Do you believe there is one true church?

[guanophore]

(Do you not believe the teaching of the Magesterium is the teaching of Christ?)

No I do not. They are in fact the Church’s best interpretation, perhaps with divine guidance, of what the scriptures intended 2000 years ago. Christ is not just on paper: he is realised in various ways in our lives – communication, intervention, healing etc

The magesterium certainly does use the guidance of the scripture, but your characterization of it sounds as if it is scripture based, and it is not. In musing upon this, I realize that there would be no way for you to consider that the Holy Spirit would guide the teaching authority of the church if you don’t believe that God intervenes in the affairs of men.

Errors crept into the fabric of the Church before the Reformation. It may or may not be true that the reformers walked out. I do not believe it to be so, according to secular history.

I think it would be useful to the thread if you could provide evidence that errors crept into the fabric of the church prior to the reformation.

Nevertheless, there is no guidebook to churchdom as there is a Mosaic Law, or the Beatitudes. We have the Church’s own perception of Christ’s intentions, and there may be a conflict of interest here?

Yes, Jesus did leave a Guide. He appointed the Apostles, gave them authority, and then guaranteed the HS would be with them to guide them into all truth. In fact, the magesterium has written a plethora of guidebooks through the centuries.

Where do you see a conflict of interest between the Church’s own perceptions of Christ’s intentions, and His real intentions ?

I believe we are not Christians in order to live forever with God. I believe that we must reflect Christ’s example during our lifetime. Former seems passive; latter seems active. But the decision is up to Him as to what each individual will do – if we listen to the still small voice.

This is another of those statements that is considered non-Catholic and gives people pause as to why you would want to join the Church.

That aside, the fact that God created us to live in fellowship with Him forever does not negate that He has called us to reflect his example during our lifetime.

I agree, but He will not see his vision until there is greater comprehension, compassion, and above all necessity - which is now breathing down our necks.

I believe that jesus already sees his vision of how He wants us all in unity. I am not sure the realization of His vision depends upon our ability, as much as our willingness to submit to His ability. In submitting to Him, the fruit of comprehension, compassion, and urgency will all grow.

 

[Grace_Angel]

YES!!!

Safe Eagle like you I say
YES absolutely. I say this with great joy. I love my church
recently (4 weeks ago) I stood in St Peters Square and look up to the papal offices where the lights were on, and I thought, Peter is Home and looking after the household as he has done for 2000 years. Peter has not abandoned the house, He hasnt left the children orphans (we hear the voice of the Saviour saying this) He is home. And you know what Safe Eagle? I felt safe and comforted that “Peter” was home.
Grace angel.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Dear Grace Angel, Thank you for sharing your beautiful experience! How blessed you were to have that opportunity and then to receive such joy and confirmation!

Grace Angel, I encourage you now, while the memories are still vivid and fresh, to write them down, write even the tiniest detail that you can remember. Write as it comes to you, even if you go back and add to it many times. Years from now you can return to your writings and read your own report and refresh and relive the experience!

It is tempting to believe that some experiences are so powerful that you will always remember them, but often, we don’t. I have learned this through hard experience. So give yourself, and your posterity, that gift. Write it down. As a loving reminder to you and to others of your experience. I promise you will be glad you did!

Love, Melanie

 

[Grace_Angel]

Dear Grace Angel, Thank you for sharing your beautiful experience! How blessed you were to have that opportunity and then to receive such joy and confirmation!

Grace Angel, I encourage you now, while the memories are still vivid and fresh, to write them down, write even the tiniest detail that you can remember. Write as it comes to you, even if you go back and add to it many times. Years from now you can return to your writings and read your own report and refresh and relive the experience!

It is tempting to believe that some experiences are so powerful that you will always remember them, but often, we don’t. I have learned this through hard experience. So give yourself, and your posterity, that gift. Write it down. As a loving reminder to you and to others of your experience. I promise you will be glad you did!

Love, Melanie

Thank you dear Melanie, I wish the same for you very soon, and another wish I have for you is to stand under the statue of Our Lady, at the Basilica in Fatima, and to look out over the place and capelinha, and to just think how grand and great is the Mercy of God for sinners. He gathers them and holds them and says, “see how much I have loved you.” I six months ago stood under the statue of Mary in Fatima (in Oct 2006 there for a pro life conference) and whilst looking out I wept, because I felt so unworthy, and then felt comforted with the love of God and His Mother.
Grace Angel.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Dear Grace Angel,

You are a child of God and so I know you were worthy of every comfort you received at Fatima! I am sure God loves you!

The faith and humility of you and so many others in this forum continues to astound me! Thank you for sharing your experiences and encouraging the rest of us!

Love, Melanie

 

[Carol_Coombe]

The minimum is that the candidates should have been exposed to the doctrines related to the 12 statements of the Apostles’ Creed, assent that “whatever the Church teaches me is true,” and be open to the gifts of Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge, Right Judgement, Piety, Courage, and Awe of the Lord. (They don’t have to have that list memorized, though.)

They should also know how to say the Hail Mary, the Our Father, the Glory Be, and the Act of Contrition, but this isn’t strictly required - they will learn them as time goes on if they didn’t pick them up in RCIA Catechism.

They should also be in the habit of regular attendance at Mass, at least on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, and they should know the duties of their state in life as they relate to the Precepts of the Church. (Catechism, 2041)

Thank you for this help.

*Assent that whatever the Church teaches me is true? *Is that really really true? The only one to whom one could possibly assent on every single occasion is God in Christ. No body on earth is or could be mandated to teach one absolute truth (I know that is past a pre-school mind, but that is where my mind at least is at).

Problem is also that *whatever the Church teaches *varies from place to place, from teacher to teacher, as we have seen in our discussions, in our readings, and in publications from the Vatican.

This would be a huge sumbling block in an era when people are taught to think for themselves, to question authority and pronouncements, and actually, well, to think for themselves. I know that this is a problem for you and for others who like to have strong rules to which to cling, which perhaps order your life and your relationship with God. There are others too who see the rules and regulations, the doctrines, as freeing, but I have not yet unbundled this concept.

God is freeing, not the Church which guides. It provides a kraal of safety surely for her children, and provides guidelines for Cathlic Christian behaviour. But if I had to make an informed decision and it came down to a choice between God and the Church, one would choose God.

By the way, Google suggests (article in Boston Globe on meeting of Bishop’s November 2006) that only 5 per cent of Catholics in a US area scanned before the Conference do not use artificial contraception. The others have presumably made an informed decision. It is not a decision against God, but not for the Church.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

#550

This above scenario is a textbook example of relativism. The parent/child relationship–which is a real, natural, loving, and sacred bond–is presented as something subjective and evolving. According to this theory (as you presented it) parenthood is utilitarian and changes to suit the needs of a particular society at a particular time. There’s nothing special about parenthood–it serves a purpose in society–that’s all.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Jack Hawkins was recieved into the Church at Easter, and he has made it clear here that he does not agree with the Church’s teachings in a number of areas. To Carol’s credit, she withdrew from the election at the last minute because she has such integrity and conscience that she realized too many of her beliefs were divergent

so are you saying that I don’t have the same integrity and conscience?
you have claimed before that I do not agree with the Church’s teaching in a number of areas, and I responded then - have you forgotten what I said?
I don’t like to see unChristian things said, it’s part of my duty to correct you here:thumbsup:

 

[Delta2]

Yes, I believe in only a true church

Catholic Church :

Roman Catholic
Catholic from the east (orthodox)
and any Catholic denomination

I’m Roman Catholic, because I think that is the perfect one

The reason of my believe is because other christians churches can’t make valid and rational rebuttals to Catholic Doctrines and Dogmas

Catholics Apologetics is just perfect

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I think you are misunderstanding her point. Can you see how “whoever is not against us is for us” fits in here? The Catholic church joins with a number of other agencies and institutions who are committed to works of Mercy. This is one of the things that drew Carol in the first place.

Apparently many do, Iowa. Jack Hawkins was recieved into the Church at Easter, and he has made it clear here that he does not agree with the Church’s teachings in a number of areas. To Carol’s credit, she withdrew from the election at the last minute because she has such integrity and conscience that she realized too many of her beliefs were divergent.

Guan,

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I think the context of Carol’s remarks are quite clear. God is not responsible for man’s free will choices.

With respect to becoming a Catholic. I don’t know what kind of RCIA program some people go through but RCIA programs faithful to the Church will instruct their candidates in the totality of Church beliefs. The idea that people can become Catholic and when their belief’s are not in communion with the Church is wrong.

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Janet S;2149709:

#550

I am not sure what your point is here. I am simply indicating that historically our attitude to children - and to teenagers - has changed. Is there something relativist about this?

Goodness me, this was written by an eminent historian in a great big book that focused on our perceptions of age groups. You can find it if you want to. I assume that historians for the most part on not pushing agendas: it is not in their interest to do so if they are sound academics. I am sure there are those who do: if you teach at a Catholic University, you will have views that come from a certain angle; if you teach at an evangelical bible school, you will post publications which also shed a certain kind of light. But most academic literature is just that - academic literature.

Is there nothing that can be quoted, referenced, or used as a source of ideas that might not be a ‘poisonous agenda’. I have mentioned Huizinga in my bibliography: what do you know about him?

I am not setting out a treatise of my own; I am not making a plea for better treatment of children in the feudal through 19th century; I am simply observing that this is the case. And you can find 19th and 20th century photos that prove the case: children in very odd costumes until they were well into their first decade; children in servitude in weaving mills. And in Burma, where children are valued beyond all else, today parents send their daughters into protitution for a selected period, in order to provide economic security for the family.

Yes, the Church may teach an ideal; the psychologists and sociologists are well aware of what the ideal is. But factual, evidentual history, written and read with a neutral composure, provides us with a different story from the Walt Disney world we would prefer to live in.

Carol,

You need to look to more sources. You seem to pick only those that feed your perceptions. There is plenty of evidence that children were loved and care for from birth if you care to look…ever here of the Passover?

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

so are you saying that I don’t have the same integrity and conscience?
you have claimed before that I do not agree with the Church’s teaching in a number of areas, and I responded then - have you forgotten what I said?
I don’t like to see unChristian things said, it’s part of my duty to correct you here:thumbsup:

Jack,

I don’t want to rain on your parade but you are the one that incorrect. If you don’t agree with the Church on matters of faith and morals, you not in communion with Her.

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

The short answer to all this is that Christ has only ONE CHURCH…the nature of Christ’s Church is that it is ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC. Humans have created divisions within the body of Christ…the Church…but all who are called Christian are still part of this one church regardless of denominational affiliation.

Read the Cathecism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 846 and 847.

Yerusalyim,

Your interpretation of CCC 846 is not correct. It does not say that “all who are called Christian are still part of this one Church regardless of denominational affiliation”.

Here is what it does say:

CCC 846 - Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God though Christ, would refuse to enter it or to remain it in.

This certainly does not say that Christians are part of His one Church regardless of denominational affiliation nor does it imply so.

In 847 it says,

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and , moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

God, in his mercy, will determine who is saved.

Iowa Mike

 

[Janet_S]

Janet S;2149709:

#550

I am not sure what your point is here. I am simply indicating that historically our attitude to children - and to teenagers - has changed. Is there something relativist about this?

Goodness me, this was written by an eminent historian in a great big book that focused on our perceptions of age groups. You can find it if you want to. I assume that historians for the most part on not pushing agendas: it is not in their interest to do so if they are sound academics. I am sure there are those who do: if you teach at a Catholic University, you will have views that come from a certain angle; if you teach at an evangelical bible school, you will post publications which also shed a certain kind of light. But most academic literature is just that - academic literature.

Is there nothing that can be quoted, referenced, or used as a source of ideas that might not be a ‘poisonous agenda’. I have mentioned Huizinga in my bibliography: what do you know about him?

I am not setting out a treatise of my own; I am not making a plea for better treatment of children in the feudal through 19th century; I am simply observing that this is the case. And you can find 19th and 20th century photos that prove the case: children in very odd costumes until they were well into their first decade; children in servitude in weaving mills. And in Burma, where children are valued beyond all else, today parents send their daughters into protitution for a selected period, in order to provide economic security for the family.

Yes, the Church may teach an ideal; the psychologists and sociologists are well aware of what the ideal is. But factual, evidentual history, written and read with a neutral composure, provides us with a different story from the Walt Disney world we would prefer to live in.

I don’t know anything about Huizinga.

It’s unfortunate that not all children are valued and loved as they should be. It was a problem in the past and is still a problem today. I work in a pediatric hospital, so I see firsthand how children can be abused by those who should love them. We live with the effects of original sin, and nowhere is this more evident that the example of how we treat the weak in our society, especially children.

As far as the historian Philip Aries, I don’t believe he is neutral like you claim, and I don’t accept his account of history. Everyone has a worldview and a bias, not just Christians. He has a biased agenda to demean and distort the parent-child bond --that is obvious to me. The parent-child relationship is a natural, loving bond, but he is presenting it as a utilitarian role dictated by societal needs. I don’t deny there may be some differences in the perceptions of parenthood throughout cultures and times, but to suggest parents withheld love from their children until they deemed it was worth their time to do so (when they knew the child would survive) defies common sense. Even animals operating on instinct alone would not do this. I know this is Aries’ theory, not yours. But you brought it up, so I assume you accept it. I think it’s ridiculous and unbelievable, so I wanted to point it out.

There are a lot of popular intellectuals/scholars that I wouldn’t waste my time reading. They were fashionable at one time in history, but who takes them seriously anymore except to point out how wrong they were. Some examples are Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Francis Galton, Margaret Mead, Adolph Hitler, and Alfred Kinsey. Just because people become famous and influential doesn’t make them right. Just because they don’t profess a religion, doesn’t mean they are neutral or don’t have an agenda.

The Church teaches an ideal. It is called “reality.” People have a basic human nature that does not change. We are created in the image of God. Original sin causes many of us to “miss the mark”, but our basic human nature remains the same throughout times and cultures unlike what the relativists would have us believe.

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Carol Coombe;2149219:

The Church is the world-wide unstoppable organization founded by Jesus Christ in 33 AD which is descended spiritually and sacramentally from His followers - Peter being its chief shepherd (John 21:15-19) and the Apostles being its leading Bishops (Matthew 28:16-20).

If it’s not the Catholic Church, then it is another

world-wide, 2,000 year old heirarchical organization with direct Apostolic lineage, and with Peter as its first Chief Shepherd.

There are actually some plausible contenders, but none of them are Protestant.

What is the difference between this and brainwashing. I intend no offense, and I do not wish to start a major calamidade. But I honestly cannot find it possible to imagine that an intelligent, well-educated, thoughtful, Catholic would subscribe to such fixed, immutable and plodding belief: there is one absolute truth, there is on church, there is one pope, there is one interpretation of the bible, there is one perfection, and I hold it in my hand.

This seems antithetical to Christ’s example, to the way we understand Him as a person of love, lively affection, understanding and perspicacity. It seems antithetical to reality from the time of humankind’s entrance on the scene as a civilisation about 12,000 years ago. It seems antithetical to a sound, well-informed faith which is based on a real understanding of the interpretations of the Church/Magisterium as well as the social realities that the world, God’s world is facing from the time of Christ to the present day.

It is impossible, it seems to me, to trust blind - and at times arrogant and solitary - belief that allows for no other alternative even for people of other faiths and cultures. I find this sad, and ultimately quite unacceptable.

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you for this help.

*Assent that whatever the Church teaches me is true? *Is that really really true?

Yes, that’s really, really true.

The only one to whom one could possibly assent on every single occasion is God in Christ. No body on earth is or could be mandated to teach one absolute truth (I know that is past a pre-school mind, but that is where my mind at least is at).

Christ informs the Church, and the Church informs us.

Problem is also that *whatever the Church teaches *varies from place to place, from teacher to teacher, as we have seen in our discussions, in our readings, and in publications from the Vatican.

The Church is not the human beings who run it, or the leadership. The Church is the Body of Christ; that is a body of Holy Tradition that has been handed down through human beings down to this present age, by the protection of the Holy Spirit.

This would be a huge sumbling block in an era when people are taught to think for themselves, to question authority and pronouncements, and actually, well, to think for themselves. I know that this is a problem for you and for others who like to have strong rules to which to cling, which perhaps order your life and your relationship with God. There are others too who see the rules and regulations, the doctrines, as freeing, but I have not yet unbundled this concept.

It means that certain decisions have already been made, and are not mine to make - which makes me free to play around with the things that are mine to play around with. I’m not always stuck trying to figure out what the Trinity is, because the Church gives me a definition for that. I’m not always stuck wondering what my status is with God because the Church gives me an Examination of Conscience with which to figure that out, usually in less than ten minutes.

What I get to do, then, is make my paintings, run my household, work my little business, and do my reading and Internet stuff, secure in the knowledge that the important things have already been looked after. I’m free to not worry about it. If I wonder about something, I can look it up. I don’t have to sit for days and days, worrying at a question. It’s got an answer that I can find in the teachings of the Church. If I want more information, I can go deeper - way deep.

God is freeing, not the Church which guides. It provides a kraal of safety surely for her children, and provides guidelines for Cathlic Christian behaviour. But if I had to make an informed decision and it came down to a choice between God and the Church, one would choose God.

There is never a choice between the two, since the Church is God’s body - His vehicle with which He comes to us and teaches us with sureness and faithfulness.

By the way, Google suggests (article in Boston Globe on meeting of Bishop’s November 2006) that only 5 per cent of Catholics in a US area scanned before the Conference do not use artificial contraception. The others have presumably made an informed decision. It is not a decision against God, but not for the Church.

Grabbing the means to create life (the “clay” so to speak) out of God’s hands, wrapping it up in plastic and/or loading it up with a lot of toxic chemicals until it’s unfit for use, and then using it for personal entertainment isn’t “against God?”

It would be interesting to know what would be, in your thinking.

Keep in mind, God is never, ever going to create any human being “by accident.” We are all here by His purposeful design. Therefore, to use contraception is, indeed, to go against God’s design, since it prevents people from being born that God intended to create - who maybe were going to help us find the cure to cancer, or to the AIDS crisis, or even just be someone’s very good friend, but now they can’t because God never got to create them - the clay was taken away from Him by people who thought they had a better idea than He did.

It is to be hoped that these people are not making an informed decision, but have been brainwashed by the prevailing culture, because I would hate to think they really knew what they were doing, and did it anyway.

 

[Tomster]

jmcrae;2149376:

What is the difference between this and brainwashing. I intend no offense, and I do not wish to start a major calamidade. But I honestly cannot find it possible to imagine that an intelligent, well-educated, thoughtful, Catholic would subscribe to such fixed, immutable and plodding belief: there is one absolute truth, there is on church, there is one pope, there is one interpretation of the bible, there is one perfection, and I hold it in my hand.

This seems antithetical to Christ’s example, to the way we understand Him as a person of love, lively affection, understanding and perspicacity. It seems antithetical to reality from the time of humankind’s entrance on the scene as a civilisation about 12,000 years ago. It seems antithetical to a sound, well-informed faith which is based on a real understanding of the interpretations of the Church/Magisterium as well as the social realities that the world, God’s world is facing from the time of Christ to the present day.

It is impossible, it seems to me, to trust blind - and at times arrogant and solitary - belief that allows for no other alternative even for people of other faiths and cultures. I find this sad, and ultimately quite unacceptable.

The purpose and object of the existence of any society is the pursuit and attainment by its members of some common end by the use of some common means. Experience, however, has proved over and over again - so much so, indeed, that it has long been a first principle of practical life - that no society, from the Sovereign state to the smallest club, is successful, unless it is governed by some competent authority, whether it be a president, a chairman or a committee, a cabinet, a board of management, a managing director, etc. There must be some ruling power, whether individual or collective, whose office it is to govern, direct, legislate, judge, and even coerce and punish, all with the one object of securing the success of the society in the achievement of the purpose of its existence, which is the good, happiness, pleasure, in some way or other, of its members. Without such a governing authority any society is doomed to confusion, chaos, failure, and extinction. This ruling authority or power of government is called “Jurisdiction.”

continued

 

[Carol_Coombe]

This above scenario is a textbook example of relativism. The parent/child relationship–which is a real, natural, loving, and sacred bond–is presented as something subjective and evolving. According to this theory (as you presented it) parenthood is utilitarian and changes to suit the needs of a particular society at a particular time. There’s nothing special about parenthood–it serves a purpose in society–that’s all.

I’m not sure who developed this theory and what poisonous agenda he is pushing, but there is no way I believe his version of history. I suppose you presented it to show how “adaptable” people are, but this theory is not at all in line with the Catholic worldview. Actually it is very much opposed to it. To believe that withholding love from children (until their survival was sure) was the norm until the early 20th century is ridiculous. A mother cannot suppress her love for her child. Even dogs treat their offspring better than this.

Examples:

(1) University Teaching Hospital, Lusaka, Zambia: African farmer and two wives; wives do not want more children as they have too many to feed; husband insisting they continue and why? So he can have more labour on the farm.
(2) Near Mumbwa, Barotseland, Zambia: African farmer and two wives, 19 children, enough food. Why so many children? 'They are the ones who work the farm; they will support me when I am old; they are my pension". Do children interact with father? No.
(3) Burma/Myanmar: Burmese and other Asian families regularly sell daughters into prostitution in the region and as far out as Nigeria to provide financial security for the family

Indeed, child rape, an epidemic in South Africa, is spreading like a wildfire into Southeast Asia. Cambodia’s child sex slave industry is globally famous. In communist Vietnam, over 3,500 child rape cases have appeared in courts since 1998. The Vietnamese government has released figures showing that in some regions of the nation, between half and 90 percent of sexual crimes and abuse occur against minors. *WorldNetDaily, 2002 *

Do you need more evidence: I can give you papers on trauma among children, sexual abuse by brothers and fathers, starvation, disease, undereducation.

You can turn your head, or you can face reality. Read *The Death of Woman Wang *for a reality check on China in the 15th century. The world is a tought place out there, and yes, many people are treated worse than their dogs, except that people eat dogs before the dogs eat them, which happens.

Please, please, get real. I don’t know where your head is at! Why does there have to be a poisonous agenda? It is the truth you are being offered. There is an excellent comment below on Aries’ views of childhood which puts a more modest take on early perceptions of childhood which might help you.

And please do explain, because I do not understand, what you mean when you say ‘this is a textbook example of relativism’. This is an area of real confusion for me, because I am pretty certain that everything is relative. I am not being provocative: I want to know.

 

[Tomster]

There is one Society within our experience which is a supernatural society, a society among men indeed, and for men, but having a supernatural origin and a supernatural end and purpose. This Society is the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ for the sanctification and salvation of the human race. This Church is the supernatural, spiritual kingdom of Christ, existing in the world, but not of the world. Being a kingdom, it is a perfect society; and as such, it must have a government, and one which has received from its founder a power and authority that is proportioned to the spiritual nature of the society, and competent to direct its members to its supernatural end. Jesus Christ, therefore, provided for this power of government, i.e. the spiritual Jurisdiction of the Church, when he said to Peter: “To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven”; (Matthew 16:19) and to the whole body of Apostles: “Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18)

Hope this helps :tiphat:

Tomster

 

[Carol_Coombe]

You may not like this answer, but here goes. If you don’t trust the Church, you shouldn’t join it. Once you believe that the Church has divine authority–like she says she does–who wouldn’t want to join? The individual doctrines you can work through later.

How do you get to the point where you trust that the Church is right? First begin to examine those doctrines or teachings you are having the most trouble with. Prayerfully explore the the reasons behind a given doctrine. If you find she is right about one teaching, move on to another one. Who knows, if you discover that she is right about quite a few teachings, you may finally come to the conclusion that she is right about everything. If you get to that point, there’s only one choice–you must join!

So that’s my advice. Look at the big picture–the issue of authority.

Thank you. This helps.

Can you just clarify what you mean by ‘take a look at the big picture - the issue of authority’. It is the issue of authority on which I stumble badly, and I am not sure what you are saying here.