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

preacher, whatever are you writing about ? Explain your answer ,please.

 

Lakeside, you know exactly to which I refer. Quit pretending, you don't make a good ostrich.

 

It's as I wrote preacher, if the Catholic Church 'got it wrong" then why would your Protestant churches take from it 'any' of the basic Teachings of Christianity. If a vessel [ The Catholic Church ,as you believe] is unclean then even the least of its contents would also be 'soiled', so , that makes all of your Protestant churches "soiled" also. Simple as that.And don't bother to write back and say that your Protestant church or cult never broke off from either the direct splitting from the Catholic Church or a split from one of the many churches and cults that split from the original Protestant church and it hasn't stopped splitting from its man-made split, and still splitting with everyone of them proclaimimg that their church or cult has the correct interpretation , of course not one has that correct Interpretation, for that was given to Christ's Apostolic Church at Pentecost 1st century ,not later in the 16th century on.

 

If that were true they would be known in history to this day as the "Reformers." But their reforms failed, and they were excommunicated, put to death, etc. Therefore they are more recognized as Protestants, those that "protested" against the RCC, and have far less in common than you think. The Anglicans are an exception to that.

 

The title of this thread is: "Vatican Priest Declares 'Yoga is the Work of the Devil'"
I wonder what else the Catholics are saying these days:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/bishops-to...FpbHlidXp6BHB0A3N0b3J5cGFnZQR0ZXN0Aw--;_ylv=3


I wonder if he made a mistake when saying "embrace anew Jesus," he really meant, "embrace a new Jesus."

Oh, wait, they have already done that!


The last statement verifies it: Jesus and 'His Church' are one. :laugh:
It is kinda funny isn't it; if it weren't so sad.


He went on to say:

The Church is not Jesus. The Church is evil and full of heresy.
Now Jesus is the One who teaches, heals, saves, serves, and invites; not the RCC. Their doctrines will send a person to hell if you believe them.

 

LAKESIDE...

Complete nonsense.

You actually believe that a religious organization that is ovrerflowing with false teaching, superstition, idolatry, heresy, blasphemy, child molestation, and full blown goddess worship.....is Gods *supposed* One true church!?!? With a church like that, who needs hell?

C'mon Open your eyes. Come to your senses.

 

Here is where I have a problem, DHK. You state, 'Their doctrines will send a person to hell if you believe them.' I have been reading threads in this forum for some time. I know that 'Thinkingstuff' has returned to the Catholic Church after professing what you would call an evangelical faith for years. I have no doubt in my mind that he was 'born-again' in the sense that we Baptist's would define it. Thinkingstuff now has decided, after what appears to be extensive study of Catholic theology and church history, that the Catholic Church's doctrines are biblical and not only believes them also teaches them! Are you saying he must not really have been saved to begin with if he doesn't eventually repent and leave the Catholic Church? I don't know what else you could possibly conclude given your stated position.

 

"I am a truly a born again believer in both the Catholic and Protestant sense of the term. I once lived in sin and had no thought toward or of God. I was preached to and shown the gospel of Salvation by faith through grace. I believed it in my heart. I repented (said I was sorry then turned 180 degrees from my previous life). By God's grace my life immediately changed and I had a hunger for God's word. I went to Christian churches and universities. I've been door to door. I've been on missionary trips. I've helped build churches in Africa, England, and Main. Been to a few Nicky Criuz conserts and was moved by his testimony. Read the cross and the switchblade several times. Became an efficienado of Christian contemporary groups (when I was young). Ie... Michael Card (My favorite), Amy Grant, Sandy Patty (was sadden when I heard both these women got divorced), Keith Green (still love his music though he was anti-catholic), Michael W. Smith (I still get chills and goose bumps with his rendition of the Sanctus or Holy Holy Holy), Petra (older stuff like the coloring song) - guess I'm showing my age huh - and Rich Mullins. I looked for good books to read by AW Tozer, RC Sproul, Francis Sheaffer, Elizabeth Elliot (good reflections from her time with her husband and her own mission work), had a copy of My Upmost for His Highest by Oswald Chambers at my bed side as well as my copy (and still have it by the way) of Foxe's Book of Martyrs. I met my wife in church (she sang in the chior) and I don't think I had too many friends apart from my home church (which was Southern Baptist) because my life revolved around it. I bring these things up to give you some sense of my life and growth in the faith before returning to the Catholic faith. Which, btw was a huge jump for me because I leaned towards Reformed (TULIP). And Certainly it didn't happen over night. Lots of study and prayer went into it before I even considered researching it."

Post by "Thinkingstuff" taken from a thread, now closed, on 'does RCC have the true Gospel'.Now he totally embraces and believes Catholic doctrine. Is he going to hell if he dies today?

 

Lakeside...

The scriptures were identified, available and heeded by christians centuries before the Catholic *church* came to prominance.

 

Here is ABUNDUNT evidence of the cultic nature of the apostate cult of Catholicism....

http://www.eaec.org/cults/romancatholic.htm

 

Alive In Christ: Maybe you can answer my question. Would you take a look at my post addressing DHK. Thanks!

 

Walter...

DHK is fully capable of handling your posts to him.

Since he has obviously not seen your post to him yet, could respond to my posts to you?

 

I will not comment on a poster's personal salvation in this thread or on this forum.

Here are the facts:
Regarding salvation: If a person has trusted Christ and is now in error, either:
1. He will be severely chastised by God for his disobedience, even to the point of death. He will be a most miserable Christian, for God chastens those that are his. Read Hebrews chapter 12.
2. If he claims to be saved and receives no chastisement then he probably wasn't saved in the first place. God chastises those that are his.
In 1Cor.11:30, for those that abused the sacredness of the Lord's Table, some were weak, some were sick, and some God had killed. God had chastised them. He does not take the disobedience of a believer lightly.

The RCC is not, never was, never will be a Christian organization. Regardless what a person's testimony may be if they are part of this apostate, demonically influenced doctrine, anti-Christ organization, they are in sin, and will receive chastisement if they are believers. If they do not receive chastisement, they should look well to their own lives.

1. The Bible plainly teaches: "For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph.2:8,9)
2. The RCC teaches plainly contrary to that:
a. Baptism saves, or works save. They do not believe that one is saved by faith but rather by baptism. Their catechism teaches that Baptism = new birth. That doctrine can only lead a person to hell. You cannot believe in the Biblical teaching of the new birth and the RCC teaching of the new birth at the same time. We are not schizophrenics and neither was Jesus who taught us the new birth. You must take a stand here. What does it teach. It does not teach baptism, and thus the RCC is in heresy; its doctrines sending people to hell.

If a person believed they were saved by faith, but now they believe they are saved by works, as in baptismal regeneration, what is one to believe?

If a person was a Baptist, but now is a J.W., what is one to believe? The greatest majority of the J.W.'s are former Baptists.

If a person was a Baptist and is now converted to Islam, what is one to believe?

If a person was a Baptist and is now converted to the RCC, what is one to believe?

You draw the conclusions!

 

Well, I really should have asked the question of anyone posting on this forum. I suspect not all would reach the same conclusion that DHK does.

 

Honestly, I have never talked to a J.W. that was a former Baptist that knew really knew their Baptist faith before becoming a J.W. The same goes for Mormans that were former Baptist. On the other hand, 'Thinkingstuff' obviously knows Baptist doctrine and church history far better than the average Baptist (IMHO) and comes to a different conclusion as to the compatibility of the bible and RCC doctrines.

If you are correct, then "Thinkingstuff" must be miserable now that he is back in the Catholic Church. Only he can confirm or deny that. Maybe he will do that for us. I do have a close family member who has a similar testimony to that of "Thinkingstuff" and she assures me she is not a 'miserable Christian' now that she has become a Catholic and I do see the fruits of the Spirit in her life. This is what is most difficult for me. I hear what you are saying, but the life and witness of my aunt suggests otherwise.

Thank you for responding to my question.

 

Walter...

Every Mormon, Jehovahs Witness, and Hari Krishna I have ever met seemed "happy", and seemed to have some degree of "niceness" and "sweetness" in their demeaner.

Ths fruit of the Spirit is different that that.

 

I am very aware of what the fruit of the Spirit is and I'm not talking about my aunt having a 'niceness' or 'sweetness' about her. She has always been loving and kind. She is Christ centered and exhibits that in her daily life. It was after hearing her testimony that I decided to repent of my sins and turn back to the Lord. I see no evidence that she is being 'chastised' for becoming a Catholic.

 

Indeed I was. Because based on your quote those were the first two questions I would naturally ask myself. Note I am not trying to be controversial with you. But want to express natural questions that I've had over the years of previously being baptist (Southern Baptist primarily). Based on your response then come some more natural questions. Which Baptist have the whole truth? As indeed Baptist are much varied with extreems in perspective. It seems the only generally accepted view of all baptist is that Churches are self autonomous. Which doctrines which have variences in them can be easily overlooked or not regarded as they are controversial? Which matters that "really matter" comprise the whole truth?

 

Good Question!!! I personally look forward to the differing answers. Of which I know there will be disagreements. And surely some may even say I was never "saved" to begin with. But lets see!

 

Actually, that is fair based on forum rules.

This is true.

speculative though I see your point. However, what I find interesting is your statement here

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

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.

Certainly personal opinion by someone who has not looked well into the subject faith of which they are speaking about.

Yes and the Catholic Church teaches.

and again

Baptism completes the Faith that has already been given. 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.

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

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

They are the same.

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.

This fact is a suggestion of something is it not?

Not the same thing.

They are seeking the fulness of truth?

Certainly!!!!