Literal or Symbolic?...

[You]

Thank-you .It is not the concept I don’t understand .It is understood, both as when I was a Cathoilc and now . It has been very well explained here on CAF. And I am sure there are “signs” of it’s effectualness. What I have been asking, which has been partially answered and partially ignored, is that there are “signs” and effectualness equaly when it is symbolic AND there seems to be no difference in a Catholics spiritual life and a non-RPer’s spiitual life, that can be attributed to communion doctrine.

What He said was you would have no life in you if you did not eat His flesh. He did not say you would have no songs in you; or, you would have no stories in you; or, that you you would have a different complexion on your face unless you ate His flesh. Its also about trust, no life unless you eat His flesh as well as the reality of having no life in you unless; like, no sight of promised land, Moses, if you do any more than just strike the rock; Moses had to trust, and the promised land was also very real.

 

[david_ruiz]

I really wish to avoid a “my people are holier than your people” debate, but, really, there are no non-RPers who are comparable to these Catholic folks: Theresa of Calcutta, Maximilian Kolbe, Francis of Assisi, Paul of Tarsus, etc etc etc when it comes an elevated “spiritual life.”

You have my absolution and may take a "holier than thou " approach, given the topic/queestion . Trying to see the effectualness of this dogma relative to symbolic dogma. Now, how much is attributable to the RP communion ? Would Mother Theresa not have been Mother Theresa with a remebrance only communion ? Paul talks much of his ups and downs and powers and “recharging” , but does he ever attribute it to receiving and eating His body and drinking his blood . I think he talks of the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit in those terms. Your list indeed has great standouts.There may be some protetstant standouts also . But how about the everyday lay person, do you think they are “holier” , leading better spiritual lives than non-RPer’s ? I am not asking you to judge “people” per say, or be boastful, but to assess the effectualness of the sacrament being discussed. As you know I am not saying anybody is any better, but that any differences are “individual”, due to other factors(maturity, time in prayer, reading ,gifting etc).and not communion dogma. I am also not saying Catholics don’t get blessed, effected, by their communion. I am saying non-RPers get equally blessed in theirs also, and other ways as you do too. Another words ,we seem to be just as healthy as you . Kind of like we are vegetarians and seem to be doing just as fine as meat eaters (please no offense here for I meant meateaters in strict context as opposed to vegetarians). What do you think ? Please, and thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

But how about the everyday lay person, do you think they are “holier” , leading better spiritual lives than non-RPer’s ? I am not asking you to judge “people” per say, or be boastful, but to assess the effectualness of the sacrament being discussed. As you know I am not saying anybody is any better, but that any differences are “individual”, due to other factors(maturity, time in prayer, reading ,gifting etc).and not communion dogma. I am also not saying Catholics don’t get blessed, effected, by their communion. I am saying non-RPers get equally blessed in theirs also, and other ways as you do too. Another words ,we seem to be just as healthy as you.

As you say, it’s really difficult to judge how a person would be were he not a “RP-er”. We simply wouldn’t know what they’d be like if they weren’t RP-ers. Maybe their faith in the Eucharist has saved them from being a down-in-the-gutter drunk. Or an adulterer. Or an even ruder and meaner person.

Incidentally, that reminds me of a story about writer Walker Percy, a curmudgeonly fellow. Apparently, after an encounter with a snippy woman in which he was gruff–and, perhaps rude, boorish, curt–this woman sniffed, “And you call yourself a Catholic!” to which he replied, **“My dear, you should imagine what I would be like were I not a Catholic.” **

 

[wmscott]

No, that is for charismatics, or for people who get an extra dose of the Holy Spirit ( I am partially kidding, partially). Actually, I never meant it the way you put it. I said there doesn’t seem to be an effectual difference in the two communions . Are there more corporal works ? Are there more fruits of the Spirit ? Do they all leave church the same, some going to eat, some for a smoke, some to meditate etc. ? Whatever we do, could you tell which ones have Christ fullness, body, blood, soul, and divinity, flowing thru them ? Do they speak differently, “for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” I understand, but Jesus did say there should be outward signs/fruits that we are His, and He is ours .For instance, how is our love towards the brethren ? Are we living holy lives ? Do we cuss, lie ,steal ? These things are visible .I understand some things are personal /internal in the spiritual realm, but what is inside eventually is manifest on the outside, all judging aside.How does RP or non-RP effect this ? I did state we are all sinners as you do .The question is what is the value of our communion dogma ? Catholics are the ones saying we are missing out, even anathemized, but can you quantify that ? Is it visible finally on the outside ? , . I am not night and day, “either/or” here .I do not anathemize you for being “night/or”. I am not saying there is a difference in our demeanor after Church/communion because of dogma. How is challenging you to show in substance how we are worse off for symbolic communion (except for final judgement) “night and day” ?

 

[lyrikal]

I am about to go into the land of Nod but I thought I would just say you are doing a wonderful job. And so young too. May God continue to guide you.

(Maybe you’ll discern the priesthood at a later date )

Thank you benedictus, I REALLY appreciate all the nice comments and support you’ve given me!

Regarding the priesthood, it was June of last year when I accepted God’s call to the priesthood. There is one thing stopping me: debt. I have to pay off all my debts before I can enter the seminary. That’s where I am now. Once the debts are paid off, I’ll be joining the seminary. Please pray for me and ill also pray for you.

Thank you again! Grace and peace be with you.

 

[ufamtobie]

Thank-you .It is not the concept I don’t understand .It is understood, both as when I was a Cathoilc and now . It has been very well explained here on CAF. And I am sure there are “signs” of it’s effectualness. What I have been asking, which has been partially answered and partially ignored, is that there are “signs” and effectualness equaly when it is symbolic AND there seems to be no difference in a Catholics spiritual life and a non-RPer’s spiitual life, that can be attributed to communion doctrine.

David, if you believe that the bread/Body & wine/Blood is only a “Symbol” and believing that it can save your soul, then that is Idolatry on your part. Symbols = Idolatry

David, if one believes literally in the words of Christ that it is His Body and Blood and believing Jesus, that His Flesh/Blood will save our souls then this is not Idolatry but the Body and Blood of Our Savior. The Body and Blood =Jesus Christ

Don’t Lower the Body and Blood of Christ to be a mere symbol.

Let go of your pride/jealousy of the truth that your church don’t have and come back Home

Ufam Tobie

 

[lyrikal]

and **YOU **also said:

It seems that the idea of “Christ” being on the altar even “spiritually” was missing from your interpretation of Augustine’s sermons 227 and 272. It wasn’t until I gave my detailed interpretation of Augustine’s two sermons that you updated your view later on to:

Let’s talk about this in more detail. In the two sermons, Augustine talks about the bread IS the Body of Christ and the wine IS the Blood of Christ. He goes on to explain “how” that is. His “how” as we both agree is figurative/symbolic and not to be taken literally. His “how” has Augustine believing that the Church is on the altar since the Church is the Body of Christ. I have shown that Augustine has called the Resurrected Body of Christ to be the Church. I have noted that, just because Augustine uses such symbolic language, doesn’t mean he is denying the literal BODILY RESURRECTION of Christ. The same way, I concluded, that just because Augustine is using such symbolic language as to refer to the bread as the ecclesial Body of Christ, doesn’t mean He is denying the ACTUAL Body of Christ in a more literal way.

I have shown how Augustine’s writings have two-fold meanings to them sometimes. He does this on purpose and does this a lot when talking about any form of the Body of Christ (whether the Eucharist, Resurrection of Christ, the Cross, etc.). The two-fold meaning is to emphasize unity using the language of the Body of Christ.

So in the two sermons, I concluded that the two fold meaning are:

1.) The ACTUAL Body of Christ (Jesus RBP).
2.) The Ecclesial Body of Christ (The Church).

How do I come up with this conclusion? Well, I take a look at what Augustine said. Let’s take the first claim (The ACTUAL Body of Christ) and see where we can find that in the sermons:

Clearly we see, that when the bread and the wine are sanctified, they become the BODY AND BLOOD of Christ. No ifs, ands or buts. In fact, in another place (Sermon 229), Augustine says the following:

You see that Radical? Augustine doesn’t go on to explain in detail what you explained. Your interpretation of Augustine’s view of HOW Christ is on the altar is putting words into Augustine’s mouth. My interpretation is letting Augustine speak for himself. You have Augustine believing that on the altar, there is nothing but bread, wine, and grace. I see Augustine here saying that when the holy prayers are added, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Since he talks about “becomes” that means that there is a change to the material. If I say “That chair is going to become a table” then I am saying that the chair will no longer be a chair, but it will not BECOME a table. I will transform it into something else. So when the prayers are added to the bread and wine, they are no longer bread and wine, but they BECOME THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST. What you are trying to make Augustine say is that there is nothing but bread, wine, and grace on the altar. Yet, Augustine says the Body and Blood of Christ are on the altar.

Regarding the bolded part, I meant to say “now become” not “not become”. Big difference

I would also like to add something in regards to Sermon 229. Augustine states:

“…We come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood of Christ. Take away the word, I mean, it’s just bread and wine; add the word and it’s now something else. **And what is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. **So take away the word, it’s bread and wine; add the word and it will become the sacrament.” (sermon 229.3)

You see? It’s no longer bread and wine. You have Augustine believing that he thinks on the altar, there is nothing but bread, wine and grace. But Augustine CLEARLY states that the bread is now something else. The fact that he says that the bread is now something else, means that the bread and wine has now changed. Changed to what? Augustine answers that question for us. He goes on to tell us that it is now the Body and Blood of Christ.

I understand that you want to force a strict Neo-Platonistic views on Augustine’s words here. But what you fail to recognize is that Augustine was not a strict Neo-Platonist. He was a very critical one at best. This is something Dr. William Harmless even mentions to me in our e-mail exchanges. Augustine distanced himself from Platonists like Plato, Plotinus and Porphyry. But you like to make Augustine a strict platonist. If that’s the case, then we would be forced to say that every belief that Augustine has with regards to Christianity must be understood in a platonistic way.

Anyway, all that isn’t at all that relevant since Augustine never explained his Eucharistic views the way you did. He never once mentioned any of those things in sermons 227, 229, and 272. But let’s assume your argument for a moment. You still fail to recognize that Augustine was not a strict platonist, he was a critical one. So for Augustine, the eucharist was a sign supercharged with divine presence and also a presence that was a supercharged sign. The Eucharist is not just bread and wine and grace as you have it. It is a sign that is supercharged with divine presence (and so it is no longer bread and wine) and also a presence that is a supercharged sign (that’s where grace comes in). Please note, I am playing your game here by putting words into Augustine’s mouth. I am showing you that one can hold to a Platonistic view and still hold to a RBP especially since that one person is not a strict Platonist, but a critical one at best.

Grace and peace.

 

[david_ruiz]

David, if you believe that the bread/Body & wine/Blood is only a “Symbol” and believing that it can save your soul, then that is Idolatry

 

[lyrikal]

ufamtobie;8428447:

This makes sense from your point of view, that is you must eat Him for salvation per His words taken literally . Therefore you think communion is necessary for salvation. So now if my communion is symbolic, I am trusting in a symbol , which indeed is weak and flawed as you say. However, I do not trust in remebrance of Him for salvation, but in meeting Him thru faith .Then the remembrance of Him makes sense, and I have something to be thankful for, hence “eucharist”. .Again, it is not my communion practice that saves me. Jesus saves me , apart from anything I do (except receive/consent)

.

With regards to the bolded part, here is my question to you:

So is practicing the Last Supper essential for salvation to you? Even though you don’t believe that the communion practice itself saves you, you still believe that you must perform such a practice, correct? If so, then that implies that you MUST perform it. Which implies that it IS necessary (the practice of it) for salvation, right? I guess my main question is: Is the communion practice (not the communion, but the practice) necessary for salvation? If so, then how does that work with a Faith Alone doctrine? If not, then why do you do it and why did Jesus tell us to “Do this in remembrance of me?”

 

[Nicea325]

david ruiz;8431386:

With regards to the bolded part, here is my question to you:

So is practicing the Last Supper essential for salvation to you? Even though you don’t believe that the communion practice itself saves you, you still believe that you must perform such a practice, correct? If so, then that implies that you MUST perform it. Which implies that it IS necessary (the practice of it) for salvation, right? I guess my main question is: Is the communion practice (not the communion, but the practice) necessary for salvation? If so, then how does that work with a Faith Alone doctrine? If not, then why do you do it and why did Jesus tell us to “Do this in remembrance of me?”

This whole argument basically revolves one simple word…IS. Advocates of a symbolic eucharist basically are trying to make an “ought to be” out of the word…is in the text. This is the whole basis and it is weak at best. The text says IS…not it “ought to be” this or that or whatever one wishes.

 

[lyrikal]

I do recall you saying that the two-fold understanding of the two sermons are:

1.) The Church is on the altar
2.) Bread and wine are on the altar

You seem to have added a 3rd part to it:

3.) “Some of?” the Body of Christ is on the altar

#1 is correct but it is symbolic language. #2 is incorrect because Augustine says that when the holy prayers are added, the bread and wine BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ. #3 is incorrect because Augustine NEVER says “some of” the Body of Christ is on the altar. Rather, he says the bread BECOMES the BODY OF CHRIST (he doesn’t use the words “some of”, therefore, I am forced to conclude that the WHOLE BODY is there on the altar). Any other meaning is adding to Augustine’s words.

Just to make a correction here to the bolded, after reading your view more closely, I see that you don’t believe that “some of” Christ’s body is on the altar. Rather, you believe that “some of” the saving grace from the Body of Christ (from the cross) is made present on the altar through the Eucharist. My apologies for misreading your view.

With that said, I would still like you to answer (please) where I can find this part of your belief:

Further, (from a neoplatonistic outlook), b/c the reality of a thing is best defined by the power it possesses, one could declare that by giving the (empowered) bread and wine, “the Lord Christ gives to you HIS BODY and BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS”. No RBP is contemplated. The figurative understanding describes a spiritual reality and the spiritual reality is “more real” than a material reality. You have not produced anything that requires a change in the substance of the bread…and that is something you won’t find in Augustine. The bread can be called the body of Christ (meaning incarnated body) b/c it (after consecration and belief) possesses (some of?]) the saving and unifying grace possessed by the incarnated body.

In Augustine’s sermons 227, 229, and 272.

Also, if you’re going to use the “how” of Augustine to nullify this part of Augustine’s sermon:

the bread that you see on the altar IS the Body of Christ. The chalice that you see, or rather, what’s in the chalice, IS the Blood of Christ.

then why are you now using THAT part of Augustine’s sermon to mean that a figurative/spiritual Body of Christ is on the altar? You were so obsessed with emphasizing the “how” of Augustine as to nullify the passage that Catholics present from Augustine about the bread and wine being the Body and Blood of Christ and here you offer your own interpretation of what Augustine means by “IS” the Body and Blood of Christ. How come you’re allowed to have your own interpretation and not us? Why is ours wrong and yours right? If you’re going to use the “how” to nullify the “is” then you too shouldn’t give a different “how” that you give with regards to the Body of Christ being figuratively on the altar. You kept emphasizing that Augustine’s “how” isn’t the same as the Catholic how. Well, how is it the same as your figurative how? We’re not allowed to take from Augustine’s sermons two “hows” to his Eucharistic view but you are? We’re only allowed one “how” while you are free to have two “hows”. This is a double standard.

 

[lyrikal]

lyrikal;8432062:

This whole argument basically revolves one simple word…IS. Advocates of a symbolic eucharist basically are trying to make an “ought to be” out of the word…is

in the text. This is the whole basis and it is weak at best. The text says IS…not it “ought to be” this or that or whatever one wishes.

Agreed. There is usually words added or replaced in order to come up with these beliefs.

 

[ufamtobie]

ufamtobie;8428447:

This makes sense from your point of view, that is you must eat Him for salvation per His words taken literally . Therefore you think communion is necessary for salvation. So now if my communion is symbolic, I am trusting in a symbol , which indeed is weak and flawed as you say. However, I do not trust in remebrance of Him for salvation, but in meeting Him thru faith .Then the remembrance of Him makes sense, and I have something to be thankful for, hence “eucharist”. .Again, it is not my communion practice that saves me. Jesus saves me , apart from anything I do (except receive/consent).

David, it is not my point of view, who am I to have any point of view, did Christ leave me to govern the People of His Church? No! I just Follow literally Jesus Christ words and so does the Church you abandoned that it is Body Blood we must literally eat and drink I follow and believe what the Church’s Teaches on the matter of the Eucharist…

David you are wrong and it does not make sense because you follow your own point of view regarding the Eucharist. The early Church Fathers believed the same that we must literally eat and drink His Body and Blood before your church ever came into existence.

My nephew to was an alter Boy…The Priest told him the devil will attack and try to take away the belief you have in the Church, for fear that one day you’ll become a Priest. The Devil hates alter boys. I Thank God he is still Catholic, but for others I won’t mention names I see now that it is true the devil does attack young mens minds.

Ufam Tobie

 

[boastinjesus]

You state that you just follow Jesus’ words literally. He never spoke metaphorically? You believe that He is literally a door (John 10:9) or that He was teaching that the Pharisees father was literally Satan (John 8:44)? The goal is to interpret the author’s (God’s) intended meaning.

Luke 22:19-20 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

When Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me” we take that as instruction to do a symbolic act, pointing to His sacrifice on the cross and the blood ushering in the New Covenant. He offered His body as a sacrifice “once for all” (Hebrews 9:25-26), so we don’t think He needs to be sacrificed repeatedly, but that we are to always rely upon that work. Remembering something doesn’t diminish the importance of the original.

As per the earlier conversation about “Faith Alone” I think much gets lost in translation between us because I think we make a clearer distinction between salvation and sanctification. We can be saved by faith in Christ alone, and still need to grow in our obedience to Him. That’s why we agree that we constantly repent, because we’re not perfected this side of life. That’s my two cents worth…

I love the dialogue and growing in the faith that this forum allows. I hate “gotcha” questions and assuming Protestants are idiots…

 

[PRmerger]

You state that you** just** follow Jesus’ words literally.

Actually, I don’t think any knowledgeable Catholic has stated here that he “just” follows Jesus’ words literally.

He never spoke metaphorically? You believe that He is literally a door (John 10:9) or that He was teaching that the Pharisees father was literally Satan (John 8:44)?

And don’t forget the one about cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin–that’s hyperbole, which Jesus also used.

The goal is to interpret the author’s (God’s) intended meaning.

Indeed.

He offered His body as a sacrifice “once for all” (Hebrews 9:25-26),

Amen. This is very Catholic of you to say.

so we don’t think He needs to be sacrificed repeatedly, but that we are to always rely upon that work.

No Catholic ought to be proclaiming that Jesus needs to be “sacrificed repeatedly”. The Mass is not a re-sacrificing of Christ.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8431386:

With regards to the bolded part, here is my question to you:

So is practicing the Last Supper essential for salvation to you? Even though you don’t believe that the communion practice itself saves you, you still believe that you must perform such a practice, correct? If so, then that implies that you MUST perform it. Which implies that it IS necessary (the practice of it) for salvation, right? I guess my main question is: Is the communion practice (not the communion, but the practice) necessary for salvation? If so, then how does that work with a Faith Alone doctrine? If not, then why do you do it and why did Jesus tell us to “Do this in remembrance of me?”

Salvation is one time (justification), but ongoing (sanctification). We are born again at “salvation”. We have gone from death to life, spiritually. Now that we are alive (in Christ), we must take milk as a babe, and then meat, and begin to do spiritual things in the Lord, that were predestined before time (sanctification). Does a baby eat to be born ? Can he really do anything more to be born ? Now to stay alive and come to full maturity, that is something else. For sure, I Remember and partake because I am spiritual, and can, in truth and spirit. Any obedience is part of sanctification . I am not totally sure what you mean by faith alone, but I believe that applies to birthing. It is also the only way I suppose to please God, by faith, in whatever we do , AFTER being born spiritually. I do communion, by the grace of God, not for eternal life, for I already have it (justified, sanctified, and promised to be glorified . I Remember that, and hence Eucharist . Only those that place their faith on a literal interpretation must literally eat Him for eternal life.

 

[david_ruiz]

lyrikal;8432062:

This whole argument basically revolves one simple word…IS. Advocates of a symbolic eucharist basically are trying to make an “ought to be” out of the word…is

in the text. This is the whole basis and it is weak at best. The text says IS…not it “ought to be” this or that or whatever one wishes.Again, yes, if you are coming from a literal “box”. Since I believe the figurative view ,“is " is totally appropriate. When He says, “I am the good shepherd” he does not say ,“I ought to be the good shepherd”,or, " I ought to be light, Alpha and Omega, the vine…”. His body was shed, not should have been. Any Words that pertain to this new covenant, I eat by faith, as literally as you do.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;8431386:

David, it is not my point of view, who am I to have any point of view, did Christ leave me to govern the People of His Church? No! I just Follow literally Jesus Christ words and so does the Church you abandoned that it is Body Blood we must literally eat and drink I follow and believe what the Church’s Teaches on the matter of the Eucharist…

David you are wrong and it does not make sense because you follow your own point of view regarding the Eucharist. The early Church Fathers believed the same that we must literally eat and drink His Body and Blood before your church ever came into existence.

My nephew to was an alter Boy…The Priest told him the devil will attack and try to take away the belief you have in the Church, for fear that one day you’ll become a Priest. The Devil hates alter boys. I Thank God he is still Catholic, but for others I won’t mention names I see now that it is true the devil does attack young mens minds.

Ufam Tobie

Sorry ,I forgot to be technical .It is not your view, it is the CC view. Agreed. Ditto for me. I believe it to be “His” view, not my view. If I say my view, it is because it is mine now also. He is His own interpreter. The earliest of fathers did not deal in transubstantiation, but in the universal thanksgiving/remembrance…The devil indeed seeks whom he may devour, and the Lord warns to hold on to what you have, lest you even lose that.Indeed I was being devoured and lost it all. Thankfully, the Good Shepherd brought scripture, universal scripture, back to remembrance and saved me.He made me see my need, for I could not present anything in my own defense. I had lost my religion, though I would try to resusitate it, to no avail before Him .He would have none of it, stench in His nostrils that kept me from seeing His perfect work, and for me to give up trying to please Him by religious works. Jesus did say drunkards and wayward people would enter in before people resting on religious works.Thanks be to God for my third grade Baltimore Catechism’s scripture that said ,“Faith is the gift of God”. “Be still”. “My yolk is easy”. “I will give you rest”.

 

[lyrikal]

ufamtobie;8432564:

The earliest of fathers did not deal in transubstantiation, but in the universal thanksgiving/remembrance…

Like who? Where did any of them say it is ONLY a thanksgiving/remembrance?

 

[david_ruiz]

You state that you just follow Jesus’ words literally. He never spoke metaphorically? You believe that He is literally a door (John 10:9) or that He was teaching that the Pharisees father was literally Satan (John 8:44)? The goal is to interpret the author’s (God’s) intended meaning.

Luke 22:19-20 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

When Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me” we take that as instruction to do a symbolic act, pointing to His sacrifice on the cross and the blood ushering in the New Covenant. He offered His body as a sacrifice “once for all” (Hebrews 9:25-26), so we don’t think He needs to be sacrificed repeatedly, but that we are to always rely upon that work. Remembering something doesn’t diminish the importance of the original.

As per the earlier conversation about “Faith Alone” I think much gets lost in translation between us because I think we make a clearer distinction between salvation and sanctification. We can be saved by faith in Christ alone, and still need to grow in our obedience to Him. That’s why we agree that we constantly repent, because we’re not perfected this side of life. That’s my two cents worth…

I love the dialogue and growing in the faith that this forum allows. I hate “gotcha” questions and assuming Protestants are idiots…

Howdy boast in Jesus .Just read that you wrote similar thing as I was led to, about salvation (justification) and sanctification. Looks like their can be a invisible, universal/catholic , "thread " uniting us. As Augustine said , “He teaches us” and scripture says, “every neighbor will teach his neighbor” Anyways, welcome aboard and blessings in your testifying, and iron will sharpen iron here at CA.