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.
Was Jesus fully human or not?
Be lazy and expect to be corrected.
At the foot of the cross...Jesus said. “woman, there is your son...son, there is your mother...(to John). And from then on he took her into his care. Just wondering where all these sons were when they were supposed to be taking care of their mother after Joseph had passed away...
Fully human and fully God.
Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem;
Creatorem caeli et terrae.
Et in Jesum Christum,
Filium eius unicum, Dominum nostrum;
qui conceptus est
de Spiritu Sancto,
natus ex Maria virgine;
passus sub Pontio Pilato,
crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus;
descendit ad inferos;
tertia die resurrexit a mortuis;
ascendit ad caelos;
sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis;
inde venturus est
iudicare vivos et mortuos.
Credo in Spiritum Sanctum;
sanctam ecclesiam catholicam;
sanctorum communionem;
remissionem peccatorum;
carnis resurrectionem;
vitam aeternam. Amen.
In English:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ,
his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived
by the power of the Holy Spirit,
and born of the Virgin Mary,
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
he will come again
to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen
I posted this to Salvation, but didn’t get a reply, probably due to having to with irrational people, but this is a legitimate question and not any type of baiting,
Is it doctrine or just pious belief that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. I believe Eastern Catholics consider her as falling asleep in The Lord, but it is only a pious belief that she was bodily assumed thereafter.
Please feel free to correct me on Eastern Catholic faith if you should know better. Whereas I have disagreements with the RCC, they must always be addressed honestly without distortion of the teachings. I truly believe that God will grant mercy to those that truly believe, even with error as long as they don’t blaspheme and distort the truth.
Thanks
And what is the difference between that and Jesus telling us to consume His Body and Blood? Do you also believe the Holy Spirit would contradict Himself?
Sorry you can't have it both ways.
And the point is it was a universal Christian belief for centuries...till relatively modern times when the idea of perpetual virginity had been erased from our culture to the point that some people find the concept unfathomeable
OTOH he does appear certain he knows all the answers. :)
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
Yes, and He was fully Divine too.
God does not explain to us humans how He does everything -- we have to have faith in God and in His revealed Truth.
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
1 Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats {bróma}, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
broma
definition: food
Blood was never considered a food either in the Old Testament or New Testament. Prohibited by God in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
What was that you said about reading scripture and comprehension again?
Pope's Homily on Solemnity of the Assumption
Essays for Lent: The Assumption
[CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS] 4th Glorious Mystery: The Assumption (Patristic Rosary)
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS]Processions in Spain for the Assumption and the Mystery of Elche (graphics heavy)
[ORTHODOX/CATHOLIC CAUCUS] Indian Church’s Assumption Day Parade Makes Its Colorful Annual...
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] Our Lady and Dogmas: Pondering the Assumption (Launch of Rosary Crusade)
[CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS]The Assumption of Our Blessed Lady
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] The Assumption of Mary [from Hallowed Ground}
[CATHOLIC CAUCUS] Our Blessed Lady's Assumption
CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS] The Feast of the Assumption Is Our Feast Too
[CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS] Where was Mary assumed to?
[CATHOLIC/ORTHODOX CAUCUS] Assumpta est Maria in cælum!
Why do we believe in the Assumption? (Catholic Caucus)
On Mary, Mother of Priests (Assumption)
The Assumption/Dormition: Mystery of Mary, Meaning of Life
From Eden to Eternity: A Homily on the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
The Dormition of our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary
Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary: 15 August [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
The Assumption and the World by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
The Early Church Fathers on the Assumption [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A BELIEF SINCE APOSTOLIC TIMES [Ecumenical]
August 15, Feast of the Assumption - Did Mary's Assumption Really Occur? [Ecumenical]
Assumption Sermon of Rev James Bartoloma 8/16/07 (on Summorum Pontificum)
Angelus - Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (2007)
In Charm City, 100K Have Seen the Light
The Assumption of Our Lady
Solemnity of the Assumption
Solemnity of the Assumption
Mary’s Assumption is hope for today’s society, says Pope
Meditations for this Feast Day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
HOMILIES PREACHED BY FATHER ALTIER ON THE FEAST OF THE ASSUMPTION
Why Catholics Believe in the Assumption of Mary
St. John Damascene: Homily 3 on the Assumption/Dormition
St. John Damascene: Homily II on the Assumption/Dormition
St. John Damascene: Homily I on the Assumption/Dormition
Catholic Caucus: The Assumption of Mary - Marcellino D'Ambrosio, PhD
Today's the Feast of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven
Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, August 15th.
Maronite Catholic: Qolo (Hymn) of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
St. Gregory Palamas: On the Dormition of Our Supremely Pure Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary
Maronite Catholic: Qolo (Hymn) of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Catholic Caucus: A NOVENA OF FASTING AND PRAYERS/ASSUMPTION/DORMITION
St. Gregory Palamas: On the Dormition of Our Supremely Pure Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary
The Fourth Glorious Mystery
Archbishop Sheen Today! -- The glorious assumption
The Assumption Of The Blessed Virgin Mary Reflections For The Feast 2003
A Homily on the Dormition of Our Supremely Pure Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary
The Assumption Of Mary
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
Why are you addressing me with that post? Have I commented on Jesus siblings in this thread? That said, we really don’t know where those “other sons” were do we? What difference would that make in whether or not Mary had other children? Could they not have preceded her in death? Scripture doesn’t say does it. So why the question?
Then He couldn’t have consisted of literal bread could He. No other human can say that his/her body is bread. So the bread He held could not have literally been His body nor the wine His blood.
Jesus could have turned himself into a Rocky Road ice cream cone if he'd wanted to...But there's not a Catholic who ever lived could turn Jesus into an ice cream cone...
Jesus never told anyone to turn wine and bread into his or anyone else's flesh and blood...And Jesus never told anyone how to do it...
You can eat all the communion bread in the world and still go straight to burn in the fires of hell...You had better get born again and stop foolin' with religion...
Jesus is the bread of life, not some stupid wafer or a glass of juice...Jesus obviously wasn't claiming to be a physical OBJECT when He declared that He was the Door, the Vine , or the Water of life...so why make the fatal mistake of thinking that Jesus is a loaf of bread???
What really astounds me is that anyone would be naive enough to believe such nonsense...There is NO magical power or mystical event happening at the Lord's Supper, the Bible commands us to observe it only as a REMEMBRANCE of Jesus shedding His blood and suffering upon the cross for our sins...The Lord's Supper is an ordinance, NOT a sacrament...Nowhere does the Bible refer to the Lord's Supper as the "Eucharist"...
Honestly, does this always have to be dealt with in every Catholic thread?
Jesus never held up a door and said, “This is my body.”
Jesus never held up a lamb and said, “This is my body.”
Ridiculous argument.
Jesus said, I am the door and I am the Lamb of God, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. All of which He is. But he never claimed that a door was His body or that a lamb was His body.
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.