Lie? I've posted the footnotes in one poast and I've shown you why I deleted the footnotes in another post. They're FOOTNOTES. I posted the words of #460 directly from the catechism. So the only "lie" is the one you're attempting to peddle by deflecting this discussion into absurdity.
Include the footnotes; don't include the footnotes. It doesn't matter one way or another. Read the catechism itself. #460. Is that so difficult for you to do?
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
LOL. Who care what Catholic site the catechism is excerpted from!?! Does the catechism change from one Catholic site to another?
But in checking my post #387 you will note I actually DID link to the Vatican's website at Vatican.va.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm
Fancy that. Straight from the Vatican.
Again, you've offered no coherent reason for why you were so shocked by the verbatim words from #460 of YOUR catechism so you end up flailing around calling people liars when every word I posted was from the RCC catechism FROM THE VATICAN WEBSITE.
When you read the actual words of your own catechism FROM THE VATICAN WEBSITE why did you assume they must have been a lie from an anti-catholic website?
Too late. A judge would find crdebility missing after getting caught once. The credebility is gone. Maybe calling Buckhead at this point would help
Vatican.org is not owned by the Vatican.
The missing numbers mean it was not lifted from Vatican.va.
If one word was missing it PROVES that it was not a direct quote from the Catechism (or it should have been stated that way)
Spin, spin, spin. The MSM couldn’t do it better.