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.

[CynicalBear]

>>They myriad "Don't call me 'Protestant'" protestant denominations with a handful of member are still protestant.<<

That right there shows that you have no idea what the body of Christ really is.

>> Care to enlighten the assembly?<<

I’ve done that often enough. You just need to keep up.

[editor-surveyor]

Almost every well known facet of the RCC is adapted from pagan worship and mythology.

The “Pope?” - completely pagan with not so much as a sentence in the word.

“Mother of God?” - Pagan to the hilt, the title of Semiramis.

Praying to the dead? - Forbidden completely by Yehova.

Lent? - A celebration of the 40 years of Tammuz.

“Christmas?” - the birth date of Tammuz, and nothing whatsoever to do with Yeshua, who was born on September 27, 4 BC.

“Easter?” - The godess of fertility delivered in a blood colored egg. (a pagan rejection of the Passover)

The RCC is more pagan than the honest pagans.

[ArrogantBustard]

Bwahahahah!!!!!!

It just shows I consider your opinion to be error.

[boatbums]

Thanks. The fact that I was personally attacked (questions about affording a boat, of all stupid things, and my scholarship and language skills) no one could address the actual question. It is quite telling the tack some people take in these discussions that shows they are more comfortable with personal smears and snotty comments that investing the time to respectfully talk about something. Most of the time these types can be ignored as they bring nothing to the forum of any value. Bitterness and fear are what guides them.

[Jvette]

I live with the beauty of Catholicism, gratefully and with great joy. If I respond to anything here it is because of the call St. Peter gives us to always stand ready to give a defense of what we believe.

Get over yourself. I don’t need nor do I want your blessing.

[Jvette]

I can’t help but wonder if I could make a fortune marketing spittle protectors for computer keyboards.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “I can’t help but wonder if I could make a fortune marketing spittle protectors for computer keyboards.” <<

.
Every catholic should own one, save lots of money. :o)

[Heart-Rest]

"ROFL Yeah right. I suppose they don’t read any of the normal type size."

It's to make it easier on certain folks here who are obviously not seeing what the Scriptures actually say. They display some plainly evident signs of selective myopia when it comes to certain texts from the Bible.

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

"The error was your interpretation and trying to imply that scripture says something different than it does. Jesus Himself said “flesh prophiteth nothing” but Catholics say the opposite. I don’t have to wonder who is in error."

Here's a prime example. Are you saying that you interpret the phrase in that text to mean that Jesus coming here "in the flesh" "profiteth nothing", or that Jesus physical death on the cross "in the flesh" "profiteth nothing", or that His Resurrection "in the flesh" "profiteth nothing"?

Or do you think that when Jesus says the following about His flesh, he means that what He is saying "profiteth nothing", or that He is lying, or that He is contradicting Himself, or (much more likely) that you are grossly misinterpreting the reference you used?

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."    John 6:53-55

(If you once again mistakenly take that for shouting, just think of what it really is -- it is Jesus preaching to a crowd, without the aid of a microphone or other voice amplification, so He speaks out boldly and with great compassion. Do not be needlessly offended by these wonderful Bible quotes.)

[boatbums]

[boatbums]

I think there is also a measure of schizophrenia regarding the Catholic obsession with Martin Luther. When he seems to have said things they agree with (no matter WHEN he might have said it nor if he ever retracted or changed it) they are more than delighted to post his words. When he says things they don't like, or when his words go against their religious dogmas or criticize their “church”, he is a “pervert”, “depraved”, “degenerate”, “vow-breaking”, “horny” ex-monk. What never seems to break through to some of these people is that non-Catholic Christians don't follow Martin Luther or Zwingli or Calvin like they do their Pope (whoever that guy happens to be at any point in time). Too many times on this forum, attacks on Luther are used to also attack any “Protestant” by association. Kinda a dumb way to carry on a theological discussion, I think.

[Heart-Rest]

"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."

???

[Iscool]

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.

If we don't have God's bible as he intended we would have it, guess God's a liar then, eh???

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.

No it isn't...Your interlinear Greek is from Nestle-Aland which is a purely Catholic version of it's Greek texts so the author's opinion of what is the correct Greek or what it means is meaningless to me...It has a vested interest in eliminating the term 'cousin'...

Luke could have been translating any one of these more general terms (or, rather, their feminine equivalents) as sungenēs, or he could have been translating a different, general term, or he could have been paraphrasing what the angel said rather than translating from the Aramaic.

This Catholic apologist, like the others can not come to grips with the fact that there is no ancient Aramaic text...It doesn't exist...

The text is translated by the KJV translators as cousin...The text is translated by the Douay-Rheims Catholic translators as cousin...There have been no new texts discovered since then that would change that translation...

While the word also means kinsman or relative, The correct translation is cousin...

And how do we know that...Because we know what cousin means...

a : a child of one's uncle or aunt
b : a relative descended from one's grandparent or more remote ancestor by two or more steps and in a different line

Outside of a brother, sister, mother or father, just about any kinsman can be a cousin in one form or another...

[Jvette]

*****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.*****

Please, give honest debate a try. That is not even close to what I said.

Just as the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and Jesus was conceived, He comes upon the offerings of bread and wine and they become the body and blood of Jesus.

It is the divine union with the earthly material that profits ours souls with eternal life.

Then, Jesus, true God, fully divine and true man, fully human, lived and died for our sins and rose again in glory.

Now, Jesus, the Word of God and the Bread of Life, the divine and the earthly broken and shared by all so that we live in Him, through Him and with Him.

****“They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink.****

The Eucharist is food for eternal life. It is sustenance for the soul not the body.

****That fact that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist is sometimes hard for us to understand.****

It can be even harder to discern. We walk by faith and not by sight trusting in Jesus as the Truth and speaking the Truth in all things.

****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.****

Of course I notice all of that and fully believe it as well.

I never said anything contrary to that belief.

It is the spirit, the Holy Spirit which enlivened the human Jesus and which transforms the earthly bread and wine into His body and blood.

****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”.*****

Jesus tells us, “I am the Bread of Life.” He is telling us in this passage that He is the bread that comes from heaven to give us life. He is telling us that He is God here for He says that God gives the bread and then says “The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

It is no ordinary flesh that Jesus gives. For Jesus is no ordinary human. If He were, the flesh would indeed profit us nothing. But, it is flesh united with the spirit as only Jesus truly was/is. God and Man. Spirit and Flesh.

[Iscool]

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

That won't work either...Even the best of you guys tells us that since the cracker and the wine still looks, tastes, smells, feels and talks like a cracker and wine after the so-called consecration where this stuff turns into flesh and blood, it becomes a matter of Catholic Faith that the event actually took place...Since, to the normal senses, you couldn't prove it...

Therefore, it is definitely not a matter of discernment ie, recognizing the bread and wine as flesh and blood when it comes to your Eucharist...You guys claim it is 'faith', not discernment...

You then should be able to recognize that the verse is speaking to something else...

[Jvette]

****Every catholic should own one, save lots of money. :o)****

True, I have nearly lost what I was drinking when reading the outrageous things written by some on this cite.

[ArrogantBustard]

Do some research outside the biased anticatholic ecosystem you got that stuff from. It has been thorougly debunked many times on this forum.

[Iscool]

The phrase “Jesus and his brothers” has caused a lot more trouble among literal-minded misinterpreters of 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.

Oh that's nonsense...The apostles knew Jesus had brothers and sisters...It's certainly not the result of a feminist revolution...

Let's see how badly you can twist this one up...

Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

[Iscool]

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

Maybe that's the difference between Catholics and Christians...

A brother in Christ is just that...We are adopted brothers...It is literal and it is real...WE take it seriously...

[FourtySeven]

No, no, no. Once again you claimed that Jesus comments were LITERAL, not “metaphysical” or “outside of the physical reality we are confined to”. You said you believe Jesus statement of “this is my body” when he had bread in His hand was LITERALY His body and when He said “ this is my blood” when He had wine in the cup it was LITERALLY His blood.

The literal interpretation will try to understand what it is that the author wishes to convey the wide assortment of ways used to communicate its message to its readers.

Typically, we are quite adept at making the distinction between literal and literalistic speech. If I said, "That was a brilliant sunset" you would not think that I had somehow tested the IQ of the sun; you would, rather, know that I thought there was an arresting beauty to a natural phenomena. Or if I say that it's raining cats and dogs, you are not seized with a fear that canines and felines are somehow dropping out of the heavens. We know how to recognize metaphors. We take them literally - for they are metaphors - and not as literalist statements of what is happening.

When we approach the Scriptures, we shouldn't be surprised to see that it contains very many different literary forms: letters, histories, hymns, laws, prophecies, parables, genealogies, prayers, etc..! Each of these is a different way of communicating a message. The Bible, Catholics acknowledge, is comprised of many different books each of which shares the Truth of God in a variety of ways.

It is in this way that Catholics do take the Bible literally! We recognize that the Scriptures teach us the truth of who God is and what God has been and is doing in our history. Just as we read a recipe differently from a love letter, or a prayer different from fiction, so must we learn how to read the Scriptures in a way faithful to the many ways it communicates the truth of our salvation.

If the fact that a Jesuit wrote this scares you (or anyone) then simply consider this: The Church (whether the reader here believes that is some invisible church of believers or the Catholic Church is irrelevant here, for this point) is also, literally the Body of Christ. Does that mean Jesus cries out in pain when one of its members hurts himself/herself?

I'm going to guess that you will have something to say in response to me that will be a disagreement of some sort of what I have said, either about some trivial matter of contention or disagreeing with everything I have just written or both.

I don't care as I don't care to debate this issue with you (again, as I have said the same as the priests above did, just not as eloquently, but you continue to reject the notion that there is a difference between "literal" and "literalistic", obviously).

I'm posting this for others who may benefit, as admittedly it's a subtle (but still real) distinction. If you also benefit then its a bonus, Praise God.

[verga]

I can’t help but wonder if I could make a fortune marketing spittle protectors for computer keyboards to non-Catholics.

Fixed it for you.