RCIA program flaws

[Nigel7]

but to answer the specific question in the title of your other thread (Does one need be confirmed to take communion…?), it is obviously no.

Not “obviously”. And when allowed it is only under certain circumstances - i.e. unconfirmed cradle catholic who took first communion in their youth (like many in the Church today), for example, or matters of life and death for non-Catholic, etc…

Generally speaking though, it seems that a person like myself who has been baptized and is in the process of converting to Catholicism is required to wait until their confirmation before taking communion, regardless of their level of understanding/belief of the holy sacraments of the Church.
They’ve also set a date for us (about a month before confirmation/communion) when we will do our first confessions, and told that we cannot do it before.

Again. This is my own experience, and evidently varies widely from parish to parish.

 

[martininthefiel]

the RCIA ritual book comes from the universal Church and contains adaptations by the bishops of each country, so the book sold in the US is written with those in mind, but NO it is not something concocted by the US bishops

I will not respond directly to your other points which are mainly drawn from personal experience and therefore not valid as a criticism of the RCIA per se as envisioned and promulgated by the Church

Please decide if this is going to be another personal experience thread, which certainly has value for those going through RCIA, or a critique of the RCIA itself.

Bringing up parishes who implement the RCIA improperly, have flawed catechesis, flawed catechists, and misinterpret the rites is not helpful if the purpose of the discussion is to analyze the RCIA itself.

forgot to say, Welcome Home
in the several parishes where I have served in RCIA ministry for over 20 years the after Easter mystagogy and follow-up is excellent. What is woeful is the lack of participation the part of the neophytes. I can guarantee and everyone without exception I know of who is involved in RCIA says the same, that those who do not participate in mystagy have a better than 90% chance of leaving the Church within 5 years. It is without doubt the most critical part of the process as you wisely observe.

I go to a large parish, so maybe my experience is atypical. I have made efforts on my own to “keep the momentum going from Easter” by establishing an on-going relationship with one of the priests as a spiritual director, and I have occasional conversations with the catechist, but I doubt anyone else has done so. I started to go to another parish, which is somewhat smaller, and that has more frequent coffee hours. But it still isn’t the same as the opportunities for fellowship offered by most Episcopal churches.

I serve as an EEM at my original parish, but usually newly received Catholics are not afforded that opportunity. I was the exception, because I had served in that capacity in TEC for 25 or more years. It took me months, however to get scheduled for training. It wasn’t until my spiritual literally shouted at me to call the guy who does the training repeatedly, that I got scheduled for training.

 

[jmcrae]

It is both a critique of the rite itself (eg the dismissal) and a critique/questions of flawed implementations. As myself and another poster has noted, there are no formal studies, so all we can do is draw on personal experiences.

I am glad there are parishes who have priests teaching the classes and deacons doing individual instructions; but in general, I believe the problems are widespread. So if a large number of parishes are implementing RCIA improperly, that in and of itself shows there is a problem in the Church with the program.

RCIA is not a “program.” If you are going into it expecting to be “programmed” you will be badly disappointed - and probably blinded to the steps of the process.

Yes, attendance is required, if you want the process to work. Yes, there are Catechism classes, which vary in quality according to the quality of the facilitator. You also need to be working on your own, as if you were interested in the subject, rather than expecting to be spoon-fed everything.

Remember, if you survive the process, that’s going to be you next year, addressing a group of Candidates and Catechumens who go on-line to complain about your flaws every time you mis-speak.

I’m not a real fan of the Sunday Breaking Open the Word, but at our parish it is the custom to do this - and everyone in the group goes.

For converts coming into the Church as adults, Confirmation precedes First Holy Communion. Children born into the Catholic faith do it in the wrong order because Pope Pius X changed the age for instruction in Holy Communion to seven, without changing the age for instruction in Confirmation from 11. If you are over the age of eleven and have received neither, then you have to receive Confirmation first, and then First Holy Communion.

 

[tafan]

Program:, sorry I didn’t think that word was that important. You may replace the word program with process in my last post, I have no qualms with that.

 

[tafan]

Why are you not a fan of “Breaking open the Word”?

 

[nickybr38]

Program:, sorry I didn’t think that word was that important. You may replace the word program with process in my last post, I have no qualms with that.

It always amuses… people on this forum will argue from the left side of their mouth that words mean nothing and then on the right side they’ll argue that the proper word MUST be used.

Not saying jmcrae has done this but it always makes me chuckle when I see people get caught up on what a word means around here.

 

[jmcrae]

It always amuses… people on this forum will argue from the left side of their mouth that words mean nothing and then on the right side they’ll argue that the proper word MUST be used.

Not saying jmcrae has done this but it always makes me chuckle when I see people get caught up on what a word means around here.

I have always said that the meanings of words are important. (That’s what’s wrong with swearing - it’s just making sounds, rather than using words for what they mean. If you mean to say that, then go ahead and use that word; I won’t object. But don’t just babble senselessly.)

I don’t think I’ve ever purposely made a fuzzy statement.

 

[tafan]

Not “obviously”. And when allowed it is only under certain circumstances - i.e. unconfirmed cradle catholic who took first communion in their youth (like many in the Church today), for example, or matters of life and death for non-Catholic, etc…

Generally speaking though, it seems that a person like myself who has been baptized and is in the process of converting to Catholicism is required to wait until their confirmation before taking communion, regardless of their level of understanding/belief of the holy sacraments of the Church.
They’ve also set a date for us (about a month before confirmation/communion) when we will do our first confessions, and told that we cannot do it before.

Again. This is my own experience, and evidently varies widely from parish to parish.

Sorry about that, my answer was to short; you are correct, it is only allowed for children because they receive their first communion early. Interesting enough, I think the restored order of the sacraments of initiation is a good thing. My problem is that the restored order is not used with young children. It is my feeling that confirmation should be received befor first communion for our 7 year-olds also. Confirmation for children is way too late IMO. I believe in the Eastern Churches, and in some countries in the Western Church, confirmation is done at the same time as baptism, even for infants. I see no problem with confirming 7 year olds.
But that is major thread drift.

 

[jmcrae]

Why are you not a fan of “Breaking open the Word”?

Because I think the participants should hear the words of the Eucharistic Prayer over and over and over before they make their First Holy Communion, in order to fully understand the mystery. No amount of lecturing, how ever scholarly, can replace it, I think.

I also share in the sentiments of the person who said that it is needlessly anachronistic. We don’t live in the second century. However, the Rite itself requires it for the Catechumens, and strongly recommends it for the Candidates - and who am I to argue with the Church?

This is obviously one of those issues where I have my considered opinion, which is opposite to the teachings of the Church, and I am the one who is wrong - even though I feel completely convinced that I am right.

For that reason, I obey, and I don’t do or say anything at the time to cause the participants to doubt that they need to do this. “The Church requires it” is all the reason I need to give them, I think.

 

[nickybr38]

I have always said that the meanings of words are important. (That’s what’s wrong with swearing - it’s just making sounds, rather than using words for what they mean. If you mean to say that, then go ahead and use that word; I won’t object. But don’t just babble senselessly.)

I don’t think I’ve ever purposely made a fuzzy statement.

No, I don’t think you have. But the next time there’s an argument about word play I’m definitely calling you in for the battle.

 

[tafan]

Because I think the participants should hear the words of the Eucharistic Prayer over and over and over before they make their First Holy Communion, in order to fully understand the mystery. No amount of lecturing, how ever scholarly, can replace it, I think.

I also share in the sentiments of the person who said that it is needlessly anachronistic. We don’t live in the second century. However, the Rite itself requires it for the Catechumens, and strongly recommends it for the Candidates - and who am I to argue with the Church?

This is obviously one of those issues where I have my considered opinion, which is opposite to the teachings of the Church, and I am the one who is wrong - even though I feel completely convinced that I am right.

For that reason, I obey, and I don’t do or say anything at the time to cause the participants to doubt that they need to do this. “The Church requires it” is all the reason I need to give them, I think.

I agree with your first point, I had a different way of expressing it in my first post, but your reasoning is along the same line as mine.
Obviously I agree with your second point, I am likely the person you are referring to.

And I would also not question any of this to any participants. However, the shortcomings of RCIA, if they exist, should be addressed by the Church. As I stated, the PM quoted was probably accurate with its figure that 1/2 of those who complete RCIA are back in a protestant church within a year or two.

These opinions are not necessarily opposite to the teachings of the Church, some of them are based on the teachings of the church: for example the “Breaking Open the Word” often devolves into plain and simple personal interpretation of scripture, even encourages it. Now, I am sure that is not what is intended, but I believe it is a widespread result.

I should list things I do like about RCIA:

1. The general acceptance of people into the Church on Easter Vigil. I complained about the lack of flexibility in the schedule, and that was not complete. It is the lack of flexibility in classes, etc.
2. The restored order of sacraments of initiation. This is very logical IMO. My complaint was specifically about confession with respect to previously baptized christians going through the program (sorry, process )
3. The Easter Vigil service itself, incorporating these baptisms and confirmations

 

[Student09]

RE the dismissal for Catechumens, I went through RCIA unbaptized, and as my RCIA program was not on Sunday, there were no regulations on whether I left or stayed for the liturgy of the Eucharist. I don’t know if I would have made it all the way through to Easter if I had *not *been able to be present for the consecration, as that was a tremendous part of what drew me into the Church and shaped my faith.

 

[puzzleannie]

I go to a large parish, so maybe my experience is atypical. I have made efforts on my own to “keep the momentum going from Easter” by establishing an on-going relationship with one of the priests as a spiritual director, and I have occasional conversations with the catechist, but I doubt anyone else has done so. I started to go to another parish, which is somewhat smaller, and that has more frequent coffee hours. But it still isn’t the same as the opportunities for fellowship offered by most Episcopal churches.

.

I have no trouble believing you and many new Catholics have the same kinds of problems getting involved in parish life. When I came to this parish I was hamstrung in RCIA because there was literally no parish life outside liturgy and sacraments in which to involve new Catholics, nor could I get sponsors. No socials, no apostolates, no ministries that were not the personal fiefdoms of a few people with no window for new people. New Catholic parishioners moving in faced the same barriers. No thanks to me or any effort of mine that has done 180 in the ensuing years and our newbies are literally bombarded with opportunities and invitations and fellowshipped to death.

At first I was almost embarrased to invite people to RCIA, now it is my greatest joy. I think the Holy Spirit was on the ball because I had very few applicants those first years, but He is sending them in droves, all ages, and sending the catechists, and filling our parish with welcoming people and ministries. A lot of prayer has been going on during that time. We now have an actual RCIA team instead of me, myself and I. When I retire I will leave it in good hands and it will run well without me at all levels.

We never have done dismissal because I can’t be everywhere at once, and the RCIA classes are not all on Sunday morning, although some are. Every person who applies has been accommodated no matter what their schedule if they are willling to work with us. We have oilfield workers, long distance truckers, fishermen and others who attend only sporadically but keep in touch and involved other ways. It is exhausting keeping track of everyone but with creative thinking it can be done.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree with your first point, I had a different way of expressing it in my first post, but your reasoning is along the same line as mine.
Obviously I agree with your second point, I am likely the person you are referring to.

And I would also not question any of this to any participants. However, the shortcomings of RCIA, if they exist, should be addressed by the Church. As I stated, the PM quoted was probably accurate with its figure that 1/2 of those who complete RCIA are back in a protestant church within a year or two.

My feeling - and it’s just a feeling - is that those who revert back to Protestantism are those who are permitted (for whatever reason) to skip over elements of the RCIA process, in the belief that “they already know that.”

My experience is that the longer someone stays in RCIA (even inadvertently, or for reasons that have nothing to do with the Catechists) the more likely they are to remain active Catholics. There is a real need for people to take the time to make a clean exit from their previous life, and to enter fully into the Catholic way of living and the Catholic way of thinking. A minimalistic approach (just enough to get by, or, “only the essentials”) does more harm than good, in my view.

For example, while it’s true that Marian devotion isn’t “required” by the Church, someone who goes through RCIA being told “Oh, don’t worry - you don’t have to know that; it’s not really required, and really it’s only the old ladies who do that stuff” is more likely to feel alienated within a year (and my hunch it’s when they encounter a priest who prays the “Hail Mary” during the Prayers of the Faithful, or a parish where they pray the Rosary right before Mass) and while they don’t specify that they didn’t know how to react to the Marian devotions they encountered, they do say, “Well, it seems like I just don’t fit in, here.”

On the other hand, if someone has been required to study the Marian devotions even despite the fact that they don’t “connect” with them tend to do a whole lot better. They don’t necessarily participate in them, but they do know what’s going on, and why - and they can sit quietly without feeling left out.

These opinions are not necessarily opposite to the teachings of the Church, some of them are based on the teachings of the church: for example the “Breaking Open the Word” often devolves into plain and simple personal interpretation of scripture, even encourages it. Now, I am sure that is not what is intended, but I believe it is a widespread result.

Part of the problem is facilitators who don’t know what the passages signify - and it’s not really their fault. A lot of these things are not completely obvious (or even evident at all - how is someone, just reading the text without the benefit of a deep understanding of the Holy Tradition, supposed to know that the healing of the paralyzed man is an image of the Sacrament of Reconciliation? )

So it ends up being about feelings.

Ideally, people would use the available resources, and do some research ahead of time - but this often doesn’t happen, due to lack of time, or simply being unaware that there are resources you can get, that explain all these things in plain language.

 

[tafan]

My feeling - and it’s just a feeling - is that those who revert back to Protestantism are those who are permitted (for whatever reason) to skip over elements of the RCIA process, in the belief that “they already know that.”
.

Very well could be true, but I also think it is also because of other factors, some of which you mentioned, that converts do not understand how different we are. And those differences are immensely important, and we need to understand them well.

My experience is that the longer someone stays in RCIA (even inadvertently, or for reasons that have nothing to do with the Catechists) the more likely they are to remain active Catholics. There is a real need for people to take the time to make a clean exit from their previous life, and to enter fully into the Catholic way of living and the Catholic way of thinking. A minimalistic approach (just enough to get by, or, “only the essentials”) does more harm than good, in my view.

For example, while it’s true that Marian devotion isn’t “required” by the Church, someone who goes through RCIA being told “Oh, don’t worry - you don’t have to know that; it’s not really required, and really it’s only the old ladies who do that stuff” is more likely to feel alienated within a year (and my hunch it’s when they encounter a priest who prays the “Hail Mary” during the Prayers of the Faithful, or a parish where they pray the Rosary right before Mass) and while they don’t specify that they didn’t know how to react to the Marian devotions they encountered, they do say, “Well, it seems like I just don’t fit in, here.”

Exacly, I heard those exact examples expressed explicitly in the RCIA classes I was going to when I was a sponsor of my friend. Those and others like them are what I was referring to when I posted initially about the tendancy to not appear different as Catholics. I agree with exactly what you said.
I have not been meaning to advocate a shorter process, BTW. I just said the program timing is typucally inflexible in my experience. I would say,that if the classes were stronger, it could be done in the same amount of time as now, with better results. Just lengthening the process does not help, if in that lengthened period, the same problems exist.

Part of the problem is facilitators who don’t know what the passages signify - and it’s not really their fault. A lot of these things are not completely obvious (or even evident at all - how is someone, just reading the text without the benefit of a deep understanding of the Holy Tradition, supposed to know that the healing of the paralyzed man is an image of the Sacrament of Reconciliation? )
So it ends up being about feelings. .

Which is one of the reasons why the dismissal should be discontinued. I am sure it works well, if the RCIA program uses a very good study bible, such as the Navarre, and keeps the discussion about that. But I think this is rarely, rarely done. And since the candidates and catechims could be getting graces by being at mass, let them be at mass.

 

[jmcrae]

Which is one of the reasons why the dismissal should be discontinued.

That one has to be taken up with the Vatican - and not by me. The Bishops need to talk to the Pope to have it reversed, since it’s part of the RCIA requirement in the Rite itself.

I am sure it works well, if the RCIA program uses a very good study bible, such as the Navarre, and keeps the discussion about that. But I think this is rarely, rarely done. And since the candidates and catechims could be getting graces by being at mass, let them be at mass.

I’m on your side, here. But we are both against the Church - and we can’t disobey the Church.

 

[tafan]

That one has to be taken up with the Vatican - and not by me. The Bishops need to talk to the Pope to have it reversed, since it’s part of the RCIA requirement in the Rite itself.

I’m on your side, here. But we are both against the Church - and we can’t disobey the Church.

I have been trying to find the rite, I would like to review it. It has been years since I have seen the one by the US bishops. I didn’t have luck on the vatican website either.

I certainly do not want to disobey the church. At the same time, it is not disobediance to say when a matter seems wrong; if it is not part of faith and morals. For example, I have read many people and priest make comments about the order of mass, eg priets facing the people, when the sign of peace occurs. I tend to agree with them, but I fully recognize we have to do it the correct way now.

 

[Joannm]

With regard to dismissals. These are for the unbaptized, most of whom are unfamiliar with the scriptures. This year we have three Jews and two Buddhists in our process. Two of the Jews weren’t even familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. Breaking open the word is the opportunity to get them to know the scriptures. St. Jerome said “Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.” We use commentaries and yes we ask them what the scriptures are saying to them. It is not coming from a Protestant perspective but as Christians, we need to hear the voice of the Lord in His word. For example in yesterday’s scriptures one person focused on Jesus’ healing ministry but another focused on the devil. This led to a discussion of exorcisims, which led into misinterpretations based on films and documentaries about exorcism. We were able to look at the catechism paragraphs on that. Since the scrutinies will include an exorcism, we spoke about what that really is. You can’t believe how many people (and I include parents preparing for a child’s baptism) express shock and fear when they hear an exorcism is involved. Then we spoke about how the devil, while maybe not possessing someone, will constantly temp people. None of these things were included in the priest’s homily but these were things the catechumens were thinking about when they read the Gospel during the week (which we ask tnem to do)

 

[jmcrae]

I have been trying to find the rite, I would like to review it. It has been years since I have seen the one by the US bishops. I didn’t have luck on the vatican website either.

I certainly do not want to disobey the church. At the same time, it is not disobediance to say when a matter seems wrong; if it is not part of faith and morals. For example, I have read many people and priest make comments about the order of mass, eg priets facing the people, when the sign of peace occurs. I tend to agree with them, but I fully recognize we have to do it the correct way now.

If you are a team member of RCIA, then you should have received your copy at your first training session. They’re about $40.00 but well worth the price.

If you haven’t gone for the training, you need to go.

 

[jmcrae]

With regard to dismissals. These are for the unbaptized, most of whom are unfamiliar with the scriptures. This year we have three Jews and two Buddhists in our process. Two of the Jews weren’t even familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. Breaking open the word is the opportunity to get them to know the scriptures. St. Jerome said “Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.” We use commentaries and yes we ask them what the scriptures are saying to them. It is not coming from a Protestant perspective but as Christians, we need to hear the voice of the Lord in His word. For example in yesterday’s scriptures one person focused on Jesus’ healing ministry but another focused on the devil. This led to a discussion of exorcisims, which led into misinterpretations based on films and documentaries about exorcism. We were able to look at the catechism paragraphs on that. Since the scrutinies will include an exorcism, we spoke about what that really is. You can’t believe how many people (and I include parents preparing for a child’s baptism) express shock and fear when they hear an exorcism is involved. Then we spoke about how the devil, while maybe not possessing someone, will constantly temp people. None of these things were included in the priest’s homily but these were things the catechumens were thinking about when they read the Gospel during the week (which we ask tnem to do)

Thank you for that testimony. When the Catechists are properly trained (go to the training sessions, Catechists!) this can work very well, and has good benefits.