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.
** you have never seen an original New Testament **
Aren’t you making it personal here?
It'll be approximately in the same time frame as when Obamacare actually works.
You made the claim and now you can’t prove it? You have no documentation to substantiate what you say? Wow! Fail!
BUT there is a LACK of UNDERSTANDING of it by secular worldly people in a secular worldly church. And there is no denying that!
The warning has been stated - now it's up to catholics who they will serve. NO ONE can serve two masters.
God's WORD is the FINAL AUTHORITY! HERE on earth and forever.
Actually it is the protestant who makes a claim that contradicts centuries of belief and the clear words of Jesus in Scripture.
You say the Apostles did not believe what the others believed when Jesus made what He Himself called a shocking teaching.
Yet, Scripture does not say that anywhere.
So, that leaves you to prove your opinion.
There is not now, nor was there when He said a lack of understanding of what He was saying. Had there been, Jesus would have corrected that gross misunderstanding when so many walked away from Him.
He didn’t, because those who left didn’t lack understanding. What they lacked, which the Apostles had, was faith that Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ, and trust in what He said.
“Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of His blood, you shall not have life within you.”
“For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”
“Does this shock you?”
“Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”
I doubt a single mind or heart has been changed by the self-righteous, Pharisaical, doctrinal volleying that takes place. If anything, people stiffen their stances.
How's that for declaring they have no fellowship with Jesus? Which leads to hearing this... "Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
They continually do what 'man which is evil' tells them and they perpetuate their own destruction. There can't be a more defiant people, so hell bent in their belief on 'man' and it's teachings. They spite Jesus every time they do it.
And they take no heed to warnings but defend the indefensible.
Do you think it is impossible for God to do that too?
You really put a lot of "CynicalBear limitations" on God, don't you?
Your theory which holds that if pagans also do some action, it cannot possibly be a good and valuable thing for real Christians to do, is, quite frankly, pretty strange too.
Pagans OFTEN did human sacrifices in their various "religious rites and rituals". Since that is true, your theory (to be logically consistent) would have to be that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary would be silly and meaningless and worthless, since pagans performed human sacrifices too, a very long time before Calvary.
Do you hold that belief also?
It’s not opinion. It’s straight from scripture. Here’s a hint.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
I highlighted it in red for you. “The flesh profiteth nothing”. Yet Catholics insist it is the flesh. Catholics directly contradict what Jesus is saying there. Notice He then says the words He speaks are spirit and they are life. It’s the words He speaks not His flesh that they are to eat.
Here’s another hint.
John 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
So Jesus says “the flesh profiteth nothing” but Catholics say it’s the flesh that is needed. Peter affirms it’s Jesus words that feed them and give eternal life. In other passages of scripture reference is to eating the word.
Jesus also said.
Matthew 15:17 Do not you yet understand, that whatever enters in at the mouth goes into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Here are some scriptural references to illustrate.
Jeremiah 15:16 Thy words were found and I did eat them; and Thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart.
Ezekiel 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel. 2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll. 3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness. 4 And he said unto me, Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them.
Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
The eating of his body and blood are the equivalent of ingesting his sacred instruction.
You obviously haven’t seen the private messages that I have gotten.
Nope. None of my limitations. Only the scripture that was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Unlike the RCC and it’s followers I don’t add to what scripture teaches.
>>Do you hold that belief also?<<
You will find the answer to that in scripture.
Uh, where's THAT in the Bible?
***** the flesh profiteth nothing:******
Jesus’ flesh profits us everything. What you don’t understand is that Jesus is saying here that it is HE, God and Man, heaven and earth, flesh and spirit that is everything.
It is the unity of the divine and the human which is everything. Jesus as mere human, merely the son of man, flesh alone profits nothing. It is the Spirit, the Holy Spirit within HIS body, the Eucharist, that gives life.
It is not I who contradicts Jesus, nor the Church, for Jesus had just said that the bread He will give is His flesh for the life of the world. Jesus says His flesh is bread, true food.
But, Jesus does not contradict here, He clarifies for those who believe. It is exactly the same as when He rebuked people for coming back after they had their bellies filled through the miracle of the loaves and fishes. He tells them do not work for food that is perishable but for the lasting food that gives eternal life. That is what the Eucharist is....food that gives eternal life. Not just flesh or bread, but Him, the Word of God.
Therefore, we do not receive Him in the Eucharist to sustain our earthly life, but to have eternal life.
*****Matthew 15:17 Do not you yet understand, that whatever enters in at the mouth goes into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?*****
True, except earthly food, perishable food becomes a part of us when we consume it. In the Eucharist, we become part of Him. He is not cast out like earthly food.
Also, Jesus here is not speaking of Himself. He is speaking of the heart of a man and how it is what men say that makes them unclean because they speak from their heart.
Jeremiah and Ezekiel are from the OT and foreshadow Jesus in the Eucharist.
******Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.******
Jesus quotes this when tempted by Satan. There is a reason He prefaces His Bread of Life discourse with comparison to the manna.
Jesus is the Word which proceeds from the mouth of God. Bread alone does not save, it is Jesus that is both, bread and Word that gives life.
These are hard sayings. Shocking as Jesus said. But, no more so than that God would come to us as a babe in the womb, to be led like a lamb to the cross so that we may have abundant life with Him for eternity.
And, for the record. You have not proven that the Apostles did not think the same thing as the ones who left after hearing Jesus speak such “hard” and “shocking” words.
>> “Uh, where’s THAT in the Bible?” <<
Throughout the gospels.
The RCC ignores what Yehova’s word says completely when it gets in the way of their paganism.
>> “You are mistaken as far as the Bible goes. The references to brothers and sisters are there because there was no word for cousins” <<
.
That is one of Rome’s ugliest falsehoods.
Who would the parents of these “cousins” be?
They sim,ply do not exist. Mary was a very productive and proper Jewish wife, and bore many children as the Gospels accurately speak.
Yehova has blessed me and my family abundantly, and I thank him.
Mary did not say yes.
Mary simply listened to Gabriel and trusted that what he said was true. Read the gospel.
WVkayaker did some detail on this in postn 86:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3046031/posts?page=86#86
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.