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.

>>===> 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...

- - - - - - -

You sound EXACTLY like the non-believers in the time of Jesus on Earth sounded, who repeatedly mocked Jesus Christ.

They reasoned in a very similar way to the way you "reason" -- Jesus LOOKED like a mere human being just like everyone else, and TALKED, WALKED, ATE, DRANK, SMELLED, CRIED, SLEPT, (etc.) just like every other healthy human being, so they DID NOT BELIEVE AT ALL THAT HE WAS GOD!

Their extremely limited input from their five human senses did not tell them He was God, so they sadly only trusted their very limited human senses, instead of trusting the living Word of God. (Discernement is MUCH MORE than just the input of the five physical human senses. You should learn that.) Most of His contemporaries did not see (DISCERN) with the eyes of faith, so they only saw a mere man -- NOT God.

The truth is, NOBODY alive today bases their faith on the fact that they "saw" or perceived God with their five human senses, as nobody sees God in any fashion here today but with the "eyes of faith".

For those fools in Jesus days (as for similar fools today) it was the most stupid and the gravest mistake they would ever make in their entire lives.

Their five senses told them one thing: "There is NO WAY that that is God! That is just a mere man, just like all the rest of us!"

P.S. Their five senses were wrong.

You sound EXACTLY like the non-believers in the time of Jesus on Earth sounded, who repeatedly mocked Jesus Christ.

I see your Catholicism is starting to seep out of your pores...

You want to point out where I ever mocked Jesus??? It's your false religion that I'm not afraid to mock...

Jesus was careful to hide his miracles as much as possible...When Jesus performed a miracle, he instructed those close to him to avoid telling anyone...

Those people did not disbelieve Jesus because he looked and acted like a man...They disbelieved his words...

(Discernement is MUCH MORE than just the input of the five physical human senses. You should learn that.) Most of His contemporaries did not see (DISCERN) with the eyes of faith, so they only saw a mere man -- NOT God.

I did learn that...You don't discern with faith...You discern with knowledge...

δοκιμάζω
dokimazō
dok-im-ad'-zo
From G1384; to test (literally or figuratively); by implication to approve: - allow, discern, examine, X like, (ap-) prove, try.

And you certainly didn't learn from knowledge that Jesus did not have brothers and sisters, or that one of your priests can turn the risen body of Jesus Christ into a piece of cracker----to be ingested into your stomach and then somehow be transferred thru the walls of your intestines into your soul...It's a matter of faith, not discernment...

So we can be certain that the verse you posted has nothing to do with spiritually recognizing Jesus blood in a glass of wine...

Ok...perhaps you can honestly answer the question no other FRoman would directly answer.

This is in the framework of the explanation coming from the Council of Trent, and the Grecian philosophical language used to describe transubstantiation.

After consecration, the body is said to be present, as they put it, "under the forms of the bread and the wine". Correct?

That leaves the visible forms unchanged, in that the bread (in the modern instance, the Eucharist wafer) outwardly appears, just to the senses alone; sight, smell, taste, touch -- I guess we could work hearing into this too, if one tested an not-consecrated waver for whatever 'sound' made when it was broken or crushed, then compared that to a consecrated communion wafer.

The wine too, still appears as before. A taste test would be subjective, of course...but if one were to subject the wine to molecular analysis, or put a drop on a slide, under a high-powered microscope, before and after samples would most likely not have any visibly apparent difference. Correct?

Now this is all ok, for remember, the "body" is said to be present "under" the forms of the bread and the wine. As far as I can tell, though Trent spoke of the bread becoming or being "fully the body" of Christ (after consecration) they also mentioned the "species" does not change. Do you know what they meant by "species"? It was something of a made-up or otherwise borrowed but redefined word, taking the place of "accident" in the Greek philosophy-derived description.

There needed to be *some* sort of explanation. Given the times, it is perhaps understandable that it came about in the way that it did. At this point, one could try going back to before Aquinas perhaps, but the previous textual mentions were less than uniform---with most whom wrote, reasonably, possibly, speaking from standpoint of "faith", even of "spirit", even as at the same time they were needing address the earthly "physical" aspect.

Since to the Greeks, an idea itself was more fundamentally real than the all-but superficiality of senseless physical objects, it was perhaps unavoidable that Aquinas described the matter in the way he did (using the "substance" and "accidents" wording) although as I made mention of, Trent did not adopt his language for it, in toto, but instead substituted "species" for "accident".

To further confuse things...the usage of "form" appears to have been itself dual-tracked, in that there was "form", which in the Greek usage was as underlying reality, or over-all truth or reality of a thing (a chair is a chair, even if made of wood. the wood is the accident, the chair is the form, the form is the reality of what it "is").

At Trent, there was the phrase "under the forms" (of the bread & wine), hence my attempt to describe, clumsy as it may be, the "dual-track" simultaneous usage of the word "form". A reality, under a reality? Seems strange, doesn't it? How could the uninitiated ever understand it? By being browbeaten into it, or by intimidation?

Telling myself or others again, about "faith" or seeing with eyes of faith, (I have faith) though of course an important, intrinsically needful component of overall understanding, is also a bit neither here nor there, if one is speaking only of the trans-formative process itself (otherwise said to be done by authority---not reliant upon faith, or with mention of "faith" involved in the transubstantiation process itself) along with the definitions and usages of the word themselves, used to describe what occurs. Needing faith to "see" it --- is another issue. We can get there, but please. First things, first.

Previously when discussing this, searching to confirm one way or another there were those here who appeared to me to have taken the issue further, believing or at least talking as if the "species" as Trent used the word, itself also changed, not just change or real presence "under the form of the species", got me nowhere but a big runaround of avoidance talk, just so much copy/paste discussion from elsewhere, with that coming across as effort to educate or school me using the opinions of some other Roman Catholic, than the one I was conversing with --- with myself wondering if he or she had made this progression towards the species itself being transformed more than just "under" it's form.

I provided some easy links to explanation and brief discussion of such concepts as "form" "accident" and "substance" as known in Aristotelian philosophy, which were what Aquinas employed in his own description. All fine and well enough...

The question is ---do you agree that the outward, what is visible, the "species" remains the unchanged? How about that it at least APPEARS to remain unchanged?

' Trent says so (briefly touching upon that aspect, almost as if the writers even then wished to skip over it, and go whole ~~hog~~ , I mean species transformation) but they didn't quite, and I couldn't get a single FRoman to agree with their own church, even after repeated attempts. Looking towards Trent for definition is fair enough --- for there has not been any later much of any other "official" declaration, has there? Everything else, just "opinion" which may or may not be needed to be believed by anyone --- unless those opinions somehow be in the realm of the infallible.

The closest I came was receiving answer concerning "seeing with the eyes of faith". Well, ok. But first, what of the "species"? Let that be honestly spoken of, then we can move on to faith.

One can speak of "eyes of faith" all one wishes to, but to myself concerning this, only after some confession, or at least some frank discussion. Then the next step, that of faith, can be taken.

So which is it? I was asking...for it seems to me that some Roman Catholics may believe the "species" itself changes. If so, then that would be a marked increase of trans-formative power in what change is said to occur, as Trent put it, "under the forms" ---again, according to Trent, leaving the "species" unchanged in outward appearance, but now..? Is the specie itself changed. If so -- then why could one not see, smell, taste, or otherwise by touch or test, not be able to discern any difference?

All of this came about for reason one seemed to have objection, or apparently wanted to "teach" me, due to my having included that saying a simple "this is the body" would suffice, when discussing the issue in a slightly differing context.

According to Trent, though after consecration there may be room for one to say it "is" the literal body and blood of Christ, one can not say that the "species" itself literally changes, unless there has been significant progression since Trent. Please forgive me for belaboring the point through repetition and slight re-phrasings, but I do intend to make it perfectly clear as to what aspects I am discussing. Can you at least SEE what it is I am talking about? Part of the frustration, is that seeming few understand the word definitions and usages by which transubstantiation was described, or if they do, just jump right past with no acknowledgement whatsoever to tell me all about the body and the blood, as if I were a kindergartner, while I'm speaking towards word usages, and history, and the interplay of those things in context of the history of Christianity, including faith itself, too.

Being that those same words, once used at Trent to describe transubstantiation now carry, or are freighted with materialistic definitions and usages, the meanings themselves have subtly shifted in direction of more "physical" change...when the original usage left it more up for grabs, as to interpretation...even allowing a "spiritual" or as otherwise known -- pneumatic presence understanding to be applicable without being in conflict with official RC declarative statements in regards to bread of communion, for the "spiritual" view allows for real enough "body and blood" (for God is a Spirit, and those whom worship must do so in spirit and in truth) and it's not like anyone went and gathered manna 'small as hoarfrost' to assemble the wafers from, leaving the pneumatic description not all that much different than the wording (as the per the words then used, then at that time definitions) at Trent --- other than denial that RC priests alone had the "authority" to compel the transformation to occur by their own words spoken over what were ordinary objects or "species".

Can you see that, even though you yourself may be able to "see" with eyes of faith, that others may look upon the descriptions, and how they are spoken about, and suspect not precisely sleight-of-hand (for it's not like soylent green is being substituted for what was originally a wafer), but suspect a less than honest appraisal of the proceedings if it is not confessed to -- that the "species" itself, to a disinterested, say neutrally "scientific" observer, shows no discernible change?

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.