Posted on 07/22/2013 2:45:09 PM PDT by NYer
Two days ago, we had a couple of converts to the Catholic Faith come by the office here at Catholic Answers to get a tour of our facility and to meet the apologists who had been instrumental in their conversions. One of the two gave me a letter she received from her Pentecostal pastor. He had written to her upon his discovery that she was on her way into full communion with the Catholic Church. She asked for advice concerning either how to respond or whether she should respond at all to the letter.
As I read through the multiple points her former pastor made, one brought back particular memories for me, because it was one of my favorites to use in evangelizing Catholics back in my Protestant days. The Catholic Church, he warned, teaches “doctrines of demons” according to the plain words of I Timothy 4:1-3:
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
What is consecrated celibacy if not “forbid[ding] marriage?” And what is mandatory abstinence from meat during the Fridays of Lent if not “enjoin[ing] abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving?” So says this Pentecostal pastor. How do we respond?
Innocent on Both Charges
Despite appearances, there are at least two central reasons these claims fail when held up to deeper scrutiny:
1. St. Paul was obviously not condemning consecrated celibacy in I Timothy 4, because in the very next chapter of this same letter, he instructed Timothy pastorally concerning the proper implementation of consecrated celibacy with regard to “enrolled” widows:
Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband . . . well attested for her good deeds. . . . But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge (I Tim. 5:9-11).
There is nothing ordinarily wrong with a widow remarrying. St. Paul himself made clear in Romans 7:2-3:
[A] married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she remarries another man she is not an adulterous.
Yet, the “widow” of I Timothy 5 is condemned if she remarries? In the words of Ricky Ricardo, St. Paul has some “splainin’ to do.”
The answer lies in the fact that the widow in question had been “enrolled,” which was a first-century equivalent to being “consecrated.” Thus, according to St. Paul, these “enrolled” widows were not only celibate but consecrated as such.
2. St. Paul was obviously not condemning the Church making abstinence from certain foods mandatory, because the Council of Jerusalem, of which St. Paul was a key participant in A.D. 49, did just that in declaring concerning Gentile converts:
For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity (Acts 15:28).
This sounds just like "enjoin[ing] abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving." So there is obviously something more to I Timothy 4 than what one gets at first glance.
What Was St. Paul Actually Calling “Doctrines of Demons?”
In A Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, the 1953 classic for Scripture study, Fr. R.J. Foster gives us crucial insight into what St. Paul was writing about in I Timothy 4:
[B]ehind these prohibitions there may lie the dualistic principles which were already apparent in Asia Minor when this epistle was written and which were part of the Gnostic heresy.
Evidently, St. Paul was writing against what might be termed the founding fathers of the Gnostic movement that split away from the Church in the first century and would last over 1,000 years, forming many different sects and taking many different forms.
Generally speaking, Gnostics taught that spirit was good and matter was pure evil. We know some of them even taught there were two gods, or two “eternal principles,” that are the sources of all that is. There was a good principle, or god, who created all spirit, while an evil principle created the material world.
Moreover, we humans had a pre-human existence, according to the Gnostics, and were in perfect bliss as pure spirits dwelling in light and in the fullness of the “gnosis” or “knowledge.” Perfect bliss, that is, until our parents did something evil: They got married. Through the conjugal act perfectly pure spirits are snatched out of that perfect bliss and trapped in evil bodies, causing the darkening of the intellect and the loss of the fullness of the "gnosis." Thus, salvation would only come through the gaining, or regaining, of the “gnosis” that the Gnostics alone possessed.
Eating meat was also forbidden because its consumption would bring more evil matter into the body, having the effect of both keeping a person bound to his evil body and further darkening the intellect.
Thus, these early Gnostics forbade “marriage and enjoin[ed] abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving.”
If there are any remaining doubts as to whom St. Paul was referring as teaching "doctrines of demons," he tips his hand in his final exhortation in I Timothy 6:20-21:
O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards faith. Grace be with you.
The Greek word translated above as “knowledge” is gnoseos. Sound familiar? The bottom line is this: St. Paul was not condemning the Catholic Church in I Timothy 4; he was warning against early Gnostics who were leading Christians astray via their “gnosis,” which was no true gnosis at all.
Gee! how fun to be you and play with the buttons!
NO,No, you said that Jesus said of the bread that “this is my body” and of the wine “this is my blood” so you evidently believe that He is literally bread with wine flowing through it because you just told us that that statement made by Jesus was literal and not allegory. You can't have it both ways.
John 6:48 - "I am the bread of life.
John 6:49 - Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
John 6:50 - This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
John 6:51 - I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
John 6:52 - The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
John 6:53 - So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
John 6:54 - he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:55 - For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
John 6:56 - He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
John 6:57 - As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
John 6:58 - This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
[That's when many scornfully turned away from Jesus, and left Him.]
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
John 6:66
So you also believe that Jesus was literally bread and wine?
Uhh..Mary said yes to God...she didn’t have to...so yes she did play a part...are you implying that if Mary had said no, that God would have just ...kept on trying till someone said yes?...
Yes, the events of the last supper are completely literal. I was not referring to anything in your comment other than the truncation of my previous comment regarding the bible.
Is it doctrine or just pious belief that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. I believe Eastern Catholics consider her as falling asleep in The Lord, but it is only a pious belief that she was bodily assumed thereafter.
Please feel free to correct me on Eastern Catholic faith if you should know better. Whereas I have disagreements with the RCC, they must always be addressed honestly without distortion of the teachings. I truly believe that God will grant mercy to those that truly believe, even with error as long as they don’t blaspheme and distort the truth.
Well, if Jesus was literally bread He couldn’t have been literally human because no other human is bread. Catholics seem to have a conundrum on their hands.
My memory RE: you has been jogged.
You called a sex-tape between a man who threatened to blow up a school and an underaged girl a "family video, a memento." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2986971/posts #38
Think Christmas is "pagan nonsense" and only celebrate Hannukuh. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2971533/posts?page=74#74 #74
And that God intended marijauna as humanity's go-to cure all. Also, that anything birds eat is beneficial to humans. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2967484/posts?page=66#66
So, you crackpot, it would appear that you not only have nothing of value to say, but rather you peddle dangerous and deranged garbage. Good night -- I hope your attendant gets your straight-jacket on you extra tight at bedtime, as you seem a little bit agitated.
#80.
Even the reformers...Luther, zwingali and Calvin all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary...and argued it from the bible...ooops
quote please — where is your source and authority for that statement — or are you dissing Jesus who said, “This is my body.” “This is my blood. Do this in remembrance of me.”
I don’t think Jesus is demonically deceptive at all.
No, no, no. Once again you claimed that Jesus comments were LITERAL, not “metaphysical” or “outside of the physical reality we are confined to”. You said you believe Jesus statement of “this is my body” when he had bread in His hand was LITERALY His body and when He said “ this is my blood” when He had wine in the cup it was LITERALLY His blood.
When Jesus said that He is the "Bread of Life", do you think Jesus was lying?!?!?!?
Or do you think that God does not have the POWER to effect transubstantiation, as Jesus solemnly taught the Apostles of His Church at the "Last Supper"?!?!?!?
You must have never read Acts 10 and perhaps missed the discussion we just had on that subject. Do you also believe the Holy Spirit would contradict Himself?
“The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ”—CCC 1333
Yes!
Most assuredly so.
Particularly the mass, which is straight out of the Lake that burns.
3 posted on 7/22/2013 2:51:40 PM by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
So is blood pudding back on the menu?
Calvin was also instrumental in having Michael Servetus burned at the stake. Should we also believe that was a good thing? All three were also well indoctrinated by the Catholic Church so it’s not unreasonable to believe that they did retain some of the errors of the Catholic beliefs. Follow men and you will always end in error.
Don’t you think this embarrassing mud slinging contest has gone far enough?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.