In the previous article, my previous reflections ended on the question of whether or not to celebrate the Rite of Reception of Baptized Christians into the Full Communion of the Catholic Church within the Easter Vigil. Clearly it is possible to celebrate reception at the Easter Vigil. The ritual book provides us with a combined rite for doing just that (see RCIA U.S. 562–594 / RCIA CAN 418–451). However, that same book contains materials that can confuse the pastoral minister with some seemingly contradictory directives.

In part II, section 4, of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults we are told, “The high point of their entire formation will normally be the Easter Vigil” (U.S. 409 / CAN 385). In part II, section 5, we read, “The rite should appear clearly as a celebration of the Church and have as its high point eucharistic communion (U.S. 475.1 / CAN 389.1). This seems to be a point of refinement rather than a contradiction of the previous statement. However, the second subsection of this same paragraph gives an indication that the writers of the ritual text are operating with the assumption that the reception is being celebrated at a time other than the Easter Vigil when they indicate that it may “be preferable to celebrate the Mass with only a few relatives and friends.” Paragraph 487 (CAN 400) confirms this assumption when it clearly states, “If the rite of reception into full communion takes place on a solemnity or on a Sunday, the Mass of the day should be celebrated; on other days it is permissible to celebrate the Mass ‘For the Unity of Christians.’”

Appendix I adds some clarity. Paragraph 562 (CAN 418) indicates that “pastoral considerations may suggest that...the Easter Vigil...include the rite of reception of already baptized Christians into the full communion of the Catholic Church.” The following paragraph (U.S. 563/CAN 419) adds to this, saying that this inclusion may also be liturgically opportune.

There seems to be sufficient material with which to advocate either position (not celebrating reception during the Easter Vigil or celebrating it at this time). The rite seems to contradict itself. What initially appears to be a contradiction, however, can easily be sorted out when we recognize that the writers of this ritual text have taken into consideration that the baptized Christians who seek to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church differ in their level of catechetical formation. Some will be uncatechized while others will be catechized, and we will need to journey with them in different ways to the eucharistic table. Thus on the one hand, part II, section 4, which gives direction for journeying with the uncatechized candidate either within the parish’s catechumenate or in a process mirroring it, presumes they will be received at the Easter Vigil (U.S. 409/ CAN 385). To this end, a combined rite has been included, and number 34 of the U.S. National Statutes recognizes this reality. On the other hand, part II, section 5 and U.S. National Statutes 32 and 33 primarily address the situation of a catechized candidate who will not need a lengthy formation like that of the catechumenate. In this situation it is presumed that reception will occur at some time other than the Easter Vigil, preferably at a Sunday Eucharist. Thus the text does not contradict itself, but includes a pastoral sensitivity through which it gives some good guidelines for when to celebrate the rite.

With catechized Christians, reception should be celebrated at a time other than the Easter Vigil since the primary focus of the Vigil is initiation while the Rite of Reception focuses on unity (as presented in the first part of these reflections in the previous article in this packet). For these candidates, the celebration is not initiatory at all, but a celebration of a new unity. With uncatechized Christians, however, it may be more fitting to celebrate reception with them during the Vigil. Although we are not initiating them into Christ (this having already been accomplished in their baptism), the initiatory context could significantly enhance what may in fact be their first real response to being “in Christ.”

As I continue to reflect on this deepened understanding of the Rite of Reception and the pastoral possibilities presented in the ritual text, I can’t help but wonder about it a little more. Has the Spirit covertly inspired the Church yet again? It seems to me that we have been given two different Rites of Reception. Yet nowhere have I seen any evidence that the writers of this ritual text had this intention in mind. What in construction seems to be merely a pastoral adaptation out of pastoral sensitivity (developing a combined form of the rites) in reality is experienced as two different rites because of the context within which it is celebrated. With the catechized Christian the new union proclaims their deepened relationship with Christ; while with the uncatechized Christian their authentic acceptance of Christ gives meaning to this new union.

The challenge for pastoral ministers is to be sure to celebrate the appropriate rite with the various individuals. And when celebrating the Rite of Reception in the context of the Easter Vigil, we must not lose sight of the particular intention of reception. At the same time, I think it is imperative that we celebrate the Rite of Reception at times other than the Easter Vigil so that, from our own personal experience of it, we can come to a better understanding of the intent with which its writers prepared it. This understanding will help us celebrate it appropriately within the initiatory context of the Easter Vigil, allowing this setting to nuance but not change what it is we are celebrating with our brothers and sisters in Christ who come from other hristian communities to join us in eucharistic communion.