Why was RCIA started?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
It could just be that as a teacher it is hard not to be reactionary when you have this neat little lesson plan in your head and someone comes in and, in your mind, mucks around with it. The less secure a teacher is in his or her position, the more true that is. Even for a seasoned teacher, though, if there is a feeling of “a long way to go and a short time to get there,” it is hard to welcome confounding variables. That’s human nature.
 
40.png
Dovekin:
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.
How can joining a group be a private matter? If it is private, you are not becoming part of the group. If you join the group, it ceases to be private. There is just something wrong with catechesis if it is not about becoming a member of the Church, contributing to and receiving from.
 
Prior to around 1985, when a potential convert wanted to become a Catholic, it was largely a private matter.
Any person joining the Church knows that they are becoming visibly part of the Body of Christ and the communion of saints. That said, some people have reasons for wanting their journey of faith, and both their sorrows and their joys, to be private and not announced to the world. There could be any number of reasons — past sinful life, social anxiety, some invisible disability, a past trauma or tragedy in their life, family circumstances, the list goes on. Some people are discreet about their personal life due to financial circumstances — whether great wealth or great poverty. I could be fabulously wealthy or in debt up to my eyeballs, and you’d never know it. (I am neither.) It will be obvious that they have become a Catholic if they are seen at Mass, seen receiving the sacraments, or what have you.

I, for one, prefer to go to Mass more or less anonymously, and not interact with the parishioners all that much. I have my reasons. One size does not fit all. I am well aware that I am part of a very, very large group, in the long run, the only “group” that matters. Anyone who knows me is aware that I am a traditional, orthodox, faithful, imperfect Catholic. If I choose to share more than that, it’s my prerogative. If I choose not to, that, too, is my prerogative.

I know that there are some churches (not Catholic) that expect you to stand up, introduce yourself, “give your testimony”, and so on. I am thankful the Catholic Church is not that way.
 
Last edited:
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
Well, conversion is a process, not a program. OTOH, they have to know what it is they are converting to and the Catechism is certainly going to anwer a lot of questions.

I know a parish where an immigrant was in RCIA. She was from Serbia or Croatia and in the same parish there was another woman from the other country, back home they would have been enemies. This catechumen couldn’t bring herself to offer the sign of peace to her ‘enemy’.

She was in the "process’ 3 years before they determined she was ready for Baptism. She had had all the instruction but she hadn’t truly converted until she was able to share a sign of peace with her fellow parishioner.
 
Well, it isn’t actually the “traditional” method. It is “a” method. The rites are ancient.
Your assertion that RCIA was a return to the ways of the early church I acknowledge, but I would like some reference about how ancient the rites are. I am not saying you are wrong, but a little curious/skeptical.
 
I know a parish where an immigrant was in RCIA. She was from Serbia or Croatia and in the same parish there was another woman from the other country, back home they would have been enemies. This catechumen couldn’t bring herself to offer the sign of peace to her ‘enemy’.
Just as an aside of sorts, one thing I can tell you — from personal experience — is that Americans don’t even want to hear about ethnic hatreds or feuds from “the old country”. Generally speaking, Americans don’t even know where these places are, don’t know anything about these countries, don’t want to know anything about these countries, and expect immigrants to leave these problems at the border and “get with the program”.

I am not saying that all these are good attitudes to have, I am just stating the fact. This said, there is much to admire about putting aside enmity and uniting behind a common cause.
 
Your assertion that RCIA was a return to the ways of the early church I acknowledge, but I would like some reference about how ancient the rites are. I am not saying you are wrong, but a little curious/skeptical.
The rites are very old. Evidence has been found in the catacombs. The ‘process’ lasted an undetermined number of years, and culminated with initiation at the Easter Vigil. When Constantine ‘legalized’ the Church, in the early fourth century, and it finally went ‘above ground’, there were so many people joining that the ‘process’ was no longer possible, and catechesis was postponed until after initiation.
 
How can joining a group be a private matter? If it is private, you are not becoming part of the group. If you join the group, it ceases to be private. There is just something wrong with catechesis if it is not about becoming a member of the Church, contributing to and receiving from.
Private is probably the wrong word. Usually there just weren’t enough converts in any one parish to form a group of converts. People were received for instruction and catechized one at a time, which was not surprisingly a one-on-one thing. It wasn’t private in the sense that the confessional is private.

Having said that, the Sacrament of Penance is a reconcilation both with God and with the Church. There was a time when it was a public matter, too. Now it is not.
 
The rites are very old. Evidence has been found in the catacombs. The ‘process’ lasted an undetermined number of years, and culminated with initiation at the Easter Vigil.
Was the delay to ensure that the catechumen was really sincere, able to withstand the persecution, and not an informant?

Unless some or all of these things were true, it doesn’t make sense to force someone to wait several years to be baptized. My common sense tells me six months, possibly sooner, possibly a bit longer, would be about right. I have heard that RCIA sometimes takes two years. I think this is a bit too long, unless there are individual circumstances that necessitate it (recurring doubts and misgivings, etc.).
 
Your saying the catacombs documents the the Rites of Welcoming, Acceptance, the scrutinies, etc?

I did a little more digging, contradictory rsults. Any references?
 
Last edited:
Cyril of Alexandria has a series of catechetical lectures that provides the earliest account of the ptocess. If you find the NPNF volume from Schaff you will find an introduction that cites a number of other early sources, like Eusebius’ biography of Constantine, who was baptised late in life.

The sources inspired the modern rites, rather than ancient rites being revived. The signing of the senses in infant baptisms is the basis for the rite of Welcome, but there are early descriptions of that kind of signing. Much was considered “mystical” and not to be spoken of too freely, which makes finding sources harder.
 
Unless some or all of these things were true, it doesn’t make sense to force someone to wait several years to be baptized.
If you read St Augustine’s Confessions you will see that people often waited years between becoming a catechumen and baptism. For him, the issue seems to have been the limited use of sacramental Reconciliation. Baptism was the forgiveness of sin, best to wait until you finish sinning. Quick baptism was not a thing, despite scriptural examples.

Your other note, about private catechesis, I do not have much to say. It was the catechesis God chose for you. I think it reflects many of the problems with private catechesis, which motivated the implementation of the RCIA. But that is a pretty difficult discussion since we have such different values.
 
If you read St Augustine’s Confessions you will see that people often waited years between becoming a catechumen and baptism. For him, the issue seems to have been the limited use of sacramental Reconciliation. Baptism was the forgiveness of sin, best to wait until you finish sinning. Quick baptism was not a thing, despite scriptural examples.
I see what you are saying. I was thinking of the scriptural examples you cite. I also had in mind the fairly short time before baptism is conferred in evangelical/fundamentalist churches, and perhaps I was subconsciously thinking “the only reason we wait as long as we do, is that we have more information to convey, whereas the E&Fs just go ahead, baptize, and tell their people to continue to read the Bible and fellowship (verb, not noun)”. I was also looking at it through the traditionalist goggles of “no one’s salvation can be assured unless they are actually baptized”. I assume that if a catechumen were facing imminent death, the priest would go ahead and baptize them.

I can also see a positive aspect to RCIA, in that it gets different sets of eyes on what is being taught. What the priest taught me about Humanae vitae was kind of “on the QT” — his pastor was ultra-conservative and frequently reiterated HV from the pulpit, mincing no words and challenging people who refused to adhere to it. He wasn’t a popular guy and his pulpit and confessional were “no-spin zones”. It was like having Pius XII for a pastor. My hero.
 
Last edited:
I can also see a positive aspect to RCIA, in that it gets different sets of eyes on what is being taught. What the priest taught me about Humanae vitae was kind of “on the QT” — his pastor was ultra-conservative and frequently reiterated HV from the pulpit, mincing no words and challenging people who refused to adhere to it. He wasn’t a popular guy and his pulpit and confessional were “no-spin zones”. It was like having Pius XII for a pastor. My hero.
I was wondering if you’re in Canada where the Winnipeg Statement originated. Back in the 70s priests were telling us that contraception was perfectly OK if we felt it was necessary. And it was only about 10 years ago that I had an argument with the priest who would become my pastor. He was in full agreement with the Winnipeg Statement and said the Pope had accepted it and approved. I argued that documents showed that he only acknowledged receipt of the document and there was definitely no “agreement.”

Of course that was the same priest who told me himself that when parents confided in him that they were taking their daughter out for an abortion his response was, “Well, you have to do what’s best for your family.” I just turned away and went back to the office, I couldn’t think of a single thing to say except “Are you out of your tree?!?” and didn’t want to yell that at him.
 
Last edited:
I was wondering if you’re in Canada where the Winnipeg Statement originated. Back in the 70s priests were telling us that contraception was perfectly OK if we felt it was necessary.
Nope, not Canadian. This was a diocese on the edges of both the southern and the midwestern US. It was a time when everything was up for grabs, Paul VI was in his waning years, and John Paul II had not been elected. Everybody was making up their own rules. The general tenor of the times was that the world is changing and the Church must change too. People were pretty sheepish about standing up for traditional faith and morality. Humanae vitae had just come out and it wasn’t what many people were expecting or hoping for, and they weren’t disposed to forget about what they had wanted and just obey.
 
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.
We have 45 this year. And that is about average.

I can’t imagine how long that would take one on one.
 
Wow, 45!! that is a HUGE number, when I joined the Church
in 2011, there were about six of us and together w/ our
sponsors, it amounted to 12, the exact number of Jesus’
“class of Christianity 101”.
 
Prior to around 1985
I’m blaming PJPII for this. He made it popular to be Catholic and demand for instruction went up. I was on staff at a parish (still am) when PJPII passed away. We had a big bump in our already large RCIA program.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top