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]

It’s a shame y’all accuse the Mother of God of being a sinner without any evidence of Her sins.

Lucifer hates Her also. Ever think of that?

[RegulatorCountry]

There are various creeds of various denominations, and to the extent that such creeds are supported scripturally I take no issue with them and regard them more as statements of faith. To the extent that such creeds are in contradiction to scripture I take issue with them.

So, for instance, the Augsburg Confession is a creed, that of the Lutherans. Despite my not being Lutheran, I take no issue with it since it is supported by scripture, scrupulously.

Regrettably, I cannot say this of your Apostle’s Creed, not in it’s entirety. Therefore, I take issue with it and do not accept it fully.

[ealgeone]

>>We don't have a list of every sin she committed nor is one needed.<<

Who's "we"?

We being people living today who read the Bible.

If you don't have list, or even a single sin as evidence, why do you choose to calumniate the Mother of God as a sinner?

Are you really this obtuse??

This is basic theology....ALL have sinned.

1Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

2“Speak to the sons of Israel, saying: ‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean.

3‘On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

4‘Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed.

5‘But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.

6‘When the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting a one year old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering.

7‘Then he shall offer it before the LORD and make atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, whether a male or a female.

8‘But if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’” Lev 12:1-8 NASB

22And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “EVERY firstborn MALE THAT OPENS THE WOMB SHALL BE CALLED HOLY TO THE LORD”), 24and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A PAIR OF TURTLEDOVES OR TWO YOUNG PIGEONS.” Luke 2:22-24 NASB

[ealgeone]

You may want to start reading the Bible.

[RegulatorCountry]

Evidence of her sins? Scripture tells us she needed a savior, that’s my evidence. Who needs a savior? Can you please answer that? Because, on my planet that means she was a sinner, which comports with the entire rest of the Bible that says all mankind is sinful and falls short of the glory of God. Does the Douay-Rheims not say this? It should, that notion being so very central to Christianity as it is.

[ebb tide]

Because He's sinless to begin with....or didn't you know that??

Of course I knew that. I also know His Mother was born without sin.

[ealgeone]

Of course I knew that.

From your posts I have no idea what you know.

I also know His Mother was born with out sin.

Which again...you cannot point to Scripture to show this.

I'll post again from the Roman Catholic website newadvent:

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

On the other hand, evidence from the Bible has been presented showing Mary, along with every other created being, has sinned and stands in need of a Savior.

Balls in your court.

[af_vet_1981]

You may note all of these people were on earth at the time.

The kingdom of heaven was within them, and they all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication. I notice Mary there with them, one holy catholic apostolic church.

They were praying to God.

All prayer is directed to God.

Hail Mary is a request for Mary, Mother of "God with us" to pray to God for someone's benefit. It seems to me that the assertion is that sinners should not ask another to pray to God for them, lest someone misconstrue and be offended.

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.



Luke, Catholic chapter seventeen, Protestant verses twenty to twenty one,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[ebb tide]

Nobody is saying the Blessed Mother didn’t need a savior.

That doesn’t mean She was sinful. Do you deny She bore the Son of God? If the Holy Ghost is not sinful, why can’t the virgin mother of God not be sinful?

Show me where, in the Bible, Mary was baptized in order to remit original sin.

[ealgeone]

HM ismamprayer TO Mary.

Yes, Mary was there. Luke records nothing else about her after this passage. His brothers from Mary were there also. Don't know about the sisters.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

It’s a shame y’all accuse the Mother of God of being a sinner without any evidence of Her sins.

Being born with the fallen life of Adam makes every human a sinner.

Committing sins of omission and commission flows from this nature.

We sin because we are sinners.

Mary was born a sinner because she was enlivened with the life of Adam - as is every human.

For this reason, all humans need a Savior.

Best

[aMorePerfectUnion]

If the Holy Ghost is not sinful, why can’t the virgin mother of God not be sinful?

As it turns out, Mary is not God.

[ebb tide]

No kidding?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Totally serious.

[RegulatorCountry]

You’re entitled to your beliefs and have attempted to defend them admirably but please don’t devolve to playing word games. Savior implies salvation, and salvation would be from what? Sin. I profess what is written and know what is, and what is not written. Contending that Mary was of necessity sinless in order to have borne the Son of God is in direct contradiction to scripture. She was a virgin who conceived via the Holy Spirit. She needed a savior. Beyond that lies conjecture, all of which contradict other passages of scripture and therefore it is unacceptable. Sorry.

[ebb tide]

See post #89.

[ebb tide]

You may not know it, but Catholics aren’t into sola scriptura.

That was Luther’s idea, only after he removed books he didn’t like.

[RegulatorCountry]

You may not know it, but Catholics aren’t into sola scriptura.

No kidding? Just what are you "into" then, the latest eruption from the mouth of Pope Francis?

That was Luther’s idea, only after he removed books he didn’t like.

Might I suggest you get out more and read sources other than the Catholic Encyclopedia? Just hang around here on the FR Religion Forum, you'll be exposed to the truth eventually.

[ebb tide]

Just hang around here on the FR Religion Forum, you'll be exposed to the truth eventually.

OK. Maybe I'll take you up on that.

[RegulatorCountry]

Good. You’ll eventually learn to be like the Bereans. It’ll serve you well.