Yes and this guy have been defending Yun.

you lied again.

Uncle yeeck, quick propose to excommunicate and kill these Catholics who dare to voice out different interpretations of Bible so that RCC will remain as one true universal church!

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/is.t...etic/101092.htm

Cardinal Raymond Burke has threatened to make a "formal act of correction" to Pope Francis' teaching in a highly controversial and unusual public spat.

The ultra-conservative critic of the Argentine pontiff insisted there was a tradition of cardinals challenging the Pope if he is in error. Making "a formal act of correction" is the first step to declaring someone a formal heretic.

It comes as a feud between conservative leaders including Burke and Francis reached fever pitch within the Catholic Church.


Cardinal Raymond Burke is among the staunchest defenders of the Catholic Church's traditional teaching barring remarriage after divorce.
Reuters
What lies behind the argument?

The row centres on one sentence, in one footnote in Pope Francis' recent Amoris Laetitia document, released after two synods on the family in 2014 and 2015.

Advertisement
In it the Pope writes a person "in an objective situation of sin can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church's help to this end". It calls for "discernment" and a footnote adds: "In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments."

Although it does not directly address divorced and remarried Catholics, this line was widely seen as giving local bishops and priests the final say in whether to allow remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion.

The document as a whole makes a general call for discernment saying it is not "enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in "irregular" situations, as if they were stones to throw at people's lives". It adds: "Neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases."

According to one Catholic commentator and former Master of the Dominican Order, Father Timothy Radcliffe, Pope Francis is "systematically undoing" the Church's "desire to dominate and to rule".

On top of this a leaked letter the pontiff wrote to the Archbishop of Buenos Aires appears to indicate Pope Francis personally supports Communion for the remarried.

Why is this controversial?

Firstly, strict Catholic teaching has been seen as prohibiting communion for divorced and remarried Catholics essentially because it is seen as adulterous.

In an interview with a French TV station in February 2015 Burke said: "I cannot accept that Communion can be given to a person in an irregular union because it is adultery." Asked what would would happen if Francis pressed ahead with the changes he said: "I shall resist, I can do nothing else."

Sponsored Watch Your Favorite Christian Films, 24/7. Click Here To Start Your Free Trial Today

But more than that for Burke and his conservative colleagues Amoris Laetitia creates a "confusion" and undoes the security of clear papal teaching.

An emphasis on "personal and pastoral discernment" among local priests and bishops seems dangerous to those who would prefer the comfort of a top down dictate.

What did they ask Pope Francis?

Four Cardinals – Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisne – asked the Pope to clarify his teaching in September.

Their letter was in the form of asking theological "dubia" – a set of questions to the pontiff that require a yes or no ruling on matters of doctrine. They say Amoris Laetitia has caused "grave disorientation and great confusion" among the faithful.

The questions essentially box Francis in by asking whether previous Catholic dictates still stand if they appear to ban the giving of communion to divorcees. In answering the Pope would be required to restate old rules which he does not want to do. You can read the questions in full here.

So he acknowledged their letter but has not replied.

So where are we now?

Well Burke is living up to his promise and is resisting.

His threat to make a formal act of correction is extraordinary and hyperbolic but given his tract record of rebellion would not be out of character. If he does take that first step to declaring the pope a heretic the Church would be in unprecedented situation.

It is possible Burke and Francis' positions can be reconciled without either having to rescind but it is unlikely to happen unless the pontiff issue a public reply to Cardinal Burke. Until that happens, the row continues to simmer.

Through our RCC history is to silent any differences in opinions or killed them so that there is only ONE voice and one RCC. In reality, there are many denominations and different doctrines and theologies within RCC.

You are putting yourself above God.

What about using contraceptive products? Allowed by The Pope & The CHURCH? What if a catholic has been encouraging others to use contraceptive products, would the CHURCH excommunicated the particular catholic?

Don't understand. Can you explain in layman language?

You can pick and choose when to terminate life. You are above God.

So if Catholic is against birth control pills, I would assume Catholic also ban CONDOMS. Would Roman Catholic Church excommunicates a catholic for promoting contraceptive then?

aiyah...no excommunication ah. Like that contraceptive pill or condoms are ok mah! Do you use either of those?

Hmmm....like that Melinda Gates are promoting sin. You better file complains to the Pope Francis lar.

Uncle Yeeck, how do you explain this Jeremiah 44 passage on queen of heaven?

44 The word that came to Jeremiah for all the Jews living in the land of Egypt, those who were living in Migdol, Tahpanhes, Memphis, and the land of Pathros, saying, 2 “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, ‘You yourselves have seen all the calamity that I have brought on Jerusalem and all the cities of Judah; and behold, this day they are in ruins and no one lives in them, 3 because of their wickedness which they committed so as to provoke Me to anger by continuing to burn [a]sacrifices and to serve other gods whom they had not known, neither they, you, nor your fathers. 4 Yet I sent you all My servants the prophets, [b]again and again, saying, “Oh, do not do this abominable thing which I hate.” 5 But they did not listen or incline their ears to turn from their wickedness, so as not to burn [c]sacrifices to other gods. 6 Therefore My wrath and My anger were poured out and burned in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, so they have become a ruin and a desolation as it is this day. 7 Now then thus says the Lord God of hosts, the God of Israel, “Why are you doing great harm to yourselves, so as to cut off from you man and woman, child and infant, from among Judah, leaving yourselves without remnant, 8 provoking Me to anger with the works of your hands, burning [d]sacrifices to other gods in the land of Egypt, where you are entering to reside, so that you might be cut off and become a curse and a reproach among all the nations of the earth? 9 Have you forgotten the wickedness of your fathers, the wickedness of the kings of Judah, and the wickedness of their wives, your own wickedness, and the wickedness of your wives, which they committed in the land of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? 10 But they have not become [e]contrite even to this day, nor have they feared nor walked in My law or My statutes, which I have set before you and before your fathers.”’

11 “Therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, ‘Behold, I am going to set My face against you for [f]woe, even to cut off all Judah. 12 And I will take away the remnant of Judah who have set their [g]mind on entering the land of Egypt to reside there, and they will all [h]meet their end in the land of Egypt; they will fall by the sword and meet their end by famine. Both small and great will die by the sword and famine; and they will become a curse, an object of horror, an imprecation and a reproach. 13 And I will punish those who live in the land of Egypt, as I have punished Jerusalem, with the sword, with famine and with pestilence. 14 So there will be no refugees or survivors for the remnant of Judah who have entered the land of Egypt to reside there and then to return to the land of Judah, to which they are [i]longing to return and live; for none will return except a few refugees.’”

15 Then all the men who were aware that their wives were burning [j]sacrifices to other gods, along with all the women who were standing by, as a large assembly, [k]including all the people who were living in Pathros in the land of Egypt, responded to Jeremiah, saying, 16 “As for the [l]message that you have spoken to us in the name of the Lord, we are not going to listen to you! 17 But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has proceeded from our mouths, [m]by burning [n]sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings and our princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of [o]food and were well off and saw no [p]misfortune. 18 But since we stopped burning [q]sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have [r]met our end by the sword and by famine.” 19 “And,” said the women, “when we were burning [s]sacrifices to the queen of heaven and [t]were pouring out drink offerings to her, was it without our husbands that we made for her sacrificial cakes [u]in her image and poured out drink offerings to her?”

Uncle Yeeck, what do you think of Liberation Theology advocated by Catholic Church in Latin America?

You lied again.

Roman Catholic changed its doctrines over the years but of course you can always claim they were not changed but merely more understandings and clarifications. Here are some of the examples:

No infant baptism till 4th century:

A. There is no command or example of infant baptism in the Bible.

C. The Roman Catholic church admits baptism by immersion was practiced till 1311 AD:

"There is no express mention of the baptism of infants in the New Testament" (Question Box, p. 23).
"It is difficult to give strict proof from the scriptures in favor of it. [infant baptism]" (Catholic Dictionary, p. 61).
"Ecclesiastical custom with regard to the administration of Baptism has undergone a change in the course of history. Whereas the early Church baptized adults only, the baptism of children soon became the usual practice." (Sanford, Alexander E., MD, Pastoral Medicine: Handbook for the Catholic Clergy, 1904, p 32-33)
"Where in the fourth and fifth centuries the doctrine of original sin became better known, the practice of infant baptism progressed rapidly." (Legislation on the Sacraments in the New Code of Canon Law, p. 72).
"When all fear of persecution had passed away, and the empire had become almost entirely Christian, the necessity for a prolonged period of trial and instruction no longer existed, about the same time the fuller teaching on the subject of original sin, occasioned by the Pelagian heresy, gradually led to the administration of baptism of infants." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p. 78).
Infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants in the Council Of Mela in 416 AD.

No Pope was considered infallible until 1870 AD

Pope Adrian VI - It is certain that the Pontiff ... may err in those things which pertain to faith.
Pope Paul IV - I do not doubt that I and my predecessors may sometimes have erred.
Archbishop Purcell said in his debate with Alexander Campbell in Cincinnati on 1-13-1837: "the bishop of Rome, though he was not believed to be infallible. Neither is he now. No enlightened Catholic holds the pope's infallibility of be an article of faith. I do not; and none of my brethren, that I know of, do. The Catholic believes the pope ... to be as liable to error, as almost any other man in the universe. Man is man, and no man is infallible, either in doctrine or morals."

Catachism changed after 1870 AD:

"A Doctrinal Catechism," by Keenan, bearing the Imprimatur (official sanction) of Scotch Roman Catholic bishops, pre 1870: Must not Catholics believe the pope himself to be infallible? This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it is received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, the bishops of the church. After 1870, this Q&A was dropped from Keenan's catechism.



Democracy vs Monarchy - The church stood for the divine right of kings, and against the disposition of monarchs and the idea of popular sovereignty (i.e. rule by "the mob" rather than the divinely-appointed kings).

Usury - While the church prohibited money-lending with any interest whatsoever and even excommunicated people for it, the church now allows it.

Slavery - The Church not only explicitly condoned slavery and allowed it in Canon Law, but the Church actually owned slaves itself. The Church did not get around to condemning it until 1888 decades after most secular governments had already abolished it. Despite the fact that the Bible and the Church condoned it for centuries, John Paul II included slavery among matters that are ''intrinsically evil'' -- prohibited ''always and forever'' and ''without any exception'' -- a violation of a universal, immutable norm.

Catholic has a different 10 commandments than Protestants. Catholic removed idols worshiping to cater for Mary worship. A quick search would come up with the following comparison link:

http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articl...444/default.asp

Is that in your Catholic bible? If it is so, why are you worshiping idols?

http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/romanc...mmandments.html

i almost chocked on my sandwich! LOL! LOL! LOL!

Uncle Yeeck, probably you should get scriptures support on masses for the dead, seeking the intercession of the dead saints, and building up a treasury of merits from Apocrypha books of Tobit and 2 Maccabees. This way, at least, you can say these practices are supported by scriptures. Scriptures that only used by non-protestants.

This post has been edited by shioks: Jan 23 2017, 08:25 PM

And, what's the meaning of Apocrypha?

How do you interpret Revelation 22:18–19?

This post has been edited by shioks: Jan 23 2017, 09:26 PM

These are some of the quotes from Wikipedia.org:

Apocrypha usually is used by Protestants to refer to a set of texts included in the Septuagint and therefore included in the Catholic canon, but not in the Hebrew Bible.

The Roman Catholic church provided its first dogmatic definition of her entire canon in 1546, which put a stop to doubts and disagreements about the status of the Apocrypha, as well as certain other books, which had continued from the beginning of the NT church. The leader of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, like the Catholic church father Jerome (and certain others), favored the Masoretic canon for the Old Testament, excluding apocryphal books in his non-binding canon as being worthy to properly be called Scripture, but included most of them in a separate section, as per Jerome.


Apocrypha was canon but was later canon just to support the non-scriptures practices of Roman Catholics after Martin Luther and father Jerome the likes disagreed with the practices.

Wikipedia.org also has comments on Revelation 22:18-19:

"Apocrypha" was also applied to writings that were hidden not because of their divinity but because of their questionable value to the church. Many in Protestant traditions cite Revelation 22:18–19 as a potential curse for those who attach any canonical authority to extra-biblical writings such as the Apocrypha. However, a strict explanation of this text would indicate it was meant for only the Book of Revelation. Rv.22:18–19f. (KJV) states: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." In this case, if one holds to a strict hermeneutic, the "words of the prophecy" do not refer to the Bible as a whole but to Jesus' Revelation to John. The early Christian theologian Origen, in his Commentaries on Matthew, distinguishes between writings which were read by the churches and apocryphal writings: γραφὴ μὴ φερομένη μέν ἒν τοῖς κοινοῖς καὶ δεδημοσιευμένοις βιβλίοις εἰκὸς δ' ὅτι ἒν ἀποκρύφοις φερομένη (writing not found on the common and published books in one hand, actually found on the secret ones on the other).[8] The meaning of αποκρυφος is here practically equivalent to "excluded from the public use of the church", and prepares the way for an even less favourable use of the word.[6]

Can I say your interpretation of the two verses is meant for the entire Bible? If this is so, would it also mean you agree that the Apocrypha was additions and was canon for the sake of providing support to so called Roman Catholic traditions or malpractice?

I am more favored towards the two verses are meant for only the Book of Revelation. This warning is given to those who might purposely distort the message in this book. Moses gave a similar warning in Deuteronomy 4:1-4.