Pope Questions Interfaith Dialogue

[Crazy_Diamond]

Not necessarily - it is possible to be firm yet tentative​

It’s a neat trick, if you can manage it.

I hope you are right It looks as though the Pope is disowning the policy of Paul VI (& of his own boss). Some people would be only too happy to ditch everything in the Church since October 9 1958. This would reduce several mountains of Vatican ukases to waste paper, & the Church’s credibility to shreds: “Rome has spoken; the matter is ended - until the next U-turn by the Church that’s not for turning” The Church cannot afford to flip-flop - if it does, why should anyone believe it when it speaks “definitively” ? Has it never heard of "the Boy Who Cried “Wolf!” ? If it blows hot & cold, that leaves the rest of us dizzy - because we have no way of knowing what “them up top” want .​

Here in the U.S., the biggest name Vatican reporter John Allen has spilled a lot of ink over the years explaining the difference between what words mean to Vatican officials vs. what they mean in common speech. Sure, it’s confusing, but it’s highly beneficial to the Vatican. You never really know if they’re flip-flopping or not, because they might mean something totally different than your initial impression. You can’t go by the words, you have to go by your bishop’s teaching. If you don’t understand his teaching because it seems just as fuzzy, you must not be properly catechized. In the end, it’s never their fault for lacking any gift or calling to teach, it’s your fault for being a bad disciple.

Worse, I think the Vatican does plenty of flip-flops. There are just so many layers of official teaching, really official teaching, really-really-really super-dooper official teaching, and infallible statements there’s always an argument why it’s not really a flip-flop. Infallible statements are just the latest top of the hierarchy. I don’t know what the Vatican will invent if it ever needs to change a previously top-level statement. Since so few of them ever get made, it should be quite a few centuries before the need arises.

Now, that’s not to say Protestants and Orthodox don’t have similar issues. Human communication is fuzzy at a basic level. I don’t know of any theologian who has strongly studied the consequences of the inherent instabilities and imprecision of human communication itself.

The Vatican has the all the faults of of other bureaucracies, & some of its own - it churns out acres of paper for no better reason than to justify its existence. Endless meetings of ecclesiastics - ditto. Just what good do all these tens of thousands of hours of blethering, & these countless millions of words of print,* achieve* ? Why can’t bishops stay in their dioceses, instead of of globe-trotting, & do what they are meant to: teach, sanctify, & rule ? Why should we fork out for them to talk hot air ?

Mmmmm, I see your point, but I think they do a lot less useless travel than they used to. During the middle ages it was quite common for a bishop to not even live in any of the numerous dioceses he might ostensibly rule. Things have improved substantially in many areas. The travel they do now probably improves their ability to speak in one voice.

 

[Peter_J]

Not necessarily - it is possible to be firm yet tentative, allowing for the possibility that one may be wrong. Not everyone has the dogmatic, dictatorial attitude typical of Rome at its most back-up-getting.​

More to the point, even if one is completely convinced of something, it’s still possible to want to be full communion with people who disagree with it. For example JPII (from what I read) was quite confident in saying that Mary is “co-Redemptrix” – not “this seems correct to me, but it’s possible that I’m wrong” – but I never saw anything from him to suggest that Catholics who don’t believe Mary is “co-Redemptrix” are no longer welcome in the Catholic Church, much less that he planned to flat-out excommunicate them.

 

[Peter_J]

Here in the U.S., the biggest name Vatican reporter John Allen has spilled a lot of ink over the years explaining the difference between what words mean to Vatican officials vs. what they mean in common speech. Sure, it’s confusing, but it’s highly beneficial to the Vatican. You never really know if they’re flip-flopping or not, because they might mean something totally different than your initial impression. You can’t go by the words, you have to go by your bishop’s teaching. If you don’t understand his teaching because it seems just as fuzzy, you must not be properly catechized. In the end, it’s never their fault for lacking any gift or calling to teach, it’s your fault for being a bad disciple.

Worse, I think the Vatican does plenty of flip-flops. There are just so many layers of official teaching, really official teaching, really-really-really super-dooper official teaching, and infallible statements there’s always an argument why it’s not really a flip-flop. Infallible statements are just the latest top of the hierarchy. I don’t know what the Vatican will invent if it ever needs to change a previously top-level statement. Since so few of them ever get made, it should be quite a few centuries before the need arises.

Now, that’s not to say Protestants and Orthodox don’t have similar issues. Human communication is fuzzy at a basic level. I don’t know of any theologian who has strongly studied the consequences of the inherent instabilities and imprecision of human communication itself.

That is, perhaps, the most important point: there’s double-speak on all sides, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. For example (I’ve brought this up before, and I don’t mean to harp on it, but I think it illustrates the point nicely) there was a recent thread in which sandusky said that the Council of Trent “infallibly defined such-and-such”. But if you ask sandusky whether such-and-such is true, he’ll tell you that it isn’t. Now if that isn’t double-speak, then I don’t know is.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

That is, perhaps, the most important point: there’s double-speak on all sides, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. For example (I’ve brought this up before, and I don’t mean to harp on it, but I think it illustrates the point nicely) there was a recent thread in which sandusky said that the Council of Trent “infallibly defined such-and-such”. But if you ask sandusky whether such-and-such is true, he’ll tell you that it isn’t. Now if that isn’t double-speak, then I don’t know is.

I’m not so sure I’d call the problem doublespeak, exactly. It’s more an inherent weakness in human communication. We all have unspoken definitions, concepts, and emotional attachments to particular words and phrases. When somebody is trying to make a very specific, very narrow philosophical point, you have to dump all that to understand what they are saying. In this case, what people normally mean by “interreligious dialogue” is not, I think, what Benedict is talking about. Sometimes I think that sort of obfuscation is, if not deliberate, at least very helpful to avoiding challenges to the Vatican. In this case, I think it’s just that Benedict expects people will read the book to find out what he’s talking about. It’s certainly an interesting twist, anyway. I don’t know if a sitting bishop of Rome has ever endorsed an atheist’s arguments before.

I wouldn’t pick on Sandusky in this regard. His (I assume Sandusky’s a “he”) profile says he’s “Reformed (former Roman Catholic)”. Councils can say whatever they want and label it at whatever level of authority they care to, and Calvinists won’t necessarily agree. Sounds perfectly consistent to me.

 

[Peter_J]

I believe that sandusky distorted the meaning of “infallible”, but I’m not claiming that he intended to do so. More likely, he was just using the term the way he has heard it used.

That’s really my point: it has become commonplace for Protestants to say things like “Pope so-and-so infallibly declared such-and-such”, all the while believing that such-and-such is false! They’re redefining what ‘infallible’ means.

Think about it this way: suppose a person said to you “I believe that the Christian bible is infallible”, and then you asked him “So are you a Christian?” and they respond “No, I’m an atheist. I believe the bible is full of lies and errors.” Wouldn’t it then be clear that this person misspoke when he said “I believe that the Christian bible is infallible”, i.e. that he misused the word ‘infallible’?

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I believe that sandusky distorted the meaning of “infallible”, but I’m not claiming that he intended to do so. More likely, he was just using the term the way he has heard it used.

That’s really my point: it has become commonplace for Protestants to say things like “Pope so-and-so infallibly declared such-and-such”, all the while believing that such-and-such is false! They’re redefining what ‘infallible’ means.

Think about it this way: suppose a person said to you “I believe that the Christian bible is infallible”, and then you asked him “So are you a Christian?” and they respond “No, I’m an atheist. I believe the bible is full of lies and errors.” Wouldn’t it then be clear that this person misspoke when he said “I believe that the Christian bible is infallible”, i.e. that he misused the word ‘infallible’?

• wild emphasis due to Crazy Diamond*

As long as someone prefaces the statement of fact with “I believe,” then to say about that statement of fact “I don’t believe it” is a contradiction. “Infallible,” however, can simply describe what the Catholic church believes about a statement.

An atheist can say “The Bible directly states that…” and be quite accurate without believing that statement to be true. The same with Councils. A Council may have stated its own conclusions to be infallible. Saying that a historical statement has been made “infallibly” doesn’t imply anything about the belief of the person making the statement about the historical statement. It only means that the *original *person making the statement gave it a certain level of authority.

To Protestants, “infallible” and “official” and “doctrinal” statements from the Vatican only indicate the level of authority the Vatican claims the statement has. It has nothing to do with the truthfulness we ascribe to that statement. I can say “I believe Immaculate Conception is an infallible statement”, because I’m under the impression that that’s the category of statements the bishop of Rome puts it in. Whether I personally think it’s true or not has no bearing on the issue.

 

[Peter_J]

• wild emphasis due to Crazy Diamond*

As long as someone prefaces the statement of fact with “I believe,” then to say about that statement of fact “I don’t believe it” is a contradiction. “Infallible,” however, can simply describe what the Catholic church believes about a statement.

An atheist can say “The Bible directly states that…” and be quite accurate without believing that statement to be true. The same with Councils. A Council may have stated its own conclusions to be infallible. Saying that a historical statement has been made “infallibly” doesn’t imply anything about the belief of the person making the statement about the historical statement. It only means that the *original *person making the statement gave it a certain level of authority.

To Protestants, “infallible” and “official” and “doctrinal” statements from the Vatican only indicate the level of authority the Vatican claims the statement has. It has nothing to do with the truthfulness we ascribe to that statement. I can say “I believe Immaculate Conception is an infallible statement”, because I’m under the impression that that’s the category of statements the bishop of Rome puts it in. Whether I personally think it’s true or not has no bearing on the issue.

^^ This is just the kind of double-speak that I’m complaining about. It makes no sense, just like it makes no sense for an atheist to say “I believe the Christian bible is infallible.”

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

^^ This is just the kind of double-speak that I’m complaining about. It makes no sense, just like it makes no sense for an atheist to say “I believe the Christian bible is infallible.”

“I believe” can mean “I am under the impression that…” or even “I am under the impression that you believe…”

“I believe” doesn’t necessarily constitute a credal statement, in informal dialogue (like most of what happens at CAF. People try various levels of formality and rigid definition here, but few are able to actually converse that way).

The word “infallible” can be used as a modifier indicating truthfulness (as Catholic apologists at CAF often use it) or as a category (the way Protestants think of it).

 

[notself]

… all people in a just catholic state should be evangelized. certainly there should be no forced conversions. but at the same time, i don’t think a religion where it contradicts the natural law should be tolerated.

Would you consider it a good thing to overturn the constitution of the United States of America and establish the Catholic Church as the state church? Would Catholic religious teaching be required in all public schools? Would public worship by non Catholics be forbiden in your just catholic state?

I hope I am missunderstanding your comment.

 

[Peter_J]

“I believe” can mean “I am under the impression that…”

Sure, I have no problem with that.

or even “I am under the impression that you believe…”

No, that’s wrong. Saying “I believe Christ is really present in the Eucharist” means something different than saying “I am under the impression that you believe Christ is really present in the Eucharist”.

Why do cling to your double-speak? Saying “I believe the Pope made an infallible statement in 1854” is fine if that’s what you believe; on the other hand, saying “Catholics believe the Pope made an infallible statement in 1854” is fine if that’s what you believe. But saying the former and only meaning the latter is ecumenism run amuck.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

No, that’s wrong. Saying “I believe Christ is really present in the Eucharist” means something different than saying “I am under the impression that you believe Christ is really present in the Eucharist”.

Why do cling to your double-speak? Saying “I believe the Pope made an infallible statement in 1854” is fine if that’s what you believe; on the other hand, saying “Catholics believe the Pope made an infallible statement in 1854” is fine if that’s what you believe. But saying the former and only meaning the latter is ecumenism run amuck.

I myself rarely make the sort of mistake I was mentioning, simply because I’m used to formal dialogue with formally defined terms. However, I’ve seen “I believe” in a number of different contexts on CAF. I also consider it an error - however, I just wanted to point out that with the informal nature of the dialogue here, sometimes people do use “I believe” in odd ways. Arguing about it usually gets people off topic.

Let me see if I can explain how the word “infallible” registers on the Protestant mind.

Let’s say I was examining Catholic beliefs and found less than 100% agreement among all Catholics on all beliefs held by all Catholics. (Discovering that takes about three minutes on CAF, by my count.) It’s natural then to place them in some sort of hierarchy. It’s nice to find out that Catholics themselves have a sort of hierarchy of beliefs, so I don’t have to invent new terms.

So I’m reading along, and find out there’s a class of belief statements called “glibfrizzle statements.” Those are statements that a Catholic can believe and still be Catholic, but are only held by a small minority.

Then there are “chunkbiddle statements,” which are held by a large number of Catholics, but are not a required belief.

Then there are “grazwimmy statements,” which have such a long history that questioning them puts the Catholicism of the believer in question.

Finally, there are “csalatkozhatatlan statements,” which are statements meant to be so authoritative that not only should Catholics not question them, but all Christians should accept them as a fundamental part of the faith.

If I say “The council of Trent defined doctrine Q csalatkozhatatlan-ily,” in my mind I have made no reference at all to its truthfulness. It’s strictly categorization. The word “csalatkozhatatlan” doesn’t register with me as a real word, even though to you it means “infallible” (if you speak Hungarian).

That’s how a Protestant can say “I believe the council of Trent defined this doctrine infallibly” and be making neither a credal statement nor any assent to that doctrine.

Anyway, I’ve had my own run-in with my fellow Protestant Sandusky:

sandusky;3836519:

The Gospel is referred to as a “stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense,” and not without good reason.

Christ also said that He would divide, right down to blood family.

Better the Gospel not get buried, then love and humility, at times, not be set aside.

Let’s just make sure it’s the good news doing the dividing, and not arrogance on our part. Proclaiming the gospel is more than just repeating doctrinally correct phrases. If you don’t take your own propensity to sin seriously, you can’t really believe the Bad News that made the Good News necessary. That’s where humility comes in. If you have been forgiven much and therefore love much, that will come through too and show that you believe what you preach. That’s one of many areas where love comes in to the preaching of the gospel.

It could; however, what’s more important than right doctrine? Read the epistles.

Just the other day I was reading one of them that said, and correct me if my memory is off:

“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels and even Protestant and Roman Catholic apologists, but have not love, well, at least I’ve got Doctrinal Purity and I’m One Darned Good Apologist!”

Then there was something Jesus said that went like,

“They will know you are my disciples if you are 100% Doctrinally Correct, right down to the size, shape, and makeup of communion wafers!”

Remember, I’m being sarcastic in love.

[snip]

Picking at Guanophore for things like “Latin” vs “Roman” rite is just silly, though. (And yes, Guanophore has said some pretty silly things too, but you don’t have to imitate.)

[snip]

… it’s not a trivial issue for someone intent on proclaiming the gospel. Which I’m glad you want to do. Just do it in humility and love!

Sandusky thinks he’s being challenging by being irritating. My challenge to you is not to get so irritated that you lose sight of the actual question at hand. Focusing on that could just startle Sandusky out of just making snide remarks and into serious, thoughtful dialogue!

 

[Peter_J]

I myself rarely make the sort of mistake I was mentioning, simply because I’m used to formal dialogue with formally defined terms. However, I’ve seen “I believe” in a number of different contexts on CAF. I also consider it an error - however, I just wanted to point out that with the informal nature of the dialogue here, sometimes people do use “I believe” in odd ways. Arguing about it usually gets people off topic.

Let me see if I can explain how the word “infallible” registers on the Protestant mind.

Let’s say I was examining Catholic beliefs and found less than 100% agreement among all Catholics on all beliefs held by all Catholics. (Discovering that takes about three minutes on CAF, by my count.) It’s natural then to place them in some sort of hierarchy. It’s nice to find out that Catholics themselves have a sort of hierarchy of beliefs, so I don’t have to invent new terms.

So I’m reading along, and find out there’s a class of belief statements called “glibfrizzle statements.” Those are statements that a Catholic can believe and still be Catholic, but are only held by a small minority.

Then there are “chunkbiddle statements,” which are held by a large number of Catholics, but are not a required belief.

Then there are “grazwimmy statements,” which have such a long history that questioning them puts the Catholicism of the believer in question.

Finally, there are “csalatkozhatatlan statements,” which are statements meant to be so authoritative that not only should Catholics not question them, but all Christians should accept them as a fundamental part of the faith.

If I say “The council of Trent defined doctrine Q csalatkozhatatlan-ily,” in my mind I have made no reference at all to its truthfulness. It’s strictly categorization. The word “csalatkozhatatlan” doesn’t register with me as a real word, even though to you it means “infallible” (if you speak Hungarian).

That’s how a Protestant can say “I believe the council of Trent defined this doctrine infallibly” and be making neither a credal statement nor any assent to that doctrine.

Like I said before, this is ecumenism run amuck.

Vatican I said that

the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks “ex
cathedra,” i.e., when exercising his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals which must be held by the universal Church, enjoys, through the divine assistance, that infallibility promised to him in blessed Peter and with which the divine Redeemer wanted His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith or morals

Basically you’re saying “Alright. We’ll stipulate that ex cathedra statements are infallible (or ‘enjoy infallibility’). But that doesn’t mean they are correct.”

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Like I said before, this is ecumenism run amuck.

No, I think you attribute it to the wrong cause. Sandusky, in particular, has little interest in ecumenism, I think. If you prefer a different descriptor than “infallible,” you can say so.

Vatican I said that

the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks “ex
cathedra,” i.e., when exercising his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals which must be held by the universal Church, enjoys, through the divine assistance, that infallibility promised to him in blessed Peter and with which the divine Redeemer wanted His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith or morals

Basically you’re saying “Alright. We’ll stipulate that ex cathedra statements are infallible (or ‘enjoy infallibility’). But that doesn’t mean they are correct.”

I can use the term “ex cathedra” statements rather than “infallible” if you prefer. Makes no difference to me. “Csalatkozhatatlan” certainly has its appeal. None of them, in my mind, indicate any fulness of truth. They’re just categories to me.

I’ve already substituted “Vatican-led church” for “Roman Catholic church” to salve the sensibilities of certain Eastern Rite folks. If “ex cathedra” allows better communication with you, I’m all for it. Others may think you’re being a bit persnickety, but someone always thinks that on CAF.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

Score!

I was pretty sure it wasn’t meant to be a general statement on what most people think of as “interfaith dialogue.”

 

[Peter_J]

No, I think you attribute it to the wrong cause. Sandusky, in particular, has little interest in ecumenism, I think. If you prefer a different descriptor than “infallible,” you can say so.

I can use the term “ex cathedra” statements rather than “infallible” if you prefer. Makes no difference to me. “Csalatkozhatatlan” certainly has its appeal. None of them, in my mind, indicate any fulness of truth. They’re just categories to me.

I’ve already substituted “Vatican-led church” for “Roman Catholic church” to salve the sensibilities of certain Eastern Rite folks. If “ex cathedra” allows better communication with you, I’m all for it. Others may think you’re being a bit persnickety, but someone always thinks that on CAF.

I just want you to say what you mean. Saying " … is an infallible statement" or “… is an ex cathedra” are both fine, as long as you mean what you’re saying.

But if you mean " … is an infallible statement according to Catholics" then you should say that. Don’t just “forget” those last three words.

Once again, isn’t there a difference between an atheist saying “The bible is infallible” and an atheist saying “The bible is infallible according to Christians”?

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I just want you to say what you mean. Saying " … is an infallible statement" or “… is an ex cathedra” are both fine, as long as you mean what you’re saying.

But if you mean " … is an infallible statement according to Catholics" then you should say that. Don’t just “forget” those last three words.

Once again, isn’t there a difference between an atheist saying “The bible is infallible” and an atheist saying “The bible is infallible according to Christians”?

Depends on the level of formality of the conversation. To some Protestants, you shouldn’t use the word “Bible” if you don’t mean it is the infallible standard of faith. They prefer “Christian Scriptures” or something like that, if you hold a different view.

However, I’ll remember that you prefer a more formal level of conversation.

It’s like the preface Benedict wrote that started this whole thread. I would never take it as the formal conclusion to a Vatican theological debate. It is what it is: a controversy-generating preface designed to boost interest in the book. I might have fallen for the idea that he was repudiating all religious dialogue if I wasn’t used to the idea of questioning the definitions in statements that seem to contradict other statements and actions.

Most conversations on CAF fall somewhere in the middle of the “very informal” to “very formal” spectrum. I find figuring out what people are thinking much more interesting than trying to trap them or label them as deceptive. The actual definitions they attach to the words they use are an important part of figuring it out.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m sorry, Crazy Diamond, but I just don’t see it as a less formal level of conversation. I still it as false ecumenism. You want to say that “Such-and-such papal statement is infallible”, but infallible doesn’t mean infallible.

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

I’m sorry, Crazy Diamond, but I just don’t see it as a less formal level of conversation. I still it as false ecumenism. You want to say that “Such-and-such papal statement is infallible”, but infallible doesn’t mean infallible.

Well, that’s your judgment of Sandusky’s motivations. I personally think Sandusky is trying to irritate. Clear, formal communication would be an impediment to that goal, so he doesn’t write precisely. That’s my judgment.

I personally would prefer he had a different goal and different style of communication, but what can I do? I’ve challenged him already (and, I think, in clear, precise, formal, and unmistakable language) and will do so again when I run into him here.

Others are sloppy not out of indifferentism (a more precise term than “false ecumenism,” I think) but because their goal is not to communicate but to barf up their own words on the web. They get a great deal of pleasure out of seeing their seemingly clever phrases online, regardless of whether they’ve contributed to genuine communication. Sometimes I find that somewhere in the middle of the pile of worthless verbiage there is a gem worth responding to. Finding it sometimes requires allowing for the sloppiness of informal communication. If I insisted that every verbal diamond had to come out of the mine shining, polished, and cut, I wouldn’t find many. Finding the value often takes examining a lot of rock.

Then, of course, there really are those who are sloppy out of false ecumenism. “We’re all the same, because words don’t really mean anything and we should just interpret them to let us all live in peace and sing shiny-happy-people-holding-hands.” They’re certainly out there. I just don’t think Sandusky is one of them.

 

[Peter_J]

Then, of course, there really are those who are sloppy out of false ecumenism. “We’re all the same, because words don’t really mean anything and we should just interpret them to let us all live in peace and sing shiny-happy-people-holding-hands.” They’re certainly out there.

There are different forms of “false ecumenism”. Saying “We’re all the same”, etc. is one form. Saying “The Pope made an infallible statement in 1854”, without actually believing he did, is another form.

However, if you were to write ‘The Pope made an “infallible” statement in 1854’, that would be a different matter, since the quotation marks would indicate to (most) readers that you are not claiming that it was infallible. Eh?

 

[Crazy_Diamond]

There are different forms of “false ecumenism”. Saying “We’re all the same”, etc. is one form. Saying “The Pope made an infallible statement in 1854”, without actually believing he did, is another form.

However, if you were to write ‘The Pope made an “infallible” statement in 1854’, that would be a different matter, since the quotation marks would indicate to (most) readers that you are not claiming that it was infallible. Eh?

Oh, dear. Well, if you want to play that way, let’s see how you like being on the receiving end.

“Ecumenism” has to do with ecclesial bodies that are different in some substantial way (Latin Rite and Eastern Rites, or Orthodox and Catholic, etc) coming together in some fashion that gives them substantial similarity so they may almost be considered one body (an ecumenical council, or mutually assigning anathemas to oblivion, etc). “False ecumenism” then has to do with pretending ecclesial bodies are similar in ways they are not.

“False ecumenism” then will have to lie in some overt or covert manner. One overt manner would be to completely redefine terms (like “catholic”, or “communion”) to pretend the two bodies meant the same thing by it. One covert manner would be to use imprecise terms to cover the fact that the two ecclesial bodies view the subject quite differently.

However, imprecise terminology can be used for many different purposes. It can be used to cheat someone out of money, for example. It is not always used to promote false ecumenism.

You have not demonstrated that Sandusky is trying to promote any sort of ecumenism, much less false. You have only demonstrated that Sandusky has used imprecise, confusing terminology.

You have said that using imprecise terminology = false ecumenism. “Imprecise terminology” comes from a much wider variety of motives. Therefore, you have used imprecise terminology. Therefore, you are guilty of false ecumenism.

You heretic!

Are you trying to get me to agree that precise terminology is better? Of course it is. But at least don’t hammer away at someone else for using imprecise terminology in the same post that you do the same yourself.