RCIA Article

[JGeorge]

Hello:

I’m a seminarian in Canada. I was reading an article in my class yesterday and I was curious about some of the statements that were made in it. The article was talking about the RCIA program. The article states:

“In Western democracies our understanding of Christianity is greatly influenced by the Church of the medieval period, but the world in which we live has changed radically…The Church of Christendom, the medieval Church, has brought us to a point at which we were in danger of losing sight of who we were and what we stood for.”

The article then quotes an author named Barbara Hixon:

“For centuries the working assumption in Christian initation has been that converting is about conforming to the Church. But these prophetic rites are calling us back to the truth that Christian initiation is about conforming to Christ.”

I often see this disjunction being made between the Church and Jesus. To me it seems like a very un-Catholic thing to say. I could see it being said by a person from another denomination. Am I way off base here?

The author continues “The RCIA also calls us to ritual honesty…to drop the ecclesial persona.” This “ecclesial persona” is another medieval relic according to this author. She prefers the idea of the “royal priesthood” of which are *all * a part. She’s also says that “Baptism as infants into the life of the Church has not been the measure of the commitment to follow Jesus”. She seems to prefer adult baptism.

Is this author too “progressive”? Is there anything wrong with what she is saying?

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I, personally, had red flags going up as I read what you posted.

 

[Walking_Home]

Big red flags.

 

[puzzleannie]

are you asking about the orthodoxy of the opinions expressed in the article? if you search other works by this author that question will be easily resolved, no, she is not orthodox, and no she does not speak for the Church when she describes the RCIA.

if you are asking about RCIA do your research beginning with the Rites themselves, which is where all study of liturgy should begin. the ritual book contains the national standards by the bishops of the country who have published the adapted rites, as are the bases of the restored order of Christian initation itself.

if you want to discuss either of those questions, please use the appropriate forum

 

[fix]

Hello:

I’m a seminarian in Canada. I was reading an article in my class yesterday and I was curious about some of the statements that were made in it. The article was talking about the RCIA program. The article states:

“In Western democracies our understanding of Christianity is greatly influenced by the Church of the medieval period, but the world in which we live has changed radically…The Church of Christendom, the medieval Church, has brought us to a point at which we were in danger of losing sight of who we were and what we stood for.”

The article then quotes an author named Barbara Hixon:

“For centuries the working assumption in Christian initation has been that converting is about conforming to the Church. But these prophetic rites are calling us back to the truth that Christian initiation is about conforming to Christ.”

I often see this disjunction being made between the Church and Jesus. To me it seems like a very un-Catholic thing to say. I could see it being said by a person from another denomination. Am I way off base here?

The author continues “The RCIA also calls us to ritual honesty…to drop the ecclesial persona.” This “ecclesial persona” is another medieval relic according to this author. She prefers the idea of the “royal priesthood” of which are *all * a part. She’s also says that “Baptism as infants into the life of the Church has not been the measure of the commitment to follow Jesus”. She seems to prefer adult baptism.

Is this author too “progressive”? Is there anything wrong with what she is saying?

In this light, Benedict said that the slogan which became fashionable some years ago: ‘Yes to Jesus, no to the Church,’ is completely irreconcilable with the intentions of Christ."

“Between the Son of God made flesh and His Church there exists a profound, unbreakable and mysterious continuity, by virtue of which Christ is present today in His people, and especially in those who are the successors of the Apostles.”

Pope Benedict begins his first teaching series: no contrast between Christ and His Church

 

[JGeorge]

Thanks for the replies everybody. My apology if this was the wrong forum to post this. Perhaps one of the administrators can move it. I was looking for information on the author of the article using Google but unfortunately I could not find anything. I will try to post the entire article in the “Evangelization” forum since there seems to be quite a few “RCIA” threads in there. I am fairly certain that my teacher would say that the ideas expressed in this article are in accordance with the Canadian Rites for RCIA, since she had the “rites book” in her hand, and she went over some of the sections of the rite in class before giving us the article. However, perhaps the article was more her own opinion, or perhaps she is only focusing on certain sections of the rite and not on the rite in its entirety. Or maybe there are just bigger problems here in Canada.

 

[otjm]

There is a maxim that any logical arguement taken to an extreme becomes illogical.

I do not know the author, so I cannot speak to her credentials nor to her orthodoxy. But keep in mind that even those who are unorthodox in their positions may make orthodox statements.

RCIA was brought back because the Church, in its wisdom, felt that we had lost some connections to the initiating rites of the Church - Baptism, Eucharist and Confirmation. And it is not entirely incorrect to say that through the long history of the Church, there have been changes in emphasis on the various sacraments; at times the Church has emphsized one aspect of a sacrament; at other times, a different aspect. To what extent and how critical those issues are is a legitimate topic, and one needs to approach the issues with an open mind.

At the same time, one needs to remember that a mind should not be so open that one’s brains fall out…

It seems popular in some circles to at the most damn with faint praise those among us who have strayed from the path of orthodoxy. I do not suggest that those who have strayed should be made heros; however, many of them have had good and valid points to make. One needs to be able to separate out the wheat from the chaff if one is dealing with them.

An example: Hans Kung is not someone you would want to follow blindly. He has definitely managed to get seriously off the path of orthodoxy. But it should give pause to those who want to have him condemned and excommunicated, that he has had at least one if not more than one personal lunch with Benedict 16 since he (B16) was made pope. If the Pope is having a personal lunch with him (and their history goes back to before Vatican 2), then perhaps we might want to consider how quickly we condemn such persons? If the Pope is not out to excommunicate him tomorrow, how are we such better judges?

I would hope that in your seminary training, you would have good, solid orthodox training. That does not mean, in my book, that you never consider anything said by those who are labeled heterodox. On the other hand, neither does it mean that their statements are simply put out there as if they were just another position to consider.