Misleading / Distortions / Confusion on purpose

[AnneElliot]

you should be quite happy to deal with the documents that come from after Vatican II

Where do you get the impression that I’m not happy to deal with documents that came from the Second Vatican Council to the present?

 

[WatchingMedia]

Links, please?

Thanks for asking.
Here are three links people can use for the TRUTH regarding teachings of the Catholic Church.
It’s much better than taking any strangers’ personal opinions, who have zero authority.

The CCC 2nd Ed is an authoritative teaching of the Church on Faith and Morals.
Since it is about 2 inches thick, I prefer using the book rather than on-line, so that nothing is taken out of context.
For example, there are many references to “sin” in the index. Some other topics are addressed the same way.
usccb.org/catechism/text/

vatican.va/phome_en.htm

usccb.org/romanmissal/
"The Roman Missal, Third Edition, the ritual text containing prayers and instructions for the celebration of the Mass, has been approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The complete text of the Roman Missal is still undergoing final editing by Vatican officials. It is expected to be forwarded to Conferences of Bishops later this spring, at which time it will be prepared for publication."

 

[MarkThompson]

Thanks for asking.
Here are three links people can use for the TRUTH regarding teachings of the Catholic Church.

LOL, nice try! But as clearly indicated by the section of your post I quoted, what I wanted was some proof or verification of:

Over a brief period of time, I have noticed that there are a few folks who are on CAF merely to
‘Distort teachings of the Church’ or to
‘Confuse those without a solid foundation’.

 

[Sirach2]

AnneElliot:

You’ll have to show me where the Catholic Church defines ‘development of doctrine’. Though, I have to say, I think you are reading much more into my posts than what is actually there. Sirach2 apparently believes that the Second Vatican Council changed all the teachings of the Church such that anything (and everything prior to Vatican II is irrelevant). I was refuting her charge and pointing out that the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI specifically cautions against that very error.

“Apparently” believes, Anne? If you are incapable of correctly understanding and interpreting my simple posts, how on earth do you claim authority to interpret Church documents? Let me hear you back up your “apparent” belief in Vatican II documents especially this one [Dei Verbum] that you read on another thread where we BOTH participated:

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. **For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. **This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6669665&postcount=38

If need be, I can find the same thought of the Church in “older” documents, but it is not necessary when they all say the “same” thing. No matter how many “proofs” people submit to you, there is a persistent willingness on your part to ignore, distort, misunderstand. I’m beginning to think there is more than meets the eye with that regard.

 

[AnneElliot]

“Apparently” believes, Anne?

Since you have refused thus far to answer my question directly, I was not going to do you the dishonor of shoving words in your mouth, as you so readily do to me.

Sirach2:

If you are incapable of correctly understanding and interpreting my simple posts, how on earth do you claim authority to interpret Church documents? Let me hear you back up your “apparent” belief in Vatican II documents especially this one [Dei Verbum] that you read on another thread where we BOTH participated:

Aside from your attempts at insults (repeatedly!)… how many times do I need to read how little you think of my intelligence? Good grief, I hope you are praying to the Good Lord to grant me some wisdom since you think so poorly of my capabilities!

… I do not know what you want me to respond to in order to “back up my belief in Vatican II documents”? I have done this throughout our discussions. I have quoted* Lumen Gentium* ad nauseam in countless threads. Is your belief that I don’t accept Vatican II documents because I don’t accept YOUR interpretation of the Conciliar documents that flatly contradicts the previous teachings of the Church?

Sirach2:

If need be, I can find the same thought of the Church in “older” documents, but it is not necessary when they all say the “same” thing. No matter how many “proofs” people submit to you, there is a persistent willingness on your part to ignore, distort, misunderstand. I’m beginning to think there is more than meets the eye with that regard.

“Growth” is not a departure.

No, there is nothing you can do to convince me that new documents contradict the Deposit of Faith handed on to the Church by the Apostles, and carried down through the centuries by the Catholic Church. There is no contradiction. All things must be interpreted,as the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has reminded us, “within a hermeneutic of continuity”. I refuse to do less.

You can attribute all the bad will you wish to me, but as anyone who has read any of the threads we’ve participated in can attest… I have never insulted your intelligence or pretended that you had nefarious intentions. I understand you feel strongly about the Faith-- I do too! But let us not lose sight of Christian charity.

 

[Sirach2]

Anne, dear,

You are the one who misinterprets members’ posts, believing they are insulting you, and not only mine. I don’t think you would want me to publicly show you where and when, but you are overly sensitive.

Since you stand firm in your belief, it is futile for me to attempt any further dialogue, and I have pulled out a few times already. But this last attempt of yours to put words in my mouth was pretty good bait, I would say, and it needed a defense. Nevertheless, I usually consider the source and overlook it, since you are still rather young and wisdom takes time …

 

[AnneElliot]

Anne, dear,

You are the one who misinterprets members’ posts, believing they are insulting you, and not only mine. I don’t think you would want me to publicly show you where and when, but you are overly sensitive.

I wouldn’t mind if you publicly showed me. If I am in need of correction, it is a spiritual work of mercy to admonish the sinner and instruct the ignorant. And I would like you to point out for me where I have been wrong.

If I have been overly sensitive, then you have my sincerest apologies.

However, above you said:

there is a persistent willingness on your part to ignore, distort, misunderstand.

Is this not the very definition of bad will? I have endeavored to answer each and every one of your questions and the evidence you have presented to me, so I am unsure why you claim that I “ignore” anything.

or, was I falsely understanding you to attribute bad will to me when you said:

but you have a memory problem or else you simply refuse to recognize the validity of them. It seems like someone caught with their hands in the cookie jar, denying that there are crumbs on their fingers

So either my intelligence (faculties of memory included) are faulty, or I have bad will.

Also, you claimed:

Anne, not only did you avoid ncjohn’s answer in the other thread, but you avoid answering it again here.

Which was simply not true since I PMed ncjohn AND included you (and others) in my response after the thread was closed; and since you replied, I am confident in stating you did in fact receive and read that message.

I have not ignored anything… and if I have, I wish you would kindly point it out to me.

 

[Sirach2]

Anne, this is really off topic; therefore, I’m only going to present one example where you demonstrated either a memory problem or one of ignoring the facts presented, which prompted my comments. I can present more, but it is imprudent to do so.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6690919&postcount=132
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6695328&postcount=134

CradleCath presented the Pius IX document which you claim you have never seen, yet only two posts later (note the sequence 132, 134) you completely ignored it and went off on a tangent of your own.

You are well able to use the forum’s search facility, so if there are things you want to review, such as Pius IX, kindly do so and refrain from asking the rest of us to keep repeating our posts. It was presented several times in all the threads where you are actively posting.

 

[AnneElliot]

Umm, CradleCath’s post you linked to wasn’t even addressed to me, and my response to him was addressing the false information he provided regarding an excommunication (read the decree which is readily available online if you doubt my clarification). So I am still confused as to your criticisms of me.

There has never been presented on this forum a document of Pope Pius IX’s which explicitly mentions ‘baptism of desire’ (which is what I asked for). I asked for it to be posted “again” to underscore the fact that a quick use of the search engine would demonstrate its non-existence.

 

[rwoehmke]

After living 70 plus years, I think I know a lot of stuff about things typically discussed in the forums. Certainly far far less than the totality of knowledge that is extant, but considerable. I would hate to think that I would mislead anyone, but having to try to find the source of some nugget I might have read 20 or 30 years ago or more would take a lot of pleasure out of reading and posting on the forums. I have many books including several Bibles, the CCC, Documents of Vatican II, some encyclicals from Leo XIII on, etc. Some times I can remember just where to find things, but not every time. If I shoot and miss, I certainly hope someone with better information corrects me. I would not with purpose and intent mislead, confuse, or distort the facts and truths of our Faith for anyone.