RCIA tonight

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roman_Catholic_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ask her to stick to the Catechism and that RCIA is not for speculation.
 
40.png
spanky:
Speaking of this book, I’ve found a site [snipped schismatic website] which appears to contain the entire text. Haven’t compared it word for word with my hard copy but it appears accurate at first glance. There are also some pesky pop-ups. Enjoy. Its a great read!
Click to expand...
Here’s the book from a site that is in union with the Holy Father:

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/wherewegotthebible.html
 
40.png
Roman_Catholic:
About not taking the communion prior to 1881, she said it was not uncommon for Catholics not too because everyone figured they were living in such a corrupt and immoral time that they didnt deserve to take communion.
Click to expand...
**SACRA TRIDENTINA **
On Frequent and Daily Reception of Holy Communion

Pope St. Pius X, December 20, 1905

… Frequent and daily Communion, as a practice most earnestly desired by Christ our Lord and by the Catholic Church, should be open to all the faithful, of whatever rank and condition of life; so that no one who is in the state of grace, and who approaches the Holy Table with a right and devout intention (recta piaque mente) can be prohibited therefrom.
puzzleanie:
There is an evolution in attitudes toward communion, and in emphasis on teaching about the sacrament of Eucharist that began after the French Revolution, and in part as response and recovery to the Jansenist heresy that was prevalent in Europe from the 17th c onward.
Click to expand...
Puzzleanie is correct about Jansenism, and * SACRA TRIDENTINA* was written in response to the heresy of Jansenism.

Jansenism was something like a version of Catholic Calvinism - this heresy heavily stressed the depravity of man, and the Jansenists ended up teaching that because man was so unworthy and depraved, that the ordinary purgatory fodder should receive Holy Communion infrequently. This was never the teaching of the Church, but it was taught from the pulpit in some Catholic Churches because many priests were Jansenists.

Jansenism was a heresy that arose in France, but it was spread to the US by primarily by the Irish priests. At the peak of the Jansenist heresy, the Irish were being suppressed by the British Imperialists who were trying to ethnically cleanse the Irish from Ireland. Because of the British suppression of the Irish people, Irish seminarians were being taught in France where they became infested with Jansenism, which they then brought to the US.

Much of the “liberalising” that occurred after Vatican II was a counter-reaction by Catholics against the bleak spirit of Jansenism. Not all heresies come from the “liberals” – Jansenism is a classic example of a heresy spread by the “conservatives”.
Also she indicated that the proper way to take communion was in the hand, but I have heard on this site that it is supposed to be by mouth.
Click to expand...
The way we receive Holy Communion is a matter of church discipline, and the proper way to receive is the way that that the bishop of your particular Rite instructs you to receive. If you are a Melkite Catholic, you must obey the discipline of your bishop, and if you are a Latin Rite Catholic, you must obey the discipline imposed by your bishop. The important thing is obedience to the authority that God has placed above you, and to receive Holy Communion with reverence. Reverence is what is in your heart, and one can easily receive the Eucharist in the hand with reverence in the heart.

Reception on the tongue is a relatively modern innovation in church discipline of the Latin Rite, and after Vatican II it was decided to return the Latin Rite to the more ancient practice of reception in the hand:In approaching therefore, do not come up with your wrists apart or with your fingers spread, but make your left hand a throne for the right, since you are about to receive into it a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it Amen.

St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, [23 (*Mystagogic 5), 21]
ca. A. D. 325]
 
I went through RCIA two years ago (this will be my third Easter in the Church). When I was a candidate, I was taught, among other things, that divorce and remarriage is okay, that the failure to ordain women is a sin, that the Bible is not historically accurate, and that Confession to a Priest is a silly custom.

The following year, I served as a sponsor for a candidate, and was present when the would-be-converts were taught that Jesus is present in the host before it’s consecrated, as he’s present in all things, so there’s no real difference between the host before and after consecration, as well as that the Church teaches that contraception is wrong, but that couples who choose not to use it “will get themselves in trouble.”

I kept challenging the “teacher” on these subjects, and was not invited back the following year. Clearly, I was a threat to the leadership’s theology. (I even went so far as to explain that my problem wasn’t with teaching contrary to the Magesterium per se, but with the failure to point out when what’s being taught is in contradiction.)
 
Ah c’mon guys.
I remember distinctly that the Church chained the bibles to the pulpits so people couldn’t take them home and read them. 😛 😃
And while we are on the subject since everyone could read and afford a Bible of their own why would they need to “borrow” the Church’s Bible? 😛 :rolleyes:
And since everyone used to have Sundays off it was easy to get to Church to receive the sacrament every week. 😛 😉
Gee, I thought everybody knew this. :cool:

And if you believe that stuff I have some Pacific coastline are for sale in Oklahoma and I’ll sell it to you cheap. 👍
 
40.png
Roman_Catholic:
Ok I called her and she went into further detail. She said that prior to 1881 reading the Bible was not encouraged because they didnt want people to read it and understand it wrong. The Bible is hard to interpret so the Church was afriad of people getting the wrong interpretation and leaving the church.
Click to expand...
So then what happened in 1881 to change this? There must have been some kind of a document encouraging this “new” practice of reading the bible. What document is that? A check of papalencylicals.net for the years around 1881 doesn’t turn up any encyclical on the subject of reading scripture.
 
Just a thought…

Weren’t Catholic universities the first universities in Europe? When did that start? Wasn’t it long before the “Reformation”? Wasn’t Bible a course at every Catholic universit in Europe? Wasn’t Aquinas Catholic? Or Catherine of Avila? Or St. Therese? Man…and they did it all without reading the Bible (or at least encouraging people to do so)…your RCIA teacher sure knows her Catholic history…:rolleyes:

God Bless,
RyanL
 
Are all RCIA programs like this? I have heard a lot of people say that not all are created equal, is there some sort of process someone has to go through to be the leader of an RCIA class, or is it just who ever wants to do it?

Ryan

Its funny you said that. She will openly admit that she doesnt know Church History. Everything she reads she reads off a print out, she doesnt know anything off the top of her head. You know how you can tell when someone is talking, that they either know it or are just reading something on a peice of paper?

She is the Churches spiritual advisor so our classes were not so much about Catholic doctrine, although we went over the sacraments, but how to get a closer relationship to God and ways to pray. So it was beneficial in that aspect but someone who was going to these classes to understand why Catholics do and believe what they do (which is the point of these classes no?) was not going to get out of the class what they wanted.

I will repeat myself, thank God for this web-site!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top