Reception into the Church?

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

When a baptized Christian is received into the Church, isn’t the normal procedure to Confirm and then give them Holy Communion? Yet, I have heard some cases where people have been received into the Church, receiving Holy Communion first, but not being Confirmed until months later. Is this a proper way to receive someone into the Church? Is it at a pastors discretion?

 

[FrDavid96]

There is no single way to do this. It will vary by geography and by the individual circumstances.

Ideally, one who is already baptized (and over age 7, otherwise Communion and Confirmation would not be part of the question) should be received by the diocesan bishop, but in practical terms we know that this is more the exception.

Oddly enough what most consider the “typical” way (and probably the most common), for adults to be received (together with Confirmation and First Communion) at the Easter Vigil, is exactly how it should not be done.

So again, the answer truly is: “it varies.”

 

[John_Lilburne]

For the “Reception of Baptized Christians Into the Full Communion of the Catholic Church” the rubric is:

“If the person being received has not yet received the sacrament of confirmation, the celebrant lays hands on the candidate’s head and begins the rite of confirmation with the following prayer.”

The original numbering for this is R17. In the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults book for Australia (approved in 1986) it is number 406.

Appendix 1 in this book is “Celebration at the Easter Vigil of the Sacraments of Initiation and of the Rite of Reception into the Full Communion of the Catholic Church”. It includes:
“418 Pastoral considerations suggest that along with the celebration of the sacraments of Christian initiation the Easter Vigil should include the rite of reception of already baptised Christians into the full communion of the Catholic Church. …”
“419 Inclusion at the Easter Vigil of the rite of reception into full communion may also be opportune liturgically, especially when the candidates have undergone a lengthy period of spiritual formation coinciding with Lent.”

 

[FrDavid96]

For the “Reception of Baptized Christians Into the Full Communion of the Catholic Church” the rubric is:

“If the person being received has not yet received the sacrament of confirmation, the celebrant lays hands on the candidate’s head and begins the rite of confirmation with the following prayer.”

The original numbering for this is R17. In the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults book for Australia (approved in 1986) it is number 406.

Appendix 1 in this book is “Celebration at the Easter Vigil of the Sacraments of Initiation and of the Rite of Reception into the Full Communion of the Catholic Church”. It includes:
“418 Pastoral considerations suggest that along with the celebration of the sacraments of Christian initiation the Easter Vigil should include the rite of reception of already baptised Christians into the full communion of the Catholic Church. …”
“419 Inclusion at the Easter Vigil of the rite of reception into full communion may also be opportune liturgically, especially when the candidates have undergone a lengthy period of spiritual formation coinciding with Lent.”

You’re doing cut-and-paste of sentence clauses taken entirely out of their broader context.

The Easter Vigil is not the proper time for receiving the already baptised. Obviously, the Easter Vigil is designed to welcome those not yet baptised. The prayers speak very clearly of that. There is not one word in the Easter Vigil Mass that speaks about welcoming the already-baptised. It’s ordered entirely toward baptism (unless, of course, the optional form of “when there is no baptism” is being used).

For practical reasons, in many places, the catechumens and candidates are often grouped together. This is a practical solution, and I don’t fault anyone for using it. However, all of the Lenten RCIA ritual through (and including) the Vigil the prayers are entirely about the un-baptised.

The only way to achieve combining the two groups is to combine the 2 different ritual tracks in a way that they were never intended to be combined.

The Easter Vigil Mass says nothing about the already-baptised being received into the Church. Read the Roman Missal. There is nothing there; not one word.

The Easter Vigil Mass must be modified in order to accommodate receiving the baptised.

Again, this is common practice. As I wrote earlier, it is probably the most common practice. **However it is not the way that the 2 forms of RCIA were ever intended to be employed. **

 

[thistle]

When a baptized Christian is received into the Church, isn’t the normal procedure to Confirm and then give them Holy Communion? Yet, I have heard some cases where people have been received into the Church, receiving Holy Communion first, but not being Confirmed until months later. Is this a proper way to receive someone into the Church? Is it at a pastors discretion?

In my case I was already a validly baptised Methodist so my reception into the Church did not include being baptised.
Our RCIA group had Confession on Easter Saturday, baptised (or in my case formally received into the Church) on Easter Sunday and received Communion.
We were confirmed by the Bishop 6 months later.

 

[thequeen]

I did not come into the Church through rcia or at an Easter vigil I had private instruction from a very orthodox thinking priest who was in his early seventies at the time. Heis now passed away. I had a very private reception Into the Church with only me my sponsor and Father in the Eucharistic chapel.There I was conditionally baptised and confirmed on a Friday in mid December and that following Sunday I received the Holy Eucharist for the first time along with the rest of the congregation. A week later at the Christmas Mass I went to Father handed me my baptismal certificate after the mass was over he was the parochial vicar at the time. This was after a year and three months worth of instruction. By the time I came into full communion with the Church I had been through all the Holy Days of obligation once and two of them twice and it was worth every second.

 

[Phemie]

This is an interesting thread.

I attended the RCIA “Beginnings and Beyond” institute by the North American Forum on the Catechumenate almost 20 years ago. It was an eye opener for sure. But what I learned there is not the way I see RCIA implemented in most parishes.

RCIA doesn’t dictate a particular way of preparing/teaching those who want to convert or be received into full communion. It does, in one article, clearly state that those who wish to be received into full communion should not be imposed upon more than necessary. In other words, if an already well-catechized person is ready after 2 months he/she should not be made to wait for a prolonged period before they’re received, which is what often happens when you only do the reception at the Vigil.

Also, a catechumen could very well go through private instruction and still go through all the rituals of the RCIA before being baptized at the Vigil. We’ve only had one catechumen in the last 19 years and she did go through all the steps, periods, and rituals before being baptized, confirmed and receiving Communion at the Vigil. One on one instruction, adapted for the 10 year old child that she was.

 

[peter26]

I received private instruction and was confirmed at a regular Sunday Mass.