Walk, Not Crawl.

I believe it was several weeks ago that I indicated I would not post again. I felt the things I had asked about had been at least partially answered. I met several friends who were helpful in my effort to at least start on the road to Rome. But now I see that all was in vain. So let me state my position as clearly as possible; of course not responding to every nuance unless you ask .

As a non-Catholic I recognized that Vatican2 had established [or re-established] a process know today as RCIA. Many Catholics will be familiar with this 'program'. But it is obvious that three positions have been taken toward this Rite.

One, the Council of Bishops see this rite as a reaching out to non-christians and "christians" alike, but making a distinction between the two groups in the spirit of ecumenism. The Bishops made it quite clear that differences must be recognized between baptized "Christians" and those who have not been baptized. This would seem to be the official position of the church. And a very logical position.

Two, a second group almost, if not completely, rejects the distinction between candidates--baptized "Christians" and cathechumen--non baptized persons and do not believe the guidelines have any signicance.

Three, the third group agrees mainly with what the bishops say but argue that while a distinction might be made on paper it is a minor difference and treating the two group--baptized "Christians" and non- christians is not really significant on the grounds that RCIA is an introduction to catholicism and should be taken by all, or that placing the two groups together is a small price for the baptize "christian" to pay for admission the the Church. {Incidentally I put quotes around "christian" so a person such as Ray Ryland, so typical of the zeaoltry associated with "converts" can continue to uphold "triumphalism" or his rather oblique admiration for that position}

I think these distinctions between between the baptized and the unbaptized are important. The church is careful not be rebaptize, showing clearly a distinction. The RCIA program is clearly designed mainly for the unbaptized and to prepare the candidates as if they were to be rebaptized-- as practiced many places --- casts serious aspersions on those baptized persons desiring to unite with the Roman Catholic Church. And, of course, the scrutinies, the dismissal, etc it seems to most scholars and the Bishops to be designed for the catechumen.

Let me speak briefly to the third group--the oh, what difference does it make group. While the whole intent of RCIA is to be helpful and no one questions the RCIA leaders are gracious--to some, and I am one, the clear message to the candidates it "You have lived in greivous error for years as has probably your family, but now we are going to wipe that out. Despite the fact that you belonged to some other group calling itself "christian" we will start at the very beginning and give you a second chance." Much to the delight of Rev. Ryland. And possibly some other zealots.

It is clear to many that this attack on RCIA AS IT WAS INTENDED is closely tied with those who totally reject the spirit of Vatican2 and desire a return to pure, undisguised triumphalism

I desire to be a Catholic. But as I posted before I desire to 'walk' into the church , not "crawl"

I have tried to be as clear as possible but some recent circumstances have lessened by usual happy attitude a bit. If I have offended, with possibly one exception--the dear Reverend--then let me extend my apologies.