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!”

[Mrs. Don-o]

I’m sorry. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Are you saying the sermons of the APostles did not exist before 100 AD?

[ealgeone]

I’m sorry. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Are you saying the sermons of the APostles did not exist before 100 AD?

We don't have copies of the sermons or conversations he had outside of the New Testament.

When Paul was writing to the church at Rome....why didn't he carve out an exception for Mary regarding all have sinned?

Have you ever wondered why he didn't? Because he knew she was a sinner.

Why didn't Luke come right out and say that Mary was sinless? Because he knew she was a sinner.

That's why such much of what Rome teaches about Mary is rejected by Christianity. It's not found in the NT.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

The main elements of Apostolic Tradition are these:

Dear Mrs. Don-o, with respect, none of that addresses the issue I pointed out to you earlier:

There is no way to know what *traditions* were referenced when Paul wrote...

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Here is exactly what we know...

Paul TAUGHT these *traditions* orally or in his writings.

We only have a record of his writings - as well as the writings of other Apostles - as the Holy Spirit inspired them to be written, flawlessly.

There is no separate *inspired list of traditions* that are not recorded in Scripture.

What happens in FRomanic Practice is that Paul's simple statement is transmogrified into a Blank Check, wherein is written, "Whatever Rome Declares is Apostolic Tradition Because Paul Said to Follow Traditions"

And of course, Paul specified the *traditions* he referred to are what he taught. We have his epistles that contain what the Holy Spirit *chose* to inspire.

The rest is almost always accretions of history and syncretic paganism.

For example...

The Roman Empire conquered the Greeks and incorporated many of its pagan traditions with its own.

"Jupiter was the king of the gods. Like all the Roman gods, he was based on his Greek counterpart, Zeus. Each profession had its patron god or goddess. Betty Crocker would have prayed to Vesta, the goddess of the hearth. You worshiped the gods not out of moral obligation, but to gain a favor."

- Europe 101: History and Art for the Traveler, Rick Steves and Gene Openshaw

Later, Rome made Christianity official. All this was blended into Syncretic Christianity. Once Christianity was incorporated into Rome, these gods were replaced with specific saints for every profession or favor wanted.

Today, you can see many of them written about on FreeRepublic threads, idolized in practice and worn as idols around FRomans and Romans everywhere.

Not a scintilla of these practices and teachings are traditions Paul wrote about and there is no evidence that he ever taught or believed any of it.

These checks are written on an account at the Bank of Historic Pagan Belief.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

1) WHAT doesn’t exist before 100 AD?

Any proof or evidence that any Apostle taught half of what Rome teaches and you assert.

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

Evidence of what? To be evidence that it was taught requires an unbroken line of proof that it existed at each stage, which you have demonstrated over the years you can not prove.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

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.

All false arguments and logical fallacies that have been addressed and rejected on FR on numerous occastions, but you continue to trot them out as real arguments instead of the assertions they are.

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK. Some basic history. Councils, catechisms, creeds, and authoritative acts by hierarchs (bishops of Rome and other bishops) predated the fixing of the Biblical canon by 200 - 300 years and provided the criteria for the formation of that canon. All dates are AD:

---

90 Shepherd of Hermas (earliest non-Scripture Christian literature)

96 Didache (earliest extant Church catechism)

96 Letter from Clement, Bishop of Rome, to the Corinthians

99 All New Testament writings finished (but no canon)

108 Seven letters of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch

110 Letter of Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna, to the Philippians

150 Writings of Justin Martyr

155 "Martyrdom of Polycarp" written

176 Athenagoras writes "Embassy for the Christians"

177 St. Irenaeus of Lyons, "Against All Heresies": lists the succession of Popes beginning with Peter.

180 Apostle's Creed written by the Christians in Rome.

208 Tertullian writes in "On Monogamy", that a good widow prays for her dead husband's soul

220 Pope St. Callistus I excommunicates Sabellius, who taught that the Son of God did not exist before the Incarnation

251 First Council of Carthage under St. Cyprian, whose famous treatise, On the Unity of the Church, argues that the Church was founded on Peter, and that the local bishop was the head of the local Church.

208 St. Stephen I is elected Pope: he invoked Matt. 16:18 as evidence for the authority of the Chair of Peter.

265 Three councils held at this time in Antioch condemn the heretical teaching that Jesus became the Son of God through adoption because of his merits, and that God is only One Person.

300 Armenia becomes first officially Christian nation.

305 The Council of Elvira (Spain)

313 Lateran church tribunal, presided over by Pope

320 St. Pachomius founds the first two monasteries-- one for men, one for women

325 The Council of Nicaea defines Trinitarian belief in God. The Father and God the Son are declared equally God against the teachings of Arius. This council produced the Nicene Creed.

330 Building of first St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

350 St. Ephraem, musician and theologian, known as the Harp of the Holy Spirit. Author of the Nisibene Hymns, some of which are Marian.

381 Pope Damasus I approved the canons of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, which affirmed the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This Council produced the Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed, which almost all branches of Christendom accept to this day.

383 Pope St. Damasus I commissions St. Jerome's translation of the Greek texts into Latin for the first authoritative translation of the Bible into a vernacular language. (Latin was still vernacular at that time). Several books were disputed --- even by Jerome --- but he finally decided the best course was simply to agree with the already-established practice of what had long been approved to be read in the Churches. i.e. to affirm the books already used in the Liturgy.

393 Council of Hippo Regius, the first council that accepted the present New Testament canon.

405 St. Jerome completes his translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew.

419Synod of Carthage affirms the canon of Hippo, with the words, "Let this be sent to our brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface [of Rome], and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to be read in church."

[ealgeone]

99 All New Testament writings finished (but no canon)

Paul's letters were already considered Scripture by this time.

The OT was already established.

The Councils didn't pick and choose the books of the NT. They recognized what the Church was using.

383 Pope St. Damasus I commissions St. Jerome's translation of the Greek texts into Latin for the first authoritative translation of the Bible into a vernacular language. (Latin was still vernacular at that time). Several books were disputed --- even by Jerome --- but he finally decided the best course was simply to agree with the already-established practice of what had long been approved to be read in the Churches. i.e. to affirm the books already used in the Liturgy.

The books in question of the OT were not those you claim to have been long approved. They did not include the apocrypha.

393 Council of Hippo Regius, the first council that accepted the present New Testament canon.

Emphasis on accepted...not picked. They recognized what the Church was already using.

You've let out a lot of detail on how the NT canon came into being.

I still find it interesting that at Trent, when the Roman Catholic Church finally officially approved its canon, that it didn't include ANY of the other writings Roman Catholics hold so dear.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Paul's letters were already considered Scripture by this time."

Yes, they were. But there was still no official NT canon. They were from a very early date confident, about the Gospels and Paul. There was iffiness about Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and even the Revelation of John.

Some Christians included other books as well, such as the so-called New Testament Apocrypha: the 'gospels' of the Ebionites, the Hebrews, the Nazarenes, the Infancy Gospels of James, Thomas, and Pseudo-Matthew.

It's only since the fifth century that a widespread consensus emerged limiting the New Testament to the 27 books of the modern canon.

These were the lingering disputes that came up at councils for a definitive judgment., If they had not been controversial there would be no reason for a Council or Synod to take up the question.

"The OT was already established."

Well, yeah... if you want to say the Septuagint canon was established, go right on ahead. That gives you a 46-book OT. Amen? I'll give you an Amen.

You should be aware, though, that the Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon, and that's the text principally relied upon by the 16th and 17th century Reformation. That was adopted by the Jews between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. Yes, AD. The oldest extant manuscripts date from around the 9th century. AD. By then, the Rabbinical Jews had long dropped the Septuagint canon. The LXX were the scrolls Jesus and the Apostles were familiar with, as the Septuagint provides 85% of the OT quotes used in the NT. And of course it includes the Deuterocanonicals.

Amen.

"The Councils didn't pick and choose the books of the NT. They recognized what the Church was using."

YES!! YES!! That's the point!!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Sorry, but you are recycling that which isn’t evidence, as I demonstrated the last time you made this claim.

You have not proven:

1. That there is any list of traditions beyond Paul’s teachings in God’s inspired Word.

2. That any Apostle ever taught the things Rome incorporated from paganism.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“predated the fixing of the Biblical canon by 200 - 300 years”

Another red herring argument that should be noted.

• 2/3 of the canon of a Scripture was set before the birth of Christ.

• the Epistles from the Apostles were circulated among NT Assemblies while the Apostles were alive.

• Peter identified Paul’s writings as Scripture.

• the Roman canon was re-examined on several occasions and errors corrected.

• And most importantly, the same Holy Spirit that inspired Scripture, preserved Scripture. He is still alive and faithful today.

[ealgeone]

>>"The Councils didn't pick and choose the books of the NT. They recognized what the Church was using."<<

YES!! YES!! That's the point!!

You do realize what you're saying don't you?

[af_vet_1981]

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

That, it seems to me, is the stumbling block for the Hail Mary; one who does not believe that Mary, mother of "God with us" and the saints are in heaven with the LORD would find no reason to ask them to pray to the LORD on their behalf.

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.

How frequently do Protestants have the confidence and fidelity to pray the Our Father given by the Messiah ?

[RegulatorCountry]

How frequently do Protestants have the confidence and fidelity to pray the Our Father given by the Messiah ?

Would that be the same "Our Father" (we know it as "The Lord's Prayer") from the King James Bible that even Catholics use because it's a much more beautiful translation?

In light of this, can you perhaps answer your own question now?

[af_vet_1981]

How frequently do you say the Our Father ?

[RegulatorCountry]

I’d say once a week generally speaking although I’m unaware of any specific requirement.

I’m curious though, is this a sort of contest? Is frequency and repetition of the very same words regarded as more desirable among Roman Catholics for some reason?

Or, is it perhaps sincere, humble and thankful prayer that is effective, rather than rote, repetitive ritualization?

Seems I recall something Biblically unfavorable regarding vain repetition. Do you recall this?

[af_vet_1981]

I’d say once a week generally speaking although I’m unaware of any specific requirement.

I’m curious though, is this a sort of contest? Is frequency and repetition of the very same words regarded as more desirable among Roman Catholics for some reason?

Or, is it perhaps sincere, humble and thankful prayer that is effective, rather than rote, repetitive ritualization?

Seems I recall something Biblically unfavorable regarding vain repetition. Do you recall this?

I wanted to see if there was a relationship between the aversion to the Hail Mary with the reluctance to say the Our Father.

It is as I thought it would be.

[ealgeone]

The Lord's Prayer is a model for prayer. It is also a good prayer in itself. However, it is not the only way to pray to God.

I don't think anyone disputes there are saints in Heaven. However with Romam Catholicism's belief in purgatory you don't really know who is there or who is in purgatory.

[af_vet_1981]

The Lord's Prayer is a model for prayer. It is also a good prayer in itself. However, it is not the only way to pray to God.

I don't find the word "model" in the scriptures. Matthew uses οὕτως(thus, so, in this manner). Luke uses λέγω (say, speak). Did the Messiah give the apostles another prayer when they asked Him to teach them to pray ?

I don't think anyone disputes there are saints in Heaven.

Do you agree that Mary, the mother of "God with us" in heaven ?

[RegulatorCountry]

It is as I thought it would be.

My goodness. I thought Yoda was a Jedi Master.

[mitch5501]

Isaiah 42:8 “I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.