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.
Your expert...you read him. You’ve been castigating others yet won’t answer the very simplest of questions about the subjects you claim knowledge about.
How about some Scripture to back up that claim?
Greek exceeds my very limited abilities. But it would be nice.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
- - - - - - -
Well, I really hesitate to post this response to you now, as this thread is already getting to be pretty old and "long in the tooth", and the discussion is on a different track now, but your post is begging for a response.
Iscool, you have to discern EVERYTHING in the Bible with faith. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else alive today was alive back in any of the Biblical days, so NONE OF US has direct personal knowledge of ANYTHING mentioned in the Bible.
Rather, we have to discern everything we read in the Bible using the eyes of faith. And ALL of your knowledge of ALL Biblical things must be discerned through the eyes of faith.
For example, we were not present at the actual Resurrection of Jesus -- in fact, NO mere human beings were. We ALL have to DISCERN the truth of that event using only the eyes of faith in the special writings written by the earliest members of God's Church, in what became the New Testament (as compiled by God's Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit).
You need to use that exact same process of discernment using the eyes of faith when trying to determine the truth of the Church's doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.
I believe you and I can at least agree that we have to believe in Jesus Christ and in all the Truth He declared, right?
Now, imagine a person (named Icecold, say) who gets to the end of the road for himself (not trying to be harsh here), and he is brought to his own personal judgment.
He hears a voice say, "Icecold, why didn't you believe in Me, and ALL that I told you?"
Icecold: "When did I not believe you, Lord?"
Jesus says, "Icecold, do you remember this 'dialog'?"
When you, Icecold, read in My Scriptures, My Holy Written Word: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." John 6:51
You, Icecold, said: "No way!"
When My Scriptures plainly said: So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." John 6:53-58
You, Icecold, said: "Not true! I know better!"
When you, Icecold, read these words from My Scripture: Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:26-28
You (Icecold) said: "Not true at all! That's not what it means! I know better!"
When you, Icecold, read these words from My Scripture: And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." Mark 14:22-24
You (Icecold) said: "No way! Not true at all! It couldn't POSSIBLY mean what it actually says! I don't believe anything that I don't understand! I know better!"
When you, Icecold, read these words from My Scripture: And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." Luke 22:19-20
You (Icecold) said: "No way! Not a chance! Not true at all! I know better!"
When you, Icecold, read these words from My Scripture: For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 1 Corinthians 11:23-29
You (Icecold) said: "No way! Not a chance! Not true at all! I know better! I didn't discern any body! I can only discern with knowledge, not with faith in the words of the Lord!"
Then the Lord says to Icecold: "..."
(What?)
However, rather than allowing yourself to get bogged down with confusion about various philosophical terms, and some specific translations of terms from Latin into the archaic Shakespearean English of roughly that same time, it would be much easier and more profitable for you to simply read what Our Lord said directly about the Eucharist, and what the Church taught about the Eucharist right from the beginning, and what the Gospels say about it, and what the Apostle Paul says about it.
Start with these references from the Bible:
In the following generalized brief overview of the Eucharist from various points of belief (including Catholic, Orthodox, various other Eastern churches, and various Protestant denominations, you can see a couple quick references to early teachings on the Eucharist, including from some of the Early Church Fathers and the reference to the "Didache" talking about the Eucharist.
(It is quite easy to do additional research in each of these areas to go as deep as one wishes to go on the subject of the Holy Eucharist.)
Of course, we only can grasp a very small, microscopic bit of the mysteries of God (such as the Eucharist or the Resurrection), through His Teaching and Revelation chosen specifically by His Holy Will to share with us.
There is a veritable goldmine of books written about the Holy Eucharist, and it would be quite worthwhile for all of us to read a number of them. Keep in mind, though, that at the very best, we humans always see ALL these things "through a glass darkly", as the Apostle Paul said, and that we can only discern ANYTHING spoken of in the Bible by using the eyes of faith, enlightened by our reading of the "Written Word", such as those references given above, since none of us was alive back then, or gained direct personal knowledge about any of those things.
With that in mind, please take a look at this expanded description of "transubstantiation" (also written by Frank Sheed) which does explain this unique mystery of God in about as clear a way as I think can be achieved within our very limited human understanding of the mystery:
There is also a lot written about the Eucharist in 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church available here or here
I hope this is helpful for you. (I have to go now, so I probably won't be able to respond to you for a while if you do post a response. Another long day tomorrow. And, like I said in a previous post, this thread seems to be getting a bit "long in the tooth" already anyway, and is just barely hanging by a thread.) :-)
Hope these reading references help.
Couldn't be. I wear Catholic underwear.
I would settle for "honest", and did get a bit of that from another.
Bogged down? No, I understand the terms well enough, and they were not exactly "Latin" terms, for it was Aristotelian philosophical terminology which was employed by Aquinas, which explanation those at Trent borrowed from, but changed the wording slightly. Then --- there is the aspect of those words themselves having present day connotative meanings which if casually allowed to apply, results in positive error, expanding or extending the description of the transformation. But--- it does appear to me that that is the way Roman Catholics today like it to be. Purposely "fuzzy", and utterly dependent upon their own priesthood, with all others excluded. I smell desperation, from Trent onwards, to continue to hold Christ ransom. One would have thought that after losing five crusades against the Hussites, somebody would have learned that God was not with them, was not in full agreement with their overweening need and desire for "control".
I already know the scripture references, too. What I don't really need is to be patronized concerning the issue.
So no, nothing you have brought actually "helps". I didn't need "help", nor was asking for it. But what a way to entirely dodge addressing the questions yourself, while pretending I was in need of your own assistance. I seriously doubt there is all that much you could "show" me. So far, you haven't yet...
Some Roman Catholics around here, act as if the "species" itself changes. That would be a significant progression since Trent. The question was --- do you agree that there is no outwardly discernible change to the bread and the wine. I did expand upon that enough, to have made it perfectly clear what the question was. But--- you didn't touch that but with a ten foot pole...
From the overall tone of your reply, I don't think you understand what I was talking about, much at all, or if so, cannot admit it. I can only guess...since your reply is less than honest in my eyes, and as far as I can tell, coming from your own place of comfort as RC (RCIA?) "instructor" to others. But I am no catechumen or "convert" to Roman Catholicism, nor will ever be. I merely a Christian, instead.
I am a person --- not an opportunity for internet advertisement of Roman Catholic promotional materials.
But I do know a secret concerning discerning the presence of the Lord in association with with taking communion. It is an open secret, hidden in plain sight, spoken directly by the Christ when he first broke and offered the bread. It is the reason it was given, broken for us. Find that, and one may find Him. Attach other meanings or conditions --- and He will not be there, or else if so, in much lesser realization for those whom partake of Him.
For those who may struggle to sense Him there, perhaps that may help?
One must believe in Him who was sent. One must accept Him as sacrifice for our own sins. He is our propitiation, the sacrifice, the ransom paid for many. He is not Himself to be held ransom. He gives of himself freely. Repentance is desired, even required, yet He is the one whom decides when and where there is "enough".
All the other medieval "do penance" self-flagellation type of thing which *some* Roman Catholics of old (and still to this day?) engage in, or else seek to assert that others must continually do, to somehow earn His favor, to make us good enough by being punished enough --- well, those sort of things ARE the "doctrines of demons", to work the subject title of this FR thread into this reply...
Nice story but no accuracy at all...That's all it is; a story...
The bible says 'Prove all things'...Do not tag along with 'blind' faith...
Discernment is not faith...Discernment is knowledge...Discernment is knowing what is physical and what is spiritual...Discernment is testing the spirits BY the words of God in the scriptures...Discernment is rightly dividing the word of Truth...
I do not take or eschew action at your instruction. However, I will say (not because of or in spite of your command, but because I choose to do so with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) that I fully accept the the Word (Jesus), as well as the word of God. I do not pretentiously wave the name Yehova around like a pennant and then in the next sentence claim that Mary's second son was named James (a good and noted Aramaic name, right?).
Every reference I have ever posted is from the most accepted version of the word.
Accepted by whom? Pretentious wanna be inventors of their own religion while cloaking themselves with Hebrew-sounding names?
Catholics just cannot accept the word of Yehova, and its total rejection of catholic “theology.”
See? The Catholic Church was Created by Almighty Jesus. Whatever it is that you post here does not have that origin.
As I said, you reject the word of Yehova, by your own admission.
Nuff said.
Perhaps you failed to notice, but Matthew 1
:25 is scripture, and it makes a clear statement. So do all the rest of the books of the NT that call out all of Mary’s children.
I waited all this time and this is what I get?
Admit it. You cannot find a single verse which says that the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus have Mary or Joseph named as their parent.
The eisegesis on Matthew is also a FAIL.
EPIC fail.
I have no idea of who you think your definition of Yehova is. And frankly, I have little interest in it. I follow the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. You may have heard of him, in passing.
Jim, I don’t know your thoughts on people who run down Jesus in favour of whatever their concept is of ‘Yehova’ - but it is not Christian and doesn’t seem Jewish whatsoever.
There is fail; there is epic fail; then there is e-s fail.
And then way down below there is everyday mark.
>> “I have no idea of who you think your definition of Yehova is.” <<
.
Hard to believe, even from the most rabbid catholic.
Yehova is the name of “God.”
It is the name that he commanded us to call him by, often printed as YHVH, or YHWH in some Bibles. In the KJV and similar versions, it is the name for which the name LORD is substituted.
You do not have the power to demand the composition of God’s word be by your choice.
One would have to believe that Joseph, a Godly man, was nothing but an adulterer or fornicator for all the children attributed to him and his only wife, Mary, not to be hers.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that Mary’s children were not really hers, NONE.
. Hard to believe, even from the most rabbid catholic. Yehova is the name of “God.”
Just because God was called Jehovah in the OT in Hebrew and Greek does not mean that English is served. Christians believe in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I have no idea what you mean by Yehovah unless you are expressly not a Trinitarian.
It is the name that he commanded us to call him by, often printed as YHVH, or YHWH in some Bibles. In the KJV and similar versions, it is the name for which the name LORD is substituted.
Then substitute God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in English because we speak English and we do not put on airs. Right?
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.