Does the Catholic Church Teach "Doctrines of Demons?"

Catholic Answers ^ | July 21, 2013 | Tim Staples

[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.

[Iscool]

It’s certainly not enough of an issue to merit an entire thread(s) to hash it out, but it is curious why no Catholic seems to want to talk about that point.

As we have learned over time, Catholics do not veer away from their prescribed talking points...They will not and can not discuss scripture they are unfamiliar with and they are unfamiliar with most of it...

You make a good point...While there are many references to Mary's other children, there's not a single place in scripture where the Catholic position of 'Mary's only begotten son' is even hinted at let alone discussed...

[presently no screen name]

Throughout his career, he would minimize the emphasis on this Marian doctrine

That's understandable because it takes time to renew the mind from wrong teachings which he was deep into being a monk. "Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—His good, pleasing and perfect will." Once he found the Truth his bondage to 'man' was broken and he was on his journey of having the mind of Christ which is only obtainable through HIS WORD alone.

It's no wonder the catholics keep hounding him for he was able to do - what they STILL can't do.

[Iscool]

Thanks for the ping. I don’t know if there’s any use arguing with these idiots. Christ will watch out for His Church. All you can do is point out their mistaken readings of the Bible. If they close their ears to God’s word, you can keep hoping that at some point they will see the errors of their ways. But without God’s intervention, it’s kind of like arguing with liberals. Facts don’t seem to have any effect on them.

What blabber...

Douay-Rheims Bible

And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:

THIS IS FROM YOUR OWN CATHOLIC DOUAY-RHEIMS BIBLE...What's the matter with you people???

[verga]

What they lacked, which the Apostles had, was faith that Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ, and trust in what He said.

This one sentence sums up every single difference between Catholics and non-Catholics.

[ArrogantBustard]

And yet you spread falsehoods against His Church.

[narses]

Yeah, right.

[BlueDragon]

It's not that the so-called "Catholic church" has 22 "rites" that shows the differences, but that there is range of opinion found expressed (not dependent upon "rite") that when similar is seen elsewhere, it is pointed at as sign of division.

Along parallel lines -- when some RC prelate commits error (or a group of them conspire to do so) it is said that only those individuals are committing the errors (or even crimes) but if or when those outside of Romanist confines sin (or did similar to what cliques of RCC priests have done, EVEN RECENTLY or even PRESENTLY!!!) it is pointed towards as proof that their entire "church" is wrong.

If the Baptists had been shown that the cover-up of sexual abuse had gone right up the chain to the very top, periodically going back centuries even --- would you believe them if they were to say "but we are still infallible in our teachings"? But the Baptists don't exactly proclaim themselves to be infallible. The RCC preisthood does. The "teaching" is alleged infallible. Unless it be found to not be. Which leaves a person potentially mislead until the correction rolls down the pike (if it ever does). Or unless a person watches carefully for errors.

How many Catholics point towards other Catholics (particularly priests) and say "look out for that one"? Yet if an outsider does similar --OMG they are attacking the church jesus built!

Then there are the Nancy Pelosi type of Roman Catholics --- obviously unregenerate, correct? herself going from one misrepresentation of facts to another in her quest for her own political party to dominate --- which political party can safely count on about half of the U.S. "Catholic vote". If the same were found among Southern Baptist, would not the fingers be pointed? Aah look, there is the prove they are not so good, that group. Their church must be messed up if so many of their own people are so messed up. Where is the Southern Baptist Pelosi? Is there even one? The more evangelical, the more the polar opposite of Nancy. WHAT does that indicate?

Then there is the attitude towards all others, including the various "Orthodox" which are also, along with EVERYBODY else, viewed from position of the pre-loaded idea "they must be wrong because they won't submit to us".

Excuses are made for the most abominable acts, when those things are to be seen in RC church history. If such acts had occurred elsewhere, the same would taken as sign "God is not with them" (or at least not as much as they would like to think, and demand others think). The double standard is galling, to say the least.

That's what happens when one group declares themselves to be infallible.

There is no such thing as an infallible man (or woman) other than Christ himself. And no, the RCC is NOT "Christ upon earth" to any greater extent than the lowliest Christian is or can be. If that church be "Christ", then it's no wonder so many people seem to HATE him. I would, if I wasn't fortunate enough to have had the Lord himself show me that not only is He real, but that He is good.

Should we be forced to believe that in aggregate, some "group" will get it right, not by unanimous consent, but by majority vote (that all must acquiesce to or leave/be ex-communicated)? If so, when? Now? Until some other change comes along, then it will be, then?

From careful study, it can be shown that much has been added to the original articles of faith. There is plenty of room for the view that changes have crept in, some of them subtle, but having significant effect, leading to departures from the more original template.

That those changes were trying to worm their way in from near to the very beginning (but were resisted by some) either shows those whom resisted were wrong (even as they were closer to the time of the beginnings of the "infallible" church) or that demons were even then doing what they could to corrupt, or at least complicate the message.

[BlueDragon]

The final straw came when out pastor said it was okay to "poach sheep" from other protestant denominations.

That man may have had impure motives. But he thought himself in the right, didn't he? For him to have that attitude is wrong? But it's ok to do whatever it takes to "poach sheep" from among "protestants"?

Can you see the inconsistency? If it is right for one to do, then it cannot be condemned by that person when they see the same thing in others, lest the scales find hypocrisy and one be cast out to outer darkness.

Then again, Christ's own sacrifice was enough. We can any of us be forgiven, even for hypocrisy. Yet we must move away from it, as much as we can.

I do suggest not condemning "poaching" when one is themselves all for "poaching", when it come's to one's own practices.

Try another avenue. That road which you appear to me to be traveling, is choked with mud.

[piusv]

I understand what you are saying and yes, I do think that if the same sorts of sins happened there would be “some” who would point and use it as proof that “that” church (whatever it is) was not infallible, that it was not the true church. However, to be fair, when similar things have happened in other churches, religions, etc. other than the Catholic Church I personally have yet to see others pointing to those sins and claiming that those actions are “proof” that they are not in the true church. I have always seen the argument of what is the “true church” based on doctrine and beliefs throughout the ages. I think that most folks see the sin in the various churches as a result of our fallen nature, not the result of being in the “wrong” church. We are all sinners no matter what church we belong to. That’s a fact Jack.

As to the various opinions in the Catholic Church, those are just opinions. Of course, there will always be folks who deviate from the Catholic Faith either in their belief (heresy) or in their actions (sin). These differences in belief are not official Catholic differences. Having said that, these differences in opinion on belief (heresy) within the Catholic Church are most certainly seen as signs of division and are denounced. You just rarely see that here because it seems that most of us are faithful, orthodox Catholics. If you go to a different forum you’ll see Catholics who believe in abortion and gay marriage for example. Those Catholics are completely heretical. Here, I have yet to see any Catholics espousing such things.

As for the “outsider” making judgments about the Catholic Church, is this really all that unusual in other spheres? Think about jokes for example. Is it just as okay for a non-Polish person to make a Polish joke as a person of Polish descent? Or a white person to make a joke about blacks than a black person? Same idea. However, even as an “insider”, I do happen to criticize some things about my Church, including the actions and/or words (or inaction) of some priests, bishops and even the Pope. I’m sure that doesn’t go over very well with others here. I’m still waiting for a fellow Catholic to respond to a PM of mine. I can’t figure out for the life of me why she is ignoring me (as the question was rather benign), but I have to wonder whether it’s because of the way I post.

[Heart-Rest]

"And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:    THIS IS FROM YOUR OWN CATHOLIC DOUAY-RHEIMS BIBLE...What's the matter with you people???"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Iscool, you do know that the original of the book of "Luke" was NOT originally written in English, and that the words quoted in it were NOT actually spoken in English, don't you?

With that fact in mind, as every Bible scholar and translator knows (and will readily admit if they are honest), there is NO SUCH THING as a perfect translation of the Bible -- not one. Language-to-language translation of ANYTHING always involves many alternative choices of words/phrases/word order/etc. which the translators have to make and which do not have a precise word-for-word match in both languages. That is simply the nature of language-to-language translations. There is never a perfect one-to-one correspondence of all words or phrases between any two different languages.

Now, for an honest explanation of the Bible text you referenced (in this case referring to another translation of the New Testament, but which applies to the Douay-Rheims translation also), read this:

First, let me take a moment to comment on the translation in Luke 1:36 in the New American Bible of sungenis (the feminine form of sungenes) as "cousin." This is a terrible rendering that has caused confusion for countless faithful Catholics. It is just another one of the seemingly countless flaws with this translation. The meaning of the Greek word sungenes (pronounced sun-gen-ace) is too general to be translated "cousin." "Relative," "kinsman," or (in the feminine) "kinswoman" would be acceptable translations. "Cousin" is simply wrong, and so clearly wrong that in Luke 1:36 in the current version of the NAB, they’ve stopped rendering it that way and translated it as "relative" instead. If only the translators hadn’t been so irresponsible as to do the misrendering in the first place, countless Catholics would have been spared confusion.
(SOURCE: Cousin, Kinswoman . . . Aargh! by Jimmy Akin)

Now, if you take an honest, truth-seeking look (not a sneering, sarcastic, dishonest one) at this Interlinear Greek/English translation of Luke 1:36, you can see that the term is more accurately translated "relative of you", NOT "cousin", just like Mr. Akin said it should be.

   Luke 1:36 - Interlinear Greek/English New Testament

(That same point applies to the obvious mistranslation of that same set of words in the "King James Version" translation as well.)

I hope this clears up any confusion and distortions you have about those Biblical word translations.

(The object for all of us should be to really learn the honest truth, not score "debating points".)

[Heart-Rest]

Wow, you are expressing a lot of strange doctrines in your post to me there, which are certainly not found anywhere in the Bible.

You also seem to be completely missing what the Bible is very explicitly and plainly saying there.    Let me post it in the King James Version for you.

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

1 Corinthians 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me."

1 Corinthians 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, "This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me."

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

So, let me ask you -- when you see:

   "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body"

you somehow do not see:

   "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body"?!?!?!?

If not, what DO you see?

(Going to go watch the Pope on EWTN at "World Youth Day" now.    Perhaps you should too!)

Have a great day!    :-)

[Cicero]

Thanks for the comment.

Actually, in common usage the word “cousin” is frequently used carelessly, and it can mean anything from a first cousin to any kind of in-law or cousin-by-marriage.

The phrase “Jesus and his brothers” has caused a lot more trouble among literal-minded misinterpreters of the Bible. There, again, of course, “brother” was an unfortunate way to translate, but the earlier translators probably didn’t figure that people would be so literal-minded and dogmatic about it, based on an English word which, taken literally, violates the teachings of all the Church Fathers and the early commentators on the Bible.

Just as “brethren” now has to be explained as meaning brothers, sisters, and little kids, too—something that wouldn’t have bothered anyone before the feminist language revolution confused everything.

[verga]

Oddly enough, Google Translate has only two translations: above, and from above. Nothing about 'again'. Bing Translator has 'above' only. Where did you find your translation?

izzy, Mark and I are waiting patiently for a response to this vital question. Zodhiates agrees with me and apparently so do Bing and Google.

[piusv]

Think of how often members of churches use the term “brothers and sisters”. Of course, they do not mean literal brothers and sisters.

[count-your-change]

Your opinion then as to who the “brothers” are that John talks about. (John 7:1-10)

[presently no screen name]

Seems I hit a ‘I’m in a counterfeit church’ nerve. Something like what ghashing of teeth would look like. Do it private next time.

Posting Scripture that is not a catholic’s final authority - is like transubstantiation is a demonstration of them saying they have no Savior. Satan set you guys up real good in his ‘religious’ kingdom - such easy prey as they aren’t able to recognize the tactics of evil so they defend and bow to it. And his bonus is - it left catholics unteachable.

[Jvette]

Very simply, the Greek word used for Elizabeth is correctly or more accurately translated as kinswoman or relative and not cousin. There are translations that use cousin and that has become somewhat common.

But, cousin is not the word used in Luke in the Greek text.

It is not unusual for words to be translated differently in the various Scriptures versions that are available. The Douay Rheims was an attempt to do a word to word translation from Latin not Greek and to use less archaic language. This was to make the Scriptures easier for the lay person to read and understand.

So, while this may seem to be a “gotcha” moment; it really is just a pathetic and vain attempt to obfuscate rather than edify.

[presently no screen name]

The phrase “Jesus and his brothers” is just another Truth that catholics refuse to believe.

Who cares - GOD’S WORD is not their truth anyway. They have been deceived and bow at the altar of ‘man’ and their secular worldly teachings which is their final authority.

Here’s another TRUTH that they overlook, also....”Enter through the narrow gate. For WIDE is the gate and broad is the road that leads to DESTRUCTION, and MANY enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to LIFE, and only a FEW find it.”

There is an eternal price to pay for not BELIEVING ALL that Is Written and taking it’s warning seriously of satan roaming about seeking whom he may devour. So they have no one to blame but themselves for falling into the trap of satan by ‘man which is evil’. And then remain unteachable.

JESUS IS THE WORD; they chose ‘man’s word which opposes God’s Word - so they are proclaiming they are enemies of God.

[editor-surveyor]

That pagan abomination is most certainly not his church.

[Jvette]

Nice try but Scripture actually says this regarding those who left.....

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Believed not. Not had no knowledge or who were worldly or who had no desire to learn or were unteachable. Those who BELIEVED NOT. What did they disbelieve?

This is a hard saying. Is this shocking to you?

Yes to some, but to those of us who believe Jesus is God, they are not impossible and are indeed the Words of Eternal Life.

Jesus does not force anyone to stay, but nor does He deceive or lay traps to test His believers. This teaching was not necessary save for one reason. Jesus meant what He said, that His body is true food and His blood true drink.