Does the Catholic Church Teach "Doctrines of Demons?"

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Go to Google or Bing and look up Eucharistic miracles.

While you are doing that please get back to Mark and I on how Bing and Google both support the Catholic understanding/ translation of "Born from above."

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

You couldn't be more wrong...Cousin or kinfolk or relative would work just fine in Luke 1:36...The point is, cousin is used apparently to show that the kinsmen or relatives in that verse are not brothers (which they are not)...They are cousins of one sort or another...

So the Catholic argument that there is no word for cousin in Aramaic is meaningless...There is a word for cousin in the Greek and it is used in Luke 1:36 and other places...And this can be put in contrast to:

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Brethren does not mean relative or kinfolk or cousin...Brethren means 'brother'...Just as sister means, wait for it,,,,,,, sister...

>>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.<<

Or so the RCC has duped it’s adherents into believing. It’s a mystical, magical mystery tour!

Here’s the truth.

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.

Acts 15:29 That you abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if you keep yourselves, you shall do well. Fare you well.

But Catholics say it’s the flesh that prophiteth and drinking blood is worship.

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.

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Then you've never been hungry nor thirsty since you partook of your first Eucharist...Either that's true or you are wrong about the flesh and blood...

Joh 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Did you get some of that water too???

>>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.<<

First of all you didn’t write that unless you are indeed Ryan G. Duns, SJ. Second, that entire piece by Ryan was an attempt to somehow justify the man made doctrines of the RCC. It doesn’t line up with what the RCC does when interpreting scripture. The RCC injects what it wants into scripture or develops completely outside of scripture it’s doctrines while all to often incorporating pagan beliefs and customs.

It's interesting that the anti-Catholic crowd constantly repeats the same lies no matter how often they are shown to be lies.

It reminds me of how the Turks had collaborators who organized formal debates between Protestants and Catholics in areas they were planning to invade or only partially controlled. Anything they could do to spread divisions they would promote.

This does a much better job of explaining things than I could ever do:

Trying to prove that 'until' doesn't mean 'until' in the scriptures to prove that when Mary didn't 'know' Joseph 'til' after Jesus was born:::

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

You notice that some guy named Knox had to correct the perversion but he left it there anyway...What's a little deception, eh???

What the bible really says...

Deu 34:6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

This is the kind of stuff they (the Catholic Church) constantly pulls to get people to believe their lies...

I didn’t say I wrote what is hyperlinked.

What I said, that I then was guessing you would disagree with, was: “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?”

For the record. As I didn’t want to leave any confusion about whether or not I was the priest that wrote what I hyperlinked.

Thanks for that.

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).

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.

Was Aquinas lying, or just confused???

The word used in Luke is not the word for cousin, which makes the argument that Catholics can’t have it both ways because Elizabeth is called Mary’s cousin, moot.

That was the crux of the post was it not?

****Brethren does not mean relative or kinfolk or cousin...Brethren means ‘brother’...Just as sister means, wait for it,,,,,,, sister...*****

Yes, this would seem problematic for Catholic doctrine but it isn’t for the simple reason that brethren is used in other instances where the relationship is clearly not as siblings. So too are brother and sister, so the mere use does not definitively mean a shared DNA with Jesus. My stepsister is my sister though we do not have a common parent.

Also, Jesus is called “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary and none of His “brethren” are called sons or daughters of Mary. We simply don’t know from Scripture exactly who is being referred to here or how they are the brothers and sister of Jesus.

Were these children of Joseph from a previous marriage? There is no way to know since Scripture never makes it clear. We have very little to go on regarding the early life of Jesus.

In the story where Mary and Joseph return to Jerusalem to find Jesus in the temple, there is no mention of siblings being with their group. It is only Mary and Joseph who return to find Him.

I think that protestants make much of this for one reason only and that is as an attempt to justify their rejection of the one, true Church.

And by the way, here:

Second, that entire piece by Ryan was an attempt to somehow justify the man made doctrines of the RCC. It doesn’t line up with what the RCC does when interpreting scripture. The RCC injects what it wants into scripture or develops completely outside of scripture it’s doctrines while all to often incorporating pagan beliefs and customs.

...you couldn't be more wrong. In fact, it is for this reason (that the Church doesn't take Scripture as "literalistic" all the time) that frustrates many of her critics here and elsewhere.

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.

And that is where you come in! I can rely on your posts being accurate for you have no ax to grind. I have little knowledge of him, mostly basics - like his spiritual eyes were opened and he saw the Truth because he was seeking God with all his heart and the Vatican hates him for exposing them and passed on their hate to their 'subjects'. However, I do laugh when they default and then attack the man of God, Luther.

After 500 years, their bitterness is still alive. Luther, being obedient to God, made a MIGHTY lasting impact on them they have yet to recover from and never will for the chains of bondage have been cut and God's WORD is Alive and Active to refute their hold on anyone's salvation - other than those we remain in 'it'. So thanks for keeping the naysayers honest as they 'try' to defame a man used by God to accomplish HIS WILL and one they never met but just disagree with for 'tradition' sake.

Ever wonder why they don't do the same to even one of their many bad popes? I'll just mark that one as 'cover up is the catholic way'. The dirty laundry is hidden in with their artwork that, also, will be burned up. Their pomp will turn to puff!

It's interesting that the anti-Catholic crowd constantly repeats the same lies no matter how often they are shown to be lies.

What IS interesting is the anti-WORD crowd doesn't have a clue about GOD'S WORD because it is spiritually discerned - but that doesn't stop them because someone has to support evil in it's opposition to God's Word. They are simply being obedient to their master and seem proud doing it.

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.