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.
I never read their arguments but I have read the bible...I'll stick with the bible...
#140 was not part of the conversation about eating blood either. Oy vey!
Naw they don't...Someone just duped you into believing and repeating that nonsense...
Yep, they were the ones who thought He was speaking literally and since they were Jews knew that eating human flesh and drinking blood were forbidden by God. Catholics on the other hand have no compunctions about not obeying God’s commands.
Absolutely not...Paul condemned your bloody goose soup after Acts 10...
If you guys would read the words of God in the scriptures, you'd know the answers to these questions...
Why do you keep asking the same questions when it's been answered at least a couple of times??? John 6 is spiritual, not physical...
RCC are generally not allowed to marry, but this is due more to human weakness. It is where the RCC fails to meet the goals of God’s church and exercised its authority to combat a weakness rather than allow a sin to continue. The abuses by Bishops in ordaining their children for power rather than seeking the good of God’s people. It is unfortunate, but hopefully the RCC will see some other acceptable of dealing with this in the future.
There is no prohibition against met even on Friday. Rather this is a day of fasting and prayer for spiritual growth. Even our Lord spoke of the need for fasting and did so himself, unless you would consider him a poor example. The abstaining from meat is a general guideline and I believe not a strict one. Other items can be given up and in a monastic fast it would be much stricter as the monks are likely to come under greater attacks from evil.
The bible isn’t a science textbook and you’ve effectively made that argument yourself with the Revelation of Saint John the Divine. He didn’t properly describe 21st century weapons but you felt it was an acceptable description from a first century perspective. Perhaps the beginning of Genesis is an acceptable 1st century perspective of the Big Bang, the formation of our planet and the creation of life. Science and evolution do not negate what God as done.
That is not what transubstantiation means. Please read about it here, in order to increase you understanding of it:
"Transubstantiation" by Frank J. Sheed
Hopefully, this will substantially alter your apparent very low opinion of both the veracity of Jesus and the power of God (which is limitless -- as the tagline of Salvation says, "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26).
Have to stop posting for the night -- I sincerely hope you read that linked page and then understand it much better.
Please forgive one typos and poor autocorrects on my previous post. Typing on an iPad is not always easy.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Still only one trick, I see.
It would be nice if, in the name of Jesus Christ, Christians could come together on what - or I should say Who - they have in common. We have so much more to do battle against than one another!!! What will it take?
Sure he did...Just like in this verse...
Joh_6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
I am the door, I am the lamb, I am the bread...
So, you are saying that the ones who left are what?
The Apostles thought the same thing, yet they stayed. So, that makes them what? Catholics?
Jesus said, “Will you also leave?” He does not try to mitigate the saying. He does not try to explain it even though there are other times He does explain Himself to them.
Some are. Some are their servants/slaves. Some are useful idiots. Some are only gazing fondly at the god in the mirror.
And I don’t think some of them took their meds tonight.
What a contradiction to your religion...Here’s Jesus is a grown man and is much, much larger than Mary...On the Catholic side, Mary is always LARGE and Jesus is still a baby, or even looks older but is always very, very little...
It says 'born from above'. Look it up. And not in one of your fashionable god-in-the-mirror and 'modern' Bibles that pander to a certain mindset. You preach Jewish semi nomenclature. Go back to the original New Testaments, not the politically directed offal that you spout.
Sorry, but that is an Eastern Orthodox icon.
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.