Should someone from another faith who wants to become a Traditionalist have to go through RCIA?

[michaelhager]

With that said, I know I didn’t have to go through RCIA when I was received into the Church. I would have been waiting months to go through RCIA and it would have been unnecessary as I was already knowledgeable of what I was doing.

While this may have worked for you, I too was quite knowledgeable about the Catholic Church having lived the first 40 years of my marriage with a cradle Catholic and attended mass most Sundays. Long story for another time, when I finally decided to convert, My Priest said there were ways that I could be confirmed outside of RCIA, and he would help me do that if I wished, but he preferred that I go through RCIA and be received in front of the whole church at Easter Vigil. Respecting His advice, I waited months to become a Catholic and as much as I thought I knew about the church, there was so much more to understand through the RCIA process I’m eternally grateful for his advice.

And RCIA is not the end of your education. Through my ministries in music and with the youth, I am constantly learning more and more about our faith. Don’t ever think you know enough! There is some amazing stuff out there!

Michael Hager

 

[MorEphrem]

I will just say to a few previous posters that I think you have a fear of saying that one form of liturgy can be preferentially or qualitatively (in some aspects) better than another. There is nothing wrong with that. That being said, I find it highly unlikely that someone outside the faith who has probably spent minimal time within the church community can discern that they are attracted to the EF because of fuller spiritual fulfillment and not aesthetics.

Also, I should mention people shouldn’t equate “Eastern Catholics” and Traditionalists. Eastern Catholic in itself, by the way, is a term that is very orientalist and has the connotation of “those people.” It is, by technicality, true but I would never call myself an Eastern Catholic nor is the Church I’m part of called the “Maronite Catholic” Church - it is officially the Syro-Maronite Church of Antioch, which is Catholic (i.e. that it is in communion with the Bishop of Rome). It is not a label - we’re not a variety of “Catholic” and there will be major divisions within the Church if we see different patrimonies as “varieties” or “labels” of Catholicism. That being said, traditionalism within the Roman Catholic Church is simply an affinity for an older rite of mass; traditionalists do not have the particular distinction or canonical dignity as the member of another sui iuris Church.

 

[TimothyH]

I guess I’m confused by this statement. Hows is trying to be a better Catholic, not trying to be a better disciple of Jesus? Likewise how is trying to be a better traditionalist or <fill_in_the_blank>, not being a better disciple of Jesus Christ? Is cultivating a deeper **love for the Liturgical form or Rite you believe you are called to **an anti-Christlike behavior?

How do you know these aren’t the ways He is leading others to Him?

**It’s both! ** Christ gives Himself fully to us and we like wise offer ourselves fully to Him.

A form of the Mass is not a vocation.

We are all called to be holy. Holiness is a decrease in sin and an increase in virtue. Holiness is the univesal call, everyone’s primary vocation in life. After the vocation of holiness, people are called to the four primary vocations of priesthood, generous single life, marriage or religious life. We are all called to live the evangelical councels in some way - poverty, chastity, obedience, stability, ongoing conversion, etc. These are authentic callings by God, universal to all men.

We are not “Called” to a particular form of the Mass by God. A calling from God is a vocation and forms of the Mass are not vocations. Then the Church would not be able to create, do away with or modify forms of the Mass because doing so would be an injustice to God and to the faithful.

The sacraments of initiation initiate us into Christ’s body which is the Church. Christ is not baptized into our body but we are baptized into his. It is not Christ who is more closely conformed to those who recieve the sacrament of holy orders but those who recieve the sacrament who are conformed more closely to Christ. We recieve the gifts of the Holy Spirit at confirmation; the Holy Spirit does not recieve our gifts. Likewise the Eucharist. We are incorporated into Christ’s body which is the Church when we recieve the Eucharist. The Church is not incorporated into us.

-Tim-

 

[MorEphrem]

To Timothy, while I do believe you’re correct in saying we are called to holiness certain liturgies and theologies are preferentially better for some individuals, that is simply the reality. If going to the EF over the NO helps cultivate one’s sanctity better than they should probably be doing such. While the EF and NO are both equally valid in terms of the Eucharist there is nothing wrong with someone thinking the EF is qualitatively better, more reverent, more mystical and as a result can better utilize it for a more profound spiritual experience.

However, the danger arises when people mistake aesthetic for deeper spirituality.

 

[TimothyH]

To Timothy, while I do believe you’re correct in saying we are called to holiness certain liturgies and theologies are preferentially better for some individuals, that is simply the reality. If going to the EF over the NO helps cultivate one’s sanctity better than they should probably be doing such. While the EF and NO are both equally valid in terms of the Eucharist there is nothing wrong with someone thinking the EF is qualitatively better, more reverent, more mystical and as a result can better utilize it for a more profound spiritual experience.

However, the danger arises when people mistake aesthetic for deeper spirituality.

Yes. Exactly. You are 100% correct.

Any given form of the Mass is preferentially better. I like the way you put that.

I’m glad that we agree.

-Tim-

 

[clem456]

This “traditionalist” question goes again to the basic question “Who am I”?
In regards to our faith (which I consider to be the whole of my being), why would we identify ourselves with anything but our essential identity? In politics, ok sure, I am a conservative, or libertarian. I set myself apart from the beliefs of others. Our faith is much more essential.

How do I identify myself in God’s eyes?
It’s interesting to note that when God identifies himself there is no “ist”. God is not traditionalist, fundamentalist, literalist, super-progressivist, nothing like that.
When God is asked his identity the answer comes “I am, that I am”.
Huh? I am existence itself, I always existed, and always will. He doesn’t need to say anything more or less. Essential identity.

The identity “Catholic” implies unity with God and his people. There is no more essential way to identify ourselves. It can’t be improved upon, and can’t be divided into camps. “Catholic” unites us with all others. If I identify myself as something else using some modifier like traditionalist or progressivist, what does that tell the world about how I view myself, and how I view others and their beliefs? By nature it brings division into a thing that, of it’s nature, does not accommodate division.

 

[Rich_C]

This “traditionalist” question goes again to the basic question “Who am I”?
In regards to our faith (which I consider to be the whole of my being), why would we identify ourselves with anything but our essential identity? In politics, ok sure, I am a conservative, or libertarian. I set myself apart from the beliefs of others. Our faith is much more essential.

How do I identify myself in God’s eyes?
It’s interesting to note that when God identifies himself there is no “ist”. God is not traditionalist, fundamentalist, literalist, super-progressivist, nothing like that.
When God is asked his identity the answer comes “I am, that I am”.
Huh? I am existence itself, I always existed, and always will. He doesn’t need to say anything more or less. Essential identity.

The identity “Catholic” implies unity with God and his people. There is no more essential way to identify ourselves. It can’t be improved upon, and can’t be divided into camps. “Catholic” unites us with all others. If I identify myself as something else using some modifier like traditionalist or progressivist, what does that tell the world about how I view myself, and how I view others and their beliefs? By nature it brings division into a thing that, of it’s nature, does not accommodate division.

In essence I agree.

The traditionalist wants unity with God and his people throughout time and space.

That’s as Catholic as it gets.

 

[floresco]

The traditionalist wants unity with God and his people throughout time and space.

That’s as Catholic as it gets.

Rich, you have perfectly captured my experience of being a traditionalist. There is a constant awareness that my faith and our Church transcend time and space. I am always living out my belief in the Communion of Saints. I am connected to all the Catholics who ever have been or will be.

 

[malphono]

I have no interest in getting involved in this thread, (far too much of a morass for me), but I can’t resist a comment or two.

Maybe it’s just me, but has anyone else noticed that the OP has been absent for 5 pages of posts?

My second remark is to the elusive OP: how does a convert become a “traditionalist” without first being received into the Church? Someone may prefer the Usus Antiquior (I certainly do), and may even be prompted by the mystery and spirituality associated with it, to embrace a more pre-conciliar form of the Faith. That’s fine and even commendable. But one has to be received into the Church first. I’m not a big fan of “RCIA” as it exists in most places (and no, I’m not expanding on that), but if there’s no option, there’s no option.

As a post-script, let me add that I particularly liked the highlighted portion in the following post:

To Timothy, while I do believe you’re correct in saying we are called to holiness certain liturgies and theologies are preferentially better for some individuals, that is simply the reality. If going to the EF over the NO helps cultivate one’s sanctity better than they should probably be doing such. While the EF and NO are both equally valid in terms of the Eucharist there is nothing wrong with someone thinking the EF is qualitatively better, more reverent, more mystical and as a result can better utilize it for a more profound spiritual experience.

However, the danger arises when people mistake aesthetic for deeper spirituality.

 

[clem456]

Rich, you have perfectly captured my experience of being a traditionalist. There is a constant awareness that my faith and our Church transcend time and space. I am always living out my belief in the Communion of Saints. I am connected to all the Catholics who ever have been or will be.

This is all wonderful, but it is not really what I was trying to get at. And unfortunately I work, and don’t have the time available to explain myself more clearly at length.

 

[floresco]

This is all wonderful, but it is not really what I was trying to get at. And unfortunately I work, and don’t have the time available to explain myself more clearly at length.

I have seen you express the view elsewhere that merely identifying oneself as a traditionalist is a divisive act. I assume that is what you were getting at here and I strongly disagree with it.

I identify myself as a traditionalist because it is often a useful way to convey a lot of important information about my spirituality and religious practices. It does not cut me off from other Catholics with different practices. Giving information does not create divisions.

 

[Aramis]

It is worth noting that, for at least another 20 years, the EF adherents do not have even Custom on their side as for separation from the OF; they are not a separate church — unlike the non-western Churches in Union with Rome — nor are they likely to be made even an ordinariate church (which is in essence, a non-territorial exarchate) …

Perhaps the EF adherents SHOULD be a separate ritual hierarchy, united to Rome, but until they are, either by ordinariate, vicarate, or declaration of separate rite by Rome, they are and remain just as “ordinary” Roman as the OF adherents and the “I don’t care so long as it’s valid” Romans… so, until they are separated, they should follow the guidelines of the RCIA.

 

[floresco]

It is worth noting that, for at least another 20 years, the EF adherents do not have even Custom on their side as for separation from the OF; they are not a separate church — unlike the non-western Churches in Union with Rome — nor are they likely to be made even an ordinariate church (which is in essence, a non-territorial exarchate) …

Perhaps the EF adherents SHOULD be a separate ritual hierarchy, united to Rome, but until they are, either by ordinariate, vicarate, or declaration of separate rite by Rome, they are and remain just as “ordinary” Roman as the OF adherents and the “I don’t care so long as it’s valid” Romans… so, until they are separated, they should follow the guidelines of the RCIA.

c 789 of the Code of Canon Law says:
“Neophytes are to be formed through suitable instruction to understand the gospel truth more deeply and to fulfill the duties assumed through baptism; they are to be imbued with a sincere love for Christ and his Church.”.

“Suitable instruction” for a person who solely or primarily attends the EF is likely to take a different form than for a person attending the OF.

 

[clem456]

I have seen you express the view elsewhere that merely identifying oneself as a traditionalist is a divisive act. I assume that is what you were getting at here and I strongly disagree with it.

I identify myself as a traditionalist because it is often a useful way to convey a lot of important information about my spirituality and religious practices. It does not cut me off from other Catholics with different practices. Giving information does not create divisions.

What better way is there to convey who you are than the simple word “Catholic”. That word does not detract from your personal spiritual practices or acts of piety, and does not prevent you from discussing them with others who also benefit from them.

Just to make sure I keep this germane to the topic…
The title of this thread makes a statement. Some person wants to become a “Traditionalist”. Somehow this person knows he can identify himself as a “Traditionalist”, as his/her primary faith identity. Traditionalist in his’her mind might even separate him from the normal rites of acceptance into the Church. How does he know that is an identity he should claim? Because other have come before and claimed that identity. That is a problem for us when we would like all people, everywhere, of all times, to be Catholic, one people universally united in Christ.

 

[floresco]

What better way is there to convey who you are than the simple word “Catholic”. That word does not detract from your personal spiritual practices or acts of piety, and does not prevent you from discussing them with others who also benefit from them.

Just to make sure I keep this germane to the topic…
The title of this thread makes a statement. Some person wants to become a “Traditionalist”. Somehow this person knows he can identify himself as a “Traditionalist”, as his/her primary faith identity. How does he know that is an identity he should claim? Because other have come before and claimed that identity. That is a problem for us when we would like all people, everywhere, of all times, to be Catholic, one people universally united in Christ.

People decide for themselves what words are meaningful to describe who they are. Your preference for the simple word “Catholic” has nothing to do with people who choose to communicate information by using the word “traditionalist”. Most of us on this forum understood what the OP meant and were able to answer the question just fine based on that understanding. That means that the word “traditionalist” did what words are supposed to do. It conveyed the intended meaning from one person to others.

I suspect that your thing about the word 'traditionalist" has more to do with your feelings about traditionalists than about actual communication. You see us as bad and divisive and so you read that into the label that many of us choose to use.

Regardless of your motives, this hobby horse of yours has nothing to do with the OP and you should not have brought it up. People should not be called out for using the term “traditionalist” on a sub-forum that uses the term to describe itself.

 

[TimothyH]

In essence I agree.

The traditionalist wants unity with God and his people throughout time and space.

That’s as Catholic as it gets.

What unites Christians across time and space is the Eucharist. The Eucharist unites Christians across time and space because the Eucharist is Jesus, and the risen, glorified Jesus himself was able to transcend time and space.

He appeared and dissappeared at will, on the road to Emmaus. He walked through locked doors, appearing to the disciples in the upper room. The sacramental presence of Jesus sits in many different tabernacles in many different places on earth at the same time. The sacramental presence of Jesus sits in many different tabernacles at many different times, in France in the year 876 and in Japan in the year 2013.

The Eucharist unites Christians because the sacramental presence of Jesus is able to transcend time and space and through it we are incorporated into the triumphant, militant and suffering Body of Jesus Christ.

I’m pretty tired of people appropriating attributes of the universal Church to the exclusive use of their particular parish, movement or spirituality as if no one else in the world has that attribute.

-Tim-

 

[clem456]

People decide for themselves what words are meaningful to describe who they are. Your preference for the simple word “Catholic”

That’s not just a word. The word describes who I am, in unity with the Church that explicitly describes itself in that way. It is a unique identity and is universal in it’s scope

has nothing to do with people who choose to communicate information by using the word “traditionalist”. Most of us on this forum understood what the OP meant and were able to answer the question just fine based on that understanding. That means that the word “traditionalist” did what words are supposed to do. It conveyed the intended meaning from one person to others.

I suspect that your thing about the word 'traditionalist" has more to do with your feelings about traditionalists than about actual communication. You see us as bad and divisive and so you read that into the label that many of us choose to use.

I don’t see you as a traditionalist, I see you as a fellow Catholic. The us you refer to includes me.( I hope). We might be amazed at how much we have in common in spirituality and piety etc…

Regardless of your motives, this hobby horse of yours has nothing to do with the OP and you should not have brought it up. People should not be called out for using the term “traditionalist” on a sub-forum that uses the term to describe itself.

I dunno what a hobby horse is. What I am talking about is specifically relevant to the topic.
The forum title is Traditional Catholicism and has specific areas of interest concerning traditional practices. It is not the Traditionalist Catholic forum, unless I am reading that incorrectly.

 

[Rich_C]

What unites Christians across time and space is the Eucharist. The Eucharist unites Christians across time and space because the Eucharist is Jesus, and the risen, glorified Jesus himself was able to transcend time and space.

He appeared and dissappeared at will, on the road to Emmaus. He walked through locked doors, appearing to the disciples in the upper room. The sacramental presence of Jesus sits in many different tabernacles in many different places on earth at the same time. The sacramental presence of Jesus sits in many different tabernacles at many different times, in France in the year 876 and in Japan in the year 2013.

The Eucharist unites Christians because the sacramental presence of Jesus is able to transcend time and space and through it we are incorporated into the triumphant, militant and suffering Body of Jesus Christ.

I’m pretty tired of people appropriating attributes of the universal Church to the exclusive use of their particular parish, movement or spirituality as if no one else in the world has that attribute.

-Tim-

I’m sorry my presence here tires you.

Also, if I had to pick one unitive thing (though I prefer to be unified with other Catholics in as many things as possible, personally) I’d pick the papacy. Some schismatics have valid Masses/Divine Liturgy without being part of the Catholic Church, so I’d have to disagree with your point above.

 

[clem456]

1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."136 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."137

1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."138

 

[Rich_C]

clem456:
Beatiful teaching, there.