I am also in RCIA. I was baptized in 2003 in the Assemblies of God, which is a pretty anti-catholic denomination. Most AG folks don’t even consider Catholics to actually be Christians. They would consider “catholic” countries like the Philippines or South American places like Mexico and brazil to be "unsaved’ places needing to be “evangelized” because the indigenous people are not “born agian”, nor “baptized in the Holy spirit with the evidence of speaking tin tongues.” Their misperceptions, to name a few are pretty typical:
- Think Catholics worship Mary and the saints, statues, icons being idols, etc.
- No room for sacraments; it’s all internal and personal. The only “ordinances” they acknowledge are baptism and communion, neither of which are necessary, in essence, because they are not needed for “salvation.” They acknowledge only that these things are done in obedience to Christ… But no penalty, or separation from Christ, is attached to a failure to observe them.
Early in my conversion to Christ (as a protestant), I became exposed to “Jesus only” teachings and as a result was shown the importance of the early church belief (since they were much closer to the apostles in time) and how the early church councils of 325 and 381AD affirmed the Trinitarian view. The bible, I saw, could legitimately be read a number of ways. I still affirmed sola-scriptura however with the caveat that anyone with the “anointing” from the holy spirit (tying together 1 John 2:27 and 2 Peter1:20-21) would come to the same conclusions about most any subject of biblical interpretation, as long as they were using proper hermeneutical principles, etc… Even with the shortened protestant new testament canon, however, I still came to some catholic conclusions and tendencies, such as not finding purgatory objectionable, works and faith needed for salvation, or that Jesus really is present in the Eucharist, etc.
I was still, however, staunchly anti-Marian, which is a definite trademark of the assemblies of God. Interestingly, AG literature and bible teaching clearly affirms that Jesus is fully God and fully man, a doctrine settled a mere 50 years later at the council of Ephesus in 431AD. Some of their publications and literature even affirm that particular council as support for this belief, although it ramifications are ignored (more on that shortly).
My turning point started when I read the actual text of the Council of Ephesus. I read the actual letters and collected teachings from Nestorius as it was read into the record of the council. Keeping in mind the early date of this council (only 50 years after the 381 council that finalized the “believe” creeds), this had to carry some weight and was not just some “darkened” middle ages superstitions of the “Catholic” church… I was shocked… I was a Nestorian! I believed exactly like he did! His argument was that Mary was the human mother of Jesus, but not the Mother of God. By saying that it was not proper to call Her the Theotokos, The Church decided that he was saying that Jesus was not fully God. He gave various scriptural arguments about the way St Paul uses the Term the Word (logos) or Christ in some places and Jesus in others to denote two separate natures or persons… A man inhabited by God, as it were. Nestorius, like myself and many protestants, was concerned about attributing any of Christ’s divinity to Mary by virtue of her maternity to Christ, even to the point that he could not acknowledge that she “bore God” in an earthly way.
The question loomed in my mind for several years and over that time, I shared this finding with a few of my AG friends. Another factor was a conviction that Jesus was really present in the Eucharist, although my understanding was more “Consubstantial” or spiritual than literal and “transubstantial”. But I definitely appreciated the importance that the Catholic church showed towards the Eucharist… something that was definitely lacking where I was at. Once a month with a crumb and grape juice just did not seem to cut it. I guess I can also say that early on, even to the very first day I confessed Christ in 2003, I saw the value that a personal, verbal, confession of sins had towards making effective repentance (as opposed to confessing them only nebulously to the unseen “God”).
However, it took several years and many little seeds planted here and there by catholic friends and acquaintances before I really gave myself over to investigating the possibility that these “institutions” of Christianity (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) could possibly be the valid teachers of Christianity. Once I was open to the possibility, I found it actually made more sense than any of the other competing ideas. Lots of formerly strange passages of scripture made more sense. Things like Jesus giving care of his mother to John the Apostle makes much more sense if Jesus has no other biological siblings, for instance. Also, the allegorical meaning of John representing the church also makes more sense not only out of “behold your mother”, but also out of phrases with respect to John like “the disciple whom Jesus loved” of whom he said “if I will that he remain until I come…” (as the church will indeed, even though John pointed out that that did not necessarily pertain to him personally)… And I could go on and on and on…
I would expect that you can probably expect people to want to argue with you based on their misconceptions of Catholic theology. Since I am in much the same position as yourself, I can only say that the best thing is to study scripture, the church councils, early church fathers, and learn your faith and The Catechism well. On YouTube this guy has a great channel where he explains different Catholic Dogmas in a very concise, easy to understand way:
youtube.com/user/seanwithjesus
Peace be with you.
So if asked, you could say that you need a connection with the ancient church.