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.
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.
Yet for all the knowledgeable and perceptive posts on these threads I can't recall seeing this criteria mentioned very often if at all.
Rather odd for threads on religion, particularly the Christian religion.
A pretty good non answer yourself. It is the Greeks to whom God made his NT and eventual Bible available to the Gentiles. The Septuagint is in Greek and so is the whole of the NT. There are scattered idiots to whom it seems good that the OT and the New are in Hebrew, or Aramaic, or Pheonician or Atlantisoid or whatever. However, history and the evidence at hand points to the Greek, and not the Hebrew.
Yeshua is exactly what Gabriel told Mary to name her first son. And that is exactly what she did.
She named her second son James.
The eucharist is a satanic twisting of Yeshua’s last supper.
I’ve no way of knowing what your soul does, but your posts mock and denegrate Yehova.
>> “A pretty good non answer yourself. It is the Greeks to whom God made his NT and eventual Bible available to the Gentiles” <<
.
Eventually the word was made available to the pagan Greeks, but only after corrupting the original writings that were obviously in the language of Yehova: Hebrew.
Hebrew was the only language by which Yehova and his son Yeshua communicated with his elect. It was and continues to be the language of his purpose to man.
Those denied the original language at Babel were also denied the benefit of his word.
Ive no way of knowing what your soul does, but your posts mock and denegrate Yehova (SIC).
I posted the Gospel - in both English and Latin. Somehow that "...mock and denegrate Yehova (SIC)." Very odd how some folks here view the Holy Gospel.
To a non-question.
editor-surveyor wrote:
“BTW, jesus has no meaning whatsoever,...”
1st Corinthians tells us differently:
Just as no one can be speaking through Gods Spirit if he calls Jesus accursed, so it is only through the Holy Spirit that anyone can say, Jesus is the Lord;
"What MUST we do...
Mark 9:38-41
38 Teacher, said John, we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.
39 Do not stop him, Jesus said. For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.
You probably didn't really CARE for an answer; but were challenging my (our) authority to state something other than Company Policy.
Say the magic word - make your post vanish...
When 1 corinthians was written, Shaul did not call our savior Jesus. He called him by name, Yeshua.
Jesus had no meaning, and it is not his name.
Here you go again, mocking Yehova.
Yehova is the creator of the universe, and all that is in it; why do you mock him?
Nor was anyone called John or James or Jude. And you have no way of knowing precisely how Jesus’ name was pronounced.
Does the imprecision matter? No.
We certainly do know how his real name is and was pronounced. Since Jesus never was nor ever will be his name, pronounciation thereof is of little relevence.
And how do you know the correct pronouncement? Ancient Hebrew does not use written vowels.
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.