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.
Wow! Thanks. That is much more than I expected and I thought you were just too busy taking care of a few problems.
Have to confess and admit I’m going to be a bit lazy and not get to the articles right away. Would you know the Eastern Catholic view as I’m pretty sure I saw an Icon showing the Dormition of the Theotokos and I believe it was Eastern Catholic and not Orthodox.
Once again thanks in advance.
What??????????????? Are you even capable of following the conversation? We were discussing the eating of blood pudding etc. NOT the blood of Christ. Sheeesh!
Catholics believe in the assumption, vs. the Orthodox belief in the dormation, or falling asleep. In a nutshell, the assumption is Catholic dogma, while the dormation is more an Orthodox tradition rather than dogma. The Catholic Church doesn't go into details regarding the specifics of the assumption other than Mary's body and soul were assumed into heaven, while according to the Orthodox dormation Marry died, was dead for three days like Jesus was, resurrected, and then assumed into heaven.
Show from scripture that the Apostles or Jesus taught that. Book, chapter and verse please.
No. I think your delusions are funny.
Which human flesh has ever consisted of literal bread?
There is a critical difference between your understanding of Timothy 4:3 and mine. To me it appears, God is saying that ANYTHING, when taken with prayer and thanksgiving, can be eaten.
May Our Lord forgive you.
See posts 136 and 141.
Dogma made from speculation. Teachings of man.
The Dormition of the Virgin Mary
The "Dormition of the Virgin Mary" is her "falling asleep" at the end of her time on earth. It is not simply called the "Death of the Virgin" because of a tradition that soon after her soul left her body the two were reunited and taken up to Heaven in what is called the "Assumption."
A variety of accounts of the Dormition were written in Greek and other eastern languages during the fourth and fifth centuries, some of them with possible roots in the second. By the sixth century we find Latin texts dealing with this subject, and by the time of the 13th-century Golden Legend a large number of versions of the story were in circulation, often inconsistent with each other in matters of detail.
This variety explains the diversity of artistic treatments of the subject.
Extant Byzantine icons of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary go back to the ninth century. In one tenth-century example, we see the basic pattern for both East and West: Mary's body reclines on a bier attended by the apostles, while her soul is taken by Christ and angels; the soul is signified by a child-like figure that is either clothed or swaddled.
Western images, especially those influenced by Byzantine art, often emphasize the liturgical aspect of Mary's passing, with vestments, candles, hymn books, ointment jars, and/or censers (Bohemian and Byzantine examples). This emphasis is precedented in eastern homilies, which portrayed the Apostles' actions in terms of contemporary funeral customs.
In the image above left Christ is in a mandorla carrying his mother's soul on her shroud. This is a frequent pattern in images of the Dormition, but in some Christ hands the soul up to an angel, which is how the event is portrayed in Gregory of Tours' Glory of the Martyrs and John of Thessalonika's homily on the Dormition. (Both sources identify the angel as Michael.) A 13th-century example does not show Christ at all; the apostles are simply gathered around the recumbent Virgin.
There is also significant variation regarding the number and the disposition of figures around the deathbed. In Vivarini's painting above left, we see just eleven apostles. The missing twelfth apostle would be St. Thomas, who according to The Passing of Mary and one version recounted by the Golden Legend did not arrive until later. Images with all twelve apostles may be following The Account of St. John on the Falling Asleep of the Mother of God (cached) or simply agreeing with St. Jerome's dismissal of the story of the absent Thomas. Finally, many images show a larger number of people in attendance, following the tradition expressed in St. Andrew of Crete's second homily on the Dormition (example).
Also note that Vivarini puts St. Peter (bald pate) and St. John (no beard) across from each other at approximately the middle of the deathbed. In many paintings the positions of these two apostles are determined by compositional demands, but a large number put Peter at the head of the bed and John at the foot, following the Golden Legend's account of the apostles' farewell hymn (example).
Narrative images of the Dormition are sometimes part of compositions that integrate the Assumption and Coronation of the Virgin (example) or the Coronation alone (example).
Feast day (of the Dormition in the East, of the Assumption in the West): August 15
At left, Vivarini's so-called Death of the Virgin
Make that # 140
But He was literally bread right?
Many thanks to both you and Salvation. However I believe you’ve made a mistake on the Orthodox view. Mary wasn’t resurrected but is piously believed to have been assumed into heaven (in a glorified body).
As to the last supper it was agreed to for the Church as a whole for clearly a millennia and a half to be the physical body and blood of Christ. Columbus discovered America before the first Protestant discovered it might have been allegory.
As to Christ having “siblings”, these were either cousins or possibly other children from Joseph and a late wife. Please remember that Joseph was most likely 40-60 years older than Mary and was more her protector than a spouse in the modern sense.
These last few points aren’t directed towards you, but rather to supply hopefully more clarification to what you and Salvation have rightly stated in this discussion.
Jesus never held up a door and said, “This is my body.”
Jesus never held up a lamb and said, “This is my body.”
Ridiculous argument.
Jesus said, I am the door and I am the Lamb of God, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. All of which He is. But he never claimed that a door was His body or that a lamb was His body."
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Also, nobody ever left Jesus for saying those metaphors, but they did leave Him in droves when He spoke prophetically about how they would have to eat His flesh and drink His blood.
They were at least bright enough to clearly understand when Jesus was talking metaphorically and when He was not.
” [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
I gotta say you guys are a mystery to me...
Why did you leave out vs. 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65??? I posted the exact scripture...In order...Verse 66 does not show up right after verse 58...
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Iscool, I see that you have (accidently and inadvertantly, I'm sure) completely skipped these texts in your Biblical extract posted in post #68:
Doesn't matter...The disciples that left rejected ALL of it...Not JUST the eating of the flesh and blood...And the icing on the cake was verse 65...The bible says so...
Look up the Greek word used. It is interpreted “food”. Blood was never once considered food either in the Old Testament or the New Testament and surely not by Jews. It was forbidden by God in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Your understanding needs to be consistent with what the words mean.
>>To me it appears, God is saying that ANYTHING, when taken with prayer and thanksgiving, can be eaten.<<
What “appears” to you doesn’t count. It’s what the words say. Once again, the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. He inspired Luke to forbid the eating of blood as He did all of the writers of scripture.
Thanks to both you and Wyrd.
Are you drinking something alcoholic? 136 is a kindergarten picture and 141 has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.
Typical protestant trick.
Answer my question and then I’ll think about discussing that lunatic statement.
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.