St. Paul Was Not Ashamed of the Gospel — Are We?

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 10-16-17 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

St. Paul Was Not Ashamed of the Gospel — Are We?

Msgr. Charles Pope • October 16, 2017 •

Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, Rome

St. Paul writes this in today’s reading from the Letter to the Romans: “I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (Rom 1:16).

“Gospel” here refers to the whole of the New Testament rather than merely the four Gospels. The gospel is the apostolic exhortation, the proclamation of the apostles of what Jesus taught and said and did for our salvation. This proclamation was recorded and collected in the letters of the apostles Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude, and in what later came to be called the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The gospel is the transformative word of the Lord proclaimed by the apostles in obedience to the command of the Lord,

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age (Matt 28:19-20).

Of these apostles (“sent ones”) Jesus says this:

Very truly I tell you, whoever receives the one I send receives me; and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me (Jn 13:20).

So the gospel is the authoritative and transformative proclamation of the Lord’s word through the apostles in totality. Of this full and received message St. Paul says he is not ashamed, though he has suffered for preaching it; others have suffered and even been killed for it!

Can we say the same? Are we unashamed of the gospel? Sadly, too many people are to some extent ashamed of the gospel. Even among practicing Catholics and clergy, there are too many who promote a compromised, watered-down message rather than boldly, joyfully, and confidently proclaiming the full gospel.

• Many are ashamed of the gospel’s moral vision, especially those parts that challenge the rebellion of our times against marriage, the family, the proper purpose of sexuality, and the sanctity of human life. If a priest or lay person brings up such topics, too many Catholics cringe, embarrassed that a controversial subject has been mentioned. Some worry that someone might be angered, challenged, or “hurt.” The embarrassment and nervousness are often visible by the looks on their faces or their seeming need to change the subject, speak in euphemisms, or talk in generalities and abstractions. It seems that they want to avoid a clear discussion of the truth in such matters at all costs.
• Many are ashamed of the strong demands of the cross. Jesus wanted us to be under no illusions. Strong medicine is required for what ails us. The cross and the need for self-denial and sacrifice are at the center of the gospel, but many are ashamed when the concept of the cross goes from being an abstraction to something more specific. Thus when the world protests with rhetorical questions we are embarrassed and too often compromise or grow silent. For example, when someone indignantly asks, “Are you saying that a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape must carry the child to birth?” Instead of responding, “Yes, and we must help her to decide whether to raise the child or place the child up for adoption,” we often compromise, saying that maybe abortion is all right in cases of rape or incest—but it isn’t. The child is innocent; he or she does not deserve to be killed. We are easily ashamed of the cross in other cases, too, such as in the abortion of possibly “defective” babies or euthanasia/assisted-suicide for the suffering. We shy away from standing firm when it comes to embracing of any kind of suffering, inconvenience, or cross. It’s harder to get married and stay married than it is to divorce; it’s harder to resist sin than give way to temptation; it’s harder to delay satisfaction than to indulge right away. In these ways the cross is no abstraction; it is quite real. When it gets real, though, many of us are ashamed of the gospel and what it proclaims.
• Many are ashamed of the proclamation that Christ as the exclusive and only savior. In our “pluralistic” world, which “diversity” is an absolutized virtue, the thought that Jesus is the sole savior of mankind is an embarrassment to many Catholics. Scripture says of Jesus, He is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’ Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved (Acts 4:11-12). Jesus himself says, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (Jn 14:6). When the world says that there are many ways to God, that people have a right to worship the “god of their own understanding,” and that all ways are valid and good and true, too many Catholics are ashamed of our teaching that Jesus is the unique and only savior of mankind. If there are Muslims, Buddhists, or Zoroastrians in Heaven it is only because of the mercy and grace of Jesus. Talk like this engenders shame in many Catholics, who cringe and want to parrot the world’s view that Christianity has no preeminence or saving value above any other view.
• Many are ashamed of what Jesus teaches on judgment and Hell. There are many passages in which Jesus and the apostles warn of Hell, judgment, and eternal exclusion from the Kingdom of God. Many shamefully dismiss Jesus’ parables and teachings about Hell and judgement as excess or hyperbole; strangely, they assert that when Jesus said that many would be lost and few would be saved that he meant precisely the opposite. They think that God will never say, “Depart from me you evildoers. Depart from me; I never knew you” Many are embarrassed by such teachings and simply dismiss them as implausible. They have shamefully reinvented God as a “sweetie pie” rather than the all holy God to whom we must be conformed if we ever hope to be able to endure His presence. Too many are embarrassed by the gospel and these teachings, most of which comes right from the mouth of Jesus.
• Many are ashamed of simple biblical terms such as sin (especially mortal sin), evil, repentance, conversion, judgment, Hell, and phrases such as “woe to you,” “vengeance is mine,” and “fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of God.” Many dismiss such common biblical phrases as “unwelcoming,” “unkind,” and “un-Christlike.” Never mind that many of these biblical phrases were commonly on the very lips of Jesus. Too many are ashamed of the real Christ and prefer a refashioned, softened one.

St. Paul says that he is not ashamed of the gospel. What about us? Are we confident and uncompromising in proclaiming the gospel or are we ashamed and fearful? Do we compromise the gospel in order to avoid the scorn of an unbelieving, sin-sick world? Do we stand up without shame and proclaim the truth with love and confidence?

Are we ashamed of the gospel or are we joyful and confident?

This song says, “You should be a witness! Stand up and be a witness for the Lord!”

[ebb tide]

As it turns out, Mary is not God.

Is Mary the mother of Jesus Christ?

Is Jesus Christ God?

If you answer, "Yes", to both of the above questions;

Is Mary the Mother of God?

[af_vet_1981]

HM ismamprayer TO Mary.

It is a request that Mary pray to God for someone.

However, if one believes that Mary is a goddess or deity it would be sin. One should avoid proximity to temptation to avoid sin, especially if one has a history of such sin. One should not assume another has the same sin as oneself.

[mitch5501]

"Jesus is not crushing Satan through Mary. He's crushing Satan on His own...no help needed from ANYONE"

Amen

Romans 16:20 "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet."

[Salvation]

How did Jesus get there to crush Satan’s head without Mary, his Mother?

Surely, Christ was born and raised.......???

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“If you answer, “Yes”, to both of the above questions;

... then Mary is still not God.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The problem with your post is your assumption that anything not mentioned in Scripture is not permissible. We’ve been over this before. This premise is wrong, because the NT records only vignettes of the *beginning* of the Church as led by the Holy Spirit, and not the *whole* of it.

You also assume that the teaching of the Apostles consists solely of 27 books of text, firmly excluding their oral teaching and their practice, their example. This stance I, paradoxically, unBiblical, since the NT authors repeatedly tell us to cling to the Tradition, that which is handed down by the Apostles both in writing and by preaching and practice, which is the example are to follow.

This is why so much Apostolic teaching is unknown go you.

It is significant, too, that you assume that most of the early Church was wrong about most things. It’s as if Christ’s promises were null.

We may not get past that. Sad.

Pray for me please-— family situation.

Peace.

[ealgeone]

The Hail Mary prayer is a prayer TO Mary.

Again, all prayer is directed to God....not created beings.

The examples we have in the NT of believers praying for one another or asking for prayer are between believers still on earth. These are not directed to saints who've departed this earth.

[ealgeone]

The problem with your post is your assumption that anything not mentioned in Scripture is not permissible. We’ve been over this before. This premise is wrong, because the NT records only vignettes of the *beginning* of the Church as led by the Holy Spirit, and not the *whole* of it.

Yes, we've been over this before. If we allow Roman Catholicism's "Tradition" based on the multi conflicting ECFs, then we have to allow the Mormon their writings, the Muslim their writings, etc.

We only have one set of books declared to be Scripture.

You also assume that the teaching of the Apostles consists solely of 27 books of text, firmly excluding their oral teaching and their practice, their example. This stance I, paradoxically, unBiblical, since the NT authors repeatedly tell us to cling to the Tradition, that which is handed down by the Apostles both in writing and by preaching and practice, which is the example are to follow.

You presume the "Tradition" Roman Catholics rely upon contains the oral teaching of the Apostles. You cannot confirm that.

For that matter, none of us have that. It would be impossible to collect that....though it would be nice to have all of Paul's sermons on tape/disc!

If Rome places so much value on the ECFs...why didn't they incorporate them into the NT Canon at Trent? I've asked that numerous times and no Roman Catholic has given a satisfactory answer.

We can learn from the NT what the "traditions" the Apostles were talking about. BTW...it's only in three places traditions are addressed in the affirmative. In 10 places they are addressed in the negative usually by Christ in referring to the rules set up by the Pharisees. Might want to take note of that one.

It is significant, too, that you assume that most of the early Church was wrong about most things. It’s as if Christ’s promises were null.

I have no problems with the early Church, especially what we see in Scripture. What I do have a problem with is Rome's rendition of what happened after the 1st century. So much of Roman Catholicism cannot be found in the very early church. We see it developing in the 3rd century at the earliest.

Prayers to God for your unspoken request!

[ealgeone]

Amazing isn’t it? The book Rome claims to have given us is ignored on so many basic questions.

[af_vet_1981]

The Hail Mary prayer is a prayer TO Mary.

The Hail Mary is a request to Mary that she pray to God for sinners.

Perhaps this is a different point of view between those who have faith that Mary and other saints are in the presence of God and others who do not have that faith.

Again, all prayer is directed to God....not created beings.

And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

...

Wherefore, Job, I pray thee, hear my speeches, and hearken to all my words. Behold, now I have opened my mouth, my tongue hath spoken in my mouth. My words shall be of the uprightness of my heart: and my lips shall utter knowledge clearly. The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. If thou canst answer me, set thy words in order before me, stand up. Behold, I am according to thy wish in God's stead: I also am formed out of the clay. Behold, my terror shall not make thee afraid, neither shall my hand be heavy upon thee. Surely thou hast spoken in mine hearing, and I have heard the voice of thy words, saying, I am clean without transgression, I am innocent; neither is there iniquity in me. Behold, he findeth occasions against me, he counteth me for his enemy, He putteth my feet in the stocks, he marketh all my paths. Behold, in this thou art not just: I will answer thee, that God is greater than man.

Genesis, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verses one to two,
Job, Catholic chapter thirty three, Protestant verses one to twelve,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

The examples we have in the NT of believers praying for one another or asking for prayer are between believers still on earth. These are not directed to saints who've departed this earth.

There is no positive example of many things in the scriptures. It requires judgement as to whether it is wrong or not.

For example, there is no positive example of artificial birth control methods. Do you agree that is sin ?

There are no positive examples of anyone commemorating birthdays each year. Is that some kind of idolatry, unduly worshipping someone other than God each year ?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“since the NT authors repeatedly tell us to cling to the Tradition,

Post those traditions that are the official list referred to in the NT.

... or just tell the truth that no one knows.

You are arguing that phrase is a blank check to mean whatever Rome claims.

It is not. It is undefined.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“most of the early Church was wrong about most things. ”

It doesn’t exist before 100ad. There is no proof an Apostle taught any of the things we discuss.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Pray for me please-— family situation.

Prayers up.

[Zuriel]

There is a reason that the (man made) phrase “God the Son” is not found in the scriptures (that Rome claims to have compiled).

The Son is OF God. Peter said that God hath MADE this same Jesus both Lord and Christ. David said under inspiration that THE LORD said unto MY Lord, .....(Elizabeth called Mary the mother of her Lord, not the mother of her God. After his resurrection, Jesus Christ told Mary Magdalene that he would ascend to his Father and to her Father, and to his God, and to her God).

Paul said that God was IN Christ reconciling the world unto himself. Your church insists that the flesh of Christ is God, separate and distinct.

The Son of God declared that the Father was in him doing the works, and giving him the WORDS to speak. Yet the Son of God declared the he was IN the Father.

Paul said that in HIM we live and move and have our being.

Where is the Father NOT at, if thou canst tell?

Does the blood of the mother go directly into the unborn child, and vice versa?

Are you ebb tide of Free Republic, or Free Republic the ebb tide?

I am not ashamed of the points I’ve given you to ponder (or even respond to).

[ealgeone]

You do realize in your examples that the communication is between people on earth??

Also, as a Romam Catholic I find it interesting you used the KJV and not the Douay Rheims. Why?

[af_vet_1981]

You do realize in your examples that the communication is between people on earth??

Yes, which is why I wrote that perhaps the impediment is some have faith that Mary and the saints are in the presence of the LORD while others do not believe that.

Also, as a Romam Catholic I find it interesting you used the KJV and not the Douay Rheims. Why?

For a Protestant, is the KJV considered the Word of God ?

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

First Corinthians, Catholic chapter nine, Protestant verses nineteen to twenty three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[ealgeone]

I personally use the NASB and The Greek.

Again, the examples we have in the NT are people praying to God.

It never ceases to amaze that Romam Catholics don't have the confidence to take their prayers directly to God as we're shown by Christ and the NT writers.

[Mrs. Don-o]

1) WHAT doesn’t exist before 100 AD?

2) Why doesn’t abundant historic evidence constitute proof?

[ealgeone]

The sermons of the Apostles.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The main elements of Apostolic Tradition are these:

1. Of first importance: the writing, transmission, and Canon of the Scriptures themselves

2. Apostolic Succession and hierarchical structure (Bishops, Priests, Deacons)

3. Liturgical prayer, esp. the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Eucharistic realism

4. Spiritual life nourished by the Sacraments

5. Constant sharing of spiritual goods in the Communion of Saints/Mystical Body of Christ

6. Honoring of the Saints and of Mary, benefiting from their intercession

7. Our own constant intercession benefiting the living and the dead

8. Incarnational/Sacramental view of reality

9. Confidence in the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church (as guaranteed by the promise of Christ) and thus the authority and holiness of her official doctrines (Magisterium)

That constitutes a preliminary outline of what comprises capital-T Tradition. We need to analyze the ante-Nicene Fathers as sources, as well as ancient churches which have preserved lines of custody, transmission, and succession.

Keep in mind that the early creeds and synods, and the Nicene Council, historically *preceded* the canon of Scripture: the canon was formed based on what the Church already believed in her creeds: these creeds provided the criteria to test the authenticity of various purported Scriptures (and not vice-versa),

Therefore to accept Scripture is to accept Tradition.

Hit the delete button on Tradition, and Scripture disappears from your screen.

I think a decent place to "see" the content is in Denzinger's compendium of dogma. (Google: sources of catholic dogma denzinger). It's a fairly thick book.

The creeds are another way to "see" the content. I like how the catechism puts the creeds side by side and we can "see" how they developed.

There. That's a start.