As to my desire to let NYer speak for herself:
1. You persist in speaking for her.
2. You wrote, "...if you're looking for the reason why Catholics rejoice when people come into full communion with the Catholic Church...." That is only a part of the information I seek. My original question, which you in your overeager intervention have ignored completely and which she alone can answer, was not why she rejoiced but rather why she persists in publicly gloating in a manner that can only be taken as confrontational and antagonistic.
“Thanks for providing those links. It is my experience—and perhaps yours as well—that confident assertions by those who claim something is not only common knowledge but also official policy often turn out to be mistaken, to one degree or another.”
I think that the record of Catholics here at FR to adequately represent their faith is pretty good.
“2. You wrote, ‘...if you're looking for the reason why Catholics rejoice when people come into full communion with the Catholic Church....’ That is only a part of the information I seek. My original question, which you in your overeager intervention have ignored completely and which she alone can answer, was not why she rejoiced but rather why she persists in publicly gloating in a manner that can only be taken as confrontational and antagonistic.”
Ah... you're begging the question. And possibly reading minds?
I haven't ignored your original question, but rather answered it completely.
You asked:
“Why do you take so much pleasure in your persistent endeavor?”
We ALL take much pleasure to the return home of lost sheep.
Now, you did slip in a [false] premise in your lead-up to the question, and I DID ignore that, out of a desire to give you the benefit of the doubt:
“That is, you seem to celebrate, in a triumphal manner, anecdotes of Protestants becoming Catholic.”
The hidden suggestion here, I suppose, is that the a “triumphal manner” is somehow bad, and NYer is engaging in it.
You strengthen that in your last post with:
“...why she persists in publicly gloating in a manner that can only be taken as confrontational and antagonistic.”
Now that you've stated your objection plainly (and falsely), it is no longer possible to give you the benefit of the doubt.
At least to my eyes, there isn't really anything confrontational or antagonistic to the report itself of Mr. Thompson. It's not much more than basic reporting. If you're finding the Mr. Thompson's report itself confrontational and antagonistic, then I don't know how to help you. He's merely reporting something he's heard - that some Church of England bishops are likely to leave the Church of England for the Catholic Church. You may not like the news, but reporting it isn't an inherently confrontational or antagonistic act.
Frankly, his treatment of our own Catholic bishops is far more confrontational and antagonistic (although not gloating) than his reporting of the basic facts that some Anglican bishops may be on the way out the door to Rome.
As for NYer’s commentary on it, well, you know, her comments are...
...missing.
She merely posted the article.
Without any commentary whatsoever.
It's difficult to interpret her [non-existent] comments here as gloating, or as confrontational or antagonistic.
LOL.
sitetest
NYer wrote not one word. She simply posted an article from a newspaper. Why go after her?