How would you, as a Catholic, present the gospel message?

[Koineman]

It OUGHT TO BE

No, not at all… BUT

God’s makes it simple for us:

EITHER God is permitted to be in charge or we are. And the responsibility can’t be split.

Sorry, I disagree. Yes, God is in charge, but the Church teaches that the Great Commission is also the responsibility of everyone in the church.

Iniatiave is fine; even GREAT if God has led the way and opened the door.

So initiative is okay but in some cases not okay? Sorry, I find your point here confusing.

Feeding the “poor” is NOT the same taking it upon ourselves as “force-feeding the bible”…

LOL Who said anything whatsoever about “force-feeding” the Bible? That’s a caricature of public evangelism to strangers. While my position might be interpreted that way, be careful not to read too much into what I’ve been saying. Taking the initiative in evangelism does not necessarily entail force-feeding the Bible. Far, far from it. That is a common misconception about street evangelism, even among many evangelicals, but unfortunately it’s a conclusion that does not follow from the premises. I’ve done plenty of street evangelism and have done so in ways that don’t come even close to “force-feeding” the Bible.

Now that that misunderstanding is out of the way, I can confidently say that feeding the poor is definitely the same as evangelizing–in the sense that both must be proactive, taking the initiative rather than waiting for God to open the door. Love demands that initiative. How can we say we love our neighbor if we know they are in need but don’t take the initiative to help them? Most unbelievers are not going to come banging on our church doors, begging us to tell them the gospel. Fishermen don’t sit on the shore and wait for the fish to hop out of the water onto the dry ground; similarly, evangelism is a proactive ministry, We need to go to where the “fish” are, not wait for them to come to us.

2nd. Tim. 2: 24-26 “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will“.

I agree with all of this, but the problem is that I’m wondering why you quoted this text. There are some problems quoting this in reference to our current discussion, namely:

1. The text quoted was written to a pastor by an apostle, intended to give advice about how to deal with opponents and how to teach.
2. Even if we extract the basic principle and apply it to evangelism in general by laypeople, it doesn’t apply to our discussion because street evangelism does not necessarily entail being quarrelsome, unkindly, harsh, and so on. Again, this is a misconception–and a straw man. If you had said, “Some street evangelism is rude and harsh and should be avoided according to 2 Tim. 2:24-26,” I would have no objection to it. But you seem to be applying this text to all public evangelism to strangers, and if that is your intention, you are misapplying the text.

As far as the other texts you quoted, you’ll have to clarify why you cited them because I’m not sure what your point was in mentioning them.

 

[adf417]

Possibly? Where does this idea come from that the verbal proclamation of the gospel message can possibly be omitted? The Catholic Church holds no such view.

Koineman

I may be missing your initial point but this is what I was referring to: 1Pet 4:6-8

6For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead that, though condemned in the flesh in human estimation, they might live in the spirit in the estimation of God. 7The end of all things is at hand. Therefore, be serious and sober for prayers. 8Above all, let your love for one another be intense, because love covers a multitude of sins.

Sorry if I missed something.

Peace!!!

 

[Neofight]

I knew someone was going to bring that up. It’s a pretty horrific statement, when you realize that revelation is absolutely necessary for anyone to come to a saving knowledge of God. No knowledge of God is possible apart from God condescending to us and revealing Himself to us in ways we can understand. The gospel is part of that revelation. So the communication of that gospel is not optional. The Catholic Church upholds this, too:

Since the gospel message consists of truths that cannot be understood apart from the medium of human language, i.e., words, St. Francis’ proverb (if he even said it) is the equivalent of saying, “Give out your phone number; use digits if necessary.”

At any rate, I was after message, not methods. Perhaps I was unclear, so let me restate my question: If you were to communicate the gospel message to someone, what would you say, and what truths would you feel must be communicated?

I’m sorry you feel that way.

But, nothing speaks louder than action. So, by living the gospel, we can evangelize with more honesty and clarity and conviction than just reciting it.

St. Francis was right!

 

[Koineman]

I’m sorry you feel that way.

But, nothing speaks louder than action. So, by living the gospel, we can evangelize with more honesty and clarity and conviction than just reciting it.

St. Francis was right!

No, he wasn’t, and what is more, it does not align with either Sacred Scripture or what the Catholic Church teaches (see the quote in my signature). Both teach that the message (consisting of words) is not optional and must be communicated at some point. Quite frankly, I’m kind of taken aback by the sheer number of Catholics on these boards who believe something so clearly contrary to what their own church teaches.

 

[MariaG]

No, he wasn’t, and what is more, it does not align with either Sacred Scripture or what the Catholic Church teaches (see the quote in my signature). Both teach that the message (consisting of words) is not optional and must be communicated at some point. Quite frankly, I’m kind of taken aback by the sheer number of Catholics on these boards who believe something so clearly contrary to what their own church teaches.

I feel that you must not understand what St. Francis meant.

Preach the Goapel always and when necessary use words.

We must constantly LIVE the Gospel. That first and foremost is our greatest witness to Christ’s message. It does not say never use words, but emphasizes the living the Gospel, that way when you speak Christ’s message, you have credibility.

 

[Koineman]

I feel that you must not understand what St. Francis meant.

Preach the Goapel always and when necessary use words.

We must constantly LIVE the Gospel. That first and foremost is our greatest witness to Christ’s message. It does not say never use words, but emphasizes the living the Gospel, that way when you speak Christ’s message, you have credibility.

Actually I do understand it. It says “if necessary use words.” That means that words are only optional, not essential. Otherwise the phrase “if necessary” makes no sense.

 

[Neofight]

I feel that you must not understand what St. Francis meant.

Preach the Goapel always and when necessary use words.

We must constantly LIVE the Gospel. That first and foremost is our greatest witness to Christ’s message. It does not say never use words, but emphasizes the living the Gospel, that way when you speak Christ’s message, you have credibility.

Amen.

Anyone can read the gospel, study the gospel, know the gospel, and recite the gospel.

But, living the gospel is the real deal!

By the grace of the Holy Spirit, I pray our brother get that some day!

 

[MariaG]

Actually I do understand it. It says “if necessary use words.” That means that words are only optional, not essential. Otherwise the phrase “if necessary” makes no sense.

Interesting. Because I read those same words and never got that impression.

I think part if that may be that, just as with scripture, when can’t take one comment or line and interpret it solely based on that one line, but in context with all the truth.

IF St. Francis said it, which is not necessarily or even probably so, we would need to look at the context of his life. And St. Francis clearly preached the gospel with words as well as lived it. So in the context of who it is attributed to and his life, clearly, words are going to be necessary.

 

[onenow1]

I knew someone was going to bring that up. It’s a pretty horrific statement, when you realize that revelation is absolutely necessary for anyone to come to a saving knowledge of God. QUOTE]

Hi,Koineman
In reality that statement; is to preach by the example of your life habits; so the connection to folks you come in contact with, may bear the words of the Holy Spirit to hear and speak all truth.

Also: At the moment I cannot remember; I don’t think St. Francis came up with this saying.>Preach the Gopel always and when necessary use words.

God Bless
onenow1

 

[MariaG]

onenow1;:

Also: At the moment I cannot remember; I don’t think St. Francis came up with this saying.>Preach the Gopel always and when necessary use words.

God Bless
onenow1

It is attributed to him but historically there is no evidence of him saying it.

 

[onenow1]

It is attributed to him but historically there is no evidence of him saying it.

Thank you Maria.
Anyway the best I could find out at the moment on this is.

“Let all the brothers, however, preach by their deeds.”
It is not the exact quote that is often attributed to him, but what he did say is pretty similar.

God Bless
onenow1:twocents:

 

[Koineman]

Koineman;9349293:

I knew someone was going to bring that up. It’s a pretty horrific statement, when you realize that revelation is absolutely necessary for anyone to come to a saving knowledge of God. QUOTE]

Hi,Koineman
In reality that statement; is to preach by the example of your life habits; so the connection to folks you come in contact with, may bear the words of the Holy Spirit to hear and speak all truth.

Thanks, but I know what the saying is meant to communicate. It’s wrong because our lives do not constitute divine revelation, no matter how piously we live before the world. It is precisely that revelation (i.e., the gospel) that faith responds to. Faith is not a response to my personal Christian lifestyle; it can be only a response to divinely revealed truth. IOW, faith has, as its object, not Koineman’s life, but the message of Christ. So, there is no way a person can believe in Christ unless one actually hears and understands the gospel message. My life does not communicate that message. How can a person know about the suffering of Christ, for example, by seeing me be honest at work? How can someone know about the resurrection of Christ or the virgin birth just by observing my helping someone across the street? Sorry, folks, there’s no getting around it: words are not optional.

 

[MariaG]

onenow1;9415112:

Thanks, but I know what the saying is meant to communicate. It’s wrong because our lives do not constitute divine revelation, no matter how piously we live before the world. It is precisely that revelation (i.e., the gospel) that faith responds to. Faith is not a response to my personal Christian lifestyle; it can be only a response to divinely revealed truth. IOW, faith has, as its object, not Koineman’s life, but the message of Christ. So, there is no way a person can believe in Christ unless one actually hears and understands the gospel message. My life does not communicate that message. How can a person know about the suffering of Christ, for example, by seeing me be honest at work? How can someone know about the resurrection of Christ or the virgin birth just by observing my helping someone across the street? Sorry, folks, there’s no getting around it: words are not optional.

Nothing to be sorry about.

First, let us be clear that the “quote” cannot be historically attributed to St. Francis. Also upon further research, I personally can’t confirm which way the quote that is not a quote is. I found it referred both ways as “if necessary” and “when”.

And last, while I can’t speak for everyone here, I have stated that words will be necessary but one can’t disregard the fact that people will always point to bad behavior as “proof” that the message is wrong, not just that the person’s behavior is wrong.

 

[jmcrae]

At any rate, I was after message, not methods. Perhaps I was unclear, so let me restate my question: If you were to communicate the gospel message to someone, what would you say, and what truths would you feel must be communicated?

That Jesus gave us the Eucharist so that we could continue to be in physical communication with him - when we receive the Eucharist, we are literally receiving Him into our physical bodies and into our souls - it is the ultimate “Altar Call.”

That the Sacraments are the ordinary means of grace, not because of some man-made rule, but because Jesus established them for that purpose.

That Jesus is so madly in love with that person that not only did He die on the Cross for them, but He established a community of people to help them, called the Church. That membership in the Church is integral to our relationship with Jesus - imagine being married, but not living in the same house or sleeping in the same bed. That’s what it would be like to have a relationship with Jesus but not belong to His Church.

What St. Francis said was, there is no point in walking out to preach, if our walking is not in accord with our preaching (ie: that the monks should not dispute among themselves while walking up to preach, since it would contradict their message of peace and love). He certainly thought that preaching was important.