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.
The Catholic Church is not a pagan abomination (or anything pagan), therefore your objection does not apply to it.
May Peace of Christ be with you.
The Catholic Church is not a pagan abomination (or anything pagan), therefore your objection does not apply to it.
May Peace of Christ be with you.
This does a much better job of explaining things than I could ever do:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord
Nothing that the world or catholics say or believe is shocking to me. They don’t even know what they don’t believe. That’s the pitiful part and will remain that way because they are unteachable.
God’s WORD is the final authority and who it is not the final authority for - receive NOT eternal LIFE for they didn’t follow The Way or The Truth, the narrow path but submitted themselves to ‘another’ and that road is WIDE. No one can serve two masters.
LOL, epic fail.
No real reasoned response to what I posted, just more of the same.
Catholics don’t know what they believe? I beg to differ. I think I have quite clearly stated here what I believe and why.
Yes, God’s Word is the final authority and Jesus is the Word and the words He spoke are true.
So it’s not the literal, physical flesh of Jesus in the Eucharist after all!! It really is a spiritual remembrance like the Protestants claim! The pope is going to be shocked I’m thinking.
From http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist talking about how wrong those are who say it’s spiritual and not physical flesh.
“They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink.”
From http://www.mdpparish.com/2011/10/the-eucharist-the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-2/.
That fact that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist is sometimes hard for us to understand.
From http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/resources-for-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm
Does the bread cease to be bread and the wine cease to be wine?
Yes. In order for the whole Christ to be present—body, blood, soul, and divinity—the bread and wine cannot remain, but must give way so that his glorified Body and Blood may be present. Thus in the Eucharist the bread ceases to be bread in substance, and becomes the Body of Christ, while the wine ceases to be wine in substance, and becomes the Blood of Christ. As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, Christ is not quoted as saying, " This bread is my body," but " This is my body" ( Summa Theologiae, III q. 78, a. 5).
Are the consecrated bread and wine "merely symbols"?
In everyday language, we call a "symbol" something that points beyond itself to something else, often to several other realities at once. The transformed bread and wine that are the Body and Blood of Christ are not merely symbols because they truly are the Body and Blood of Christ. As St. John Damascene wrote: "The bread and wine are not a foreshadowing of the body and blood of Christ—By no means!—but the actual deified body of the Lord, because the Lord Himself said: ‘This is my body'; not ‘a foreshadowing of my body' but ‘my body,' and not ‘a foreshadowing of my blood' but ‘my blood'" ( The Orthodox Faith, IV [PG 94, 1148-49]).
Notice all that? Truly, physically, and literally the body and blood of Christ. Not just spiritual as you say now. In fact, they also say that once the bread and the wine becomes the real, physical, literal flesh and blood of Christ it can never change back.
The Church teaches that Christ remains present under the appearances of bread and wine as long as the appearances of bread and wine remain (cf. Catechism, no. 1377).
So Catholics deny what Jesus said and claim, just as you did, that “Jesus’ flesh profits us everything” in direct conflict with what Jesus said “the flesh profiteth nothing”.
Look, I can’t help you with what you are lacking. You obviously feel a GREAT need for my blessing because facing the truth of the CC is too great to bear. Your choice, you own it and defend the counterfeit. Live with it. Posting Scripture doesn’t change it.
You can shout as loud as you want by choosing the largest font and even put it all in caps but that doesn’t make error into truth. It still comes down to the fact that Catholics think it’s the real, literal flesh and blood of Christ but Christ Himself said “the flesh prophiteth nothing”. I’m thinking Jesus was correct rather than some magical, mystery magesterium in pointy pagan hats.
Self Worshipers are scared to death of a Crucifix like a bunch of B Movie vampires and always, without fail, ignore context up to and including only quoting part of a verse.
Better think again on that one. The RCC itself admits to incorporating pagan practices, vestments, and beliefs but claims that it “Christianized” them. Pagan is still pagan thus the reference to “the whore of Babylon”. Combining practices is whoring with other gods and the RCC does plenty of it.
That entire large-print "error" (as you call it) is all a direct quote from the Bible. You libel the Bible, CynicalBear.
Also, for Bibles and Bible references, large-print is NOT shouting -- it is a charitable aid to any visually impaired folks who might also be reading this thread, to enable them to more easily read the Scriptures (just like a large-print Bible).
Been there, done that.
You guys incessantly blather and drivel on this topic, and fall far short of anything resembling truth. The "Whore of Babylon" is self-worshiping protestantism.
I think you’re being a way too modest in your estimation of yourself as this site is simply repeating assertions not really established.
However, thanks!
You are referring to a post almost entirely consisting of direct quotes from the Bible (along with a wish that you have a great day). You unbelievably refer to that post as "gnashing of teeth".
You obviously do not like the whole Bible, do you? You apparently only like your own limited, narrowly selected texts -- the texts from the Bible I quoted to you obviously sound like gnashing of teeth to you.
(Or was it the wish that you have a great day that somehow sounded like gnashing of teeth to you?)
In either case, you might want to calmly reassess your reply -- it seems highly inappropriate aimed at a post that quotes the Bible and extends a wish that you have a great day.
No, the Protestant churches are her daughters.
>>Also, for Bibles and Bible references, large-print is NOT shouting -- it is a charitable aid to any visually impaired folks who might also be reading this thread, to enable them to more easily read the Scriptures (just like a large-print Bible).<<
ROFL Yeah right. I suppose they don’t read any of the normal type size.
They myriad "Don't call me 'Protestant'" protestant denominations with a handful of member are still protestant. And the non-trinitarian (or otherwise heretical) groups that arose in the wreckage of protestantism are barely Christian or not Christian at all. The whole lot are essentially idolaters of the self.
Not sure what belief system you hang out with ...
Care to enlighten the assembly?
But, but, but, none of the three are in Paul, so the Catholic-haters are apparently off the hook.
You speak of calmly after your post? I trust you saw the errors of your ways and how it clearly showed you were in panic mode. Catholics should be.
Posting Scripture MEANS nothing - it’is NOT YOUR FINAL AUTHORITY! Satan whose ‘throne to his kingdom’ is the vatican knows Scripture. So stop being impressed with yourself by posting it. Actions speak louder than words.
I’m done with the unteachable and you need a heart-rest lest the panic nerve strikes again.
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.