St. Robert Bellarmine and the Pope-Heretic Question

[pnewton]

Actually, the Missale Romanum of 1970 wasn’t imposed. Legally, it was offered as the “will” of the pontiff that it suppress the earlier Missal, which had ALWAYS meant the older Missal be abrogated. Paul refused to abrogate the older Missal, thus creating a weird and theretofore quite unusual, novel, and indeed utterly unknown situation in the liturgy. Saying one Missal is mandated but the other not abrogated is doublespeak.

This is interesting. It sounds like a situation where the language explodes. In other words, unique situations often lack the proper definable terms, or terms are used differently by different people. People can agree in substance and never realize it.

 

[SFD]

I think your’e right.

Thank you Dave.

I think Bellermine intended to provide proofs for the entire proposition, including the part regarding the pontiff as a particular person.

No, I don’t think that is correct either. Bellarmine examines the 5 possible opinions, with the following conclusions (note that conclusions 1 and 5 are solely that as given by Bellarmine):

1st opinion (that of Albert Pighius, The pope can never fall into heresy): "probable and easily defended"

2nd opinion (The loss of the pontificate would happen the minute the pope falls into an internal heresy, and before it becomes public): Such opinion is now abandoned by theologians. Because the Church is Visible, it is necessary that its government be visible, and not depend on internal acts.

3rd opinion (On account of his heresy, the pope would never lose his pontificate): Xavier de Silveira comments: “among the 136 authors we have consulted, Bouix is the only one to defend such opinion” We could say like St. Robert Bellarmine that such opinion is very improbable, because it goes against the unanimous consent of the Tradition of the Church.

4th opinion (Such declaration would not be a deposition but a merely act to report the loss of the pontificate by a heretic): Even though such opinion is defended by serious theologians, like Cajetan and Suarez, it is not admitted by St. Robert Bellarmine. I can see two dangers that can rise from such opinion - to fall into the heresy of Conciliarism, which was condemned by the Church - or at least, to fall into subjectivism. What can tell us, for sure, that a declaration of heresy coming from a group of bishops is not an attempt to make an act of deposition?

5th opinion (He would lose the pontificate when his heresy becomes manifest): "most probable"
De Romano Pontifice:

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope * in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate , and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.*

’

According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.

“The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics * are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved.*”

Please note also that some individuals here and elsewhere have some propensity to hold the following opinion, which was a consideration under the fifth opinion: “He would lose his pontificate only upon a declaration of heresy made by a council, or by cardinals or by group of bishops”: This is Heretical as such a declaration would act really as a deposition.

SFD

(continued)

 

[SFD]

(continued)
De Romano Pontifice:

"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.

itsjustdave:

However, I agree that the portion regarding the pope is what he likely considered “certain,”

Yes. But it’s not just “likely” … it’s “certainly”. Do you agree?
itsjustdave:

and the other portion he probably didn’t hold to be as certain, but most probable.

Opinion 1 was “probable and easily defended”

Opinion 5 was “most probable”
itsjustdave:

BTW, I asked the Vehr Theological Library in Denver if they could send me Bk 4, ch 6. from Bellermine’s De Romano Pontifice. I’ll let you know when it arrives.

Please do.

SFD

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Still waiting on your credentials A-V

Just out of curiousity, why should we believe either him or you as to your “credentials”, and why should it matter to us, as we have no other evidence for them than your respective unsupportable claims?

Isn’t “what you say” more important than your claim to “royal highness”?

I can understand how having high creds might expand one’s ego such that “wanker fencing”, as it were, could be “satisfying”, but since you can only “prove” that you’ve got yours hanging out giving us the opportunity to laugh and point, it seems ultimately a bit silly, don’tcha think?

 

[Arnobius]

Just out of curiousity, why should we believe either him or you as to your “credentials”, and why should it matter to us, as we have no other evidence for them than your respective unsupportable claims?

Isn’t “what you say” more important than your claim to “royal highness”?

I can understand how having high creds might expand one’s ego such that “wanker fencing”, as it were, could be “satisfying”, but since you can only “prove” that you’ve got yours hanging out giving us the opportunity to laugh and point, it seems ultimately a bit silly, don’tcha think?

You notice I don’t boast about mine unless someone demands to know (if he had not asked, I would have stayed quiet). But since he is the one insulting others for their ignorance and claiming he knows more than others, I want to know what gives him the right to make these claims.

I find on internet forums there are a lot of people who pretend to be experts, but fold when asked to show what makes them an authority.

If he had been charitable, I would have been fine leaving it alone

 

[pnewton]

But since he is the one insulting others for their ignorance and claiming he knows more than others, I want to know what gives him the right to make these claims.

I find on internet forums there are a lot of people who pretend to be experts, but fold when asked to show what makes them an authority.

If he had been charitable, I would have been fine leaving it alone

In other words, he started it?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

You notice I don’t boast about mine unless someone demands to know (if he had not asked, I would have stayed quiet). But since he is the one insulting others for their ignorance and claiming he knows more than others, I want to know what gives him the right to make these claims.

I find on internet forums there are a lot of people who pretend to be experts, but fold when asked to show what makes them an authority.

If he had been charitable, I would have been fine leaving it alone

You can’t do anything BUT to pretend to be an expert in forums (fori?) such as these, so it’s irrelevant whether one is a poser or an actual expert EXCEPT in so much as what one says in demonstration of your abilities.

To attack his “creds” as opposed to his demonstrated work is the definition of a personal attack, which brings us right back to the “schlaager bonkin’ contest”, which I mentioned earlier, which serves only to make the one mit der schlaager behangen aus look foolish.

But, hey, what do I know! I ain’t no high fallootin’ expurt type person with lots a skoolin’ under my belt!

I do have a belt, though! And it’s mighty fine!

 

[Arnobius]

You can’t do anything BUT to pretend to be an expert in forums (fori?) such as these, so it’s irrelevant whether one is a poser or an actual expert EXCEPT in so much as what one says in demonstration of your abilities.

To attack his “creds” as opposed to his demonstrated work is the definition of a personal attack, which brings us right back to the “schlaager bonkin’ contest”, which I mentioned earlier, which serves only to make the one mit der schlaager behangen aus look foolish.

But, hey, what do I know! I ain’t no high fallootin’ expurt type person with lots a skoolin’ under my belt!

I do have a belt, though! And it’s mighty fine!

Except when said person rejects other’s objections by calling them ignorant and modernist etc, the ad hom is already flying.

But in his case, I think the adage is true:
Cum tacent, clamant. (When they are silent, they shout. --Cicero, Oratio in Catilinam I, 21:6)

He’s been pretty silent about this when called after insisting his knowledge was better than we who believe the Pope is legit, and I suspect he will not answer because he has nothing to back him up.

 

[Arnobius]

In other words, he started it?

Nah, just hoping he would shut up when his bluff was called

 

[SFD]

Sure:

Just a thought…

Since we all agree that the new Mass cannot lead to any impiety, Lefebvre’s whole “grave fear” necessity seems to collapse. How can something which can cause no impiety at the same time cause “grave fear”?

Sure,

We Catholics must give our assent to the theologically certain doctrine of disciplinary infallibility as defined by the theologians because they teach us it is certain. What is key here is that we are giving this doctrine our intellectual assent because it comes from the authority of the Church. We are not merely agreeing with it; we are accepting it because it is required.

Please note that the most certain doctrine of disciplinary infallibility tells us that the approved liturgies and ceremonies of the Church cannot lead to impiety. That is what disciplinary infallibility tells us. What it (the doctrine) does not tell us…is to deny relevant facts and circumstances.

If the new Mass appears to lead to impiety…then what is the explanation for this? There are a variety of answers that honest men can come up with…the question is which ones are valid and which ones are not.

What are the most common explanations? And remember, also, that those who think things are just fine in the Church don’t see any problem and will always dismiss the question. We are not concerned with their opinions in this discussion (and I understand they will object to what I just said…but such is life).

SFD

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…If the new Mass appears to lead to impiety…

What if many other popes, even St. Pius V “appeared” to teach heresy according to one’s certain (albeit subjective) opinion?

Take a look at this site: Heresy of popes (neo-Jansenist claims)

They claim that even St. Pius V was a heretic, giving arguments that are no more compelling than the Lefebvrist or Sedevacantist claims. They too claim to be the “real” remnant of ultra-traditional Catholicism. Read through their supposed “evidence.” It doesn’t sound very compelling, does it? And yet they are convinced by it.

Their fatal flaw is that they rely upon the primacy of the subjective conscience in interpreting Scripture and Tradition. That’s not Catholic. It is not the job of the Taught Church to claim for themselves that which belongs to the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him. Sola Traditio is just the flip side of sola Scriptura, and just as erroneous.

Yet, I really see no difference in their neo-Jansenist claims as applied to the post-Trent “Councilar Church” than the Lefevrists and Sedevacantist claims as applied to the post-Vatican II “Councilar Church.” Just because they can put forth “plausible” suspicion of heresy, doesn’t mean manifest heresy is proved.

Instead, I find it most certain, based upon the preponderance of evidence throughout all of Church history, that if one truly seeks to be Catholic, then they must first determine who the duly elected Roman Pontiff is, then seek to understand and submit to his mind and will in matters religious.

As another Church Doctor, St. Catherine of Siena affirmed, if it appears as though obedience to the Holy Father is indiscreet, it can only be a deceit of the devil.

Both disciplinary infallibility and the dogmatic fact that Benedict XVI is the duly elected successor of Peter are “theologically certain.” To reject either and still claim allegiance to traditional Catholic teaching is “double minded.”

I’m on most certain Catholic ground when I affirm that all the faithful must submit to the mind and will of the pope in all that he makes binding within the universal Church as dogma, doctrine, or discipline.

Every heretic and schismatic that ever departed from the Chair of Peter thought he was right–the true remnant–and the pope was wrong. It’s temerious to conclude that this time things are different: for 261 popes, those who departed from the mind and will of the pope WERE wrong, but with regard to the last FIVE popes, to disobey and/or dissent with them is to be truly Catholic.

If St. Robert is correct, to prove the last FIVE popes were not duly elected would take historical evidence that they were not duly elected. Using the principles common to the study of history, it is certain fact that Benedict XVI is the duly elected Roman Pontiff. Thus, this is therefore a dogmatic fact which is theologically certain.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

No, I don’t think that is correct either. Bellarmine examines the 5 possible opinions…1st opinion (that of Albert Pighius, The pope can never fall into heresy): "probable and easily defended"

I understand what he discussed in Bk 2. But later he “corrects himself” according to Bp. Gasser’s commentary, calling the opinion of Pighius regarding the impossibility of the pope falling into heresy, “certain.”

Bp. Gasser explicitly stated that it is the opinion of Pighius (cited in Bk 4, ch. 6) “which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.” [Vatican 1, Official Reltio of Bishop Vincent Gasser, delivered before the reverend Fathers of the First Vatican Council on 11 July 1870]

Now, I don’t know if Bp. Gasser is quoting or interpreting Bellearmin here. What do you think he means “adduces in the fourth place?” I think he is referring to what he states in Bk 4, ch. 6 regarding Pighius’ proposition, being “certain,” at least with regarding “the supreme Pontiff is not able to err as Pontiff.”

While I still haven’t received all of Bk 4, ch. 6, I do know that it is entitled: "De pontifice ut est particularis quaedam persona."**

I’m not an expert in Latin, but I think, based upon its title, the chapter is St. Robert’s defense or proof of the proposition of Pighius regarding the Pontiff, not only as pontiff, but even as a particular person. It’s not clear what Bp. Gasser means by “fourth place,” but isn’t it Bk 4, ch. 6 where Bellarmine “adduces” (ie. proves) Pighius’ opinion?

 

[AlexV]

Oh excuse me, “Arnobius”. I didn’t answer fast enough for your master’s degree self?

I would think someone with a master’s in theology could do better than interpret my posts as meaning “the pope isn’t legit”, which illustrates nicely that whatever program granted you a master’s degree, reading comprehension wasn’t part of the syllabus.

But oh well. You seem to think “credentials” come from how many manuals of theology you can cite.

I have 2 master’s degrees, one in philosophy and one in classical languages, and a doctorate in classical languages.

Happy now?

 

[SFD]

What if many other popes, even St. Pius V “appeared” to teach heresy according to one’s certain (albeit subjective) opinion?

Take a look at this site: Heresy of popes (neo-Jansenist claims)

They claim that even St. Pius V was a heretic, giving arguments that are no more compelling than the Lefebvrist or Sedevacantist claims. They too claim to be the “real” remnant of ultra-traditional Catholicism. Read through their supposed “evidence.” It doesn’t sound very compelling, does it? And yet they are convinced by it.

Their fatal flaw is that they rely upon the primacy of the subjective conscience in interpreting Scripture and Tradition. That’s not Catholic. It is not the job of the Taught Church to claim for themselves that which belongs to the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him. Sola Traditio is just the flip side of sola Scriptura, and just as erroneous.

Yet, I really see no difference in their neo-Jansenist claims as applied to the post-Trent “Councilar Church” than the Lefevrists and Sedevacantist claims as applied to the post-Vatican II “Councilar Church.” Just because they can put forth “plausible” suspicion of heresy, doesn’t mean manifest heresy is proved.

Instead, I find it most certain, based upon the preponderance of evidence throughout all of Church history, that if one truly seeks to be Catholic, then they must first determine who the duly elected Roman Pontiff is, then seek to understand and submit to his mind and will in matters religious.

As another Church Doctor, St. Catherine of Siena affirmed, if it appears as though obedience to the Holy Father is indiscreet, it can only be a deceit of the devil.

Both disciplinary infallibility and the dogmatic fact that Benedict XVI is the duly elected successor of Peter are “theologically certain.” To reject either and still claim allegiance to traditional Catholic teaching is “double minded.”

I’m on most certain Catholic ground when I affirm that all the faithful must submit to the mind and will of the pope in all that he makes binding within the universal Church as dogma, doctrine, or discipline.

Every heretic and schismatic that ever departed from the Chair of Peter thought he was right–the true remnant–and the pope was wrong. It’s temerious to conclude that this time things are different: for 261 popes, those who departed from the mind and will of the pope WERE wrong, but with regard to the last FIVE popes, to disobey and/or dissent with them is to be truly Catholic.

If St. Robert is correct, to prove the last FIVE popes were not duly elected would take historical evidence that they were not duly elected. Using the principles common to the study of history, it is certain fact that Benedict XVI is the duly elected Roman Pontiff. Thus, this is therefore a dogmatic fact which is theologically certain.

Dave,

I am familiar with the Jansenist’s arguments and I, like you, find them unconvincing. I am obviously not a Jansenist and I’ve battled them before. What you misunderstand is that I am not appealing to the first sources (Scripture and the Church Fathers) and then “doing my own theology”. This is exactly what Mr. Sparks, I believe, does at the site you mentioned.

I am quoting the Theologians themselves. I am quoting the Manualists. These sources explain Catholic Teaching and Doctrine. They explain the mind of the Church.
itsjustdave:

Both disciplinary infallibility and the dogmatic fact that Benedict XVI is the duly elected successor of Peter are “theologically certain.” To reject either and still claim allegiance to traditional Catholic teaching is “double minded.”

Disciplinary infallibility and dogmatic facts are CERTAIN. What is not certain is your claim that the papacy of Bendict XVI is a “dogmatic fact”. I dispute that claim of “fact”. I do not dispute “dogmatic facts” but what you say is a “dogmatic fact”.
itsjustdave:

I’m on most certain Catholic ground when I affirm that all the faithful must submit to the mind and will of the pope in all that he makes binding within the universal Church as dogma, doctrine, or discipline.

I agree. But you can’t just say this and claim it is proof for your position. The entire dispute is over whether JPII was and now Benedict is in fact a true Pope.

The issue is that the Mind of the Church appears to be in conflict with the minds of these last few claimants. We must conform to the Mind of the Church first, and then, if it is within our abilities, seek to explain why there is a difference.

SFD

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Except when said person rejects other’s objections by calling them ignorant and modernist etc, the ad hom is already flying.

Describing someone as ignorant (or any other “supposed pejorative”), without either previously having or directly making a case as to WHY they are ignorant is truly not a nice thing.

Was the charge of ignorance preceded or followed by an explanation of why ignorance might be an appropriate description?

But in his case, I think the adage is true:
Cum tacent, clamant. (When they are silent, they shout. --Cicero, Oratio in Catilinam I, 21:6)

He’s been pretty silent about this when called after insisting his knowledge was better than we who believe the Pope is legit, and I suspect he will not answer because he has nothing to back him up.

He is silent about gratuitously displaying his “creds” because they are irrelevent, and he’d rather allow you to make a “fool” of yourself in your impotent gesture.

Since you consider “creds” to be “of great importance” in support of your arguments, when in fact they are meaningless as they are simply irrelevent TO ANY argument in this venue, your trotting them out and demanding “satisfaction” and claiming some sort of “victory” in the appropriate silence of your “adversary” simply shows you having drawn your sword to duel in a room full of people who find that amusing because we know you can’t use your sword to actually injure anyone.

Since I agree with you that the Pope qua Pope can’t do “illegit” things, as to do them makes him a non-Pope, I’m probably on your side, but senseless pasta-bladed swashbuckling doesn’t serve anyone’s case particularly well.

Anyway, enjoying the show. Thanks for that.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

…
But oh well. You seem to think “credentials” come from how many manuals of theology you can cite.

I have 2 master’s degrees, one in philosophy and one in classical languages, and a doctorate in classical languages.

Happy now?

Nice nerf wacker-stick you’ got there!

I have a really good collection of fortune-cookie bits-o-paper, and an email subscription to “Daily Wisdom from Beatrice the Lab”!

Hey, I’ll take ANYBODY on!! Le’ me at’em! <grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!>

 

[Arnobius]

Oh excuse me, “Arnobius”. I didn’t answer fast enough for your master’s degree self?

I would think someone with a master’s in theology could do better than interpret my posts as meaning “the pope isn’t legit”, which illustrates nicely that whatever program granted you a master’s degree, reading comprehension wasn’t part of the syllabus.

But oh well. You seem to think “credentials” come from how many manuals of theology you can cite.

I have 2 master’s degrees, one in philosophy and one in classical languages, and a doctorate in classical languages.

Happy now?

Fine, except Classical Languages and Philosophy, while useful, do not meet your claims of knowing theology better than every one else. I know of Evangelical Protestants with similar degrees after all, and that does not make them right either

Keep in mind, the only reason I brought up my own degree was because you asked, and not to boast about my own knowledge (review my posts if you think I do boast)

Also, you seem to be confusing me with other people, as I was not the one citing manuals. However, I will say that whatever you may have meant, what you actually said indicated otherwise and any misinterpretations are the result of your own misphrasing

And, as always, you respond with insults and misrepresentations of what others actually say.

At any rate I see you do not have the credentials required to bully the other members with their “lack” of theological knowledge as you already have several times in many threads.

You may be able to read the works in the original language, but that does not guarantee you understand them in the sense the Church does

A degree is something to be used to assist others with the studies one has done, not use it as a club and say one knows more than everyone else on the boards as you have done.

 

[Arnobius]

Describing someone as ignorant (or any other “supposed pejorative”), without either previously having or directly making a case as to WHY they are ignorant is truly not a nice thing.

Was the charge of ignorance preceded or followed by an explanation of why ignorance might be an appropriate description?

Not to my reading. It seemed to be mere forum bullying. I have seen it a lot, where a person insists their own perspective is the only right one, and those who disagree don’t know anything.

He is silent about gratuitously displaying his “creds” because they are irrelevent, and he’d rather allow you to make a “fool” of yourself in your impotent gesture.

Since you consider “creds” to be “of great importance” in support of your arguments, when in fact they are meaningless as they are simply irrelevent TO ANY argument in this venue, your trotting them out and demanding “satisfaction” and claiming some sort of “victory” in the appropriate silence of your “adversary” simply shows you having drawn your sword to duel in a room full of people who find that amusing because we know you can’t use your sword to actually injure anyone.

Since I agree with you that the Pope qua Pope can’t do “illegit” things, as to do them makes him a non-Pope, I’m probably on your side, but senseless pasta-bladed swashbuckling doesn’t serve anyone’s case particularly well.

Anyway, enjoying the show. Thanks for that.

Under that circumstance I consider questions about what gives them the right to behave in a bullying way relevant. When one’s own expertise is claimed, a question on justifying the claim becomes as valid as questioning any other statement a person makes. Such a question is then not intended to boast of one’s own credentials (which I have not, and I invite you to show me where I have boasted over credentials as an ‘Argument from Authority’ instead of where I have responded to a direct question), but rather to ask the individual why he has the right to bully others based on his claims that he knows more than others.

I was responding to his claims in his posts, not to his personal credibility. I would have no interest in asking you or other members on this thread their own level of studies, because it is irrelevant to those posts. You and they are not claiming professional status for yourselves.

At any rate, my question has finally been answered to my satisfaction and I see no reason to belabor the point

 

[AlexV]

Too many people claim expertise in liturgy and/or theology who can’t read the sources in the original languages.

So-called theology and liturgy scholars who don’t know Latin and Greek (even Hebrew, for some work) must rely on translations to do their work. Such work is thus always suspect.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Under that circumstance I consider questions about what gives them the right to behave in a bullying way relevant.

You know, just “possibly” as an aside, this whole idea of “bullying” in a venue such as this seems too ridiculous to believe that it exists, as I’ve never EVER seen any “bullying” in here that couldn’t better be described as simply “incompetently wimpy defense” due to lack of knowledge of the subject matter on the part of the “bully-ee” (bullying “victim”) and simple vehement exposition of the “bully’s” part.

While it’s best to stimulate conversation by being charitable in focusing on helping your (conversation) partner understand things as you understand them, there’s also something to be said for being vehement about one’s beliefs.

When one’s own expertise is claimed, a question on justifying the claim becomes as valid as questioning any other statement a person makes. Such a question is then not intended to boast of one’s own credentials (which I have not, and I invite you to show me where I have boasted over credentials as an ‘Argument from Authority’ instead of where I have responded to a direct question), but rather to ask the individual why he has the right to bully others based on his claims that he knows more than others.

Once again, claiming expertise is a silly thing to do (as it’s not provable as such) and to request proof of the unprovable is just as silly, and merely serves to send the conversation off on an irrelevent tangent. Responding to silliness with silliness just makes the person who wasn’t being silly SILLY, which is probably not the effect the “responder” was after.

It may satisfy one’s ego to “humiliate” (which is the “hope” involved in trying to making one’s partner “be silly” AGAIN) your partner, but that’s not really why we’re here, is it?

So, blah blah blah no more blah blah responses on this subject from me as it’s making **me **look silly blah blah blah which I do well enough on my own without help from others thank you very much blah blah blah, blah.