SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[Mannyfit75]

Moses

Moses, the first Israelite priest, read the Torah to all of the six hundred thousand Israelite people assembled at the foot of Mt. Sinai, and threw the blood of sacrificed oxen on the people, saying Ex 24:8 “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you.” Jesus said at the Last Supper, Mt 26:28 “This is my blood of the covenant.”

Ex 34:29 “When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, with the two tables of the testimony in his hand as he came down from the mountain … the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God … he put a veil on his face.” Jesus comes to us veiled, under the appearance of bread and wine. We could not stand the superbrilliant light of His full glory compared to our own souls darkened by sin.

The Harvest

In ancient Israel, the Spring harvest consisted of grain or wheat. Bread has long been the symbol of the Spring harvest. The Autumn harvest was mostly grapes and olives. Grape wine and olive oil were symbols of the Autumn harvest. Bread and wine. God commanded, Lv 23:12-13 “You shall offer a male lamb a year old without blemish as a burnt offering to the Lord. And the cereal offering with it shall be two tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil … and the drink offering with it shall be of wine.” Priests anoint with oil. Torah unites bread and wine, and the priest, with the sacrifice of the lamb.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Tabernacle Sacrifice

Bread of the Presence

The Bread of the Presence, in the ancient Tabernacle and later in the Temple, 1 Kgs 7:48 prefigured Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.

In the Tabernacle God commanded Moses, Ex 25:8 “Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst.” In the sanctuary, in the ark of the covenant, God told Moses, Ex 25:22 “There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you…” God added, Ex 25:30 “You shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me always.” Jesus told us, Mt 28:20 “I am with you always.”

Abimelech the priest gave David this sacred bread. 1 Sam 21:6 “So the priest gave him the holy bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence.” Jesus taught us that it was for all His disciples. Mt 12:1 “At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck ears of grain and to eat. … [Jesus] said to them, 'Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence … I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.”

Jesus showed us what was greater than the Temple. Lk 22:19 “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.’”

Blood of the Lamb

During Moses’ time the priests sacrificed in the Tabernacle, a portable house of God in the wilderness. After Solomon built the First Temple, it became the place of sacrifice. The highest form of Hebrew worship was sacrifice, not prayer alone, just as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the highest form of Catholic worship. A priest is one who offers sacrifice. The Catholic priest is the counterpart not of the rabbi, but of the ancient Jewish priest who offered bloody sacrifices. The deacon, who reads the Gospel, is the rabbi’s counterpart.

The Old Testament sacrifice of a lamb, as opposed to any other animal, was important. The lamb did not resist, run away, or even cry out. Isaiah had foretold that the Lamb of God would do the same, Is 53:7 “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.”

The Jewish priests, before sacrificing the lamb, always asked, “Do you love this lamb?” If the family didn’t love the lamb there would be no sacrifice. Jesus three times asked Peter, Jn 21:15 “Do you love Me?” Jesus allowed Peter to replace his triple denial with a triple affirmation that he did indeed love the Sacrificed Lamb.

The family would place the lamb into the hands of the priest. When we give something to God we place it in His hands. Jesus’ last words on the Cross were, Lk 23:46 “Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit!”

 

[Mannyfit75]

The priest and the head of the family then prayed together that God would accept the blood of the innocent lamb for the sins of that family for the entire year, just as the Lamb of God shed His Blood to redeem the sins of all His human family. The Catholic priest says, “Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.”

The head of household then cut the lamb’s throat with a sharp bronze knife while the priest caught the lamb’s blood in a large bronze bowl. The priest then made seven complete trips around the altar, sprinkling the blood from the lamb on each of the four “horns.” Then he took the lamb’s body and placed it on the altar and started the ritual fire. With a big fire and a small lamb, the sacrifice was over quickly. The smoke rose from the altar. If the wind blew the smoke away and dispersed it, the priest told the family that its offer was rejected, and that it should repent and come back the following year. But if the smoke drifted upward, higher and higher until it disappeared from view, the priest told the family that God had accepted the sacrifice.

Before the great tabernacle sacrifice, Jewish priests washed their hands in a bronze laver, or basin. Ps 26:6 “I wash my hands in innocence, and go about Thy altar, O Lord.” Today the Catholic priest washes his hands saying inaudibly, Ps 51:2 “Lord, wash away my iniquity; cleanse me from my sin.”

The first priest attended at a great golden lampstand with seven oil lamps, called a menorah. It was dark in the tabernacle, and the menorah gave light.

The second priest attended at the table of showbread. God had commanded Lv 24:5 that the Jewish priests, from Aaron forward, place twelve loaves of bread on a golden table “before the Lord.” On each sabbath, the priests ate the bread which had been set in place on the preceding sabbath. This bread was to be eaten by the priests in a sacred place since it was Lv 24:9 “most holy” among the offerings to the Lord. God had said, Ex 23:18 “You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread.” During the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass the Catholic priest consecrates unleavened bread on the altar which becomes Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and is consumed by the royal priesthood as the most holy offering in the New and Everlasting Covenant.

The third priest served at the altar of incense. It looked like a small altar of sacrifice, with the same four horns. On it was a bronze laver. The priest would take a red-hot burning ember from the fire in which the lamb had been sacrificed, put it in the basin, and pour some incense on it, that his prayers might have a fragrant scent and go straight up to God. On solemn occasions Catholics spread incense about the altar as an act of reverence and purification. The smoke rising to heaven represents our own desire to have our prayers ascend heavenward in God’s sight. Ps 141:2 “Let my prayer be counted as incense before Thee, and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice.”

God told Moses to place the Torah in the Ark of the Covenant, which in turn was placed within a tabernacle. God commanded, Ex 27:20 “You shall command the people of Israel that they bring to you pure beaten olive oil for the light, that a lamp may be set up to burn continually.” All was placed within the tabernacle. By night, there was always a fire over the tabernacle, Ex 40:38 This began the idea of an eternal lamp beside the Jewish tabernacle. A thousand years later the Temple lamp miraculously continued to shine for eight days with only one day’s supply of oil. Catholics continue this ancient Israelite tradition by placing a lighted candle beside the tabernacle in which the consecrated Hosts repose.

In the center of the tabernacle was a room called the Holy of Holies. Once a year the cohen gadol, the high priest, alone would enter that room. In it was the Ark of the Covenant. Inside the ark were the two stone tablets with the Ten Commandments, a golden bowl of manna, and the five Torah scrolls. The Torah was a witness against the Israelites, Dt 31:26 but above it all was God’s solid gold mercy seat, with a crown and two cherubim kneeling in prayer. Above the mercy seat, between the two cherubim, was a brilliant light, the shining glory of God. Ex 25:22 “From above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you.” When the priest saw that light he took a huge cup of blood and sprinkled it until it was empty. Jewish tradition holds that not one drop of the blood of sacrifice ever touched the mercy seat or the cherubim; it all went into the bright light of God’s glory. Jesus said, Jn 8:12 “I am the light of the world.” Jesus’ covenant family gave Him their imperfect sacrifices, and He gave them His perfect sacrifice.

 

[SyCarl]

SysCarl - are you admitting then that you are Catholic or are you admitting that you remain outside The Church as a protestant but sneak in to a Catholic mass as often as you can to partake of The Eucharist unworthily since your take is you must take Jesus literally?

It seems to me if it was the latter case you should swallow the whole truth and just convert to Catholicism to cover your bases. Or are you still doing the “pick and choose” Protestant “buffet thing” at the Protestant picnic and never getting past the apple pie and plain vanilla ice cream to find the main course?

James

I do not receive the Eucharist at the Catholic Church since I respect its rules. However I am saying that Jesus could not mean all you have to do is eat and drink. Yet if we take His words here literally that is what He is saying. Since He can not be taken literally when He uses the word “anyone”, how can He be taken to be speaking literally in the rest of the sentence?

 

[CentralFLJames]

We Catholics takes Jesus seriously. He made it pretty clear in the Gospel of John. He commanded us at the Last Supper, “Do this in remembrance of me.” We do this weekly on the first day of the week. We break bread on the first day of the week.

I shall quote you from John 6:35-59.

((Continue))

True Manny - but more true is that from east to west a daily perfect sacrifice is made so that the entire planet gives worship and glory to God continuously through the offerings of the Holy Catholic Church. In keeping with Jesus’ “Our Father Prayer” we Catholics have daily masses in most every parish in the world where the Eucharist is broken and made available to the faithful and worship up to God His very own Son’s divinity, body, blood and sufferings.

Thus the True Catholic Church is also what non-Catholics call the Roman Catholic Church (yet it is even more since we have the East as well and others). Only The Catholic Church through Christ’s Vicar on earth (The Pope) is fully obedient to Jesus’ teaching to feed my lambs. Those that do not receive The Eucharist are clearly not of the same flock and are not being fed. *Only the Catholic Church (“The Church”) can pray with conviction “give us this day our daily bread”. * Since only The Catholic Church offers a daily mass to God to receive from Heaven God’s daily bread.

QED - No Eucharist then you are seperated from the flock and are subject to be eaten by the wolves.

Eat the body of Christ or be eaten by God’s enemies!

James

 

[Mannyfit75]

I do not receive the Eucharist at the Catholic Church since I respect its rules. However I am saying that Jesus could not mean all you have to do is eat and drink. Yet if we take his words here literally that is what He is saying. Since He can not be taken literally when He uses the word “anyone”, how can He be taken to be speaking literally in the rest of the sentence?

He is speaking literally. Paul made this very clear in his Epistles to the Corinthians. It’s 1 Corinthians 11:27. Not mention Ignatius, Polycarp, and other ECF. These men were taught by the Apostles. They didn’t teach them anything different. Symbolism only came about during the Protestant reformation. Symbolic meaning of the Eucharist is a New Doctrine. It is Anti-Biblical and perverts the Word of God.

 

[Teflon93]

I am quite serious with the question and it is one of the primary reasons I do not believe John 6 cannot be taken literally. You are in effect saying that part of Jesus statement must be taken literally but not all of it. That to me is an extreme case of cherry picking that Protestants are so often accused of.

I take what Jesus takes seriously. He says if we eat and drink we will be saved. He puts no qualifications on that. He doesn’t say “If you believe and eat you will be saved.” Since taking what He says here literally does not make sense, as He says so many other places that we must believe in Him, I can only take it that He is not speaking literally.

This is nothing more than the usual Protestant “either/or” legalism.

Note that Christ gives several answers to what we must do to be saved.

He tells the rich man to keep the commandments. Does that mean one need only be an observant Jew to be saved?

He tells him to give up everything and follow him. Does that mean no one was saved after the Crucifixion?

Does that mean Christ was speaking symbolically in ALL instances where speaking of salvation? I rather doubt that is what you think.

You must also note that what Christ said was controversial enough that most of the audience, who had followed him to that point despite all the other radical things he said, left him then.

Do you think they left because they were teetotalers opposed to drinking wine?

Do you think they left because they were on the Apostolic Age equivalent of the Atkins Diet Plan and thus abhorred carbs?

The Greek word employed in place of the English “eat” will point you in the right direction. Hint: it’s Romeward.

 

[geraldffff]

In the upper right corner of each post there is a red and white triangle with an exclamation point in it. If there is a post, or series of posts, that are patently offensive, or demean the Catholic faith, or otherwise break forum rules, you can click on it and report the post. You will see some members who have “banned” beneath their names. They violated the rules time after time. That type comes here only to cause grief, make an ignorant point or just to insult. Other members who are inquiring into the faith do not need to be exposed to such. So, we click on the triangle. The moderator then looks into it. We use the triangle sparingly, or it can be like crying “wolf”.

Christ’s peace.

Thank you very much for your education on the triangle.

 

[po18guy]

God Raises His Covenant Children

Jesus introduced the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. It did not exist during the days of the Old Testament. However, our Father in heaven gradually prepared us to receive it. These Old Testament accounts describe pre-figurations of the Holy Eucharist.

Abel

The earliest shadow of the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood was Abel, the younger son of Adam and Eve. Cain murdered the good shepherd Abel. The Lord told Cain, Gn 4:10 “The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground.” The Book of Hebrews reminds us of, Heb 12:24 “… [Christ’s] sprinkled Blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.”

Melchizedek

Melchizedek pre-figured Christ. When Abram returned from his victory over Chedorlaomer, Gn 14:18 “Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High …” to bless Abram, pre-figuring the bread and wine consecrated by a priest at Mass. The Book of Hebrews tells us, Heb 7:2 “[Melchizedek] is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem [shalom], that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever.”

Mannyfit75 for President 2008!!!

Seriously, Melchizedek is the only man in scripture who was both Priest and King. King of Salem, which became Jerusalem. He was first to offer the unbloody sacrifice. First to offer bread and wine. Jesus fulfills his prophetic sacrifice. Notice that Abram’s name was changed to Abraham at this point? That is evidence that God was at work. As when Simon bar Jonah was renamed Kepha by Jesus. God was at work.

How tragic to see those who reject Christ, just because He is found in the Catholic Church. All because of a name! A test of your love for Christ is if you will follow Him wherever He leads you - even into the Catholic Church. Those with hardened hearts simply sidestep this by saying that Christ founded a different church, or the Romans “took it over”(?), or any church is just as good.

Faith is about obedience. Protest is disobedience. I choose to be obedient.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Pax]

That’s not really an answer, what you are saying is that when a Priest says something, you can do some research and find out if what he is saying is true. The fact is, that you are not allowed to have any authority in your possession with which to verify what is taught.

This is ludicrous. My parish supplied me with a free copy of the catechism. I have 10 English translations of the bible in my possession. We have a small bookstore in our church for purchasing all kinds of Catholic books and bibles. I am encouraged by the Church to read the Bible, Scripture is read in Church, and I am encouraged to read papal encyclicals. We even have adult education classes that take us through Vatican documents. Where do you get these ideas? None of it’s true!!
Old Scholar;3237562:

Well I went to the Caterchism and found this about the question of Mary being conceived without sin:

722 The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” should herself be “full of grace.” She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. It was quite correct for the angel Gabriel to greet her as the “Daughter of Zion”: “Rejoice.” It is the thanksgiving of the whole People of God, and thus of the Church, which Mary in her canticle lifts up to the Father in the Holy Spirit while carrying within her the eternal Son.

This seems to be someone’s opinion and there is nothing here to “back up” the answer. Just because someone wrote this doesn’t make it official. What Scripture does it refer to and on what authority is it claimed?

It is merely speculation since the Scriptures tell us nothing about Mary until she is approaced by the angel. A very good example of what I have been saying all along. Someone writes it down and you believe it with no authority of confirmation.

If you are looking at a bound version of the Catechism you can look at the bottom of the page for the scriptural references in Luke Chapter 1 that support the teaching. The Catechism is heavily dependent upon scriptural references and virtually every page has them listed at the bottom. The teachings are not simply someone’s opinion. They are based on thorough exegesis and the time honored teachings of the Christian Church prior to the Reformation. Catholic bible studies effectively tie the teachings and the scriptures together into a congruent picture. The Catechism is a compendium of both.

Once again…you’ve been answered.

 

[mercygate]

I am quite serious with the question and it is one of the primary reasons I do not believe John 6 cannot be taken literally. You are in effect saying that part of Jesus statement must be taken literally but not all of it. That to me is an extreme case of cherry picking that Protestants are so often accused of.

I take what Jesus takes seriously. He says if we eat and drink we will be saved. He puts no qualifications on that. He doesn’t say “If you believe and eat you will be saved.” Since taking what He says here literally does not make sense, as He says so many other places that we must believe in Him, I can only take it that He is not speaking literally.

You are accusing Jesus of being literalistic. We cannot interpret John 6 independently of all the passages in the rest of the new testament that qualify salvation by the many “if” clauses. The context of John 6 is the WHOLE Gospel. ALL of it is Christ.

Perhaps someone else can make this clearer than I can. I don’t really “see” your problem as you do. I do clearly distinguish between a literal interpretation of Scripture and a narrowly literalistic one…

 

[mercygate]

In other word, you can’t answer them either???

OS, what does “contumely” mean?

 

[Pax]

But why bother with the Bible if you don’t believe it?

We believe the Bible and we believe the Church. Why should we believe you?

 

[mercygate]

I do not receive the Eucharist at the Catholic Church since I respect its rules. However I am saying that Jesus could not mean all you have to do is eat and drink. Yet if we take His words here literally that is what He is saying. Since He can not be taken literally when He uses the word “anyone”, how can He be taken to be speaking literally in the rest of the sentence?

Again, we distinguish between “literal” and literalistic. We embrace the full context of Christ, not just the chapter, the Gospel of John, the four Gospels, the rest of the NT . . . but the full context of the lived faith of the Church.

"Eat my flesh,"as we understand it, and as others have expressed better than I encompasses much more than the vocal utterances of John 6.

 

[heisenburg]

In other word, you can’t answer them either???

How on earth can you say that no one has answered your questions!!!

We have given you answers, links back to the answers, and external documents…

If you simply believe the answers are not to you liking… so be it… Say that…

But to continue in your arrogance to say that no one has answered your questions…

This is nothing short of lying…

Last I checked, the spirit of deceit was not a trait of a Christian.

You are in my prayers

In Christ

 

[Mannyfit75]

Mannyfit75 for President 2008!!!

Seriously, Melchizedek is the only man in scripture who was both Priest and King. King of Salem, which became Jerusalem. He was first to offer the unbloody sacrifice. First to offer bread and wine. Jesus fulfills his prophetic sacrifice. Notice that Abram’s name was changed to Abraham at this point? That is evidence that God was at work. As when Simon bar Jonah was renamed Kepha by Jesus. God was at work.

How tragic to see those who reject Christ, just because He is found in the Catholic Church. All because of a name! A test of your love for Christ is if you will follow Him wherever He leads you - even into the Catholic Church. Those with hardened hearts simply sidestep this by saying that Christ founded a different church, or the Romans “took it over”(?), or any church is just as good.

Faith is about obedience. Protest is disobedience. I choose to be obedient.

Christ’s peace.

I’m foreign born, I can’t run for President. I rather be a lay Catholic. Anyways, I believe that Jesus is Truly Present in our Eucharist and present in the Tabernacle.

 

[po18guy]

Does that mean Christ was speaking symbolically in ALL instances where speaking of salvation? I rather doubt that is what you think.

Right on! How on earth are we supposed to keep Christ’s commandments if they are symbolic or metaphoric? That is nonsense.

Unity, I say. Unity through obedience.

 

[Pax]

I do not receive the Eucharist at the Catholic Church since I respect its rules. However I am saying that Jesus could not mean all you have to do is eat and drink. Yet if we take His words here literally that is what He is saying. Since He can not be taken literally when He uses the word “anyone”, how can He be taken to be speaking literally in the rest of the sentence?

The problem here is simply solved. We take Jesus literally in John 6. We also take Jesus literally in Matthew 5 when he says:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
…
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Likewise we take Jesus literally when he says many other things in the gospels pertaining to salvation. All of these other things are important to salvation just as John 6 is important to salvation. They are not mutually exclusive. To suggest that what Jesus says in John 6 is said without any qualification is to negate everything else Jesus said concerning salvation. The discourse on the bread of life was given to the disciples that had been following Jesus for a long time. They would have heard the many other things that he said about salvation. None of those things would have been forgotten or superseded by the discourse. They all form a unified whole.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Seriously, Melchizedek is the only man in scripture who was both Priest and King. King of Salem, which became Jerusalem. He was first to offer the unbloody sacrifice. First to offer bread and wine. Jesus fulfills his prophetic sacrifice. Notice that Abram’s name was changed to Abraham at this point? That is evidence that God was at work. As when Simon bar Jonah was renamed Kepha by Jesus. God was at work.

How tragic to see those who reject Christ, just because He is found in the Catholic Church. All because of a name! A test of your love for Christ is if you will follow Him wherever He leads you - even into the Catholic Church. Those with hardened hearts simply sidestep this by saying that Christ founded a different church, or the Romans “took it over”(?), or any church is just as good.

Faith is about obedience. Protest is disobedience. I choose to be obedient.

Christ’s peace.

I agree with you Po.

Additional insight I’d like to share here:
Note that in the days of the Old Testament no one really knew where Melchizedek originated from - he is something of a mystery. It was thought then that he had no earthly parents. In fact he is the only person in the bible that does not inherit a blessing through Abraham and in fact is the single person we know blessed Abraham (and Abraham paid him a tithe). Melchizedek is hugely important to not just prefiguring Christ but in also prefiguring the liturgy of the mass and the entire priestly tradition for Catholics since our priests are of this Melchizedekian order. Note that the Jewish priests from Arron and Levy clans are below Abraham’s branch. Melchizedek is in front of Abraham and therefor of a supremely higher priestly order.

Also I am amazed that no one ever seems to make the Old Testament connection between God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac and seeing this as another prefiguring of God doing the same thing with His only Son (while withholding Abraham’s hand). God wanted an emotional connection with Humanity to let us feel that same sense of loss and sorrow that He would share with a fallen humanity to save us. From the vantage point of the New Testament we can now look back over thousands of years to see how God planned early on to sacrifice His only Son to save the word through Abraham’s obedience to God (the same obedience again mirrored in Mary when she consented to the Incarnation). So the pattern of salvation is amazingly clear and profound - God is intimately bonding Himself with His fallen humanity and making a remnant of us who will respond to His help His very own Children. Emanuel - “God is with us” literally!! God is partnered and committed to humanity by his very own divinity (present in the Eucharist). And that commitment is not without considerable pain and hurt to God. He shares with us through Christ for the cost of our original transgression. Yes we were spanked hard by the consequence of our disobedience. But in that same chastisement we also grievously hurt God. But His Love for us has found a way to get a remnant of repentant humanity back to Him in a way that is consistent with His Justice.

Thank God that God is a loving God since He owes us nothing and still elected to share in the pain and suffering for our disobedience! If God can do this for us can anyone possibly imagine what he will do for those who are obedient and love Him?

James

 

[mercygate]

The problem here is simply solved. We also take Jesus literally in John 6. We take Jesus literally in Matthew 5 when he says:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
…
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Likewise we take Jesus literally when he says many other things in the gospels pertaining to salvation. All of these other things are important to salvation just as John 6 is important to salvation. They are not mutually exclusive. To suggest that what Jesus says in John 6 is said without any qualification is to negate everything else Jesus said concerning salvation. The discourse on the bread of life was given to the disciples that had been following Jesus for a long time. They would have heard the many other things that he said about salvation. None of those things would have been forgotten or superseded by the discourse. They all form a unified whole.

I knew someboduy would come along and say what I meant to say.

Thanks pax. Thanks, teflon93.