Protestant defense of sola scriptura

[Reformed1]

Show me writings by Pope Gregory where he doubts this.

Go to cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=28 and search for “Gregory” in the article.

I no longer have the direct link to the document but you can google this for yourself and you will find that this fact is admitted to by several different Catholic apologists. It seems the only matter of contention is whether he held this view while he was da pope.

I still don’t believe your church “infallibly” defined the canon until Trent.

 

[Reformed1]

Go to cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=28 and search for “Gregory” in the article.

You can google “Pope Gregory” and “1 Maccabees” and you will find this fact admitted by several Catholic apologists. I no longer have the direct length to the document but with a little effort on your part you will find it with ease.

I still don’t believe your church “infallibly” defined the canon until Trent.

 

[PhilVaz]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Catholic_Encyclopedia

Joey << What say you Catholics out there? I don’t know anything about this book. Do you? >>

I vouch for the multi-volume New Catholic Encyclopedia, both the 1967 original version, and the 2003 second edition. I’ve used it profitably for over 10 years. Trent was indeed the first “infallible” decision on the canon since before that time no decision (fallible or infallible) was necessary since there was no dispute. The deuterocanonicals were read in the Liturgy and considered “inspired” from the beginning of the Church. They are included in the full canons of Rome (382), Carthage/Hippo (393/397/419), and exist in the oldest (4th and 5th century A.D.) extant complete Greek manuscripts of the Bible (both OT LXX and NT). When the Reformers began to discount them, that’s when the ancient position was re-affirmed at Trent.

We’ve discussed the deuteros in several threads, the point is even those Fathers who had “questions” about their “full” canonicity (St. Jerome and a few others) readily used them in debate with heretics, considered them “profitable for doctrine” (2 Tim 3:16), and explicitly called them “inspired” (i.e. God the Holy Spirit spoke through them).

Article by Matt1618 is nice, he covers many of the Fathers

Also Gary Michuta is probably the lay Catholic expert on this subject, he debated James White on this a couple years ago. See his book Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger available soon.

Phil P

 

[hoosierdaddy]

St. Paul tells us to hold to the Traditions that the Apolstles taught, either by WORD OF MOUTH or by letter. So Sacred Scripture itself tells us we need more then the written word of God. The Church teaches that the Bible is sufficient to teach what one needs for salvation,but as St. John says in John 21:25 “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” You have to understand that your Christian faith is rich and deep indeed!!!

Paul is telling us this BEFORE Scripture was complete. Of course he would say that.

If we need more than the written Word of God, how do we decide what is useful and what is not? Catholics say it is circular reasoning when we believe something about the Bible because the Bible says it’s so; but your church does the same. You expect us to believe something because your church says it’s so. I believe the Church must submit to the written Word of God; not the other way around. Peace.

 

[HailMary]

Paul is telling us this BEFORE Scripture was complete. Of course he would say that.

If we need more than the written Word of God, how do we decide what is useful and what is not? Catholics say it is circular reasoning when we believe something about the Bible because the Bible says it’s so; but your church does the same. You expect us to believe something because your church says it’s so. I believe the Church must submit to the written Word of God; not the other way around. Peace.

Consider the following:

Sola Scriptura presupposes:

1. Access to the bible
2. Knowing how to read Greek/Latin/Aramiac
3. Leisure time
4. A list of books of the bible. To know what is inside the bible, you need to look outside the bible since there is not a list in the bible that says what books are in the bible
5. The printing press was not invented until 15th century - most people during this time did not know how to read
6. that Scripture is easy to understand.
   “…In them there are some things hard to understand that
   the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction,just as they do the other scriptures” - 2 Pet 3:16

• Sola Scriptura was absolutely impossible before the NT was completed
• Before the 4th century, Sola Sciptura was theoretically impossible since the Canon was not determined (the Catholic Church determined it then at the great Council)
• Majority of today’s Christian Africans population are not literate - so what? They are damned to hell? No. They have the Church.
• The Ethopian in Acts did not understand the Scripture he was reading - this verse further highlights the arrogance of Sola Scriptura. The Ethopian did NOT say, “how can I unless the HOLY SPIRIT guides me” or something of that nature; “Then Philip opened his mouth” - The Ethopian was TAUGHT by Bishop Philip.
• The Church is the final authority (Matthew 18:15-18)

This Theory of Sola Scriptura is impossible.

 

[E.E.N.S]

The only way I could say there is no possibility whatsoever of there being any error is that if I was infallible. And guess what, the same is true for you unless you claim infallibility. Saying that the church is infallible doesn’t help you, because you had to pick that church over all the other competing churches. With that being said, I’m as convinced as I can be that the canon I have is inerrant.

That is incorrect because it is the Church that makes the claim of infallibility, not me. We are talking about the canon and an infallible claim to that canon - I don’t claim it, the Church does. Therefore your comparison falls short.

If you or I were the ones to make the call on the canonicity of the texts then we would have a problem, however I am not in this equation, the Church stands where you are semi-trying to put me.

 

[JoeyWarren]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Catholic_Encyclopedia

Joey << What say you Catholics out there? I don’t know anything about this book. Do you? >>

I vouch for the multi-volume New Catholic Encyclopedia, both the 1967 original version, and the 2003 second edition. I’ve used it profitably for over 10 years. Trent was indeed the first “infallible” decision on the canon since before that time no decision (fallible or infallible) was necessary since there was no dispute. The deuterocanonicals were read in the Liturgy and considered “inspired” from the beginning of the Church. They are included in the full canons of Rome (382), Carthage/Hippo (393/397/419), and exist in the oldest (4th and 5th century A.D.) extant complete Greek manuscripts of the Bible (both OT LXX and NT). When the Reformers began to discount them, that’s when the ancient position was re-affirmed at Trent.

We’ve discussed the deuteros in several threads, the point is even those Fathers who had “questions” about their “full” canonicity (St. Jerome and a few others) readily used them in debate with heretics, considered them “profitable for doctrine” (2 Tim 3:16), and explicitly called them “inspired” (i.e. God the Holy Spirit spoke through them).

Article by Matt1618 is nice, he covers many of the Fathers

Also Gary Michuta is probably the lay Catholic expert on this subject, he debated James White on this a couple years ago. See his book Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger available soon.

Phil P

Thanks for the Clarification. SolaScriptura, it’s your turn to respond to this information.

 

[Mannyfit75]

It’s kinda odd that Sola Scriptura itself falls apart when Protestants don’t accept the Catholic laymen and women interpretation of the Bible.

John Martignoni, the President of the Bible Christian Society said in his talks. “But that is my interpretation of the Bible.”

 

[ddmason]

You need to understand that the bible was written so that we can come to know Jesus Christ. Before becomming Catholic I held fundamentalist beliefs and before that I claimed no religion in my life. I have been reading the bible for almost two years daily to come to know my Lord and Savior. Nowhere did he say we are to rely on scripture alone. Recall the thief on the cross. At what point did he have scripture to save him hanging there. He understood who Jesus was in the last seconds of his life. Jesus loves us beyond measure. He did not say to him “You must rely on scripture to be saved so good luck with your salvation”. He came to him because he knew in his final moments. I had a hard time understanding the sacraments of the Catholic church. When I was researching fundamentalist beliefs I was convinced they were extra-biblical, outside scripture. When I studied the Catholic faith I saw a deeper meaning of the sacraments, that they are not just routine things but pure grace given to us. I can not tell you should become Catholic, that is between you and the holy Spirit. It took me 35 years to realize the true meaning. I feel anyone questioning the Catholic faith and it’s doctrine should take the time to learn about it in context before passing judgement against it. The revelations are marvelous. I don’t know if this helps or not but I pray that you find the answer you are looking for. God bless you.

 

[PhilVaz]

SS quoting from the New Catholic Encyclopedia: << The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture >>

To clarify further, see the article by Matt1618 above who cites St. Jerome and many of the Fathers directly. The ones who had questions on the deuteros declared them to be “Scripture” and “inspired” and used them as such, but some did not consider them fully canonical (i.e. on par with the proto-canonical OT books).

Gary Michuta also brought out this distinction in his debate with James White. To all the Fathers, the deuteros were indeed Scripture and inspired (they were read at the Liturgy, etc), but to some they were not (technically) fully canonical.

Phil P

 

[mercygate]

To clarify further, see the article by Matt1618 above who cites St. Jerome and many of the Fathers directly. The ones who had questions on the deuteros declared them to be “Scripture” and “inspired” and used them as such, but some did not consider them fully canonical (i.e. on par with the proto-canonical OT books).

Hence, the designation “deutero.”

 

[SolaScriptura]

JoeyWarren:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Catholic_Encyclopedia

Joey << What say you Catholics out there? I don’t know anything about this book. Do you? >>

I vouch for the multi-volume New Catholic Encyclopedia, both the 1967 original version, and the 2003 second edition. I’ve used it profitably for over 10 years. Trent was indeed the first “infallible” decision on the canon since before that time no decision (fallible or infallible) was necessary since there was no dispute. The deuterocanonicals were read in the Liturgy and considered “inspired” from the beginning of the Church. They are included in the full canons of Rome (382), Carthage/Hippo (393/397/419), and exist in the oldest (4th and 5th century A.D.) extant complete Greek manuscripts of the Bible (both OT LXX and NT). When the Reformers began to discount them, that’s when the ancient position was re-affirmed at Trent.

We’ve discussed the deuteros in several threads, the point is even those Fathers who had “questions” about their “full” canonicity (St. Jerome and a few others) readily used them in debate with heretics, considered them “profitable for doctrine” (2 Tim 3:16), and explicitly called them “inspired” (i.e. God the Holy Spirit spoke through them).

Article by Matt1618 is nice, he covers many of the Fathers

Also Gary Michuta is probably the lay Catholic expert on this subject, he debated James White on this a couple years ago. See his book Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger available soon.

Phil P
Thanks for the Clarification. SolaScriptura, it’s your turn to respond to this information.

Hi Joey,

First thing. Do you acknowledge that you, ChurchMilitant, and others were “Completely Wrong” on this issue, even though that was the charge laid at my feet?

In reference to the “information”.

First, PhilVaz entered this conversation calling King and Webster dishonest and stating that Mathison was the honest one that you all should read. However, we find out that Mathison calls King and Webster the most exhaustive and definitive defense of sola Scriptura. So even honest Mathison disagrees with PhilVaz on this issue. Does that make PhilVaz dishonest now?

Second, PhilVaz accused King and Webster as dishonest because they didn’t come to the exact same conclusions on a specific point as some other scholars. When I pointed out one reason why by making reference to Ireneaus teaching Jesus lived to be ~50 and claiming this was infallible tradition, PhilVaz pointed us to an article by Mark Bonocore. Now, if you want to see an interpretation that is full of fiction and torture all you have to do is read what Ireneaus said and the read what Mr. Bonocore interprets him to say. If PhilVaz calls King and Webster dishonest then one would think he should call Mr. Bonocore the antichrist for this piece, but instead he promotes it.

Finally, PhilVaz is up to it again. This time he resorts to another terrible piece by Matt1618 in reference to the Apocrypha and the church fathers. Matt1618 uses some torturous logic to conclude that Jerome and others considered the Apocrypha as equal to the rest of Scripture. Since PhilVaz accused King and Webster of being dishonest because they disagreed with some scholars he should at least say the same of the work of Matt1618, because he disagrees with scholars and Catholic cardinals and theologians. The charge that Jerome and others considered the Apocrypha as Scripture is even being dismissed by popular Catholic apologists. Mark Shea used to make a similar argument, but he has now abandoned it. Here is what he had to say:
MarkShea:

“…[F]rom what I read of the critique of my article on the apocrypha in the materials forwarded me, it would appear that I did indeed misread Jerome (not wilfully, as the article suggests, but nonetheless erroneously). That is, it would appear that Jerome, although he did include the deuterocanon in his Vulgate, did so grudgingly and never really bought the idea they should be in the canon of Scripture. That’s the breaks. I make mistakes. It does not mean everything I’ve written is worthless, it doesn’t even mean that the central point of my article–that the only authority we have for canonizing Scripture is the Church and not some guy named Ray Aviles–is wrong. But it certainly does mean that St. Paul is emphatically right when he urges us “test everything, hold on to what is good.” I’m as prone as the next guy to passing on pseudo-knowledge. So are James Swan and Ray Aviles.” markshea.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_markshea_archive.html#115048876537706683

What convinced Mark Shea of his errors? Read this blog post : beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html

PhilVaz has shown himself not to be very consistent or a critical thinker. He copies and pastes vast of amount of information that seems impressive, but it isn’t. He tries to win a debate by volume not substance.

 

[JaneFrances]

You may call it tenuous, but it is a fact nonetheless. For example the Catholic Catechism is only authoritative for Catholics. Every other Christian body rejects its authority. . . Unless two individual are under the same authority it will not be authoritative for both.

I believe that our Lord, Jesus Christ, founded a Church, His Body, with which he invested authority. This one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church has authority over all Christendom regardless of whether certain bodies reject such authority. Christ is King, whether or not you agree. The Church is authoritative, whether or not you submit.

Your assertion regarding the relativity of authority is tenuous. There have been and there always will be those who reject true authority for their own will and sensibilities. This does not deny that true, objective authority exists.

OK. 1. Scripture teaches that God cannot lie and He is perfect in all His ways. This covers the infallibility part.

While veracity and perfection are surely attributes of the Almighty Creator, your assertion that “this covers the infallibility part” indicates that you misunderstand the meaning of infallibility as it pertains to the Church.

1. Scripture also teaches that those who are inspired to write Scripture are infallible, because Scripture is God speaking.

Once again, I think a better understanding of “infallibility” would help here. Inspiration and infallibility are not interchangable terms.

1. If you cannot show me any other instance of God speaking then it logically follows that Scripture is the only infallible source we have. I’m sure you realize that the onus is on you at this point to show me some other source that the church has which is infallible.
   Well, why don’t you show me some other “Word of God” that you have as an authority?

Perhaps the most obvious instance of God’s Word existing beyond Sacred Scripture is in the very person of our Lord and God, Jesus Christ. For it is written:

In the beginning was the Word; the Word was in God’s presence, and the Word was God. John 1:1

To assert that “Scripture is the only infallible source we have” is to deny the Life of Christ Jesus.

And we know, thankfully through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, that there are many other things that our Lord did and said in his earthly life which are not written in books (see John 21:25).

Thus, we look further to St. Paul’s instruction to the early Church at Thessalonica. He tells them:

And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe. 1 Thess. 2:13

So, we know that those dedicated to the gospel and apostolic teaching are, according to St. Paul, passing on the word of God. Those who accept such teaching are, then, accepting the word of God.

But, how are they receiving this teaching?

Therefore, brothers, stand firm. Hold fast to the traditions you have received from us, either by our word or by letter. 2 Thess. 2:15

So, through Sacred Scripture, we have been advised of two additional sources of the Word. The person of Jesus Christ and the word of God as carried by the apostles through the tradition of the spoken word.

I’m sure it has been said, but that doesn’t make it a valid definition of sola Scriptura. There are Catholics that say all kinds of things, but you wouldn’t grant that all of those are valid Catholic teachings. So why do you expect it to be that way for Protestants?

The difference is that despite the varying opinions of Catholics who “say all kinds of things,” one can easily access the true teaching of the Catholic Church. The Protestant response is different because for every question one might pose, there are that many different and somtimes conflicting answers depending on the brand of Protestantism addressed. So then, one is forced to consider which Protestant church has the authority to make such a doctrinal statement. It becomes a flood gate opening to a wide variety of interpretations of God’s Word, bickering, rivalries, dissentions and factions–hardly evidence of the Scriptural instruction for unanimity and unity (Ephesians 4:3-6, Philippians 2:2).

The church was never without the Scriptures, because they had the O.T. Scriptures.

So, then, are you asserting that the Church had the fullness of the Truth in the O.T. Scriptures?

Furthermore, I’m speaking of the church today.

I’m speaking of the church of Jesus Christ, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

The Scriptures were not the sole infallible rule of faith when revelation was still being given or when Jesus Christ was walking the earth.

Okay. So, for the uneducated Christian, how would one know when Scriptures took over as the “sole infallible rule of faith”? Is that biblical or is it your tradition?

 

[PhilVaz]

SS << PhilVaz has shown himself not to be very consistent or a critical thinker. He copies and pastes vast of amount of information that seems impressive, but it isn’t. He tries to win a debate by volume not substance. >>

Well hello there. Webster / King play down the authority of the Church throughout their volumes. That is a fact, and that is dishonest. OK, I’ll add “in my opinion” that is dishonest. Mathison says the Church is the true interpreter of Scripture. That is a fact too. That is more honest and fair, “in my opinion.”

BTW, I don’t copy/paste except from my own stuff. Virtually everything on my site was looked up and verified by me, at the library, or with books I own. I am not a copy/paste kind of guy. I am a “go to the library, look it up and verify it” kind of guy. I am both a volume and substance apologist.

Well of course Mathison is not going disagree with Webster/King since they basically hold to the same theological position. So you got me there.

Phil P

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

I’ll be brief as to not derail this thread but Catholics believe they can’t know their salvation when it states it ever so plainly in scripture:
*Luke 1:76-77 And you, child, will be called prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, **to give his people knowledge of salvation ***through the forgiveness of their sins.

This is is not a reference to “Eterrnal Security” but rather a reference to the fact that Jesus gave us an escape from the Law of Moses.

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

Hi Joey,

Actually, this is old information for me. I can quote you church fathers, theologians, and a pope that disagrees with the current Catholic canon.

Then please do it! If you are so confident that Patristic Literature is a basis for Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc. please show us the quotes that you speak of. :ehh:

 

[PhilVaz]

OK two more issues. I’ll concede Bonocore could very well be wrong in his interpretation of St. Irenaeus. I simply linked his article as an alternate interpretation of the “50 year old Jesus” issue. That’s an issue I need to study. And it’s not a big deal to me, since the Church doesn’t teach dogmatically Jesus was 50 years old, or exactly how old he was. We do teach and accept what St. Irenaeus did about apostolic succession, tradition, the authority of bishops, and the primacy of Rome.

On Mark Shea and the deuteros: Is it a fact St. Jerome calls and quotes from the deuteros as “Scripture” ? It certainly seems so. (If you have a reply to the Matt1618 research, please link to it).

Whatever Mark Shea says, that remains a fact. But St. Jerome of course is not the Church. The final decision on the canon rests with the Church. The Church declared the OT deuteros Scripture and canonical at Rome (382), Carthage/Hippo (393/397/419), and they’ve been read in the Liturgy from the beginning, and finally Trent officially closed the issue.

We’ve had other threads on the deuteros subject and St. Jerome and we can start another one I guess. But this thread is about Sola Scriptura, whether Webster/King are dishonest about ignoring the authority of the Church (I say they are), whether Mathison is more honest by admitting the visible Church is the true interpreter (I say he is), and whether Schaff, Kelly, and Pelikan are reputable Church historians and scholars (I say they are). Just to be clear.

Phil P

 

[Antonius_Lupus]

You may call it tenuous, but it is a fact nonetheless. For example the Catholic Catechism is only authoritative for Catholics. Every other Christian body rejects its authority. So that is my point. Unless two individual are under the same authority it will not be authoritative for both.

S.S.

Let me ask you something. If you believe that the message of the Gospel applies to all that hear it (Mark 16:16), why then would the Teachings of the Holy Apostles (Thess. 2:15) be any different?

 

[PhilVaz]

SS quoting Mark Shea << That is, it would appear that Jerome, although he did include the deuterocanon in his Vulgate, did so grudgingly and never really bought the idea they should be in the canon of Scripture. That’s the breaks. >>

From what I understand, that is indeed correct. St. Jerome did not believe the deuteros (those 7 books in Catholic Bibles) were fully canonical on par with the proto-canonical OT books. Nevertheless, he did call them “Scripture” and considered them “inspired by God”. This is the distinction brought out in the Michuta vs. White debate I mentioned.

Here St. Jerome calls Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) “Scripture”:

“Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [Sirach 13:2]” (Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 [A.D. 404], in NPNF2, VI:207).

Here St. Jerome cites the proto-canon along with the deutero-canon:

“I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Psalm 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ezekiel 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH ,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS.” (Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 [A.D. 399], in NPNF2, VI:159)

And here is St. Jerome citing the NT books along with the OT deuteros:

“When he sees that we are building upon the foundation of Christ, hay, wood, stubble [1 Cor 3:10-15], then he applies the match. Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession. For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sirach 27:5] “Potters’ vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation.” And in another place it is written: [Sirach 2:1] “My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation.” Again, the same James says: [James 3:22] ‘Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.’ It was useless to warn them to add works to faith, if they could not sin after baptism.” (Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390)

OK, that is a little copy/paste from the Matt1618 (real name: Michael Lopez I believe) site. I have not verified the quotations and that’s yet another issue I need to study in depth. No articles on the OT deuteros are on my apologetics site yet but I cover virtually everything else, with much volume and substance and documentation, with "sound and fury signifying everything."

Phil P

 

[SolaScriptura]

SS << PhilVaz has shown himself not to be very consistent or a critical thinker. He copies and pastes vast of amount of information that seems impressive, but it isn’t. He tries to win a debate by volume not substance. >>

Well hello there. Webster / King play down the authority of the Church throughout their volumes. That is a fact, and that is dishonest. OK, I’ll add “in my opinion” that is dishonest. Mathison says the Church is the true interpreter of Scripture. That is a fact too. That is more honest and fair, “in my opinion.”

It is not a fact that they play down the authority of the church. Once again this is an example of how you argue issues. King and Webster are attempting to be faithful to the testimony of Scripture and the fathers. Furthermore, as you know King deals with the biblical case and it is Webster that deals with the historical issue. If they don’t come to the same conclusion as your church, then that means they are “playing down the authority of the church”. With this kind of reasoning everyone on the other side could say, “you play up the authority of the church”. Of course King and Webster believes the church is the true interpreter of Scripture, there disagreement with you is over who is the true church. You want to restrict it to the Pope and the teaching magisterium of Rome, of course they disagree with that.

BTW, I don’t copy/paste except from my own stuff. Virtually everything on my site was looked up and verified by me, at the library, or with books I own. I am not a copy/paste kind of guy. I am a “go to the library, look it up and verify it” kind of guy. I am both a volume and substance apologist.

I never said or insinuated you didn’t copy-n-paste from your own site. My point was that you came to this discussion copying-n-pasting huge amounts of fallacious arguments. The volume of it may seem impressive but I not going to invest hours after hours responding to that kind of stuff. Also the articles you often point to for vindication of your position shows that the substance is still lacking

Well of course Mathison is not going disagree with Webster/King since they basically hold to the same theological position. So you got me there.

Phil P

Hmmm … the inconsistencies of PhilVaz shows up again. Previoulsy Mathison was honest and much better than King or Webster. But now it is of course Mathison will not disagree with King and Webster, so I guess he is dishonest after all. Oh brother.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.