Why become a Catholic if you are a Protestant?

[Josiah]

The bible. The bible has more to say than the 66 books commonly received among Protestants says.

Yes, since 1551, the singular RC Denomination has a UNIQUE biblical tome, one which NO OTHER on the planet has ever agreed with. The current post-Trent RCC Bible is UNIQUE in all of Christianity, embraced by just one denomination: Itself (and that for only the past 500-600 years)


But the point is that RCC regards the Bible as neither the source or the norm - for anything. What it regards as the source of its UNIQUE and ever-evolving corpus of dogmas is

1) The Tradition of IT ITSELF singularly and exclusively as IT ITSELF singularly and exclusively and currently defines and interprets so that it agrees with what the RCC itself currently teaches, plus equally
2) The Bible of IT ITSELF singularly and exclusively as IT ITSELF alone current defines it and as IT ITSELF individually INTERPRETS it so that it agrees with what the RCC itself alone teaches, plus equally
3) The Leadership of IT ITSELF singularly and exclusively as IT ITSELF selects from among those who are pledged to teach and uphold whatever the RCC itself exclusively currently teaches.
These 3 "Legs of the stool" or "three streams" form ONE inseparable, entirely intertwined source and norm - so taht if #3 says something, #2 MUST affirm that even if only by implication of invisible words which the RCC "sees" and thus incorporates into its "interpretation."

Antiquity. The Church is older, much older, than the commencement of the Martin Luther's protest against various errors and faults in Catholic practise in the early 16th century.

The RC Denomination is old. Some would date it to 311, some to 451, some to 1054. But yes, it is old. I have no idea why that matters. Do all Catholics only buy Mercedes Automobiles because that's the oldest car company still in existence? Do they buy a Ford rather than a GM car cause Ford is the older company? Why does "oldest" matter?

I think a historical case could be made that the Syrian Orthodox or maybe Egyptian Coptic churches are the oldest denominations still in existence.... I just can't for the life of me image why that matters.

Continuity. The Church of the centuries from the first until the sixteenth and on to the twenty-first is according to the scriptures one church. Couple this with Antiquity and Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox perspectives on the Church have more going for them than Protestant perspectives do.

Correct. There has NEVER been one denomination or fully doctrinal or institutional unity - which is why you had to add all those OTHER faith communities and institutions.

And yes, the two biggest splits in all Christian history were before the Pope split the RCC in 1521: 451, 1054.

Sacraments. The sacraments are not symbols only nor are they public testimony or private/public remembrance only. Catholics know this and teach it. Catholics point to the same views expressed by Christians in earlier centuries all the way back to the second and first centuries AD.

Sorry, friend, that's just completely wrong.

In the First and Second Centuries, there was NOTHING about having EXACTLY SEVEN Sacraments, not 6 and not 8.

In the First and Second Centuries, there was no mention AT ALL of Confirmation.

In the First and Second Centuries, there was no mention of the 1551 declared Dogma of Transubstantiation.

There is NOTHING in the First or Second (or Third or Fourth or Fifth or Sixth or Seventh centuries) that is what the RC alone currently holds about the Sacraments. We all know that.

Order. Maintaining order in a large body of believers that spans not just congregations but languages and nations to cover almost every land on Earth is no easy task. The Catholic Church manages it, not flawlessly, not without dissent, yet it remains one church despite all that human frailty and external as well as internal opposition brings.

The RCC did not become worldwide until the 15th Century so this point would discredit the RCC for 1500 years.....

There are a LOT of Christian communities in most of the countries of the world.... the Anglican Communion is probably at least the equal of the RCC. Not that this matters at all.

And again, I'm at a loss to know why this matters. Do Catholics only go to restaruants that exist in all countries of the world? Do they only attend colleges that exist in all countries of the world? Why does this matter? Should the earliest Christians have rejected the faith because then it only existed in the Holy Lands?

Tradition. What Christians taught and did in the past has a 'vote' in the faith of Catholics. We do not forget the past even when it brings shame but more so when it brings hope and encouragement.

Friend, I know of few denominations that reject Christian Tradition more than the RCC. The ONLY Tradition it acknowledges AT ALL is that of it itself exclusively, it's OWN "Tradition" of it itself. In fact, it defines "Tradition" simply as whatever it itself believes and does. ALL denominations have their traditions.

And I know of few denominations where its denominational Tradiiton has changed more. The list of Dogmas is ever growing (last new dogma added in 1904). The official Catechism is ever-evolving, ever-enlarging. Everything in Catholicism is in constant flex and change.... I"m not rebuking that, but it is the case.

The saints. Taken with Tradition the saints offer examples of Christian faith lived in a wide variety of conditions with a wider variety of personality and foibles yet it is Christian faith and it is lived and it gives encouragement to those who take the time to look at how the faith was lived by such diverse people in such diverse conditions.

There are godly people in ALL denominations.....

And of course, the RCC is CONSTANTLY changing here..... ever adding and deleting saints, sometimes annually..... one is only a saint in the view of the RCC itself alone because it itself alone CURRENTLY says they are.....

The Faith. The doctrines and practises of Christianity have a longer history than some appear to think. They go back to the time when Jesus walked and talked and taught among men through time to the apostles and on through time to those who followed them until our own time. Taken with antiquity, continuity, and tradition this is a testimony to the enduring presence of God among his people without interruption and without 'restoration of a lost set of truths' to correct an allegedly corrupted church.

Stunning to see that NOT ONE RCC distinctive teaching or practice can be found in the Early Church.....

Revealing how the official Catechism is ALWAYS changing, always evolving, a new one just around the courner. The Lutheran Catechism had not had ONE letter added or deleted or edited or changed in nearly 500 years.... the 39 Articles of Anglicanism, the Westminister Confession of Calvinism... not even ONE LETTER added, deleted, edited, changed in over 500 years. But the 1994 Catholic Catechism is already being replaced.

Truth. Everybody argues for their own views as if they were true but not every argument presented is right and that is why we have so many 'versions' of the 'truth' today. Relativism - the idea that each individual has a 'version of the truth' - is widespread in public and individual thinking but it is not how things are. The truth is singular. It is true and has no versions. Versions of the truth are not the truth even if they contain some truth - be it only a little or be it a great deal - they are not the whole truth. The Catholic Church credibly presents its teaching and practise as "the fullness of truth" and that is really the only kind of truth that there is.

In the RCC, "Truth" is just whatever IT ITSELF alone exclusively and CURRENTLY says it is...... and all are to docilicly swallow it not because its true but because the RCC itself alone currently says it. IMO, that's not an embrace of truth at all, it's just an embrace of self.






In the ENTIRE opening post of reasons, NOT ONE MENTION of Christ, Jesus, the Cross, Salvation ..... NOT EVEN MENTIONED just in passing. Totally off the radar. Hum...... Kinda makes you think (not so much about Catholicism but about Catholic apologetics)


I've heard these old, tired, worn (and mostly false) talking points endlessly; I frankly think they do Catholicism more harm than good because they often point to weaknesses.


I think there is MUCH good in the RCC. I admire much in that denomination.... and SOME of the above has some validity if framed correctly and not as above.


Frankly, the whole point here.... the OBSESSION with the denomination, the absolute omission of even the mention of Christ and the Cross..... it kind of affirms why many leave that denomination and some of the problems many have with it. As a Catholic, I got SO tired of "Catholic this.... Catholic that.... all the boasting, all the stunning OBSESSION with itself. I wanted to hear about two other "C's" - Christ! The Cross!


These old, really bad talking points just highlight the problem. Good Catholic apologists know that.


A blessed Lenten season to all....


- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

In the First and Second Centuries, there was NOTHIGN about having EXACTLY SEVEN Sacraments, not 6 and not 8.

In the First and Second Centuries, there was no mention AT ALL of Confirmation.

In the First and Second Centuries, there was no mention of the 1551 declared Dogma of Transubstantiation.

There is NOTHING in the First or Second (or Third or Fourth or Fifth or Sixth or Seventh or...... centuries) that is what the RC alone states about the Sacraments.

That's true. Well into the Middle Ages, Catholic thinking about the sacraments placed the number of them, variously, at something between 2 and 23.

 

[MoreCoffee]

... got error 500 when I clicked the "submit" button.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Becoming a Catholic is a challenging process for adults. One's faith is brought to the light and examined and a guided set of steps are undertaken to help both the person interested in becoming a Catholic and the catechist and sponsors in the Parish discern what is involved and what motives are driving the request for admission into the Church. In my parish the process used is called The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (abbreviated as RCIA). It involves careful consideration of the material in a Catholic Catechism called At Home with God's People which covers the core teachings of the Catholic Church and also examines reasons for belief in God, who Jesus Christ is, and who we are and why we are in need of a saviour. The RCIA process takes around nine months and involves weekly meetings as well as one or two retreats close to Easter time. Thus the process and the amount of time and study involved is not trivial. The Holy Scriptures are examined in depth and questions about the Canon of scripture, its interpretation, its literary types and styles, and its enduring value in the life of the Catholic Church are all part of RCIA catechesis. The following information from the Archdiocese of Brisbane is typical. Your own locale probably has similar RCIA programs in many of its parish churches.

Becoming a Catholic

The RCIA is best described as a journey of faith which passes through a number of different phases and focuses on conversion of heart and mind to Christ. It is a gradual journey tailored to the needs of the individual – no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is given consideration.
The process is more public than the older ‘Instruction’ program. Candidates meet regularly with a group of people from the parish to learn about Catholic belief and practice. Various rituals are held in the church at important points along the journey.
Local Catholic Parishes hold regular enquiry sessions for those who want to know more about the Catholic Church or who may be interested in becoming a Catholic. After this period of enquiry, some people choose to embark on the RCIA journey. From the moment someone is received into the ‘catechumenate’ as it is called, he or she becomes part of the Catholic Christian community.
If you are interested in finding out more about becoming a Catholic Christian, the first step is to make contact with your local Catholic Parish, or another Catholic Parish which you are likely to attend, by going along to Mass and asking to speak to the Parish Priest or Pastoral Associate, or by phoning the parish office to make an appointment.
More information regarding parishes in the Archdiocese of Brisbane is available through our parish search.
For further information, contact the Archdiocesan Catechumenate Committee [phone and email contact information was given but probably is not appropriate in this thread]​

PS: The above post is intended as information and as something to help anybody reading this thread to see what Catholics do when somebody who may be from a Protestant background seeks to become a Catholic.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

If you are a Protestant and have a knowledge of the gospel while holding an active lively faith in God why convert to the Catholic Church?

In the ENTIRE opening post of reasons, NOT ONE MENTION of Christ, Jesus, the Cross, Salvation ..... NOT EVEN MENTIONED just in passing. Totally off the radar. Hum...... Kinda makes you think (not so much about Catholicism but about Catholic apologetics)

I've heard these old, tired, worn (and mostly false) talking points endlessly; I frankly think they do Catholicism more harm than good because they often point to weaknesses.

I think there is MUCH good in the RCC. I admire much in that denomination.... and SOME of the above has some validity if framed correctly and not as above.

Frankly, the whole point here.... the OBSESSION with the denomination, the absolute omission of even the mention of Christ and the Cross..... it kind of affirms why many leave that denomination and some of the problems many have with it. As a Catholic, I got SO tired of "Catholic this.... Catholic that.... all the boasting, all the stunning OBSESSION with itself. I wanted to hear about two other "C's" - Christ! The Cross!

In the OP there are a couple of assumptions made initially:

1) That the protestant in question has "a knowledge of the gospel" (Christ and the Cross). There is an assumption that one has "heard about" these things. Why would it be concluded that one would not hear about these things in the Catholic "denomination" if one had not heard about them yet? Does that make sense to you? I know you prefer to answer from your experience, but if you could refrain from that and answer whether or not it makes sense, that would be helpful.

2) That the Protestant in question "holds an active and lively faith in God". Would the Protestant in question have an active and lively faith in God if Christ and the Cross were not central in the life of that Protestant?

You affirm "much good in the RCC" after or along with the things you take them to task for. It's still unclear to me why, and it's hard for me to accept you find much good at all.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

dp

 

[MoreCoffee]

In the ENTIRE opening post of reasons, NOT ONE MENTION of Christ, Jesus, the Cross, Salvation ..... NOT EVEN MENTIONED just in passing. Totally off the radar. Hum...... Kinda makes you think (not so much about Catholicism but about Catholic apologetics)


I've heard these old, tired, worn (and mostly false) talking points endlessly; I frankly think they do Catholicism more harm than good because they often point to weaknesses.


I think there is MUCH good in the RCC. I admire much in that denomination.... and SOME of the above has some validity if framed correctly and not as above.


Frankly, the whole point here.... the OBSESSION with the denomination, the absolute omission of even the mention of Christ and the Cross..... it kind of affirms why many leave that denomination and some of the problems many have with it. As a Catholic, I got SO tired of "Catholic this.... Catholic that.... all the boasting, all the stunning OBSESSION with itself. I wanted to hear about two other "C's" - Christ! The Cross!


These old, really bad talking points just highlight the problem. Good Catholic apologists know that.

This is not an apologetics thread Josiah. It was never an apologetics thread.

The first post in the thread stated that the Protestant had a lively faith in God and knew the gospel. Do you think that such a person does not know that Jesus Christ is central to Christianity?

The choice of red writing at font size 3 in your post gives emphasis to what you wrote as if it was important. Is anything in the red text seriously advanced as a critique of the reasons given in the first post for becoming a Catholic if you are already a Christian of Protestant background? Did you think that Catholic teaching asserts that Protestants who convert to Catholicism are being "saved" by their conversion to Catholicism?

The reason that Jesus Christ, Salvation, and the cross are not in the first post is that the first post is about Christians who are Protestant who may want to become Catholic - in Christian charity it is assumed that such people already know Jesus Christ, already have come to the cross in repentant faith, have already begun the journey to final salvation at the resurrection and last judgement.

 

[MennoSota]

I just can't ever imagine switching to the Roman church. It would be like leaving salvation by grace to attempt being saved by works. Why would anyone ever consider such a thing? Paul asks the same thing of the Galatians.
It is very odd that anyone who has truly been saved by grace would choose to worship at a Roman church.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If you're looking for some reasons people have for choosing to become Catholics the first post in this thread gives some. I know that they are common motives for protestants who seek to become Catholic. I've discussed these things with several people who I have either catechised or sponsored in the RCIA.

If you are a Protestant and have a knowledge of the gospel while holding an active lively faith in God why convert to the Catholic Church?

Here are some reasons that I like.

• The bible. The bible has more to say than the 66 books commonly received among Protestants says.
• Antiquity. The Church is older, much older, than the commencement of the Martin Luther's protest against various errors and faults in Catholic practise in the early 16th century.
• Continuity. The Church of the centuries from the first until the sixteenth and on to the twenty-first is according to the scriptures one church. Couple this with Antiquity and Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox perspectives on the Church have more going for them than Protestant perspectives do.
• Sacraments. The sacraments are not symbols only nor are they public testimony or private/public remembrance only. Catholics know this and teach it. Catholics point to the same views expressed by Christians in earlier centuries all the way back to the second and first centuries AD.
• Order. Maintaining order in a large body of believers that spans not just congregations but languages and nations to cover almost every land on Earth is no easy task. The Catholic Church manages it, not flawlessly, not without dissent, yet it remains one church despite all that human frailty and external as well as internal opposition brings.
• Tradition. What Christians taught and did in the past has a 'vote' in the faith of Catholics. We do not forget the past even when it brings shame but more so when it brings hope and encouragement.
• The saints. Taken with Tradition the saints offer examples of Christian faith lived in a wide variety of conditions with a wider variety of personality and foibles yet it is Christian faith and it is lived and it gives encouragement to those who take the time to look at how the faith was lived by such diverse people in such diverse conditions.
• The Faith. The doctrines and practises of Christianity have a longer history than some appear to think. They go back to the time when Jesus walked and talked and taught among men through time to the apostles and on through time to those who followed them until our own time. Taken with antiquity, continuity, and tradition this is a testimony to the enduring presence of God among his people without interruption and without 'restoration of a lost set of truths' to correct an allegedly corrupted church.
• Truth. Everybody argues for their own views as if they were true but not every argument presented is right and that is why we have so many 'versions' of the 'truth' today. Relativism - the idea that each individual has a 'version of the truth' - is widespread in public and individual thinking but it is not how things are. The truth is singular. It is true and has no versions. Versions of the truth are not the truth even if they contain some truth - be it only a little or be it a great deal - they are not the whole truth. The Catholic Church credibly presents its teaching and practise as "the fullness of truth" and that is really the only kind of truth that there is.

These are not the only reasons that I like but they are the ones I thought about as I typed this post.

One more reason that came to mind in this thread is

• Unity. Unity is a gift from God to the Church which makes of many people with many gifts and all sorts of personalities one body with one faith. The Catholic Church has the charism of unity despite every effort of the world and every effort of opponents without and within to destroy her unity. There have been schisms over the centuries and today some break away to form their own bodies yet the unity of the church is not thereby ended. Unity remains because it is a gift from God and God maintains the unity of his Church.

 

[Josiah]

See post 41


IF it is true (and the opening poster offered NOTHING to so indicate) that these are the grand and successful selling points of the RC Denomination has it attempts to recruit Protestants, then I find them odd. They point to the weaknesses of Catholicism instead of strengths. If one is trying to sell Kirby vacuum cleaners, I wouldn't suggest going door to door telling housewives how light and inexpensive Kirby's are.

The first post in the thread stated that the Protestant had a lively faith in God and knew the gospel. Do you think that such a person does not know that Jesus Christ is central to Christianity?

WHICH "gospel?" That of Protestantism that the RCC officially condemned as anathema, apostate and heretical, and over which the RCC excommunicated Luther and split itself or that of Catholicism which obviously must be radically, fundamentally DIFFERENT from the Protestant one since the Protestant one is heretical, demonic, apostate? Friend, you can't have it both ways - insisting that the Protestant Gospel IS the RCC one but the RCC is right to declare the Protestant one to be anathema, apostasy, heresy and so bad as to necessitate excommunicating people, burning some at the stake and spliting itself over; they MUST be VERY different Gospels. So WHICH Gospel does this supposed PROTESTANT hold to that the Catholic Church is silent about?


See.... I suspect that any Protestant who holds that Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide IS the Gospel and the Chief Article of the Christian faith would likely think that's important when investigating non-Protestant denominations. In fact, I'd expect it to be the #1 thing they'd look for (considering it to be The Chief Article)... yet I found it stunning that in all the apologetical talking points you copy/pasted, there's not even so much as a mention of Jesus or the Cross or the Gospel or of salvation or anything remotely related to the Gospel. I suspect that many Protestants (well, Lizzie excepted lol) would KNOW that Protestantism exists because the RCC declared the Protestant Gospel to be heresy, demonic, apostate - THE point over which it excommunicated Luther and split itself in 1521. So, I just found it.... curious..... that in your complete listing of the old talking points some Catholic apologists still use, there is the glaring, stunning absence of THE issue, the Chief Article, THE point that the RCC so boldly, officially condemned as heresy and apostasy and anathema - so horrible as to mandate burning those with the Protestant view at the stake, excommunicating others, splitting itself over. So, I ask: WHICH Gospel does this PROTESTANT embrace as the Chief Article that the RCC is silent about? Is this PROTESTANT holding to a "lively faith" in the PROTESTANT view (the view that defines Protestantism) which the RCC declares as passionately as it can is anathema, heresy, apostate OR to the CATHOLIC view (so that he's not really Protestant). WHICH gospel?



http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?5153-Reasons-I-Changed-from-Catholic-to-Lutheran



Blessings on your Lenten season....



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

See post 41


if it is true (and the opening poster offered nothing to so indicate) that these are the grand and successful selling points of the rc Denomination has it attempts to recruit Protestants ...

The Catholic Church attempts to recruit no one who is already a Protestant though I dare say that an occasional Catholic person may make such an attempt.

 

[Josiah]

The Catholic Church attempts to recruit no one who is already a Protestant

Of course, a denomination can't do that only people can...


I responded to your fairly complete list of old Catholic talking points in post 41.

I addressed your defense of the omission of even the mention of Jesus in post 50.



http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?5153-Reasons-I-Changed-from-Catholic-to-Lutheran




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I addressed your defense of the omission of even the mention of Jesus in post 50.

You were editing post #50 when I wrote my reply to it. You had not yet added the material that you think addresses the points made in the first post. Post #50 asks "which gospel"? The answer is the biblical gospel.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

In the OP there are a couple of assumptions made initially:

1) That the protestant in question has "a knowledge of the gospel" (Christ and the Cross). There is an assumption that one has "heard about" these things. Why would it be concluded that one would not hear about these things in the Catholic church if one had not heard about them yet? Does that make sense? I know you prefer to answer from your experience, but just answer whether or not it makes sense.

2) That the Protestant in question "holds an active and lively faith in God". Would the Protestant in question have an active and lively faith in God if Christ and the Cross were not central in the life of that Protestant?

Will this be addressed or left alone?

 

[Josiah]

Will this be addressed or left alone?

Post # 50 is one of the ways that I (for one) addressed it. MC has chosen not to, to date anyway. Here is what I stated:

WHICH "gospel?" That of Protestantism that the RCC
officially condemned as anathema, apostate and heretical, and over which the RCC
excommunicated Luther and split itself or that of Catholicism which obviously must be radically, fundamentally DIFFERENT from the Protestant one since the Protestant one is heretical, demonic, apostate? Friend, you can't have it both ways - insisting that the Protestant Gospel IS the RCC
one but the RCC
is right to declare the Protestant one to be anathema, apostasy, heresy and so bad as to necessitate excommunicating people, burning some at the stake and spliting itself over; they MUST be VERY different Gospels. So WHICH Gospel does this supposed PROTESTANT hold to that the Catholic Church is silent about?


See.... I suspect that any Protestant who holds that Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide IS the Gospel and the Chief Article of the Christian faith would likely think that's important when investigating non-Protestant denominations. In fact, I'd expect it to be the #1 thing they'd look for (considering it to be The Chief Article)... yet I found it stunning that in all the apologetical talking points you copy/pasted, there's not even so much as a mention of Jesus or the Cross or the Gospel or of salvation or anything remotely related to the Gospel. I suspect that many Protestants (well, Lizzie excepted lol) would KNOW that Protestantism exists because the RCC
declared the Protestant Gospel to be heresy, demonic, apostate - THE point over which it excommunicated Luther and split itself in 1521. So, I just found it.... curious..... that in your complete listing of the old talking points some Catholic apologists still use, there is the glaring, stunning absence of THE issue, the Chief Article, THE point that the RCC
so boldly, officially condemned as heresy and apostasy and anathema - so horrible as to mandate burning those with the Protestant view at the stake, excommunicating others, splitting itself over. So, I ask: WHICH Gospel does this PROTESTANT embrace as the Chief Article that the RCC
is silent about? Is this PROTESTANT holding to a "lively faith" in the PROTESTANT view (the view that defines Protestantism) which the RCC
declares as passionately as it can is anathema, heresy, apostate OR to the CATHOLIC view (so that he's not really Protestant). WHICH gospel?



http://christianityhaven.com/showthr...ic-to-Lutheran



Blessings on your Lenten season....

Let me try it this way.....

Since the RCC dogmatically proclaims that the "Gospel" the Protestant would have learned and would hold to is false, wrong, apostate, heretical, anathema - where in the grand list of Catholic talking points from the OP is it stated that this Protestants LEARNS and ACCEPTS the true and lively and real Gospel, the one that is NOT the Protestant one, is NOT officially, dogmatically apostate, anthema, heresy? Or does that not matter? Or does the RCC have no alternative? Why the absolute silence about Christ, Jesus, the Cross, justification, salvation, the Gospel.... when this Protestant holds to a horrible, condemnable heresy and anathema on this very point?

 

[MoreCoffee]

As a part of one's RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) attendance at mass is a requirement. Josiah raised questions about the preaching of the gospel to prospective converts who come from a Protestant background. Here is what is heard at mass just prior to communion.

It is truly right and just, our duty and salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks, Father most holy, through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, your Word through whom you made all things, whom you sent as our Savior and Redeemer, incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin. Fulfilling your will and gaining for you a holy people, he stretched out his hands as he endured his Passion, so as to break the bonds of death and manifest the resurrection. And so, with the Angels and all the Saints we declare your glory, as with one voice we acclaim:

Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts.
Heaven and earth are full of your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.​

You are indeed Holy, O Lord, the fount of all holiness. Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body + and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

At the time he was betrayed and entered willingly into his Passion, he took bread and, giving thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT: FOR THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.​

In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took the chalice and, once more giving thanks, he gave it to his disciples, saying:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.​

The mystery of faith:

Save us, Saviour of the world, for by your Cross and Resurrection you have set us free.​

Therefore, as we celebrate the memorial of his Death and Resurrection, we offer you, Lord, the Bread of life and the Chalice of salvation, giving thanks that you have held us worthy to be in your presence and minister to you. Humbly we pray that, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, we may be gathered into one by the Holy Spirit.

Remember, Lord, your Church, spread throughout the world, and bring her to the fullness of charity, together with Francis our Pope and Timothy our Bishop and all the clergy.
Remember also our brothers and sisters who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection and all who have died in your mercy: welcome them into the light of your face. Have mercy on us all, we pray, that with the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with the blessed Apostles, and all the Saints who have pleased you throughout the ages, we may merit to be co-heirs to eternal life, and may praise and glorify you through your Son, Jesus Christ.

Through him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honour is yours, for ever and ever.

Amen

The gospel message is proclaimed at every mass because at every mass a Eucharistic prayer (Prayer II is shown above) is proclaimed within the hearing of all who attend the mass. It is a part of mass that can never be omitted. The homily (sermon) often dwells on some aspect of Jesus life and teaching because it is based on the reading from the gospel and the old testament that precede it but the gospel is always and invariably proclaimed in the Eucharistic prayer so even if one's parish priest is not a good preacher and has - for whatever reason - preached a homily that did not inspire you nevertheless you will hear the gospel message without fail at every mass.

This too is a reason to become a Catholic for some who are from Protestant background.

 

[Josiah]

As a part of one's RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) attendance at mass is a requirement. Josiah raised questions about the preaching of the gospel to prospective converts who come from a Protestant background. Here is what is heard at mass just prior to communion.

It is truly right and just, our duty and salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks, Father most holy, through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, your Word through whom you made all things, whom you sent as our Savior and Redeemer, incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin. Fulfilling your will and gaining for you a holy people, he stretched out his hands as he endured his Passion, so as to break the bonds of death and manifest the resurrection. And so, with the Angels and all the Saints we declare your glory, as with one voice we acclaim:

Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts.
Heaven and earth are full of your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.​

You are indeed Holy, O Lord, the fount of all holiness. Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body + and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

At the time he was betrayed and entered willingly into his Passion, he took bread and, giving thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT: FOR THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.​

In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took the chalice and, once more giving thanks, he gave it to his disciples, saying:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.​

The mystery of faith:

Save us, Saviour of the world, for by your Cross and Resurrection you have set us free.​

Therefore, as we celebrate the memorial of his Death and Resurrection, we offer you, Lord, the Bread of life and the Chalice of salvation, giving thanks that you have held us worthy to be in your presence and minister to you. Humbly we pray that, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, we may be gathered into one by the Holy Spirit.

Remember, Lord, your Church, spread throughout the world, and bring her to the fullness of charity, together with Francis our Pope and Timothy our Bishop and all the clergy.
Remember also our brothers and sisters who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection and all who have died in your mercy: welcome them into the light of your face. Have mercy on us all, we pray, that with the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with the blessed Apostles, and all the Saints who have pleased you throughout the ages, we may merit to be co-heirs to eternal life, and may praise and glorify you through your Son, Jesus Christ.

Through him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honour is yours, for ever and ever.

Amen

The gospel message is proclaimed at every mass because at every mass a Eucharistic prayer (Prayer II is shown above) is proclaimed within the hearing of all who attend the mass. It is a part of mass that can never be omitted. The homily (sermon) often dwells on some aspect of Jesus life and teaching because it is based on the reading from the gospel and the old testament that precede it but the gospel is always and invariably proclaimed in the Eucharistic prayer so even if one's parish priest is not a good preacher and has - for whatever reason - preached a homily that did not inspire you nevertheless you will hear the gospel message without fail at every mass.

This too is a reason to become a Catholic for some who are from Protestant background.

Thank you. See post 50.

Since you suggest in the opening post that there is no need for ANY instruction or correction of the Protestant's "lively embrace" of the Gospel proclaimed by Protestantism, I think you have a choice: Which Gospel is correct and should just be accepted by the RCC without any need for correction or instruction? The Protestant one that these Protestants your opening post speaks which the RCC officially and formally declared to be anathema, heresy, apostate and worthy of excommunication.... OR..... the radically different one proclaimed by the RCC?

These PROTESTANTS that you insist switch to the RCC ... to whom the RCC never need to even mention anything about this (NO mention in ANY of the talking points of the opening post)... were they correct in their Protestant "lively faith in the Gospel" (and thus the RCC are heretical, apostate and anthema on this) OR were they heretics of the worse kind, apostate, worthy of excommunication but were just fully embraced anyway without any need of mention of any of this?



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Since you suggest in the opening post that there is no need for ANY instruction or correction of the Protestant's "lively embrace" of the Gospel proclaimed by Protestantism

I made no such suggestion.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

These PROTESTANTS that you insist switch to the RCC ...

Perhaps you can point out MC's "insistence"?

 

[Albion]

What do you imagine the purpose of this threat to be, if not to proselytize?