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.
Of course there is no evidence of that...It's nothing more than an Orthodox fable...
That's not when they left...Read a bible...
We are not charged with saving their souls. We are charged with doing our best to save their souls - a la the 72.
They didn’t leave Him when they understood Him to say that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.
I’m fascinated. Chapter and verse please.
Christ physically lived on Earth at a specific time in history and within a specific culture. It wasn’t the 20th Century or Los Angeles. The bible needs to be read in context and then it’s beauty becomes much more evident.
The disciples that left rejected ALL of it...Not JUST the eating of the flesh and blood...And the icing on the cake was verse 65...The bible says so..."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oh, sure, it is plain to see how THAT verse 65 would drive them all away...
But, seriously, you should also read the linked page at post #169.
(Now, I really have to sign off for the night!)
So we should pray the Lord’s Prayer but once in our lives? What about hymns and praise songs, are they only to be sung once?
Of course, as it would be boring and repetitive to repeat them as the pagans do /sarc
Many of the institutionalized prayers are so well known because of their beauty and their ability to say what is clearly in our hearts without our scattered confusion and the principalities of evil distracting us. Prayer is to bring us closer to God. To help us become more godlike (theosis). The meditation of repetitive heartfelt prayer is one method of doing so. Our focus is on the Triune God, not ourself or nothing, that is a difference from paganism.
Our Lord even gave us a prayer to repeat unless you believe he was actually trying to deceive us and lead us into evil.
First off, you have never seen an original New Testament nor do you know anyone who has...So quit fakin' it...
Secondly, what does the greek say???
ἄνωθεν
anōthen
an'-o-then
From G507; from above; by analogy from the first; by implication anew: - from above, again, from the beginning (very first), the top.
As we can see, it can mean from above...It can mean 'again'...
Then Jesus goes on to explain that being born again is being born of the Spirit...
If Jesus had said 'born from above' Nicodemus couldn't have ask this question...
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born
Nicodemus would have known Jesus was not referring to being born again from his mother's womb...It has to be 'born again' to make sense of the scripture...
And maybe you haven't read this story about the power of only one Hail Mary.
That's what I was saying...The Orthodox put the emphasis on Jesus while your religion puts the emphasis on Mary...
Oh but you fail to note that Jesus said that one must eat of this bread to have eternal life and then He took bread, broke it and gave thanks and gave it to them saying “Take this and eat of it, this is MY BODY.
Yep, fail is the right word.
I’m fascinated. Chapter and verse please.
I just posted a bunch on it...Read the thread...
I said it was ALL of it...And that was the last straw...Are you trying to read with your eyes closed???
Catholics venerate Mary, they do NOT worship her. There may be individuals that do so, but it is not a teaching of the RCC.
Seriously is there truly anyone over the age of 20 who has not heard this before? To keep spreading the lie that Catholics worship Mary either directly or by implication is just evil. Disagreeing with the RCC is one thing, deliberately altering their teaching is another. Something truly unworthy of a Christian.
Wow. So much wrong and hateful here.
You believe what you believe, we get it.
Mary was conceived without Original Sin according to Catholic doctrine (The Immaculate Conception).
There is a very real reason, theologically for that belief.
Being Sinless; Mary was a pure vessel through which Christ could become Man through the Miracle of Virgin Birth.
That is it.
If you want to perpetuate the myth that Catholics *worship* Mary; you should take it somewhere else.
I’ll be happy to argue the *facts* of my Faith; but outright falsehood smacks of some sort of prejudice, that we don’t need on FR.
You can pray all the hail mary's you wish. They will get you no closer to God's throne! There is only one mediator, and that is Jesus Christ. All of your dead saints equal a bunch of rotten corpses. They cannot gain God's ear any more than , indeed, they cannot even speak for themselves now! They are dead in Christ, or not! If they relied on their RCatholicism for their salvation, I am not holding much hope for them!
As for "praying the lord's prayer but once...", Jesus' prayer is a pattern, not a command! He says pray in "this manner", not in these words!
I am alive in Christ! I know because His Spirit lives in me and ALL those that know Him. Mere rote praying only fills the days... but God tells us to go into our closets! Your rosary beads are just decorations to distract you from God. Your "meditations" are merely a result of your indoctrinations through your early teachings. How often do you meditate on Jesus' Words? How about Paul. Try reading the Book of Romans. He spoke directly to your proud brethren. The muslims teach bombs and jihad to their young. Neither approach God's throne...!
You can find all of my points in Scripture. I won't bother to quote them here. Look them up yourselves. The same cannot be said for your organizations ritualistic requirements... which rarely have any Scriptural basis, but are born in the minds of your captors, the Roman hierarchy!
Tim Staples is a gifted speaker, and a charitable apologist. Many of the loud mouths that appear in these threads make a common mistake. They use their reason as a positive rule of Faith. Their reason tell them what the Bible means, and after reading the Sacred Scriptures for 65 years, they still get it wrong. St. Francis DeSales outlined the rules of Faith; seven are positive, while only one is negative, human reason. Human reason can be used to rule out what does not belong to the Faith, but it will fail if used to determine in a positive role what one must believe. The gift of Faith is the light that shines from the mountain top, it is by this gift that we know what to believe with regard to the things of God. This is why Catholics can pick up the Bible, read passages and with very little effort pick up on what the Holy Spirit is saying. For those who have Faith, the meaning of Sacred Scriptures is plain as day, while those who approach it through the lens of human reason and its attendant pride, the understanding of Sacred Scriptures is a lifelong struggle. Faith is a gift, and we cannot glory in having the gift, because nothing we do or have ever done would ever earn it. It is a pearl of great price. This gift comes to us through the Sacrament of Baptism. However, it is a gift that we must nurture. Receiving Jesus in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is very sweet, yet it challenges our reason because our senses deny it while our will chooses to believe that the words of Christ cannot fail. The Pange Lingua of St. Thomas Aquinas captures this well.
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.