Vatican Priest Declares "Yoga is the Work of the Devil"

[WestminsterMan]

It's easy to understand [ from reading the many posts on the different threads here] why some of you can't understand the ways of Christ [ as in Christian ] through His One Church with its Apostolic Teachings together along with the Holy Bible with its One and only Interpretation as intended.How can any of you possibly believe that individual interpretation is the valid way taught by the Bible, when the Bible itself is against it. It boggles ones mind to think that the intellect of some actually believe that their particular church has the correct interpretation out of a number far exceeding 30,000 different conlicting interpretations when the Bible tells you differently, so much for sola Scriptura. The Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God and has only One real Interpretation.

The fact that this is even being discussed here indicates to me that the RCC holds a place of prominence with many Protestants on this board (whether they can admit or not) - which is as it should be. Otherwise, they would completely ignore anything regarding the RCC as totally irrelevant, being unworthy of comment.

WM

 

[DHK]

For you the Lords table is no more than some symbol or a referrence to something completed and done 2,000 years ago. Maybe even an ordenance to remember what happened at calvary but certainly no more than that.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26)
--You do err. It is held in remembrance of what happened at Calvary, and it also looks forward to His Coming. It is of special remembrance of these things; a very worshipful service.

If it is therefore held in such low esteeme, how can it's sacredness be abused if it has none?

False premise leads to false conclusion.
It is not held in low esteem at all. We hold it once a month and have a deacon asking why we don't hold it more often. It is a sacred service as every service. No service should be treated without reverence toward a holy and Mighty God. The problem in Corinth is that they were coming to this service as drunks and gluttons. Things had gotten a bit out of proportion wouldn't you think?

In fact, Most baptist churches only celebrate communion once in a quarter if that? Showing effectively that there is nothing to the symbology that cannot be remembered just as adiquately by reading the passage in scriptures.

I have already answered part of that for you. The second half is just a ridiculous assumption. If I can remember the mass in Latin that was taught to me 50 years ago, I dare say I can remember what happened at the Lord's Table one month ago. Your insults are not needed here.

I however, hold that it has the very presence of God in it and give it all due respect. If that then, therefore is the case how can one be said to abuse the sacredness of it?

That is abuse, for it is abuse of the Scripture in that you have turned the literal meaning of the Scripture into vain imagination and superstition.

For Baptist, it holds little significant value apart from memory and ordinance. There is no covenant associated with this meal as it holds for me.

Your opinion and yours alone.

This is untrue. It represents the oldest form of Christianity. You can find that the Oldest Churches agree doctrinally on fundamental christian doctrine. Compare for yourselves the Orthodox, Copts, Assyrian, and Catholic Churches. These are the oldest Christian faith now in existance.

Perhaps you remember the Bible using the description "having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof." That is what describes the RCC. It was never a Christian organization; old, yes; Christian, no. I don't compare myself to any of those organizations. Why should I?
Certainly personal opinion by someone who has not looked well into the subject faith of which they are speaking about.[/quote]
What you just stated is not only opinion but an ad hominem--an attack on my character. I have been there and come out. I have studied it both then and now. But you wouldn't believe me anyway. The only answer you have is to stoop down and call names.

Yes and the Catholic Church teaches. and again

Salvation is by faith and faith alone. You do not teach that. The RCC teaches that it is by works. Why deny the facts when they are so easily proven through the catechism?

Baptism completes the Faith that has already been given.

And how much faith does an infant, only a few days old, have???

Baptism is what Jesus does for us and is not a work any more than reading scripture. If you were to be baptized without faith you would not be saved. Catholics do not believe works save. most of what you thing of as "Catholic works" are for sanctification not granting us initial Justification.

When did Jesus come down from heaven and baptize you or any of your extended family? I really want to hear about this. Jesus did not do this! Some other man did! No doubt a sinful corrupt man called a priest. It wasn't Jesus. And because that priest DID the baptizing, and YOU received the baptism, it was a WORK of baptism. Jesus had nothing to do with it.
Baptism is a work.
Reading Scripture is a work.
Works do not save.
Only faith in Christ saves; Christ alone can save; Christ plus nothing, meaning that you can't add baptism to the sufficiency of the blood.

As does Jesus to Nicodemus Born from above by water and the spirit.

Again, your Catechism teaches: Baptism = New Birth. But that is now what is taught in John 3. There is not even a hint of baptism in John 3:5. No self-respecting scholar would ever interpret "water" to mean baptism. That would have been the furthest thing on Nicodemus' mind.

Only in that you do not understand it or refuse to.

Belief in the doctrine of baptismal regeneration will only send a person to hell; only Christ can save. Baptism cannot save anyone; it can only get you wet. Examine yourself.

They are the same.

What I said:
"You cannot believe in the Biblical teaching of the new birth and the RCC teaching of the new birth at the same time."
--They are not the same. The one is salvation to be accepted by faith.
The other is a work done by man after salvation. Baptism is a work. It has nothing to do with salvation. If a person puts their faith in baptism and not in Christ then that person will not find heaven.

I've just shown you. Baptismal regeneration isn't a work its a completion of a faith already given. With out faith Baptism is to no avail.

However, the emphasis in the RCC is on infant baptism. Infants have no faith. Your statement "completion of faith" in that context doesn't even make sense. Baptism cannot complete a faith one does not have.