Posted on 05/16/2008 3:19:30 PM PDT by netmilsmom
I didn't include the footnotes in the earlier post for the same reason I usually do not include the footnotes when I'm posting from the Westminster Confession of Faith -- it makes the excerpt shorter and clearer to read. As I usually do with excerpts from the WCF, I went to the extra effort of deleting the footnote numbers so the excerpt isn't cluttered with numbers that I'm not referencing. I'm referencing the words verbatim.
If I had misquoted the catechism, you'd have a point. But I didn't misquote anything. #460 has now been posted several times and it's still an affront to the Triune God.
And NONE of this has anything to do with the fact that you disbelieved the exact words from the catechism were indeed FROM the catechism. As you wrote...
"Unless you can provide a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and not not the "Let Us Reason" website (which is all that came up on this quote) I would say it's a lie."
A lie? Those words were a lie? Why was that?
Did those words ring untrue to you? Did those words appear unScriptural to you? Did it seem like those words were written by gnostics and not by a Christian?
Me, too.
Actually, I have watched it. One of the best movies in the history of American Cinema as rated by the American Film Institute.
It seems to me that the Protestants expect Saint Peter, or whoever’s the gatekeeper up there (Martin Luther?) to have a modern bureaucracy to separate the Seventh Day Adventists from the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the wayward Calvinists, and so on. No, I’d rather stick with Saint Peter’s bureaucracy here on earth, which says it’s all plain and simple up there.
lol. No thanks.
>>A lie? Those words were a lie? Why was that? <<
Because in every Catechism book from my first grade to my daughter’s fifth this year, there are footnotes to explain. Without the numbers, it has no reference and is NOT from the official site.
It was lifted from somewhere else, WITHOUT information pertaining to it. For whatever reason.
I think I say Katie Couric do this once too.
>>It seems to me that the Protestants expect Saint Peter, or whoever’s the gatekeeper up there (Martin Luther?) to have a modern bureaucracy to separate the Seventh Day Adventists from the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the wayward Calvinists, and so on. No, I’d rather stick with Saint Peter’s bureaucracy here on earth, which says it’s all plain and simple up there.<<
Now that is funny!
You can strive for accuracy, or not.
Face it: the anti-Catholic fetish is so strong in some that they even refuse to capitalize proper nouns for fear of accidentally paying some dignity or respect to the Catholic Church.
Note to self
say=saw in last post.
>>Face it: the anti-Catholic fetish is so strong in some that they even refuse to capitalize proper nouns for fear of accidentally paying some dignity or respect to the Catholic Church. <<
I like the “in some”.
Good avoidance of Pronouns there, sir!
And hey, if the whole truth was revealed, people could make their own decisions. Maybe even decide that the Catholic Church is not so bad. My hubby did!
That’s what we say about Brian Williams, Katie Couric and Tom Brokaw when they omit information about Republicans. Don’t we?
I’ve always been weary of people whose definition of themselves is in a large measure opposition to something or other, and this is just what I am seeing on these threads. Because being in opposition is not nearly enough. Note that the dissidents in the Communist countries, defined themselves as more than just opposition to totalitarianism (read Vaclav Havel for evidence of that.) If all (or much) you are is an un-Catholic, then you’re nothing more than some religious fetishist.
I'm sorry if you can't understand something without the footnotes. Is it difficult for you to read the Bible without footnotes?
It was lifted from somewhere else
The verbatim excerpt I posted was "lifted" from Vatican.org.
I know of no rule that say an excerpt must include the footnotes. If that were true, these endless posts would be even LONGER and ENDLESSER.
Actually, I should have said "in few."
A relatively minuscule portion of Protestants hate Catholicism....those that do, however, seem to make an absolute fetish of it, as this thread so readily demonstrates.
That is really very profound.
Wrong...I don't write Catholic church like this accidentally...It's intentional...
FReepers on Religion Forum threads are often cautioned against "making it personal."
I didn’t specify posting about anyone, but your refusal is an example of what I said, not contrary to it.
>>I’m sorry if you can’t understand something without the footnotes. Is it difficult for you to read the Bible without footnotes?<<
Oh well there ya go again, as a great man once said, guessing my thoughts. Against the rules.
>>The verbatim excerpt I posted was “lifted” from Vatican.org.
I know of no rule that say an excerpt must include the footnotes.<<
Well unless a poster is lifting a citation from somewhere other than the Vatican website it includes numbers.
Therein is the lie.
And actually, the Vatican website is Vatican.va
The website Vatican.org belongs to Gerald Beals in Calgary Canada according to Network Solutions who provides domains.
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=vatican.org
So I’m not really sure what is being spewed here.
You must be very open-minded. Your mind is being read over and over on this thread.
We actually treated people with fetishes too, but that went to our therapists. I’m not really sure that there is pharmological treatments for fetishes, but great strides may have been made in the field.
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.