How do you defend Papal Infallibility?

[Tantum_ergo]

The scientific expertise of monks or individual members of the church doesn’t mean that the Pope can make infallable statements about scientific theories. If he could, we’d already have figured out how to time travel and be asking Jesus these questions in person!

And nobody CLAIMED that infallibility had anything to do with science. However, I can see where the confusion arose.

The poster I was responding to was (or so I took it) implying that the Church --that is to say, the members of the Church, priests, bishops, etc., were all ‘anti-science’, lacking in scientific understanding and fundamental reasoning, attempting to cow ‘real science’ and to foist their own ignorance onto others. . .IOW, unaware that the people in the Church were not ignoramuses on the subject. They didn’t believe in a flat earth and in fact, part of Galileo’s theory is actually wrong. The Church has a long tradition of support of science and reason in that humanity has reason, humanity is capable of thought, humanity does strive to learn and to do, and the Church was one of the biggest reasons that people in the Middle Ages (and now, and before) have a lot of the tools to do this.

I was NOT implying that the Church made ‘infallible proclamations’ on science and that’s why in my very next post, albeit to another poster, I specifically mentioned the Church’s teaching re infallibility on FAITH AND MORALS.

 

[Regina_Love]

It is a common error of our modern age to believe the Church opposes science. History in fact teaches us that the scientific methods sprang from the Church as a way to study God’s orderly design of creation. The study of science is yet one more gift The Church has brought to the world. What she opposes is using science in an evil manner, which takes life.

The way I understand Papel Infallibility; It refers to a specific procolamation of truth made by the Pope which is done from the Chair of Peter. It is a rare occurance. I believe some Popes may not have invoked it during their entire Papacy. A Pope would do this if led by the Holy Spirit, & also Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition - meaning it’s something which has been believed/practiced for hundred if not thousands of years. Or even from the beginning of The Church. It just may have never been declared. Often because it was so widely accepted it was not necessary.

St. Peter invoked this rule when he declared that Gentiles need not be circumcised. There had been much discussion, argueing, and debate until St. Peter spoke. All discussion ceased. It was done as he declared it!

 

[wisedom]

Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

				Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions  						of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be  						prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of  						salvation.


				Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus'  						presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With  						Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

Luke 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.

				Luke 22:32 - Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus' prayer  						for Peter's faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the  						faith without error (which means infallibly).


				John 11:51-52 - some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to  						teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy  						infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus' death. God allows  						sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a  						loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give  						His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

more here

are you certain, even for a moment, that evil in the church, is conspicuous…
by its absence?

 

[lyrikal]

Or that it never existed in the First Millennium. Look it up and find where it was exercised in the first 1500 years of the Church

The doctrine of Christ having two wills never existed in the first 600 years of Christianity and yet you accept that as doctrine (as you should). Could you explain to me how it’s okay for you to accept a doctrine that we have zero evidence for in the first 600 years of Christianity and yet we are not allowed to believe in the doctrine of Papal infallibility (even though we have more evidence of Papal infallibility in the first 600 years of Christianity than we do of Christ having two wills)?

Perhaps, you can shed light on the thread that I started here about this. Montalban has failed to answer my questions with regards to this issue and I have always wondered this about the Orthodox church.

How do you justify believing in a doctrine that was NEVER talked about until the 600s when you are asking for evidence for Papal Infallibility in the early church? As Marcopolo asked…WHERE is the cut off line? And how do you determine what this cut off line is?

 

[IanGE]

On the other hand, it might just be the perfect example of papal infallibility, vis-a-vis its proper scope – faith & morals, not science!

Which Pope was infallible, the one who declared Copernicus a heretic or the one who declared he wasn’t and reburied him with honour? Which dogma was correct: eating meat on friday is a venial sin or the one stating its not. Thou shalt not be cremated because then there would be nothing to resurrect; no, that’s nonsense, its OK to be cremated. And there is a purgatory and Limbo - no there isn’t! Etcetera etcetera etcetera. The church itself used to quote: falsus in unam, falsus in ubique.
ONLY the Word of God is infallible. And the Words given to humans ( and Popes!) in prophecy BY God in the Holy Spirit. At my very first prophecy, I shook, I trembled, my heart bumped and raced. My eldest brother (in blood and Spirit), sitting beside me, calmed me down and whispered:" no wonder you feel like that. God has just spoken through you." “THROUGH ME!!!” “If God could speak through Balaam’s *** why not you?” I wrote a book of all the words the Lord spoke to me, which I call “God’s donkey” but never published.
PS When I shared that in another prayer group a lady gasped: “that happened to me when I stood up to give what I thought was a Word from God. I thought I was having a heart attack and was too frightened to give any more since then!” I’m blessed that I received great advice. BTW Even while I was shaking, Father Peter, who led the music ministry began: “Do not be afraid, for I am with you, I hace called you by your name, you are mine.” At which I burst into tears (of joy!).

 

[lyrikal]

Don’t you think it is a problem if something is a dogma and we never knew it existed for more than 3/4s the life of the Church?

We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome. – Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches, Ep 25.

“The whole question needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God’s help completely suppress the heresy which has arisen and the disturbance which it has caused; and so the convening of a council which is in any case difficult will be rendered superfluous.” – Flavian (Patriarch of Constantinople) to Pope Leo I (449 AD).

“This most holy See has preserved the supremacy over all Churches on the earth, for one especial reason among many others; to wit, that it has remained intact from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has ever preserved unstained the Apostolic grace.” --Theodoret (Eastern Father) Epistle 116 to Renatus.

Another translation puts it like this:

“Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop to bid me hasten to your council. For that holy see has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this,** that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the apostles undefiled.** Confident in your justice I shall accept your decisions, whatever they may be, and shall claim to be judged by my writings.”

Source: Translated by Blomfield Jackson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2707116.htm.

 

[wisedom]

Which Pope was infallible, the one who declared Copernicus a heretic or the one who declared he wasn’t and reburied him with honour? Which dogma was correct: eating meat on friday is a venial sin or the one stating its not. Thou shalt not be cremated because then there would be nothing to resurrect; no, that’s nonsense, its OK to be cremated. And there is a purgatory and Limbo - no there isn’t! Etcetera etcetera etcetera. The church itself used to quote: falsus in unam, falsus in ubique.
ONLY the Word of God is infallible. And the Words given to humans ( and Popes!) in prophecy BY God in the Holy Spirit. At my very first prophecy, I shook, I trembled, my heart bumped and raced. My eldest brother (in blood and Spirit), sitting beside me, calmed me down and whispered:" no wonder you feel like that. God has just spoken through you." “THROUGH ME!!!” “If God could speak through Balaam’s *** why not you?” I wrote a book of all the words the Lord spoke to me, which I call “God’s donkey” but never published.
PS When I shared that in another prayer group a lady gasped: “that happened to me when I stood up to give what I thought was a Word from God. I thought I was having a heart attack and was too frightened to give any more since then!” I’m blessed that I received great advice. BTW Even while I was shaking, Father Peter, who led the music ministry began: “Do not be afraid, for I am with you, I hace called you by your name, you are mine.” At which I burst into tears (of joy!).

i have always maintained ever since i joined this site, that it is the WORD OF GOD alone who is INFALLIBLE, FOR THE WORD OF GOD IS JESUS CHRIST!

when pjp2 knelt down before the whole world to beg for forgiveness for the atrocities perpetrated by his church down the ages, was he simultaneously proclaiming that the church is infallible; what a contradiction, if he did?

are we to understand that the HOLY SPIRIT, who is in us, would not teach us (each one of us who believe so) everything we need to know in order to honour and proclaim Christ, by all that we are (what we think, say, do…)

could it be possible, even for a moment, to believe that there is no infiltration of evil into the church?

 

[wisedom]

You mean the same Church which was responsible for the Western system of universities and whose monks in the Middle Ages were noted for their scientific expertise?

with such a limited knowledge, how could the church condemn, ex-communicate, and burn at the stake, those who used God’s gift of knowledge to them, to reveal the TRUTH as evident from a scientific study?

 

[wisedom]

The scientific expertise of monks or individual members of the church doesn’t mean that the Pope can make infallable statements about scientific theories. If he could, we’d already have figured out how to time travel and be asking Jesus these questions in person!

tantum… goes off at a tangent!

 

[Cinette]

How do you defend Papal Infallibility when someone brings up the fact that it wasn’t considered dogma until 1870?

*There are some little books by Patrick Madrid that are great:

• Where is that in the Bible?
• Answer me this!
• Where is that in Tradition?

There are more I am sure. Anything by Patrick Madrid is very, very useful.

*

 

[lyrikal]

Wow! So many misconceptions!

 

[Cinette]

i have always maintained ever since i joined this site, that it is the WORD OF GOD alone who is INFALLIBLE, FOR THE WORD OF GOD IS JESUS CHRIST!

when pjp2 knelt down before the whole world to beg for forgiveness for the atrocities perpetrated by his church down the ages, was he simultaneously proclaiming that the church is infallible; what a contradiction, if he did?

are we to understand that the HOLY SPIRIT, who is in us, would not teach us (each one of us who believe so) everything we need to know in order to honour and proclaim Christ, by all that we are (what we think, say, do…)

could it be possible, even for a moment, to believe that there is no infiltration of evil into the church?

*Go read the Bible and see what Jesus has to say on the suubject.

*

 

[Gorgias]

Which Pope was infallible, the one who declared Copernicus a heretic or the one who declared he wasn’t and reburied him with honour?

Both. The declaration of heresy was a declaration having to do with science – and therefore, it is not part of the context of ‘infallibility’. No one is saying that everything that a Pope says must be correct – just the stuff on “faith and morals”. A statement of the sort “your science is wrong because…” doesn’t fit that mold.

Which dogma was correct: eating meat on friday is a venial sin or the one stating its not.

Neither – since ‘eating meat on Friday is a venial sin’ is a discipline, not a dogma. A discipline is a rule, meant for a particular time and a particular place; a dogma is a divinely revealed truth. Infallibility has nothing to do with disciplines.

Thou shalt not be cremated because then there would be nothing to resurrect; no, that’s nonsense, its OK to be cremated.

Discipline.

And there is a purgatory and Limbo - no there isn’t!

Purgatory is still a teaching of the Church, you know… don’t you?

Limbo is not a doctrine of the Church (I’m assuming you’re talking about infants and not patriarchs), and never was.

ONLY the Word of God is infallible. And the Words given to humans ( and Popes!) in prophecy BY God in the Holy Spirit.

Which is exactly what we’re saying – the teachings on faith and morals, given to Popes and protected by the Holy Spirit, are infallible. If you want to say “this is true, but that is not”, then we need to get into a discussion of how we determine what the Holy Spirit has given us. Simply saying, “I felt it, and it’s true” is an interesting way to assert authority…

 

[Gorgias]

i have always maintained ever since i joined this site, that it is the WORD OF GOD alone who is INFALLIBLE, FOR THE WORD OF GOD IS JESUS CHRIST!

And yet, that’s not what the Bible tells us! Instead, we see that Jesus tells Peter and the apostles that whatever they bind, will be bound in heaven; and whatever they loose, will be loosed in heaven. In other words, the exercise of apostolic authority is given – by Jesus! – the same level of authority as if Jesus himself had said it! Jesus doesn’t operate ‘alone’, as you suggest, but through the authority of the apostles!

when pjp2 knelt down before the whole world to beg for forgiveness for the atrocities perpetrated by his church down the ages, was he simultaneously proclaiming that the church is infallible; what a contradiction, if he did?

:banghead:

No. You’re misunderstanding what ‘papal infallibility’ means. If the pope were to say, “The Pittsburgh Steelers are gonna win the Super Bowl this year!”, would he be speaking infallibly? Of course not! Same thing with your thought experiment here. For the sake of the discussion, would you please explain to me exactly what you think “papal infallibility” means? It might help move the discussion forward…

are we to understand that the HOLY SPIRIT, who is in us, would not teach us (each one of us who believe so) everything we need to know in order to honour and proclaim Christ, by all that we are (what we think, say, do…)

So, you’re saying that the individual is the arbiter of the presence of the Holy Spirit?

Looking at the wide variety of things that people say about how to “honor and proclaim Christ” – in fact, many things are at odds with each other, and are mutually exclusive – then if the Holy Spirit is speaking in each, then the Holy Spirit is giving conflicting messages? The Holy Spirit is self-contradictory? Your assertion cannot hold.

could it be possible, even for a moment, to believe that there is no infiltration of evil into the church?

Always. The enemy is always trying to destroy the Church; but we have Jesus’ assurance that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church!

 

[Gorgias]

Wisedom & IanGE,

It seems to me that I’ve been replying in kind (and brusquely) to your comments. Yet, that won’t get us anywhere, other than to feel smug that we’ve defended our own turf.

It seems to me that where the source of our disagreement comes from, is an understanding of what “papal infallibility” means. I’m guessing that if we could agree on what it means, then a lot of this dynamic of sniping back and forth will go away. So, what do you say? How about if we start from identifying exactly what the Church says that “papal infallibility” means? (Or more importantly, what it doesn’t mean!)

So, your call… do you want to give a go at defining it, or would you like someone else to do so? (Or, do you want to just keep on trading barbs… 'cause that’s kinda fun, too… )

 

[Cinette]

*Why would Jesus found a Church and not protect it? Jesus kept his promise that he would be with us always……”(Matt 16:18-19) And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. (19) I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

He was talking to Peter and the Apostles about His Church. He was establishing the authority of the Church. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

Jesus also said he would not leave us orphans and that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. Although I am sure that the Holy Spirit has not abandoned Protestants (many of whom are very good Christians) there is no way each and every denomination can say that the Holy Spirit is guiding them because there is only one truth and we all know that each denomination has its own truth. It is through no fault of their own that Protestants were born into these thousands of denominations. This is very complicated.

 

[EricFilmer]

i have always maintained ever since i joined this site, that it is the WORD OF GOD alone who is INFALLIBLE, FOR THE WORD OF GOD IS JESUS CHRIST!

Exactly where does the Word of God say that “it is the Word of God alone who is infallible”?

If it is not there, then it sounds as if you are infallibly declaring that the Word of God alone is infallible, which (seeing as you are not actually quoting the Word of God) is inherently paradoxical.

On the other hand, if it is simply your opinion that the Word of God alone is infallible, and you agree that your opinion of God’s revelation is fallible, then you have to admit that your belief in this matter could be wrong.

when pjp2 knelt down before the whole world to beg for forgiveness for the atrocities perpetrated by his church down the ages, was he simultaneously proclaiming that the church is infallible; what a contradiction, if he did?

There is no contradiction. Infallibility only pertains to official definitions pertaining to faith and morals. On the other hand, members of the Church’s Magisterium are quite fallible when it comes to politics and science.

are we to understand that the HOLY SPIRIT, who is in us, would not teach us (each one of us who believe so) everything we need to know in order to honour and proclaim Christ, by all that we are (what we think, say, do…)

Many people believe in the Holy Spirit (in one form or another) and yet come to different understandings as to exactly who Jesus is. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Holy Spirit is a manifestation of the Spirit of the Father (and that they can be guided by it), and proclaim that Jesus is not the Eternal Living God. As you know, Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians also believe in the Holy Spirit and proclaim the eternal divinity of Christ. Objectively speaking, one side is right and the other is wrong, because Jesus cannot be eternal and at the same time not eternal (according to the Law of Non-Contradiction), so your statement is demonstrably false.

could it be possible, even for a moment, to believe that there is no infiltration of evil into the church?

I fail to see what this has to do with infallibility. Just because evil can infiltrate certain members of the Church does not mean that the Church is fallible (meaning that the Magisterium can err when making official definitions of matters pertaining to faith and morals). Consider this: when we examine the 12 Apostles themselves, we see that evil infiltrated them in the person of Judas. And yet the apostolic documents that compose the New Testament are considered infallible (in a manner of speaking), are they not? If the evil of Judas did not compromise the Apostles ability to infallibly record God’s revelation then why should the evil of certain members of the later Church compromise the ability of the Magisterium to define God’s revelation?

And to briefly return to an earlier comment you made…

FOR THE WORD OF GOD IS JESUS CHRIST!

And the Church is Jesus Christ as well, for Scripture states that he is the head of the Church. It is for this reason that, despite the evil that some members do, the Church is still holy, for the head of the Church is Christ himself.

 

[IanGE]

It is a common error of our modern age to believe the Church opposes science. History in fact teaches us that the scientific methods sprang from the Church as a way to study God’s orderly design of creation. The study of science is yet one more gift The Church has brought to the world. What she opposes is using science in an evil manner, which takes life.

The way I understand Papel Infallibility; It refers to a specific procolamation of truth made by the Pope which is done from the Chair of Peter. It is a rare occurance. I believe some Popes may not have invoked it during their entire Papacy. A Pope would do this if led by the Holy Spirit, & also Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition - meaning it’s something which has been believed/practiced for hundred if not thousands of years. Or even from the beginning of The Church. It just may have never been declared. Often because it was so widely accepted it was not necessary.

St. Peter invoked this rule when he declared that Gentiles need not be circumcised. There had been much discussion, argueing, and debate until St. Peter spoke. All discussion ceased. It was done as he declared it!

Hinduism is much older than the church: the vedas are considered the oldest WRITTEN books in the world. If I go with longevity of tradition I have to accept Hanuman the monkey god, Kali, the octopus-armed goddess of death et al. No way. Its widely know that Jesus formed his ecclesia (people called out) on Petra (rock, a pun on Petros, Peter). But there never was a “Chair of Peter”: He was martyred while Jerusalem was still headquarters of the Christian church, the first head of the Church was John’s brother James and when he was martyred the job went to Jesus’ brother, James. Only when Jerusalem was rased to the ground by the Romans in AD 70 and all its inhabitants kicked out (until 1948!!!) did the Christian church move to Rome (or Constantinople?). However, Peter definitely seems to be the acknowledged power behind the early church. But Paul opposed him “to his face” (Galatians 2:11) so he wasn’t infallible! Nevertheless he is my favourite apostle with a human face, irascible yet loving and caring!
PS In the Copernicus fiasco, the Church used a mistranslation of Genesis to decry science. The infallibility was restored only in 2010 when Copernicus was reburied with honour.

 

[Cinette]

Exactly where does the Word of God say that “it is the Word of God alone who is infallible”?

If it is not there, then it sounds as if you are infallibly declaring that the Word of God alone is infallible, which (seeing as you are not actually quoting the Word of God) is inherently paradoxical.

On the other hand, if it is simply your opinion that the Word of God alone is infallible, and you agree that your opinion of God’s revelation is fallible, then you have to admit that your belief in this matter could be wrong.

There is no contradiction. Infallibility only pertains to official definitions pertaining to faith and morals. On the other hand, members of the Church’s Magisterium are quite fallible when it comes to politics and science.

Many people believe in the Holy Spirit (in one form or another) and yet come to different understandings as to exactly who Jesus is. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Holy Spirit is a manifestation of the Spirit of the Father (and that they can be guided by it), and proclaim that Jesus is not the Eternal Living God. As you know, Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians also believe in the Holy Spirit and proclaim the eternal divinity of Christ. Objectively speaking, one side is right and the other is wrong, because Jesus cannot be eternal and at the same time not eternal (according to the Law of Non-Contradiction), so your statement is demonstrably false.

I fail to see what this has to do with infallibility. Just because evil can infiltrate certain members of the Church does not mean that the Church is fallible (meaning that the Magisterium can err when making official definitions of matters pertaining to faith and morals). Consider this: when we examine the 12 Apostles themselves, we see that evil infiltrated them in the person of Judas. And yet the apostolic documents that compose the New Testament are considered infallible (in a manner of speaking), are they not? If the evil of Judas did not compromise the Apostles ability to infallibly record God’s revelation then why should the evil of certain members of the later Church compromise the ability of the Magisterium to define God’s revelation?

And to briefly return to an earlier comment you made…

And the Church is Jesus Christ as well, for Scripture states that he is the head of the Church. It is for this reason that, despite the evil that some members do, the Church is still holy, for the head of the Church is Christ himself.

We must also remember that Peter (our first Pope) was chosen by Jesus in spite of Peter denying him three times. At that point Peter had witnessed the transfiguration and yet he denied Jesus and still he was chosen.

 

[Gorgias]

Hinduism is much older than the church: the vedas are considered the oldest WRITTEN books in the world. If I go with longevity of tradition I have to accept Hanuman the monkey god, Kali, the octopus-armed goddess of death et al.

Yes, it’s older, but it doesn’t have the assurance of protection against error – of the protection of the Holy Spirit – that the Church has.

But there never was a “Chair of Peter”: He was martyred while Jerusalem was still headquarters of the Christian church, the first head of the Church was John’s brother James and when he was martyred the job went to Jesus’ brother, James. Only when Jerusalem was rased to the ground by the Romans in AD 70 and all its inhabitants kicked out (until 1948!!!) did the Christian church move to Rome (or Constantinople?).

Umm… the “chair of Peter” doesn’t refer to a piece of furniture. It’s a phrase that expresses the authority of Peter. Now, there does happen to be a chair (or ‘cathedra’) for each bishop, and the phrase for binding teachings is “from the chair” (i.e., ‘ex cathedra’); nevertheless, the phrase has to do with the Pope’s authority and not where he puts his butt…

However, Peter definitely seems to be the acknowledged power behind the early church. But Paul opposed him “to his face” (Galatians 2:11) so he wasn’t infallible!

We really, really need to define terms before we continue with this discussion, or else we’ll keep having these disagreements! The issue that Paul raises in Galatians 2 is not an issue that’s relevant to infallibility! Paul is complaining that Peter was living like a Gentile while among Gentiles, but when around Jews, he was afraid to continue that lifestyle, and instead, took up the discipline of Jewish practice. In other words, it wasn’t a doctrine that Peter was waffling on, it was a discipline – by its very definition, it is something that is able to be changed! Therefore, Paul tells Peter that he needs to be consistent – if he’s ok with Jewish Christians to act like Gentiles, he needs to stop trying to force Gentile Christians to act like Jews. This isn’t a matter of ‘infallibility’ – it’s more like the “Steelers winning the Super Bowl” prediction example.

I’ll repeat my request: can we step back and come to an agreement about what the Church means by “papal infallibility” before we continue this discussion? I’m willing to hear your definition, or provide the Church’s – your choice!

The infallibility was restored only in 2010 when Copernicus was reburied with honour.

No – the Copernicus thing isn’t a matter of infallibility; it wasn’t ‘lost’ or ‘regained’ in any manner of speaking!