If you are a baptized and generally well-instructed Christian, the RCIA is not necessary for reception. One can receive appropriate instruction (depending on what one does or does not already know about the Catholic) and be recieved as an individual at any time of the year. That's how I did it. The RCIA is supposed to be for the unbaptized and non-Christian. Parishes have turned it into a general-purpose adult education program. Since so many of them actually give false information about the faith, serious Christians wishing to be received are in fact well-advised to seek out private instruction (some of the larger, stronger faithful parishes run classes for inquirers but they aren't RCIA. My parish has no RCIA at all. Children of members are given normal relgious education, preparation for First Communion, Confirmation etc. we have a variety of adult education courses, converts are handled as their needs require. That's the way it was done for decades and the introduction of the RCIA program really wasn't supposed to have anything to do with that process. It got hijacked like a lot of other things.
Find a solid priest and take instruction, make your general Confession, and be received in the Church. Some of us can give suggestions privately.
With regard to several other posts which have claimed that schism sometimes was needed to push the Church to reform, I know of no such instance. The Catholic Reform of the 16thc was a direct outgrowth of reform efforts preceding the Protestant Reformation. The popes of the early 16thc dragged their feet, to be sure, and that stimulated some to lose hope and lose patience. But the reforms that did come at Trent were all part of a long history of reforms that sooner or later would have taken place.
Moreover, even if one is convinced (dispairingly) that schism is needed to jolt the main body of the Church into reform, it still would be wrong. Cyprian put it well already in the mid-3rd c. Schism is always wrong because it represents a human judgment that God has abandoned the pope or the bishops to the extent that God wants me to break fellowship with them. From a Catholic theological perspective, I may never, as an individual, make that judgment because Christ appointed his apostles to govern, to bind and loose. If a bishop commands me directly to sin, yes, I must refuse to sin, but even then I may not break fellowship with him. If he unjustly excommunicates me or disciplines me in some other way, again, I may not take matters into my own hands and declare him apostate and shake the dust of my feet from him. Countless saints were falsely accused, falsely disciplined (popes and bishops can and do err in matters of discipline) and the proper attitude is to take the unjust punishment and call on God to vindicate me. The prelate who unjustly disciplines has to answer to God some day; I may not take matters into my own hands, though on occasion one may speak up, respectfully, in protest--but a loyal protest--and of course one may and should use all legitimate canonical avenues for redress and appeal. That's not the issue here--I'm talking about unjust discipline after all appeals have been exhausted.
Many saints and others whose names are known only to God have suffered patiently unjust discipline. Some were vindicated before they died, others were not. Martin Luther did not suffer patiently. Even if Luther was unjustly excommunicated, his response was uncatholic and wrong--he burned the Bull of excommunication. Actually, he began to call the Pope the antichrist and to develop a schismatic rather than reforming ecclesiology some time earlier, in 1518, when he learned that the curia was maneuvering behind his back and behind the pope's back and behind Cardinal Cajetan's back, to persuade Frederick the Wise to hand Luther over for a heresy trial; that curial maneuvering was dishonest and unjust. He certainly was provoked. His patience was sorely tried. But a Catholic has to be patient, even when provoked, even when the situation seems hopeless. Even the most egregious injustice does not justify schism. However much he was convinced that Vatican II was misguided, one cannot "save a Church that has gone astray" by provoking schism and one is never, cannot be, "forced" to go into schism by someone else's wrong behavior. The cure (going into schism to save the misguided other guy) is worse than the disease. It's all there in Cyprian.
Amen. Thank you.