Why was RCIA started?

[HomeschoolDad]

Prior to around 1985, when a potential convert wanted to become a Catholic, it was largely a private matter. The person would receive instruction from a priest, either one-on-one or in a small group, the lessons were given subject-by-subject, questions were answered, and the person was expected to read a standard catechism and possibly other books (my priest gave me Father Clifford Howell’s Of Sacraments and Sacrifice, an excellent short book, by the way). The priest had to make some kind of judgement as to whether the person was ready to enter the Church — or the person could always change their mind as the course continued — but it was pretty cut-and-dried, not terribly lengthy (4-6 months), and usually ended with a private baptism (or profession of faith if the person were already baptized), possibly attended by a small group of family and friends. Confirmation was administered (unless the bishop would be doing confirmations in the parish within a certain time frame) and the person received first communion privately. Confession was heard shortly before the profession of faith, for those already baptized. Obviously confession wasn’t needed or required if the convert had not been baptized.

Why was this changed? What was “wrong” with the traditional method of receiving converts?

 

[1ke]

Prior to around 1985, when a potential convert wanted to become a Catholic, it was largely a private matter.

In the modern era, yes, it centered around private catechetical instruction and did not have rites associated with the process of conversion to the faith.

The current RCIA more closely follows the ancient rites of initiation. This is the way the early Church did things. The old rites and processes fell out of disuse when Christendom was largely populated by people who were baptized from birth. In the modern age, the rites have been revived and are used to incorporate the unbaptized into the Body of Christ.

What was “wrong” with the traditional method of receiving converts?

Well, it isn’t actually the “traditional” method. It is “a” method. The rites are ancient.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Prior to around 1985, when a potential convert wanted to become a Catholic, it was largely a private matter.

So it is a form of archaeologism, yes?

This sounds like part of the justification for revising the liturgy in the wake of Vatican II.

Now, I am not saying that is good, and I am not saying that is bad, but here is some food for thought on the topic of archaeologism:

http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/364-archaeologism.html

I do not challenge the authority of the Church to prescribe which rites it will use.

 

[OldCAFMember]

Just as a matter of accuracy, RCIA did take form at different rates in different dioceses and parishes. It was already in place in the late seventies where I was, I served as a sponsor to others in RCIA prior to 1985.

 

[Feanor2]

kind of sounds like you already have made up your mind about the role of RCIA before asking your question.

 

[Usige]

As 1ke states, it’s not that it was wrong so much as it was an effort to revive many of the Rites that had fallen into disuse.

I think one of the biggest issues with RCIA practiced in many areas in the modern day is lumping all people (baptized and nonbaptized) into a scholastic year model. While I think it is admirable that there was an attempt to reintroduce many of the rites, I believe that often the implementation does not take into account why the rites were restored and more importantly that the rites are about phases of conversion not dates on a calendar. By that I mean that we have twisted the rites into fixed points instead of celebrating them as people reach those points.

As a side note there are still places where individual instruction and reception takes place even if there is a larger RCIA program in place. My pastor instructs/receives maybe 4 or 5 people each year outside of the RCIA process. Most are baptized and have been married to Catholics while attending mass with their spouse for several years.

 

[DIERM]

People coming into full communion with the Church should not be referred to as converts, but as Catechumens or Candidates (depending on whether they have been baptized or not).

Conversion is an ongoing act of turning away from sin and toward God. Those of us already in full communion with Mother Church, and those seeking full communion are all “converts”…once entered into full communion, we are all Catholics, not to be categorized as “cradle Catholics” or “converts”.

Blessings

 

[BartholomewB]

My pastor instructs/receives maybe 4 or 5 people each year outside of the RCIA process. Most are baptized and have been married to Catholics while attending mass with their spouse for several years.

That was what happened in my case. I was received into the Church in the nineties. I didn’t even know, at the time, that there was such a thing as RCIA.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

kind of sounds like you already have made up your mind about the role of RCIA before asking your question.

What if I did? I always seek to understand more, even about ideas I already hold. From time to time, I change my mind about things, as I gather further information — I’m not mindlessly rigid and I am always open to letting the other guy have his say, and perhaps even persuade me to change my mind. As the saying goes, I would give the devil himself justice.

Very rarely do I ask a question about anything, with the mindset of “I am absolutely clueless about how I should view topic X, I have no preconceived notions, and I am entirely open to adopting the point of view of the person whose opinion I seek”.

 

[BartholomewB]

People coming into full communion with the Church should not be referred to as converts, but as Catechumens or Candidates (depending on whether they have been baptized or not).

A catechumen or candidate is someone who is not yet in full communion with the Church. Once that process is complete, and they have had their First Communion, they are no longer catechumens or candidates. They may then be correctly described as converts.

once entered into full communion, we are all Catholics, not to be categorized as “cradle Catholics” or “converts”.

Those terms designate a useful distinction. I know there are people who quibble about them, but I see nothing wrong with them. My wife is a cradle Catholic and I am a convert. That’s what I tell people who ask.

 

[Irishmom2]

If there were 10 people in RCIA for example, does anyone really think that the parish priest has the time to spend giving one on one instruction to all of them? With a priest shortage we now have, I don’t see how that would be possible.

 

[po18guy]

Fewer converts back then, and far more priests. Since the “New Evangelization”, Catholic radio, Catholic YouTube vids, EWTN, an increase in missions and apostolates etc. the number interested has far exceeded the capacity of a decreasing number of over-burdened priests to do one-on-one.

Thus, the solution is to pray for vocations.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Those terms designate a useful distinction. I know there are people who quibble about them, but I see nothing wrong with them. My wife is a cradle Catholic and I am a convert. That’s what I tell people who ask.

I don’t think either term applies to me. I was not raised to go to church, for the first 14 years of my life, I could count on both hands the number of times I went to actual church services. I would pick up the Bible from time to time, and tried to make sense of it (no luck), and as I got older, I began to think about certain moral issues. I was not raised to go to church, or to believe in much of anything, but my cultural environment was fundamentalist Christian, and I assimilated this even though I neither believed nor explicitly disbelieved it. My only religious exposure of any depth or duration was Catholic, and I didn’t discover this until my early teens. So if that makes me a convert, so be it. I wasn’t a “cradle Catholic”, but neither was I a “cradle”-anything-else. Whatever. Doesn’t matter.

 

[BartholomewB]

In their posts #11 and 12, I think @Irishmom2 and @po18guy have hit the nail on the head. The answer to @HomeschoolDad’s original question is that RCIA was introduced (or reintroduced, as @1ke points out), to keep the line moving at a moment when the priest shortage meant that the old way was no longer practical.

 

[Dovekin]

Prior to around 1985, when a potential convert wanted to become a Catholic, it was largely a private matter.

This is the answer to your question, nicely positioned at the beginning of your post!

In the early part of the 20th century, missionaries in Africa revived the earlier process for initiation. Rites that had diminished to near insignificance were revitalized for adult converts. Catechists were trained to lift the burdens on the few priests. Native catechists also helped eliminate some of the gaffes from Europeans unaccustomed to the indigenous situation.

At the Council in the early 60s, the experiences of the Africans impressed many bishops. They decided to regularize the African activities, and extend it to the rest of the world.

It was also a way to address the “poor catechesis” everybody always complain about. Catechists as well as catechumens learned their faith better.

 

[commenter]

In my diocese most RCIA a few decades ago had hardly any doctrinal content. They constantly referred to it as a “process”, nothing is fixed or definite, everything in growth, everything relative and subjective (how do you feel about this teaching?)

In one parish, a helper donated several copies of the new Catechism,and handed them out. The nun running it got angry, collected them from the participants, saying they aren’t ready for this
Of course, they never were ready.

But I have heard of good programs too

 

[HomeschoolDad]

In my diocese most RCIA a few decades ago had hardly any doctrinal content. They constantly referred to it as a “process”, nothing is fixed or definite, everything in growth, everything relative and subjective (how do you feel about this teaching?)

In one parish, a helper donated several copies of the new Catechism,and handed them out. The nun running it got angry, collected them from the participants, saying they aren’t ready for this
Of course, they never were ready.

But I have heard of good programs too

No doubt there are some good programs. Glad to know it.

Catechesis could be faulty even back in the “one-on-one” days. When I took my classes (1976), the priest told me that the faithful did not have to accept Humanae vitae — I don’t believe he invoked “conscience”, he simply said that Pope Paul VI was wrong. I sat there and just didn’t say anything, I thought “you’re the priest, I’ll take your word for it, but that doesn’t make a lick of sense — how can the Church teach something, then have the faithful say she is wrong and not accept it?”. I tried to tell myself that it wasn’t an issue, until I could suspend disbelief no longer — took me two or three years to come to terms with it and finally accept the Church’s teaching. On most issues he was safely orthodox, but he did note that some theologians were saying Christ did not know who He was until the resurrection. He didn’t necessarily endorse this, he just stated the fact. I had taken the old, pre-Vatican II Knights of Columbus correspondence course (they hadn’t yet updated their booklets), and he told me that he wished I hadn’t done that, he preferred to deal with converts who were a “blank slate”, as he put it. Well, too bad, in retrospect it was a good thing I did.

That priest finally retired very early for some reason — he was independently wealthy, not at all common for Catholic priests (family money, very successful business) — and is now deceased. Requiescat in pace.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Prior to around 1985, when a potential convert wanted to become a Catholic, it was largely a private matter.

How so? I was merely describing the scenario, not answering my own question.

 

[PetraG]

In my diocese most RCIA a few decades ago had hardly any doctrinal content. They constantly referred to it as a “process”, nothing is fixed or definite, everything in growth, everything relative and subjective (how do you feel about this teaching?)

In one parish, a helper donated several copies of the new Catechism,and handed them out. The nun running it got angry, collected them from the participants, saying they aren’t ready for this
Of course, they never were ready.

But I have heard of good programs too

Even if she had thought it more suitable to get them into the Compendium first, they still would have benefitted from having a copy of the Catechism.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

In one parish, a helper donated several copies of the new Catechism,and handed them out. The nun running it got angry, collected them from the participants, saying they aren’t ready for this
Of course, they never were ready.

But I have heard of good programs too

It could have been a “milk before meat” thing, though it is hard to understand how anyone could have an issue with someone reading the CCC. People come to RCIA with all different levels of prior knowledge.