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.

How do you know that your interpretation of which is DNA and which is not is correct?

How would any know that the "ever virgin" portion of Mariolgy is itself not sourced from Protoevangelium of James and other frauds which sprung up quite early on --- and were quite mistakenly accepted by many in position of 'church authority' for a little while?

There is evidence which strongly suggests that is what did happen, or "develop".

Even after those works were found to be not-so reliable pseudograph, some of the ideas expressed within them persisted in the beliefs of many, with this persistence much more so regarding ideas expressed within the Protoevngelium of James, then the fantastical "Gospel of Peter", which I have been lead to believe, lent support for the ideas found in this book which was falsely attributed to James (brother of Christ).

This is how we (the world) have ended up with this addition-to-Gospel Mariology, which carries along it's own attendant theological influences to this very day.

Is it so difficult to concede that churchmen of centuries ago could have been, or may have been taken in by this sort of error? The proof is that some indeed were. Many did accept those books for some time -- even as they also simultaneously had been more properly and correctly hewing to the historical reality; that indeed the Christ had come into this world bodily.

I have to say it like that --- for raising this issue does tend to bring out those would wish to drag myself off into the bushes of accusation that I be guilty of *other* "heresy", so that whatever truth I bring could be summarily dismissed by way of impugning the witness. When effort of that sort (of attack launched towards critics of RCC "theological considerations") are not indulged in by the self be-knighted heretic hunters (or else fail when such is attempted) there seems to be a fall-back position towards pretense that "Protestants", or those whom reject particular aspects of Marionism which RC faithful hold dear...in some way cannot understand the "humanity" of Christ. Or so the rhetoric so often has gone, here on this forum.

What I am speaking of, is that fables have became thoroughly mixed in with truth... Once that sort of process get's going, it is difficult if not impossible to stop, when such is incorporated into realm of faith, or belief.

If erroneous additions to Gospel narrative could be sorted out from what else can be known of Christ, would doing so leave any in danger of not realizing their own eventual salvation in Christ?

Some say that would be best (I do), while others say there would still be grave danger, for to set the sort of things I have been speaking about aside, is to defy the RC church, and to an extent, aspects of *some* Orthodox expression. Yet what if those people, in regards to Mary, were in part, in error? Is this possibility too difficult to contemplate?

Aah --- here is where the ideas of "infallibility" do get sort-of fuzzy, don't they? But Protestants are told they don't understand "infallibility". And then, there is the dogmatically proclaimed "Immaculate Conception" (not to be confused with virgin birth, or the virginal conception of Christ within Mary). Most of the Orthodox reject this late arising dogma of "Immaculate Conception" as unnecessary, along with being a novelty. So much for universal "Catholic" agreement. I searched the world over, and I thought I found true love, she met another and 'poof' she was gone...

So much for unanimous consent of the Fathers, too, or being able to honestly say the "teachings" are only those which were passed down from Christ and the Apostles --- unchanged.

James, the brother of Christ...he should have known the truth if anyone did, hence the borrowing of his name by some clever writer who assembled the chitter-chatter folk-tale sort of speculation and gossip among the ignorant concerning the Nativity. This is how wishful thinking becomes known as "truth", but is no truth at all, for it is instead; distortion.

We do not otherwise see anyone (from the most primitive Church), James included, denying that he was brother to Christ, explaining that he was only son of Joseph, and not an actual son of Mary. Though this be perhaps argument from silence, the silence still has something to say. Pointing to the scene at the foot of the cross isn't conclusive proof that Mary had no other sons either. It is speculative, a reading in-between the lines that which is wished for to be true...a grasping at straws reliant upon special pleadings and the reasoning of men.

She certainly had none other man whom might be aqauinted with her, present with her that day, and possibly know her and understand the depth of her grief, due to her own son being the Messiah, the hope of salvation for Israel. To have that die before one's eyes...would that not be to have God himself die before one's very eyes --- the fruit of her own womb be cruelly murdered, in one of the most horrific ways possible, at the same time? That sort of combination could leave one so bereft of all, she may have needed close assistance and care, for days afterwards...

I myself have been numbed as it were...even falling into or towards catatonic state, with the mind partially shutting down, asleep with open eyes --- but was awakened or stirred from that by the voice of the Lord, telling me to go and do that which I was able to work at for my own sustenance (and support of others) for a quarter century afterwards.

I was...wait for it...a fisherman.

I believe there at the cross is when her own heart was "pierced through", as was prophesied would occur to her own self, when she and Joseph brought Jesus brought to the Temple for the first time, sometime soon after his own birth.

James, quite possibly a blood brother to Christ (through Mary) later had words put into his own mouth which are reasonably doubtful he ever spoke at all --- for if the forger tells lies in the first sentence, then what else could be trusted? This fraudulent written work, gave explanation from which was deduced or determined that he himself was not actual son of Mary.

For any to than believe this, is to believe the tales of a liar, in part...for that portion was part the very central theme of what otherwise is known to be fraudulent.

It is quite stunning to my eye, the damage such misinformation can bring.

Look around. Is not the world (of men and the beliefs of men) otherwise filled to the brim with misinformation? Why wouldn't the spirit of the world not contaminate even the real story of Christ, in any way possible? The fraudulent written works arose, did the work the writers of them intended, were then shunted aside -- but the effect upon beliefs in regards to overall setting and historical backdrop of Christ...details the likes of which most anyone one could naturally be curious about --- ah, those effects were not shunted aside. Those remained, even as the frauds from which they came were themselves rejected.

Which leaves that crime an almost 'perfect' crime, for a perfect one of those, is one which is not discovered to have taken place at all. Or when or if discovered, others are not "blamed" for, but otherwise are all but given medal for, in that they would be rewarded by receiving from others recognition of their own great piety for perpetuating the theologically needless myth of perpetual virginity.

Like light passing through glass? Completely painless to Mary? That part...why would any woman having given childbirth believe? I hear the first birth can be the most difficult though later births can be too). Pain and travail.

Origen, on the Brethren of Christ mentioning the Protoevangelium (Gospel of James) and the "Gospel of James" as sources for the idea; "...that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary."

Addendum:

You went on to write (after your central question) “’ 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.”

I don’t know why some FR Catholics are shy about giving you the direct answer you want, as I (really) can’t read minds, but perhaps it has something to do with what is called the “Miracle of Lanciano”. http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

Perhaps some of my brotheren here are worried that if they answer as I have, then someone as you may “come back” against them with questions (or accusations) against the Miracle. Specifically things like “so the Miracle of Lanciano is a fraud then, right? Since the species don’t change but that’s what the claim is from Lanciano, right? So who’s wrong, who’s lying here?” Or some other same such contrived nonsense.

It’s quite simple, should you ( or anyone ) have such an agenda: God chose at that time to “go full hog” ( to use your phraseology) and actually transform the bread and wine into physical flesh and blood. But that doesn’t necessarily imply it (such a transFORMation) must always occur when tranSUBSTANtiation occurs.

It doesn’t. And this doesn’t contradict any of the reasoning (Aristoltean or otherwise) behind the concept either.

Perhaps this is also the source of Trent’s reticence (as you described) on the subject also.

I don’t know. I can’t read minds. But I thought you’d appreciate this further perspective.

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.