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.
Matthew 27:56
Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.
Mark 15:40
Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome.
Good job!
Uh...
No thanks!
Thanks.
Scripture is not ambiguous in this regard.
Christianity seems to have gotten loaded down with all KINDs of stuff!
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’[b]—
18 things known from long ago.[c]
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] [d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
Really??? There are millions upon millions of Christians who have never seen this proof...So I am sure you will be more than happy to provide this proof so we can quell this debate once for all...
That is why the early writings of the Christian community are so important in Catholic history. It is the Church who the Holy Spirit guided in the formation of the canon and it is the Holy Spirit who guided, and continues to guide, the Church in sifting through individual theologies, doctrines and interpretations of Scripture to declare what is true.
For those of us who refuse to accept any supposed authority as being higher than God and his words, I wouldn't waste five seconds with anyone who disagrees with the words of God...But that's why I'm not Catholic...
That Jesus rejected His mother and brethren in this passage is also a wrong understanding of what is being related by the author. Jesus does not reject them. Instead, He uses the moment to illustrate that all who hear the word of God and obeys are His mother, brothers and sister.
You can't leave the 'first' brothers out...They are in the narrative...They didn't even need to be there then if what you say is accurate...They are brothers...Brothers who do not obey what Jesus teaches...They are brothers but they are not Christians (at that time)...They are not cousins or kin since those Greek words are used in the scriptures to describe cousins and kin...
It has been amply proven that the use of brother, brothers, brethren, sister etc....is different in context and by the various authors throughout Scripture. There is simply no proof from Scripture that any of those called such in regards to Jesus are born of Mary.
Now why would you say that??? You have to know that we have bibles to check you out...
adelphos is used about 230 times in the New Testament and every single time it means a literal flesh and bone brother or a figurative brother, ie., Christian brother...Why embarrass yourself???
When one takes into account extra Biblical writings from the times closest to the events of Jesus’ life, those who were immediate successors to the Apostles and other disciples, there is no mention of descendents of Mary or Joseph. There is no mention of these brothers and sisters.
Flavius Josephus spoke of Jesus' literal brothers...
Mar 6:4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
Let's see what's covered here...A prophet has no honor in his own country, among his cousins, and in his own house...We know Jesus was referring to himself as the prophet...
So if as you say Jesus had no brothers, who was it in Jesus' house that dishonored him??? His mother??? Joseph??? He already mentioned his cousins so we know it was not them...
So hey, what do you do with Jesus' sisters???
It's your religion against the bible...There is no debate...
Constantine created the ‘catholic’ church.
Yeshua will prevail over it.
Childish prattle augurs for no defense.
Beliefs that ignore the feasts that Yehova commanded, that tell us “what time it is” on Yehova’s clock, cannot be justified by any means, and most assuredly not by the words of Yeshua.
LOL...Can’t disagree with that...
>> “Yeah, I really sound panicked.” <<
.
Yes, you do, and the sheer volume of fanciful tripe that you post is a solid indication.
There is no Greek word in the scriptures used for 'first' cousin...
You are just denying scripture and making stuff up...
Well there you go.Thanks Iscool.
John 7:3
His brethren therefore said unto Him,
"Depart hence and go into Judea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
I'm just acknowledging the obvious.
Uh... No thanks!
Remember who set up the bulk of rules and regulations of real Christianity (hint - he had a change of heart after he 'hit the road').
False. It had existed for more than 200 years before he was a gleam in the milkman's eye.
Yeshua will prevail over it.
Why would Jesus Incarnate and spent three painstaking years in Creating His Church, then suffer an unimaginably painful and drawn out death, descent to Hell, and then resurrection and ascension into Heaven? So He could prevail over what He told Peter would not even have the gates of hell withstand it?
You people are inconsistent even in your inconsistency.
So you do admit that your usual pattern of foolish posts are indefensible? Ok, I agree with you. Your posts are at odds with the Bible, history and logic. And Sacred Tradition as well.
Well, good for you. Just don't claim to be Christian. You have not posted anything near to Christianity that I have seen.
Are you telling me that Jesus is less the God the Father? That is a major heresy declared in the First Millennium. Are you admitting that you believe in it?
*****Yes, you do, and the sheer volume of fanciful tripe that you post is a solid indication.*****
The lack of any reasoned debate which has now devolved into ridicule is a solid indicator of a lack of ability to debate or to answer reasoned arguments with equally reasoned rebuttal.
Only a petulant child would think I sound panicked.
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.