Did Vatican II Reverse the Teaching on Inerrancy of Scripture?

[SpiritMeadow]

I’m curious as to how you reconcile this view with the following dogmatic statement from the Council of Trent:

"…and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession."

It seems pretty clear; God didn’t just inspire scripture in some vague sense: He dictated it. It’s clear that the council taught infallibly that God is the author of scripture.

Look, I think we are continuously talking about apples and oranges here. JPII and Benedict have both written about Genesis and both have interpreted it a very non-literal sense which I take as being incompatible with God dictating anything. I was NEVER taught this, in fact every priest/nun teacher I ever had was at pains to say “We don’t believe that God dictated the bible, but that he inspired it…and we take that to mean that God made sure that the essential truths of salvation and morals was conveyed to the writers such that they may have spoken in their general understanding of the world, but still correctly conveyed those things God wished.” Now I don’t claim to be a specialist in the Magisterium and so far I’ve met no one here who is. As long as this is the material used in both RCIA and Catholic educaiton, then that is what I am going to continue to believe. I assume they know whether they are in opposition to what you quote. I assume they think not. I assume the PBC is allowed to do its work for a reason, because Catholic teaching allows the general investigation of what the bible really says. If it was in full and complete opposition to Church teaching of total inerrency in every single diddle, then I assume the Vatican would disband it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Good day SpiritMeadow!

You are correct that we have no original autographs for the books of either the New or Old Testament. However, the line about the earliest manuscripts dating to the 2nd century does not refer to the Old Testament, but to manuscripts of the New Testament, Greek specifically (which are the oldest). And the number of 5000+ also refers specifically to Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Because you supplied this number, and included the 2nd century date, I took all three statements in your original post as having the same referent, i.e., Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. If you were referring to all manuscripts of the New Testament, including Latin, Coptic, etc., your number would have been, I believe, well over 20,000.

No problem…I would agree that the total number of manuscripts is well in excess of 5000. I didn’t have the exact figure in hand so erred on the very low side, lest I be jumped as some are wont to do here.

Hmmm… We must be working with a different set of terms. I would use “Tanak” or “Tanakh” if I wanted to say something about the Old Testament being grouped into three categories. My use of the term hagiographer should be taken in the etymological sense as used by Leo XIII when he wrote that all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that “the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error” (Providentissimus Deus, 20). That is to say, as left by the “holy writers”, the human authors of Scripture.

perhaps his holiness used it in err. I check with 3 online dictionaries and my own and all said the same thing. that it was a jewish division of the OT into 3 parts. Leo XIII perhaps used it in a different sense or did not understand its limits. In any case, we now understand each other.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I don’t have time but later I can give you a point by point blow of even the conciliar debates that took place on the floor during the Council over that issue. The fathers were very aware of that very phrase and there was a very passionate debate on the floor over the issue, but in the end the Catholic teaching on inerrancy was upheld and reflected NO NEW CHANGE in teaching.

Thanks, and I’d love to hear more about the discussions that led up to Dei Verbum.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Look, I think we are continuously talking about apples and oranges here. JPII and Benedict have both written about Genesis and both have interpreted it a very non-literal sense which I take as being incompatible with God dictating anything.

God could dictate a non-historical non-scientific creation myth just as much as God could dictate history or a parable or a hymn. All that stuff about literary genres and form criticism isn’t just lip-service. They are valid literary forms.

 

[Pete_Holter]

We are told that to read the text as simple dictation is wrong. We are not allowed to view scripture from a fundamentalist point of view. Benedict has called such interpretation “intellectual suicide” see: the first entry under Church Documents on my blog. It’s quite a ways down the document but is entitled “funamentalist approach”

Good evening SpiritMeadow,

The dictation model that this document speaks against is one that denies the human authors any role as authors and rather makes them into mere scribes. It would be like someone who sees Jesus as only Divine instead of as fully God and fully Man. As John Paul II pointed out when this document was released by the PBC, “Both Provdentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu] reject a split between the human and the divine, between scientific research and respect for the faith, between the literal sense and the spiritual sense. They thus appear to be in perfect harmony with the mystery of the Incarnation… The strict relationship uniting the inspired biblical texts with the mystery of the incarnation was expressed by the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in the following terms: ‘Just as the substantial Word of God became like men in every respect except sin, so too the words of God, expressed in human languages, became like human language in every respect except error’ (EB, n. 559). Repeated almost literally by the conciliar Constitution Dei Verbum (n. 13), this statement sheds light on a parallelism rich in meaning” (Address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission).

 

[Dauphin]

Look, I think we are continuously talking about apples and oranges here. JPII and Benedict have both written about Genesis and both have interpreted it a very non-literal sense which I take as being incompatible with God dictating anything. I was NEVER taught this, in fact every priest/nun teacher I ever had was at pains to say “We don’t believe that God dictated the bible, but that he inspired it…and we take that to mean that God made sure that the essential truths of salvation and morals was conveyed to the writers such that they may have spoken in their general understanding of the world, but still correctly conveyed those things God wished.” Now I don’t claim to be a specialist in the Magisterium and so far I’ve met no one here who is. As long as this is the material used in both RCIA and Catholic educaiton, then that is what I am going to continue to believe. I assume they know whether they are in opposition to what you quote. I assume they think not. I assume the PBC is allowed to do its work for a reason, because Catholic teaching allows the general investigation of what the bible really says. If it was in full and complete opposition to Church teaching of total inerrency in every single diddle, then I assume the Vatican would disband it.

Is God incapable of dictating allegory?

 

[Pete_Holter]

Catholic teaching is wholly against fundamentalism, and has called it “intellectual suicide”.

You may want to meditate on this one question: If total inerrancy, as believed by Fundamentalists and taught by the Catholic Church, is not essentially one and the same doctrine, how can the document that you referred me to assert that “Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible [and] the inerrancy of the word of God,” without mentioning that this inerrancy should be limited to faith and morals? This document certainly doesn’t pull any punches! The only criticism they offer further on is that Fundamentalists place “undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth.” What the PBC does not say here is that the Bible is erroneous in any of its historical narrations or scientific observations. It only criticizes an overemphasis upon the inerrancy of these sections of Scripture, while at the same time pointing out that what the Fundamentalist sometimes takes as historical narration and scientific truth is not such. Regardless, it is difficult to interact with a text that does not cite sources. What is interesting is that, whereas the other translations of this document have only 3 footnotes, the German translation has 23 - still none are offered for the section on Fundamentalism.

Most importantly, this document is not magisterial. It is not authoritative or normative for Catholics in any sense. This document is interesting in many ways, but Paul VI’s Motu Proprio of 1971, Sedula Cura, restructured the PBC “so that,” as Cardinal Ratzinger has written, “it was no longer an organ of the Magisterium, but a meeting place between the Magisterium and exegetes, a place of dialogue in which representatives of the Magisterium and qualified exegetes could meet to find together, so to speak, the intrinsic criteria which prevent freedom from self-destruction, thus elevating it to the level of true freedom” (Relationship Between Magisterium and Exegetes, 2003). He wrote basically the same thing in the document you just referred me to: “The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of scholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believing exegetes, take positions on important problems of Scriptural interpretation and know that for this task they enjoy the confidence of the teaching office” (The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, 1993).

What’s the benefit of this? Exegetes can explore new ideas and test the waters without the fear of censure and condemnation. This promotes a more effective atmosphere for making progress in Biblical studies. If everything you write pertaining to Scriptural studies carries the tremendous weight of determining the faith of a billion Catholics, you will be, in many ways, severely impeded! The negative side to this is that people can mistake for authentic Catholic teaching certain novelties and poorly crafted ideas that are not yet purged of errors, when the teaching may actually be, in the final analysis, at some level contrary to the faith. And when we quote from this document, or other documents from the PBC since 1971, or say that these documents taught this or that other thing, it would be misleading for us to say that “The Church teaches us…” or something similar. We should rather say, the “PBC wrote…” and see how it squares with what the Church does in fact teach. “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).

May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

God could dictate a non-historical non-scientific creation myth just as much as God could dictate history or a parable or a hymn. All that stuff about literary genres and form criticism isn’t just lip-service. They are valid literary forms.

I suppose he could, I just don’t think he did for a large number of reasons, which are largely unimportant to this discussion. But I agree, literary genres and form criticism are most important. All the methodology is useful for discerning the truth of what the original writers had to say. I have serious doubts about its ever being done, but I certainly agree we can get closer.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Good evening SpiritMeadow,

The dictation model that this document speaks against is one that denies the human authors any role as authors and rather makes them into mere scribes. It would be like someone who sees Jesus as only Divine instead of as fully God and fully Man. As John Paul II pointed out when this document was released by the PBC, “Both Provdentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu] reject a split between the human and the divine, between scientific research and respect for the faith, between the literal sense and the spiritual sense. They thus appear to be in perfect harmony with the mystery of the Incarnation… The strict relationship uniting the inspired biblical texts with the mystery of the incarnation was expressed by the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in the following terms: ‘Just as the substantial Word of God became like men in every respect except sin, so too the words of God, expressed in human languages, became like human language in every respect except error’ (EB, n. 559). Repeated almost literally by the conciliar Constitution Dei Verbum (n. 13), this statement sheds light on a parallelism rich in meaning” (Address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission).

I take dictation to mean that the author had no choice but wrote every word as directed. If you believe it means something different then we of course are not going to agree on conclusions much. I certainly do not see your distinction. Perhaps dictation is the wrong word for what you claim.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Is God incapable of dictating allegory?

Certainly not, but i find it rather difficult to understand why he would when He is apparently attempting to explain himself to his creature. I believe that “dictating” is a fundamentalist way of examining scripture and one that is false.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If total inerrancy, as believed by Fundamentalists and taught by the Catholic Church, is not essentially one and the same doctrine, how can the document that you referred me to assert that “Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible [and] the inerrancy of the word of God,” without mentioning that this inerrancy should be limited to faith and morals? This document certainly doesn’t pull any punches! The only criticism they offer further on is that Fundamentalists place “undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth.” What the PBC does not say here is that the Bible is erroneous in any of its historical narrations or scientific observations. It only criticizes an overemphasis upon the inerrancy of these sections of Scripture, while at the same time pointing out that what the Fundamentalist sometimes takes as historical narration and scientific truth is not such. Regardless, it is difficult to interact with a text that does not cite sources. What is interesting is that, whereas the other translations of this document have only 3 footnotes, the German translation has 23 - still none are offered for the section on Fundamentalism.

reread what you just wrote. And of course I cited you to a particular section of the document pertaining to its negation of fundamentalism as a correct way to interpret scripture. You must read the entire document to see what other methodologies the Vatican affirms. But you write yourself of its “criticism” of an overly inerrent approach.

Most importantly, this document is not magisterial. It is not authoritative or normative for Catholics in any sense. This document is interesting in many ways, but Paul VI’s Motu Proprio of 1971, Sedula Cura, restructured the PBC “so that,” as Cardinal Ratzinger has written, “it was no longer an organ of the Magisterium, but a meeting place between the Magisterium and exegetes, a place of dialogue in which representatives of the Magisterium and qualified exegetes could meet to find together, so to speak, the intrinsic criteria which prevent freedom from self-destruction, thus elevating it to the level of true freedom” (Relationship Between Magisterium and Exegetes, 2003). He wrote basically the same thing in the document you just referred me to: “The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of scholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believing exegetes, take positions on important problems of Scriptural interpretation and know that for this task they enjoy the confidence of the teaching office” (The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, 1993).

I never said the PBS was an arm of the Magisterium. It exists however at the pleasure of the Vatican and can be disbanded any time the Vatican becomes convinced that it is not on a whole stating doctrine correctly. Most assuredly the Vatican does not agree with everything it says or does, but it has not seen fit to disband it. If it operates at all like the PAS, then the Pope also passes on each candidate chosen to membership. It reports to the Vatican and does it work for the Vatican. The vatican I assume does not control its agenda, nor does it do so insofar as the PAS is concerned.

Since the Vatican seldom censures or bans the works of most of the members, I can but assume that it finds no fault with the vast majority of the work done by the PBC. I assume the Vatican will make clear when it does not. When a statement by the PBC is signed off on as this one was by Benedict albeit as Cardinal, I assume again, it is because there is basic agreement as to the contents.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I never said the PBS was an arm of the Magisterium. It exists however at the pleasure of the Vatican and can be disbanded any time the Vatican becomes convinced that it is not on a whole stating doctrine correctly. Most assuredly the Vatican does not agree with everything it says or does, but it has not seen fit to disband it.

I’d recommend reading the entire text of that letter at the link given below. It explains that the PBC was given freedom from censure by the Magisterium so that they could feel free to investigate whatever they wanted, regardless of whether it goes against church teaching. They don’t have to be censored, since they don’t represent the Magisterium.

PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION

On the 100th anniversary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission

Relationship between Magisterium and exegetes

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030510_ratzinger-comm-bible_en.html

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’d recommend reading the entire text of that letter at the link given below. It explains that the PBC was given freedom from censure by the Magisterium so that they could feel free to investigate whatever they wanted, regardless of whether it goes against church teaching. They don’t have to be censored, since they don’t represent the Magisterium.

I didn’t say anything about censure. Please read it again. I know that the PBC is not part of the Magisterium and is not held to their rules. It remains the fact I assume that if it seriously was causing difficulty in its interpretations, it would cease to be. Instead we find Cardinals signing off on their work and publishing it to all of us. I see that as “some” type of basic endorsement. It is I believe this pontificate that has moved toward opening information at the Vatican to the laity for our perusal and education.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I didn’t say anything about censure. Please read it again.

Okay…

SpiritMeadow:

Since the Vatican seldom censures or bans the works of most of the members, I can but assume that it finds no fault with the vast majority of the work done by the PBC.

I’m starting to realize that you have no intention of engaging in true dialog here. Rather you seem to come here only to promote an agenda. I’ll try not to pay much attention or respond to things you say in the future, unless it is for the benefit of others who may read what you post.

 

[JReducation]

I have a serious concern about CAF. While I believe that the original founder had good intentions, it seems to lack some guidance from people in the know. The lawyer who founded it intended to help combat proselytizing of Catholics by fundamentalists Protestants. Because the organization is not an official organism within the Catholic Church, the monitoring and support that they received from Catholic theologians, exegetes, liturgists, philosophers, linguists, historians, canon lawyers, psychologists and mystical theologians is minimal at best. CAF has a forum “Ask the Apologists”, but they only respond to some questions. My guess is that they have few apologists and too many questions.

I mention this to show how many experts it takes to respond to questions about Vatican II, scripture, liturgy, moral theology, church law, tradition and so forth. What we have here are, in fact, good lay men and women asking questions and other good lay men and women answering with our limited knowledge of the disciplines that I mention above.

When I first registered for CAF I wanted to engage in good scholarly discussions. That has not really happened. I feel that we spend too much time spinning our wheels around the same questions with the same limited answers. While I have two degrees in theology, my areas are Mystical Theology and Franciscan Spirituality. Some of these questions require experts and other areas of expertise.

I feel badly, because I can answer basic questions outside of my field drawing from the core courses I took in grad school; however, I feel that people have so many questions and are being given such few correct responses. I encourage everyone who reads this thread to look around in other Catholic sites and books, especially the Catholic Catechism and Catholic Bible commentaries.

Although I am not an authority in exegesis, I can say this with a legitimate degree of confidence. Terms, such as history and historical, have more than one meaning. Most people understand the meaning of history the way that we studied it in school: names, events, dates and details – cause and effect. That is one meaning. Nonetheless, this method of studying history is very basic and only in use in American schools. Other developed nations have moved on to a deeper methodology to study history, so that their high school and university students approach the meaning of the word history very differently.

While teaching at a university outside the USA, my kids were in middle and high school respectively. My son was in sixth grade at the time. He brought home his history book and I found this interesting definition of history, which has always impressed me (besides being impressed by the fact that sixth-graders actually learned history this way). Anyway, here is the definition. “All events that are remembered and preserved in some form (that cannot be invalidated as unhistorical or that otherwise remain amenable to historical discourse) constitute the historical record.”

If we apply this definition of history to scripture, it actually works. The events reported in scripture cannot be proven unhistorical. We see discrepancies in details, sequences, and even in names, but the event that is recalled and preserved must be historical, for human beings can only remember and preserve that which has impacted their within historical context. Even myth has some basis in human experience.

The narratives can be amended for clarity. Biblical studies use exegesis for this purpose. Legitimate exegetes do not actually rewrite the scriptures. They explain the discrepancies. We have to take the scriptures as they stand and the clarifications offered by exegetes concomitantly. For best explanations we should refer to good commentaries.

There are also some very good sites online where you can find answers by persons who actually study these materials professionally. One good site is askacatholic.com/aboutus.cfm . I’m not promoting competition with CAF, just offering another resource. I trust this site, because it received words of praise from Cardinal Sean O’Malley, OFM, Cap, I know this man to be orthodox, holy, intellectual and flexible. When he speaks words of approval on something, you can take it to the bank. LOL

In a subsequent post, I would like to speak a little about what has been said since my last post and share what little I know, if I may. God bless.

JR

 

[Holly3278]

I voted other because I have no idea what Providentissimus Deus is. I would vote a simple “No”.

 

[JReducation]

The Bible is a collection of writings. In the OT there are four kinds of books: Pentateuch or Torah (Law), Historical, Wisdom, and Prophetic. In the NT the books are Gospels, Historical, Letters and Revelation.

When I studied it in grad school, the NT is actually more difficult to work with than the OT, because the Synoptic Gospels (Mt, Mk and Lk) the focus is to present the Good News of Salvation through stories and John does not make such wide use of stories. Nonetheless, the focus remains the Good News of Salvation, not details as we would read were we reading a book on US History. Even there, we would find different perspectives.

I offer this example. Four people are standing at an intersection at the four corners and witness an accident. The reports are going to have similarities and discrepancies, because the position of the reporter influences what he or she sees. This does not invalidate any of the reports. In the case of the Synoptic Gospels, their veracity is supported by the fact that you have three accounts and there are some discrepancies.

If there were no discrepancies between the accounts, they would be highly suspect of conspiracy. Discrepancies imply that each Gospel writer worked independently of the other two. Otherwise, their details would be exactly the same and there would be no personal insight, just the report of the group. This kind of reporting is what lawyers use to win a case. They get two witnesses to say the exact same thing, the same way. There is no room for the jury to doubt.

Winning in court was not the intent of the biblical writers. Their intent was to report the Good News of Jesus Christ. Each wrote with a specific audience in mind. None of them ever thought of 21st century human beings. Their audience consisted of new converts. Those who had seen the events did not need the report. They were the witnesses who told the stories in the first place. This is oral tradition and these early witnesses were the early Church. It was the Church that produced the scriptures. In sequence, first came the Christ-Event, then the Church and then the Bible. The OT were unfastened books, except for the Torah.

John’s Gospel, we dare not compare John’s Gospel to the other three; because it is not in the same literary genre. Even though the subject is the same, Jesus Christ and its purpose to proclaim the Good News, that’s where the similarities between John’s Gospel and the other gospels end.

John uses very different literary and intellectual devices to report the Good News. While Mt, Mk and Lk use stories to support their claim that Jesus Christ is the Good News, John relies heavily on Greek philosophy and his mystical experience to prove the same. John doesn’t have as many stories, parables, miracles and even discourses as the other gospels. The other writers made less use of theology and philosophy, John made more use of these tools.

With this, we can better understand that the writings are without error. We now understand that each writer used the details as tools to support his report of the Good News. Step back and view the details, such as names or the place where something happened or the sequence and so forth as tools and then read the news that the writer is conveying, you will get it without flaw.

Over analyze the details such as one gospel says that the sermon was on a mount and the other says that it was on a plain and you get caught up in the presentation and miss the content. Whether the beatitudes were a sermon on a mount or on a plain is irrelevant to the inerrancy. There is no error here. They are the teachings of Jesus and their content is true. If you examine Jesus’ life and teachings, his entire earthly ministry was one long sermon. Of course we have to understand the word sermon the same way that the people of the first century of the Christian era understood it. A sermon was a message, not a speech. Today we think of a sermon as a homily.

Like this, there is an explanation for the great variety that exists in each part of the bible. These explanations actually do away with the fear of historical or theological error. If I deliberately place George Washington on the Piedmont Plateau to tell the story, because the altitude of the plateau is going to convey to my audience Washington’s military superiority over that of the British generals and another person says that the battle was at Valley Forge; because they want to demonstrate how Washington’s military leadership held his troops together and kept them alive during a harsh winter, we’re both telling the truth. Valley Forge or Piedmont Plateau is each part of the truth. Washington was a superior General and a great military leader.

The same happens in scripture. There is no error, because the author knows exactly what he is doing. The Holy Spirit is inspiring the author to tell the truth using language that people can understand.

 

[Dauphin]

Certainly not, but i find it rather difficult to understand why he would when He is apparently attempting to explain himself to his creature. I believe that “dictating” is a fundamentalist way of examining scripture and one that is false.

Then was the Council of Trent in error? Was the pre-conciliar Catholic Church “fundamentalist”? If a council of the Church says the Bible was “dictated”, aren’t we bound to believe that?

 

[JReducation]

Then was the Council of Trent in error? Was the pre-conciliar Catholic Church “fundamentalist”? If a council of the Church says the Bible was “dictated”, aren’t we bound to believe that?

The word “dictated” is used in Latin documents. The Latin word is discere, to say.

When the Church teachers that the Bible was dictated, it is telling you the truth. The Bible is the Word of God. Words are said or spoken. Therefore, the content of the Bible was spoken by God.

What Vatican II and the Catholic Catechism clarifies is that it was spoken in language that people understand. Neither Vatican II or the Catholic Catechism deny the previous assertions that the Bible is the spoken word of God. They add to the explanation of previous councils and documents, for the sake of clarity.

Also, there is an ancient teaching in Catholic theology. Jesus is the Word of God. This is found in the Prologue of John’s Gospel.

Words are spoken; therefore Jesus is a spoken word. Unlike the words that we speak, which are composed of phonemes, God’s Word is Life rather than sound.

When we add these two beliefs

1. The Bible is spoken by God.
2. Jesus is the Word of God.

The equation comes out something like this, the Bible is the story of Jesus from beginning to end. It begins with everything that leads up to Jesus and concludes with what was left to us by Jesus.

Therefore, it is spoken revelation, keeping in mind that the Latin word for spoken is the modern English word dictated.

I hope this helps.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Okay…

I’m starting to realize that you have no intention of engaging in true dialog here. Rather you seem to come here only to promote an agenda. I’ll try not to pay much attention or respond to things you say in the future, unless it is for the benefit of others who may read what you post.

Wow, thats harsh, and certainly not mandated by my opinion stated above. But if something upset you, so be it. It certainly wasn’t meant to but was just an answer to your statement. You have a nice day. I have no agenda and can’t imagine what you think it might be other than to state my opinion of what I believe.