Contradictions/UnScriptural Catholicism ??

[Kirane]

Eden:

This particular passage in scripture is hyperbole. If that passage shows that we are TRULY to call no man father, the Apostles were in error as well. We refer to our priests in the context of “Spiritual Fatherhood” which is very vividly described in many places throughout the Bible:

Spiritual Fatherhood

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, “Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children” (2 Cor. 12:14); and, “My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!” (Gal. 4:19).

John said, “My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1); “No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth” (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as “fathers” (1 John 2:13–14).

By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests “father.” Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.

Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them “father.” Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as “my son” or “my child” (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).

All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact.

Here is the entire article:

catholic.com/library/call_no_man_father.asp

So, Kirane, you have not shown a contradiction between Scripture and Church teaching with this one.

All you have shown here is that Catholics may disregard the command of Scripture to call no man father. It may or may not be true that it is advisable to disregard the command of the divine Son of God to call no man father. The fact is that this is written in Scripture and that Catholic teaching contradicts this passage. It is another thread to discuss whether or not there are contradictions in Scripture or whether or not Paul made a mistake, or whether or not “All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers.” that is all beside the question of the OP which is whether or not there exists a passage in Scripture which contradicts Catholic teaching. I have shown that there is a passage in Scripture which directly contradicts the teaching of the Church to call a priest Father.

 

[joshua_b]

Ok this thread has already gotten crazy. Let’s clear things up a bit. First of all, I will not entertain a link to a web site. ONE ISSUE at a time please. And lets please NOT try to bounce around too much. Now I’m going to assume that the issue at hand here is the term “Father” in regard to a priest, so we will go with that first. A few points to make on this one. First, this is not a teaching of the Catholic Church. Nowhere in the Catechism that I know of does it mandate that we call any priest “Father”. Catholics use this term as a customary show of respect and acknowledgment for the role of the priesthood. Secondly, if the Bible is “clear” on this, and is to be taken literally, then we are to call NO MAN father. If that is true, then I am forbidden from calling my own father “father” because the Bible clearly states “no man”…that means none. If any of you contend that the passage doesn’t mean THAT, then obviously it can’t be taken literally and a deeper meaning must be sought. Bear in mind that the Greek word for “father” is the same as “doctor”. So does that mean that I am to call no man “doctor” either ? And, the fact that Paul refers to himself as “father” is not an argument to the fallibility of Scripture, but rather further indication that the passage “call no man father” is NOT to be taken at mere face value.

 

[joshua_b]

So back to the original criteria. Calling a priest “father” is not even a doctrine of the Church (if I am wrong on this then someone please correct me), it is merely a custom showing respect for and acknowledgment of their role in the Body of Christ. I further contend that the custom being against the Bible hinges in large part on interpretation, which we can argue about into perpetuity to no avail. My question to those who claim that this practice is “unbiblical” is, what is the first documented historical evidence that of this custom being disputed by any Christian group ? Especially in light of the fact that Paul refers to himself within Scripture as “father”, which if anything gives witness to the notion of Sacred Tradition, I can not find any evidence of this practice being condemned before the Protestant reformation. If it was the faith of the Apostles that we literally call no man father, and the Catholic Church was not the faith of the Apostles, then there should be no shortage of evidence that this unbiblical practice of the Catholic Church was protested against.

 

[JimG]

Kirane:

I have shown that there is a passage in Scripture which directly contradicts the teaching of the Church to call a priest Father.

Actually, I don’t know of any teaching of the Catholic Church which states that we must call priests “father.” Is that in the Catechism somewhere? Come to think of it, it’s not even a disciplinary issue, not being required by canon law. Nevertheless it is a longstanding custom, beginning with St. Paul, who calls himself a father to those he instructed. (Maybe he didn’t get the word either.)

But it looks like we are in even more trouble, because we also call some people “Teacher,” which the same passage in Matthew instructs us not to do. And I’ve even been known to refer to Jewish ministers as “Rabbi,” which is also warned against.

 

[MariaG]

Kirane,

You can certainly choose to believe what you wish. But Scripture must be interpreted in context. The context of Jesus’ admonition is to not make any man more important to God. This is clear to those He was speaking to, it was clear to the Apostles. It was even clear to Protestant Christians for a couple hundred years who later dropped the practice to differentiate themselves from Catholic Christians.

You can continue to choose to disagree with the interpretation of Scripture. But to continue to insist on a meaning in Scripture that was never meant or understood by those who believed in Christ at the time and who believe in Him now is intellectually dishonest.

At the very least, it should be obvious that calling men “Father” is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church, but rather a practice, a practice than can change.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Kirane]

joshua_b:

Now I’m going to assume that the issue at hand here is the term “Father” in regard to a priest, so we will go with that first. A few points to make on this one. First, this is not a teaching of the Catholic Church. Nowhere in the Catechism that I know of does it mandate that we call any priest “Father”. Catholics use this term as a customary show of respect and acknowledgment for the role of the priesthood. Secondly, if the Bible is “clear” on this, and is to be taken literally, then we are to call NO MAN father. If that is true, then I am forbidden from calling my own father “father” because the Bible clearly states “no man”…that means none. If any of you contend that the passage doesn’t mean THAT, then obviously it can’t be taken literally and a deeper meaning must be sought. Bear in mind that the Greek word for “father” is the same as “doctor”. So does that mean that I am to call no man “doctor” either ? And, the fact that Paul refers to himself as “father” is not an argument to the fallibility of Scripture, but rather further indication that the passage “call no man father” is NOT to be taken at mere face value.

Whether or not Paul disregards the words of Jesus is not relevant to the question in my opinion. Whether or not Protestants have a similar problem or that this has happened in Protestantism is not relevant to the question. Whether or not Scripture contradicts itself is irrelevant to the question at hand. Whether or not Cathoics are right and have good reason to disregard the literal interpretation of the words of Jesus Christ on this point and put some other spin on this passage is not relevant. The question was whether or not there was a specific example of a Catholic teaching that is contrary to a passage in Scripture. It is taught to elementary Catholic school children in Catholic schools that they are to address their priests as Father. This teaching is contrary to the passage cited which quotes the words of Jesus Christ on the subject.
I already said above that I didn’t know whether or not this item, or the other items that I mentioned were simple teachings or not and how they are classified in the Catholic scheme of dogma, doctrine, teaching, practice, or custom. All I am saying here is that this is a practice in Catholicism which contradicts the words of Jesus as found in Matthew 23:9: “And do not call anyone on earth `father’, for you have one Father, and He is in heaven.”
I tried to answer this question conscientiously and I think that I have fulfilled my responsibilities in this regard with reference to this question of calling a priest Father. I’m afraid that I have nothing more to add to this question of calling a priest father and how it contradicts Matthew 23:9.

 

[JimG]

He’s right; we do call priests “Father,” and teachers “Teacher” and rabbi’s “Rabbi.”
And I suppose I’ll go right on doing so.

Although sometimes I call priests Monsignor, or Bishop, or Bob.

But to say that contradicts a teaching of scripture just goes to show the dangers of literal interpretation of scripture.

 

[Kirane]

MariaG:

Hi Kirane,

To follow the OP original intent, Baptism was questioned first and needs to be answered before getting into it here.

As far as baptism is concerned according to Scripture:" Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5
Catholic teaching contradicts this because it says that Jews and other nonBaptised may enter heaven. For example, according to Walter Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews, “the Church believes that Judaism . . . is salvific for [the Jews] because God is faithful to his promises.” So it is not necessary to a Jew to be born again of water and the Holy Spirit to enter into heaven, according to Catholic teaching.
See the document: “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,”

 

[MariaG]

Hi Kirane,

Paul is not contradicting Jesus. He understood what Jesus meant, as was explained to you.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

Kirane:

As far as baptism is concerned according to Scripture:" Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5
Catholic teaching contradicts this because it says that Jews and other nonBaptised may enter heaven. For example, according to Walter Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews, “the Church believes that Judaism . . . is salvific for [the Jews] because God is faithful to his promises.” So it is not necessary to a Jew to be born again of water and the Holy Spirit to enter into heaven, according to Catholic teaching.
See the document: “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,”

You cannot take one statement from Scripture and interpret it to mean what you want. Context must be applied not only to scripture but also to the words of the Cardinal.

While I do not have time to read the Reflections even if you had placed a link, I can guess what the context would be.

Jesus said He did not come to destroy the Law but fulfill it. Therefore the Old Covenant, the Covenant of the Law with Moses was not destroyed but fulfilled through Christ. So the Jews still have the Truth. They just do not know that Jesus fulfilled that law. Because of their lack of knowledge, God will still honor the covenant He made with them.

Or in your world does God cancel His “Contracts” with people? The full context of the scripture will teach a person how God wishes us to be saved, as well as how God can choose to save people.

**As well as the fact is that we undestand that while God has shown us how He wishes us to live and how He wants to save us through the sacraments, we also recognize that God is not limited to the Sacraments. **

God’s power and nature cannot be fully comprehended.

And since I am not familiar with this statement, there could be a context here that I am missing. You truly would be better to quote the Catechism since not every word from every member of the Church always reflects official Catholic teachings.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Kirane]

MariaG:

You truly would be better to quote the Catechism since not every word from every member of the Church always reflects official Catholic teachings.

So Walter Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews, in the document approved by several US Bishops: “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,” cannot be trusted to enunciate the Catholic position? If he together with the Catholic bishops cannot be trusted to enunciate the Catholic teaching, then why did the Pope appoint him president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews?
The question of the OP was to give a contradiction between Catholic belief and what is said in Scripture:

1. According to this Scriptural passage: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5
2. According to Catholic teaching, Jews can enter heaven and they don’t have to be born again of water.
   This is the contradiction.
   BTW, this is also a change in Catholic doctrine, as Catholic teaching as given in the Council of Florence for example, used to be that Jews cannot enter heaven.
   As far as links to the document, “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,” joshua_b wrote:“First of all, I will not entertain a link to a web site.”

 

[MariaG]

Kirane:

So Walter Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews, in the document approved by several US Bishops: “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,” cannot be trusted to enunciate the Catholic position? If he together with the Catholic bishops cannot be trusted to enunciate the Catholic teaching, then why did the Pope appoint him president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews?
The question of the OP was to give a contradiction between Catholic belief and what is said in Scripture:

1. According to this Scriptural passage: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5
2. According to Catholic teaching, Jews can enter heaven and they don’t have to be born again of water.
   This is the contradiction.
   BTW, this is also a change in Catholic doctrine, as Catholic teaching as given in the Council of Florence for example, used to be that Jews cannot enter heaven.
   As far as links to the document, “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,” joshua_b wrote:“First of all, I will not entertain a link to a web site.”

Hi Kirane,

Why are you trying to make this so confrontational?

I simply said you would be better off to quote the Catechism.

And just because a person holds a high position of authority does not mean they cannot make statements that are incorrect, or that the document you may be quoting is being taken out of context. The Catechism is harder to misunderstand. But I think that is the problem. You truly do not wish to understand.

As before, I explained why it is not a contradiction. Taking the whole bible as a whole and CONTEXT! Writing the same words to me or me to you would be pointless.

You clearly have no real desire to actually learn anything new or see that you misunderstand anything. A person cannot see that which they won’t actually look at.

I bid you goodbye.

May God keep you safe,
Maria

 

[Eden]

Kirane:

So Walter Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews, in the document approved by several US Bishops: “Reflections on Covenant and Mission,” cannot be trusted to enunciate the Catholic position? If he together with the Catholic bishops cannot be trusted to enunciate the Catholic teaching, then why did the Pope appoint him president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews?

Kirane is mistaking the American Catholic Church with the universal Church. There are many statements that have been made by members of the clergy that do not reflect accurate Catholic teaching. Unfortunately, humans are not without error. But that does not mean that the teachings of the Church are in error. I find it interesting that Kirane is focusing on a document produced by American (a small percentage of the world’s Catholics) bishops that does not have the approval of all bishops rather than focusing on the teachings of the Church in the Catechism. It is a rather odd way of attacking the Church.

“Issued in August by the American bishops’ Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs Committee in cooperation with the National Council of Synagogues, the document-which has not been approved by the bishops as a whole and which has no binding force-is an example of how the desire not to offend can result in bad theology.”

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0210fr.asp

 

[Eden]

Kirane:

According to this Scriptural passage: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5
2. According to Catholic teaching, Jews can enter heaven and they don’t have to be born again of water.
This is the contradiction.
BTW, this is also a change in Catholic doctrine, as Catholic teaching as given in the Council of Florence for example, used to be that Jews cannot enter heaven.

Just on the idea of water only baptism, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood:

Origen

“[Catechumens who suffer martyrdom] are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord said that he had another baptism with which he himself was to be baptized [Luke 12:50]” (ibid., 72[73]:22).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.
. . . For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, ‘Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized [Mark 10:38]?’ Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]” (*Catechetical Lectures *3:10 [A.D. 350]).

Gregory Nazianz

“[Besides the baptisms associated with Moses, John, and Jesus] I know also a fourth baptism, that by martyrdom and blood, by which also Christ himself was baptized. This one is far more august than the others, since it cannot be defiled by later sins” (*Oration on the Holy Lights *39:17 [A.D. 381]).

John Chrysostom

“Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a baptism, for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is the taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul, and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood” (Panegyric on St. Lucian 2 [A.D. 387]).

Ambrose of Milan

“But I hear you lamenting because he [the Emperor Valentinian] had not received the sacraments of baptism. Tell me, what else could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too had just now this desire, and after he came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago he signified that he wished to be baptized by me. Did he, then, not have the grace which he desired? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? Certainly, because he sought it, he received it. What else does it mean: ‘Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest [Wis. 4:7]’?” (Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392]).

St. Augustine

“That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, ‘Today you shall be with me in paradise’ [Luke 23:43]. Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart * if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism” (ibid., 4:22:29).

“Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’ [Matt. 10:32]” (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).*

 

[Kirane]

Eden:

Just on the idea of water only baptism, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood:
]).

Well this is itself a contradiction to the Scriptural passage cited.

1. According to Scripture: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5
2. According to Catholic teaching: A man can enter heaven without being “born again of water”.
   (1) and (2) are contradictory. The Scriptural passage indicates that a man must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost to enter into heaven. The Catholic teaching denies and rejects this and says it is not necessary to be born again of water. According to Catholic teaching you can enter heaven without being born again of water.
   It is not really relevant that Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianz, John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine, etc., do not accept this passage of Scripture. That question is for another topic. The topic I am addressing is whether or not there is a passage from Scripture which contradicts Catholic teaching with reference to the necessity of Baptism of water for salvation.
   Also, notice that this contradiction holds, even if I go along with the incredible view of the posters that Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews, doesn’t know what he is talking about when he says:“the Church believes that Judaism . . . is salvific for [the Jews] because God is faithful to his promises.”

 

[Eden]

Really? So, Christ never intended for there to be exceptions for intent or desire? That’s really odd for you to say the Church teaching contradicts the Bible. Remember the thief who was hanging next to Christ on the cross and Jesus said, “Today you will be with me in paradise”? Was the thief baptised by water or by desire? Was Jesus wrong?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Kirane:

I don’t dispute the Protestants can be just as contradictory as Catholics, but that was not the question as I understood it to be? Do Protestants have b eleifs which jcontradict Scripture? This would be another thread. The question I was looking at was whether Catholics had beleifs that are contradicted by Scripture. Scripture sasy to call no man Father. Catholics call their p;riests Father. This is a contraction. The article yourefer to does not deny these facts. What they say boils down to that it is OK to contradict Scripture on this point. The fact remains that this teaching of Catholicism contradicts Scripture.

The same verse also says: Call no man Master. Call no man Teacher. Protestant Slave Owners had their slaves call them Master. What about Teachers in the school systems? Furthermore I am sure you filled out some application somewhere that asked for your Father’s name, did you put your father’s name or did you put GOD on that blank instead?

 

[joshua_b]

Kirane:

Whether or not Paul disregards the words of Jesus is not relevant to the question in my opinion. Whether or not Protestants have a similar problem or that this has happened in Protestantism is not relevant to the question. Whether or not Scripture contradicts itself is irrelevant to the question at hand. Whether or not Cathoics are right and have good reason to disregard the literal interpretation of the words of Jesus Christ on this point and put some other spin on this passage is not relevant. The question was whether or not there was a specific example of a Catholic teaching that is contrary to a passage in Scripture.
QUOTE]

Kirane, do you believe Scripture contradicts itself ? I, for one, do not, which means to find context and meaning in one passage of Scripture, it is neccessary to look to other passages. I believe Scripture is the inspired written Word of God. Therefore, I as a Catholic, do not believe that Scripture contradicts itself, or that Paul is in error when he refers to himself as “father” of the church he is writing to, because Scripture, being the inspired written Word of God, is inerrant. Is there anyone who disagrees with me on just that much ?

 

[Kirane]

[Kirane, do you believe Scripture contradicts itself ?

As I read one of the rules for the Catholic Answers forums I see the following:“Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.” As a guest poster, it is my understanding that I am required to follow the forum rules and regulations laid down by the authorities at Catholic Answers. The original topic that I am addressing is whether or not there is a passage in Scripture which contradicts Catholicism. I am trying to follow the rules and stay on the topic. Also, I was told that the topic presently concerned Baptism. Whether or not I believe that there are good reasons for Catholicism to teach something which contradicts a particular passage from Scripture is off the topic of whether or not a Scriptural passage which states “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5 contradicts Catholic teaching.
Even if I don’t agree with Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews, which apparently many of you here do not agree with him on his statement of Catholic teaching on this, but even if I don’t agree with with the Cardinal, still, Catholic teaching even without the statement of Cardinal Kasper, is that a man can be saved even if he is not “born again of water and the Holy Ghost”. Whether or not Catholics are justified in their belief, whether or not Cardinal Kasper is wrong in his statement, what Origen believes, what St Augustine believes, etc., is I guess irrelevant to whether or not there is a passage of Scripture which contradicts Catholic teaching. I am willing to allow that Catholics may (or may not) be justified in rejecting this passage of Scripture. All I am saying is that the passage from Scripture “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5
and the Catholic teaching on the point are contradictory. The Scriptural passage as it stands does not make mention of any exceptions and as it stands the passage requires that a man be born again of water (and the Holy Ghost) for salvation, while the Catholic teaching does not require Baptism of water for salvation.
I am willing to discuss the different topic of whether or not Scripture contradicts itself on another thread. On this particular thread, I am trying to focus in on the topic at hand as to whether or not there is a passage from Scripture which contradicts a teaching in Catholicism.
[/quote]

 

[Kirane]

JoeyWarren:

Protestant Slave Owners had their slaves call them Master.

I am personally opposed to Protestants owning slaves, or for that matter, for anyone to go around enslaving poor and humble people. I could say more but one of the rules of CA is that::“Messages posted to threads should be on-topic. If you wish to discuss another topic, start a new thread.”