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.
Yep.
Delusional fail.
What are the names of the children attributed to Joseph?
What are the names of the children attributed to Mary?
What are the verses which say Mary had other children?
What are the verses which say Joseph had children?
Actually, don’t bother, I already know the answer. NONE!
You do not have the power to demand the composition of God’s word be by your choice.
Thanks for playing.
Essays for Lent: Mary Ever-Virgin
Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary so important to Catholics? [Ecumenical Vanity]
Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?
Aeiparthenos (An Anglo-Catholic Priest on Mary's Perpetual Virginity)
The Heõs Hou polemic is over: Radio Debate Matatics VS White & Svendsen on Perpetual Virginity Mary
The Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Heõs Hou polemic is over: Radio Debate Matatics VS White & Svendsen on Perpetual Virginity Mary
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
LOL, thanks for the encouraging words but I am a mere novice when compared to you. :)
Maybe you can do a good, old fashioned ‘inquisition’ on ‘im...
What's the point? He's not Christian by any indication of his posts. If you are not Christian, then the Inquisition does not apply. You're off the hook, my friend. Happy, happy, joy, joy.
There are three liturgical languages of the Church. English is not one of them.
Yes, playing is exactly what you’re doing.
We know that Yeshua had brothers, by the testimony of the apostles. We know that the apostle James was the brother of Yeshua by the testimony of Paul to the galatians.
We know that Paul got his knowledge directly from Yeshua, on the Damascus road, so there can be no doubt that James truly was Yeshua’s brother.
Why would anyone want to deny these things? Whyu would anyone wish to deny Joseph and Mary the joy of a large family?
It’s truly a strange club that you people belong to.
Yehova Elohim, king of the universe, who brings forth bread from the Earth speaks only Hebrew in his word.
I know that it is an old English tradition to disrespect everyone’s name by mispronouncing them, but speaking English is no reason to disobey Yehova’s commandments, especially his name.
You may continue to disrespect Yehova; that is between you and him. I choose to respect and obey him.
Looks like he’s done an inquisition on himself.
I’d hate to be him on that day...
Where’s my UnSee button!!??
Yet again you give me a verse that does not call James the son of Mary or of Joseph. There were two James in the NT. One was the son of Zebedee and the other the son of Mary, wife of Clopas.
Paul’s use of the word brother here is not regarding a biological connection but a spiritual one.
Another Fail.
Paul the apostle knew who James was and who Yeshua was.
Nice try at deception. James the apostle was a blood brother of the Lord according to Paul not spiritual; that was a real foul ball.
Luk 8:19 Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.
Luk 8:20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
According to you, Jesus' mother shows up with Jesus' spiritual brethren...But, they can not get any where near him...
Luk 8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.
According to you then, Jesus denies his spiritual brethren along with his mother, points to the crowd and says 'these are my spiritual brethren, right here in front of me...THEY (not the spiritual brethren outside with my mother) hear the word of God and do it...So then we have to conclude the 'other' spiritual brethren did not hear the word of God and do it...
And of course to do that would be ridiculous...It doesn't make the least bit of sense...It's not believable...The idea that your theory could be correct is well beyond the realm of possibility...
Movin' too fast...Forgot to add:
If Jesus' spiritual brethren who were with his mother did not hear the word of God AND DO IT, as Jesus indicates, they then could not have been Jesus' spiritual brethren...Just his natural brothers...
How do you know? Chapter and verse, please.
I know that it is an old English tradition to disrespect everyone’s name by mispronouncing them, but speaking English is no reason to disobey Yehova’s commandments, especially his name.
Yes, yes, I know. For instance, the real name of editor-surveyor is spelled Raymond Luxury Yacht, but pronounced Throatwobbler Mangrove. Good point.
You may continue to disrespect Yehova; that is between you and him. I choose to respect and obey him.
Bully for you. Pretentious cloaking in pseudo-Hebraic nomenclature does not indicate worship of the Lord God Almighty. It only indicates, well, pretentiousness.
That’s just my Sunday magic underwear. You should see what I wear during the week.
Come on, oh wise one. What is the name of James in Hebrew? If you are not consistent in foolishness, why then you will only seem foolish.
Nice try at deception. James the apostle was a blood brother of the Lord according to Paul not spiritual; that was a real foul ball.
Not as foul as those Judaizers who seek to pervert Christianity away from what Jesus taught us.
Certainly one to ponder.The responses should be interesting.
Then from Jesus’ words biological relationships were not of great importance compared to the spiritual. As John the baptizer had earlier said, God was able to raise children to Abraham from the stones.
That would explain why Jesus chose the apostle John to care for Mary, John was a more reliable and spiritually trustworthy man than even Jesus’ half-brothers.
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.