You're welcome, and that's not surprising, since the original entry from vatican.va and scborromeo.com would have the footnote numbers interspersed in it, and so, when Google didn't find that exact quote with the numbers in it, it returned only Dr. E's quote which did not have the footnote numbers in it, presumably because she removed them manually before posting.
I certainly hope we're on the same page here. *sigh*. I can't help but notice though the only one's talking about paragraph #460 on this thread (at least at this present time) are those talking about the controversy surrounding posts 140 and 169, and not the actual substance of paragraph #460, or really, again, the excellent apologetic work of CTrent1564 regarding such (in post #498).
I could speculate this is a "diversionary tactic", but I don't want to be accused of reading minds. Suffice it to say, if anyone really wanted a good Catholic explanation of CCC 460, they would look at and respond to CTent's #498. That much, should be obvious.
>>I certainly hope we’re on the same page here. *sigh*. I can’t help but notice though the only one’s talking about paragraph #460 on this thread (at least at this present time) are those talking about the controversy surrounding posts 140 and 169, and not the actual substance of paragraph #460, or really, again, the excellent apologetic work of CTrent1564 regarding such (in post #498).
I could speculate this is a “diversionary tactic”, but I don’t want to be accused of reading minds. Suffice it to say, if anyone really wanted a good Catholic explanation of CCC 460, they would look at and respond to CTent’s #498. That much, should be obvious. <<
I am in total agreement with you!
It would be better for some if we discussed triviata rather than the centuries-old scholarship of Theosis.