Hi, Alex —

You said:
It's me again. I'm still writing this paper and I appreciate the diligence Mr. Ewanco is taking in responding to my prior questions. In the mean time, if one of you could comment on the following two verses from Scripture, I would very much appreciate it:

• Forbidding people to marry?
• Abstaining from certain foods?

Rome teaches exactly that, and Paul, in writing to Timothy, stated that such teachings are from:

• demons
• hypocritical liars, and
• those 2 . . . whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
  
  
• As Catholics, how does one confront such a saying from the beloved St. Paul?

Personally, being a former Catholic, if one of the church founders taught that forbidding to marry and abstaining from certain foods was demonic in nature, I would reconsider my membership with such an organization. Please don't be afraid to read this and take it as it says. I've noticed that Catholics have a nice way of wheedling around certain truths in Scripture, such as forbidding marriage and implying foods are demonic. This is the Word of God my brothers and sisters, don't beat around the bush.

There is a temptation among Protestants to search the Scriptures for things that will disprove Catholicism. When they see something that superficially matches what they are looking for, they lock onto it, like a target. The truth is more subtle. Imagine you have someone who doesn't believe Jesus is God. Suppose they seized upon the verse (which I cited to you in a private e-mail and quote here for the archives) Mark 10:18, Why do you call me good? Jesus answered. No one is good — except God alone. You might be able to refute it, but you would need to show it to them in the context of other Scriptures. Context is key — a text without a context is a pretext. And some Christians are very good at trotting out their favorite verses wrenched out of context.

So it is with this verse.

• What then is the proper context?

Anyone who has studied the Gnostics — who believed that matter was evil and spirit good — will immediately recognize these condemned teachings. I assume as a PhD candidate you are well familiar with them, and know that they plagued the early Christians. Evidence of this is clear in books like the Epistles of St. John, because they say that anyone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh is the antichrist, which is precisely a teaching of the Gnostics. They felt that marriage was evil because it brought new bodies into the world, which were evil. They maintained a strict diet, often vegetarian. Also 1 Timothy 4:1 follows 1 Timothy 3:16 which says that Jesus was manifested in the flesh, a hint that Paul had the Gnostics in mind when he wrote this. (Remember that the chapter divisions didn't exist in Paul's time, they were added much later.)

The difference between Catholicism and Gnosticism is that Gnosticism's prohibitions were unlimited and for non-Christian reasons, while ours is limited and for very Christian purposes.

As for forbidding marriage, we don't forbid marriage, except to those:

• already married
• who have made a free choice to be eunuchs for the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:12), or
• who have opted to follow Paul's advice to be single for the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32-34).

As for abstaining from certain foods, this is less than only 1/7th of the year — in some cases, like the United States, it adds up to seven days. That is very different from the kind of permanent abstinence the Gnostics followed.

There is value in abstinence to the Christian. For example, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:27, No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. One of the points of abstinence is to learn to control the passions (baser emotions and tendencies). We must master ourselves in order to be saved, as Paul teaches. Jesus said Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me. (Matthew 16:24) Just as a child learns to do big things by playing in small ways, or as an athlete practices his moves before a game, so practicing self-denial in little things, like food, helps us when big things come. In fact, he who has not practiced self-denial simply will not be ready when major self-denial is demanded. It's like trying to run a marathon with no practice (1 Corinthians 9:24-25). Abstinence is also a form of fasting, which Jesus enjoins us to do (Matthew 6:16, Matthew 9:15).

You said:

• Does this not nullify the fact that the Roman Catholic Church uses its ancestral ties to the Apostles as a means of exerting their authority?
• If the Jews cannot claim Abraham as the reason they are superior, then by what authority do Catholics declare themselves the only righteous ones?

Catholics claim that because they can trace their lineage to Early Church founders, they somehow have better relations with God. Of course this is untrue, because the early churches were not Catholic, nor does that connection somehow make one more worthy of God's grace, but for arguments sake, I'll neglect that fact, and grant the Roman Church's supposed traced lineages.

This is not really what we believe. Apostolic succession — our ancestral ties as you put it — has absolutely nothing to do with righteousness. It pertains to the authority to be a church. This is not the same as being righteous, which refers to moral rectitude. It doesn't necessarily mean better relations with God, though I think I see what you're saying. What John the Baptist is arguing is that the Pharisees cannot claim to be sons of God (righteous) based on their lineage. They actually have to believe and bear fruit. An analogy with the Catholic Church would be someone who claims that because he was born into the Catholic Church, he could freely transgress the commandments and still be saved. This is not what we believe.

I'd like to point something else out as well. John the Baptist was condemning individuals claiming to be in a right relationship with God.

He wasn't condemning structures or ruling hierarchies. In fact, in a verse little known to Protestants despite its proximity to one of their favorite verses to bash Catholics, Jesus said,

"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying , The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe , that observe and do ; but do not ye after their works: for they say , and do not.

(Matthew 23:1-3).

This is interesting for two reasons.

One, the concept of Moses's Seat was a tradition the Jews handed down from Moses's time, something like the Catholic Magisterium. Jesus not only doesn't condemn this tradition, he binds his disciples to obey it! So much for sola scriptura.

The second interesting thing is that Jesus binds them to obey the scribes and the Pharisees even though they are not righteous, precisely the opposite of the point you are trying to prove. Here Jesus is referring to them as an institution, not individuals. While we don't have Moses' Seat anymore (as such), the message is clear: The unrighteousness of church authority is no excuse for disobedience or schism.

Eric

Alex —

You said:
In the first passage I quoted:

Notice the verse starts out The Spirit clearly says that in later times. Paul was not talking about the times at hands, he was talking about later times.

But Paul thought that the last days were at hand, now (See Philippians 2:24, James 5:3, and
1 Peter 1:20). Elsewhere salvation is portrayed as appearing in the last time (1 Peter 1:5, Hebrews 1:2). So later I argue referred to the near future, not the distant future.

You said:
It's more of a prophetic statement than a warning against things during his time. He is prophesying, through the Spirit, that in the times down the road, demons will order abstinence from certain foods and forbid marriage.

• Why dance around that?

Demons will teach abstinence from food and forbid marriage.

Alex, we don't teach abstinence from food and marriage. These are disciplines, not teachings, and the verse clearly refers to teachings. The Gnostics taught these things were evil as a matter of faith; we hold them to be useful practices but meat is morally neutral and marriage is a sacrament, so we don't teach against them. It also says that these thing 2 . . . come through hypocritical liars.

• How does that describe Catholicism?

It describes Gnostics because they taught one thing and believed another thing. Gnostics were also into the occult (cf. Simon Magus, the one after whom magicians are named, Acts 8:9), which explains the demonic part.

Given that we:

• promote exclusively the worship of the one true God
• are totally opposed to occultism and recourse to spirits, and
• uphold godly morality,
  
  
• How can that apply to us?

Also note that Paul says, commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:3)

The implication here is that the doctrine he is opposing denies that they are to be received with thanksgiving. This fits the Gnostic model, which considered meat evil, but not the Catholic model, which does receive such things with thanksgiving.

I also think there is a logic problem here. Paul is stating that demons will teach this. He is not, however, stating that people who have these ideas are demonic. The fact that A implies B does not imply B implies A. It's a subtle difference. i think you are trying to argue that anyone who imposes any sort of remote abstinence from food is automatically and incontrovertibly demonic, but this is not what Paul is saying.

He's stating that there will be demonic deceptions that have this characteristic, but he's not stating that abstinence from food or marriage are intrinsically demonic. As I said, he puts other qualifiers on there, such as they have to be hypocritical liars as well.

You said:

• Now your comments about the Gnostics are entirely true, but does that mean it doesn't hold true today?

Yes, because it had a much more sensible fulfillment in them, but you're missing the point:

Paul has in mind the Gnostics. He's not looking at these two ideas in isolation. He's looking at them in the context of the Gnostic threat. You're wrenching them out of context.

You said:
It's especially true today because Paul clarified his statement by saying in later times.

Except that, if you want to argue that, the Catholic Church has been practicing abstinence and enforced celibacy from the days of the Apostles.

You said:
There's nothing superficial about it. Paul advised those who were going to serve, not get married; he doesn't forbid it. If you are a nun or priest (or any superior in the Catholic Church), you are forbidden to marry.

Sure, but not after you have freely chosen it. You're not forced into it and it's not imposed on you.

• If you freely pledge before God not to marry, why is it so unreasonable to hold you to that pledge?

You said:
Catholics, as a whole, are forbidden foods during certain periods of the year. Paul doesn't say that those demons will teach that foods should be banned indefinitely, but says that it's demonic to teach the banning of foods and marriage at all!

Oh is it, Alex? What about 1 Timothy 5:9-12:

• Is Paul teaching the doctrines of demons because he teaches that enrolled widows take a pledge not to marry which, if they break it, incurs judgment?

So this boils down to a single question:

• Does Paul, or does Paul not, forbid marriage to a pledged widow?
• And what about married people?
• Is it demonic to forbid them to marry again?
• Is it really demonic to teach the banning of marriage at all?

You said:
If Paul wanted to say those who ban both those things:

— for everyone, (and/or)
— for an indefinite amount of time

would then be demonic, he would have clarified his statement, but he doesn't. According to context of the passage, the Spirit says that anyone who bans food, for anyone for any amount of time is demonic, and that anyone who bans marriage, for anyone for any reason or any amount of time is demonic.

If Paul wanted to refer to those who band both these things: — for anyone and — for any amount of time, then he would have said so. :-) You could equally argue that, it's abstinence from marriage, period, and abstinence from food, period.

In fact, your argument really proves too much. A proponent of gay marriage could very well argue that churches that forbid gay marriage fall under this condemnation. Hey, "If Paul wanted to say that those who ban marriage for everyone, would then be demonic, he would have clarified this."

This brings up a certain point: Just because we prevent people who have pledged themselves to God from marrying, or for that matter prevent same-sex couples or already-married couples from marrying, doesn't mean that we forbid marriage; it means that we regulate marriage.

Fact is, Alex, you can't read such things into Scripture like that. I think you are trying to find a condemnation of Catholicism here instead of objectively reading the text in the proper context.

So let's summarize this.

As you can see, it's not really a good match for Catholicism.

You said:
As far as banning marriage for those in the clergy, Its my personal belief that God has disciplined this un-Godly law by publicly shaming the Church through certain scandals, those of which, I'm sure you're well aware. I don't say such things to offend you, only to make a point. Those who know God's Will but go against it are beaten with many blows.

Actually Protestants are just as subject to these scandals as we are. It's just that because you don't have:

• deep pockets
• a central organization
• well-documented personnel files, and
• the reputation for strict morality, that we have

that they haven't gone after you.

You said:
Obviously sexual abstinence is a universal belief, and Catholics and Protestants have no quarrels about it. If anything, the Catholics lead the way in:

• practicing abstinence and
• being pro-life.

As far as food goes, none of it is forbidden. Gluttony and over-eating is something we should all avoid, out of respect for our bodies, which are temples of the Lord. We are not much use to anyone if we're 600 pounds and on the verge of death, however, all food is permissible and should be received with thanksgiving, and by those who know the truth. Me eating a steak hoagie isn't going jeopardize my guaranteed salvation.

Funny you should say that because I am never more grateful for the food I eat then when I am fasting. It greatly deepens my appreciation for God's provision and gives me a solidarity with the poor and hungry.

By the way you never addressed my quotes from Jesus about the assumption that his disciples will fast. From the first century, the Church had a custom of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays.
They did so together, as an act of unity and community. Friday abstinence grew out of this custom.

You said:
On the subject of bearing fruit, lets talk about Catholic Church numbers.

Alex. Think about it. 1963 — 1969 was the surge of the sexual revolution. Free love and all that.
It should not be at all surprising that this would see a lot of priests leave. A similar argument basically applies to the time since then.

You said:

• What is the most disheartening thing about that quote?

It's from 1988. The statistics from 2011 aren't out yet, but with an annual net loss of 7.5% of Catholic Church membership in the United States alone, I don't think much fruit has been born. On top of all that, the fact that its vine was split in two in the sixteenth century by the Protestant Reformation sheds light on the net output of Rome. Scripture says the vine that does not produce fruit will be cut off, and new shoots will be grafted in. (John 15:2)

Hmmm. Interesting.

You know, vines also get pruned so they can bear more fruit as well. If you know anything about fruit trees and shrubs, pruning can be pretty drastic. Sometimes you prune away up to 1/3 of the plant. You're also missing the first 1,900 years of the Catholic Church, in which we bore fruit abundantly just fine, thank you very much.

The last forty years have seen a lot of upheaval in Catholicism; we've received the twin blows from:

1. the sexual revolution (together with secularization) and
2. the upheaval following the Second Vatican Council.

Napoleon once famously bragged to a cardinal that he would destroy our Church. The cardinal laughed and said,

"What we priests and bishops have been unable to do up until now, you won't be able to do, either."

You said:
My brother is getting married soon, and my baby cousin was just baptized. My brother is marrying a Catholic wife, whose priest refuses to marry them unless it was a Catholic wedding.

• Why?
• Why can't it be a wedding in the name of Jesus?

You must not be getting the whole story. It's entirely possible for a Catholic to get married with a Protestant ceremony as long as they get permission from the Catholic bishop, which is, especially in this country, virtually never denied. What they have to do is make sure they go through courses that properly educate them about Catholic Christian marriage and make sure they aren't already married.

• But to turn it around, what's wrong with a Catholic wedding on your end?
• Isn't that a wedding, In the name of Jesus?

You said:
For his Baptism, his parents had to sign a paper saying they promise to bring him up Catholic.

• Why?
• If they're so confident that they're right, why are they bound by pen and paper to remain members in the Church?
• Shouldn't the Spirit convict the good Catholic to stay in the Church?
  

Ideally, sure, but a business deal should be sealed sufficiently by an honest reputation and a handshake, but we all know that's inadequate because of the fallen nature of man.

• And why do you need a piece of paper from the courthouse to seal the marriage, anyway?

I don't know any Protestant pastors that will marry someone without a civil marriage. People pay attention when they have to sign something.

• Why does Scripture say our names are written in the book of life? (Revelation 21:27)
• Can't God remember them?

It goes back to the sacramental nature of Catholicism; in order to appreciate something we need to involve our senses.

You said:
Alas, they're leaving in droves, being directed elsewhere, in particular to Protestant churches, who do not bind their members to meaningless laws and promises. Not that it matters much, because people have and will leave the Catholic Church regardless.

No offense, but I think people have a lot of pride in rejecting these things. The truly humble Christian will accept all things gratefully in all circumstances and will obey legitimate authority, even if he doesn't understand the point.

• Did you see Jesus resist the law that seized and executed Him?
• Did He not command His disciples to obey the scribes and the Pharisees?

Again, no offense intended if this hits home, but most of the people I encounter who leave Catholicism are profoundly ignorant of it and are not well-grounded in the Christian faith.

What's sad is that you'll get a Catholic who grows up in the Church, hears the Gospel and epistles every week and absorbs the Word of God in the liturgy but pays half-hearted attention to everything, then some Protestant will have a single conversation with him, and all of a sudden, he accepts Jesus, not realizing that the Catholic Church has been prepping him for this moment his whole life. (I'd like to see how much luck evangelists have with Hindus on the street.) Then he heaps scorn on the Church that fed him because of some silly, prideful inconsequential thing usually having to do with resentment against his parents, and trots off to the Protestant church free of the Roman shackles, never bothering to see what the Catholic Church has to say about the Scriptures, or at least if he does, not doing so in a truly open, docile, honest, or thorough way. They (I'm being honest here) are always bashing the Catholic Church and teaching others to do the same.

On the contrary, my experience has been that the devout/Spirit-filled (take your pick) Protestant converts to Catholicism are marked by this remarkable quality:

They are grateful for and appreciate their former faith, and genuinely see it as a preparation for the fullness of truth.

I've never heard them bash their former faith, and their conversion is marked by:

• thoughtfulness
• deliberateness
• a love for truth
• thorough study, and
• consideration, often in the face of painful opposition and difficulty, sometimes extreme.

Catholics who:

• become Protestant because their mom did something to tick them off, or
• because they want to get remarried, or
• have some other sexual issue,

are a dime a dozen and I frankly have no respect for them. I don't want to be them on Judgment Day, that's for sure.

You said:

"Do as I say, not as I do."

We've all heard that cliche before. It's simple and meaningful. It's especially true because what we say, or are supposed to say as Christians, is supposed to be the Word of God, aka, the Bible.

This is a whole other topic, but I want you to prove to me, from the Bible alone, that the
Word of God is the Holy Scriptures, no more, no less.

You said:
If we were to do as they do, and not as they say, well, the world wouldn't get anywhere because all fall short of the Glory of God, aka, we're all sinners. The preacher may say:

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

OK, I'll do that, but if behind the curtain he's stealing money and I know it, I'm not going to do it. When Christ said listen to them, but don't mimic them, He was fully aware that the Jews would not add, subtract or read anything, except the Holy Scriptures, or, in modern times, the Bible.

I'll listen to the Pope all day, as long as the man is reading the Bible, but once he attributes the same authority that Scripture carries:

• to his own original words, or
• the original words of other sinful men

that's when he's mistaken.

So what do you think about 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

15 Therefore , brethren, stand fast , and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

You said:
Now it's common Catholic knowledge that Peter was the first Pope and he carries much authority with his title.

• What I need to understand is, why, with so much vagueness and ambiguity surrounding him, is he still recognized as the first pontiff?
• For example, how long did Peter live in Rome?

There was a late fourth-century report that he was there for twenty-five years, but there is no historical basis for this. What is known is that, about the year 58 A.D., Paul, the Apostle, wrote another one of his letters, this time to the Romans. In it, he greeted entire households and mentioned twenty-nine individuals by name, but he did not salute Peter. That is surely an astonishing omission, if Peter was residing there and was Bishop of Rome.

Peter was bishop of Antioch before he was bishop of Rome. Perhaps he was there at the time.

You said:
Further, Eusebius of Cæsarea, acknowledged to be the Father of Church History, writing about the year 300 A.D., said:

Today historians suggest that Peter lived in Rome for three or four years at the most. There is no record that he took charge of the community there. It couldn't have been automatic. He had not even been bishop in Jerusalem after Jesus' death. James, the Lord's brother, was. Then there is this startling tidbit: In the earliest list of the bishops of Rome, Peter's name never appeared.

You're going to have to do much, much better than that. I found this after a brief Google search:

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 180 A.D., 3,3,2:

Note that he says: For with this Church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.

There's your papal infallibility right there, in seed form in the second century. This disproves the notion that in the Early Church, the church was the invisible collection of all believers:

we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper.

While I'm at it, here is another quote from St. Irenaeus on this topic:

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 180 A.D., 4, 26, 2:

You said:
For example, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons from 178 — 200 A.D. was the disciple of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who himself, was a disciple of John, the Apostle. He enumerated all the Roman bishops up to the twelfth one, who was Eleutherius. According to Irenaeus, the first bishop of Rome was not Peter or Paul, but Linus. The Apostolic Constitution in the year 270 A.D. also named Linus as the first bishop of Rome, appointed by St. Paul. After Linus was Clement, chosen by Peter. The mystery deepens. In all his writings, Eusebius, the Father of Church History, as I previously stated, never once spoke of Peter as Bishop of Rome.

• Where on earth are you getting this stuff?

A quick google search reveals this:

You said:

• How is this to be explained?

Frankly, that's what I want to know!

You said:
It seems that in the minds of the early Christian commentators, the Apostles were in a class of their own. They did not belong to any particular church, not even when they planted it, that is, founded it, as Paul did throughout Asia Minor. The Apostles belonged to the whole Church. Being an Apostle precluded a man from being bishop of once place. Peter, no matter what or where his accomplishments took place, remained an Apostle of the entire community.

I wouldn't argue with that.

You said:
The Catholic Church has made it a point of faith that Popes are successors of St. Peter as bishop of Rome, but Peter never had that title! He was only given it centuries after he was dead.

I'm a little confused. Either he was bishop of Rome, or he wasn't.

• If he wasn't, he doesn't hold the title.
• If he was, he had it the moment he assumed office.

Just because the earliest extant reference to him as bishop of Rome may be in 180 A.D. doesn't mean he wasn't given the title until 180 A.D. It means the earliest proof we have that he was considered bishop of Rome is 180 A.D.

If 2,000 years from now, nearly all our written records are destroyed, and the only document that uses the term President Barrack Obama is dated 2,200, you don't conclude that he was given the title President in 2,200.

So I don't think you are trying to argue that Peter wasn't a bishop. I think you are trying to argue that Peter was not bishop of Rome, which I've disproved from Irenaeus and Eusebius, among other anonymous writers.

• Is that point clear now?

You said:
Naturally, he would have had immense moral authority in the Jewish-Christian community in Rome, but unlike Paul, who was a Roman citizen, he would have been a foreigner there.

Sorry, I'm an Early Church history buff and I wanted to make it clear that Peter was not acknowledged as special by anyone during the Early Church times, regardless of the modern claim that he was the rock on which the Church was supposed to be founded. Protestants disagree with that, but I'm not going to argue about it now.

I'm glad you're an Early Church history buff, but I think you need to bone up on your history. :-)

You said:

1. I implore that you take the time to read this and respond, in your own time, and with no pressure to respond in a timely fashion.
2. Secondly, I request that you do not take my harsh words the wrong way. I say these things to you out of love, not out of hate or spite.

• That was harsh?

More enjoyable than harsh. ;-)

Have a most blessed Good Friday and Pascha (as we call it in my church).

Eric
[Related Posting]