest problem (which I have ignored for years, having exhausted all means of dealing with it, so I suppose it doesn’t really qualify as a problem anymore) is understanding faith.

 

[Steadfast_love]

1. My wife and I had to accept all that the church taught but our infants did not have accept any Church teachings at all.
2. In addition to our profession of faith, the RCIA team evaluated our participation, attendance, and character. A few of us were handpicked to be ushers, singers in the choir, and Sunday school teachers based on our tallents.
3. We all accused ourselves of rejecting this-or-that teaching but it was usualy just a case of oversestimating the severity of authentic dogma.
4. I guess you could say that I’ve changed a bit.
5. I don’t reject anything that the Church teaches, but that said I’m not an expert on everything.

I want to make it clear that my personal opinion is that everyone should have all aspects of the faith fully and clearly explained and that they should not be received into the Church until they can fully accept these teachings. What I’m after is to see what the actual practice is out there.

Honestly, I don’t know how useful that would be. RCIA was a tremendous drain on my young family and I don’t think that chrisendom would really benefit all that much from me and my wife and toddlers listening to the fullness of anullments, which is incidentaly the area I know the least about.

 

[Insight]

I’d like to hear from converts (recent and long ago) about how their process (RCIA, individual study, whatever) dealt with presenting them with the teachings of the Church (both faith and morals) and how their acceptance (or rejection) was tested (or not). What I’d like to know is:

1. 
   *]Did you have to accept ALL the teachings of the Church? Or did they soft peddle some and let them slide?
   *]How was your acceptance “tested”? I know at the Rite of Initiation candidates make a statement of faith, but did you do something more?
   *]Did any of you admit rejecting some of the teachings but were accepted any way?
   *]If you rejected some of the teachings did that change later on so that you accept them now?
   *]Are there still teachings you reject? (Doubts don’t count).
   
   I want to make it clear that my personal opinion is that everyone should have all aspects of the faith fully and clearly explained and that they should not be received into the Church until they can fully accept these teachings. What I’m after is to see what the actual practice is out there.

1. 
   The following is a link to Mp3 audio from Jewish converts to Catholicism. I’ve listened to every one of them months ago, they are very instructional as well as educational. I highly recommend them:
   
   salvationisfromthejews.com/audioconverts.html
   
   God Bless

 

[nickybr38]

I’d like to hear from converts (recent and long ago) about how their process (RCIA, individual study, whatever) dealt with presenting them with the teachings of the Church (both faith and morals) and how their acceptance (or rejection) was tested (or not). What I’d like to know is:

1. 
   *]Did you have to accept ALL the teachings of the Church? Or did they soft peddle some and let them slide?
   *]How was your acceptance “tested”? I know at the Rite of Initiation candidates make a statement of faith, but did you do something more?
   *]Did any of you admit rejecting some of the teachings but were accepted any way?
   *]If you rejected some of the teachings did that change later on so that you accept them now?
   *]Are there still teachings you reject? (Doubts don’t count).
   
   I want to make it clear that my personal opinion is that everyone should have all aspects of the faith fully and clearly explained and that they should not be received into the Church until they can fully accept these teachings. What I’m after is to see what the actual practice is out there.

1. 
   I was brought into the Church this past Easter.
   1. They did not tell us ANY of the teachings of the Church. EXCEPT to teach us who Jesus is, how the Church sees marriage and what priests are (kind of).
   2. It was not tested except that the Sister pulled us each aside individual to ask us how we felt about our journey. She didn’t ask us what we believed.
   3. Not that I know of.
   4. I did not reject any of the teachings.
   5. No.
   I THOUGHT I could get by on my own (as soon as I realized I HAD to because they weren’t going to teach me…) but more and more I find myself struggling. There are some pretty basic things that I’d like face to face discussion about but RCIA is over and there’s no real hope of me finding someone to discuss these things with.
   
   Honestly, the one I’m most worried about are the ones who came in with me (and who I know, for a fact, are not self studying outside RCIA). They never talked about how to get by in this modern world with this ancient faith. They barely spoke about sin (how can you stop sinning if no one tells you you ARE sinning?), they touched only very briefly on the Eucharist… They never once mentioned Mary, the angels, a proper way to approach Bible study, saints, intercessional prayer, and many other things. It’s all really, really disappointing.

 

[InternetWoman]

Honestly, I don’t know how useful that would be. RCIA was a tremendous drain on my young family and I don’t think that chrisendom would really benefit all that much from me and my wife and toddlers listening to the fullness of anullments, which is incidentaly the area I know the least about.

I wouldn’t want to sit through a fullness on annulments either, and I teach RCIA!

But someone should have made it clear that a prior marriage had to be annulled before a new one could occur. That’s the kind of “fullness” I’m thinking of. Taking the time to make sure that people are aware of all the teachings they will assent to at the Rite of Initiation.

My concern/fear is that someone I’ve taught in RCIA will learn “I committed my self to doing what???” I don’t want them to have any unpleasant surprises - just really pleasant ones! (Whoo hoo! The Church teaches that? How Cool!)

 

[InternetWoman]

I THOUGHT I could get by on my own (as soon as I realized I HAD to because they weren’t going to teach me…) but more and more I find myself struggling. There are some pretty basic things that I’d like face to face discussion about but RCIA is over and there’s no real hope of me finding someone to discuss these things with.

I see you are already a “Regular” CAF member. Has this site helped you find answers?

 

[quiet52]

I was brought into the Church this past Easter.

1. They did not tell us ANY of the teachings of the Church. EXCEPT to teach us who Jesus is, how the Church sees marriage and what priests are (kind of).
2. It was not tested except that the Sister pulled us each aside individual to ask us how we felt about our journey. She didn’t ask us what we believed.
3. Not that I know of.
4. I did not reject any of the teachings.
5. No.

I THOUGHT I could get by on my own (as soon as I realized I HAD to because they weren’t going to teach me…) but more and more I find myself struggling. There are some pretty basic things that I’d like face to face discussion about but RCIA is over and there’s no real hope of me finding someone to discuss these things with.

Honestly, the one I’m most worried about are the ones who came in with me (and who I know, for a fact, are not self studying outside RCIA). They never talked about how to get by in this modern world with this ancient faith. They barely spoke about sin (how can you stop sinning if no one tells you you ARE sinning?), they touched only very briefly on the Eucharist… They never once mentioned Mary, the angels, a proper way to approach Bible study, saints, intercessional prayer, and many other things. It’s all really, really disappointing.

Hi nickybr, Are “they” your RCIA catechists? What DID they teach you? How many were in your group and how long did you meet? Please remember them in your prayers – the RCIA leaders and those who were in your group. You are doubly blessed for your yearning for the truth.

I encourage you to make an appointment with your pastor, for two reasons. He should know about the poor content of your RCIA instruction. He should know that you yearn for more reinforcement.