The Real Presence

[Radical]

I thought you might want to expand your view based on known Eucharistic Miracles.

I have looked at a few of the miracles and remain unimpressed. this came up back at post #238…at that time I noted that every faith has their miraculous claims…and I don’t see the Eucharistic miracles as being in a superior class. I also can’t help but note how the miracles are grouped (wrt frequency) by century…smells a little fishy

You previously posted about “what about Bob and Martha” as the reasons for the Reformation. I ask you to look at the Eucharstic Miracles in general, in particular how that miracle aided the faithful of Croatia…I understand your concern for Bob and Martha. I ask you to consider the Eucharistic Miracles, particularly in Croatia and ask how that might have affected Andro, Ante, Franjo, Jadranka and the Bob and Martha of Croatia Baldo & Mare. What about them? This was real and not fiction

I am not at all convinced that they are real…but if they were real, then the CC has the opportunity to allow them to benefit millions of non-Catholics (and not just the Catholic faithful such as Andro, Ante, Franjo, Jadranka, Baldo & Marez). here is what I have proposed before:

1. pick the five Eucharistics miracles that enjoy the greatest confidence of Catholics;
2. run DNA tests on the flesh and/or blood samples from those five miracles;
3. the results should either:

a) prove to the rest of us that all the DNA samples came from a single person, a male semite to be precise; or

b) prove that the adherents are a gullible and mistaken lot (when it comes to Eucharistic miracles)

We have the technology, let’s do the test for the good of all of us…your Church has the opportunity, by way of independent scientific testing, to prove that God is working miracles wrt the Catholic Eucharist…that would go a long, long way in validating the Catholic claims wrt its Eucharist. (It would surely do it for me) Note, however, the emphasis on independent! Please don’t refer me to any tests conducted by Catholics (who are clearly out to prove the validity of their “miracle” w/o any independent checks on their methodology). If the Catholic claim of a RBP is true, and if the Eucharistic miracles are legitimate it would be shameful IMHO for the CC not to conduct these sorts of tests ASAP…millions of souls could be said to hang in the balance

 

[Trebor135]

I am currently typing a VERY lengthy reply to Radical’s interpretation on John 6. I was planning on doing this whether or not the topic was going to be brought up. I was planning on posting a new thread to post what I was planning on posting but since the topic has been brought up in this thread, I will post it here. I am still typing it on Microsoft Word and so far it is 10 pages long and I am not close to being done yet. The reply will not be directed towards Radical, but it will be for Catholics and Non-Catholics alike to see how the Catholic Church sees things. Although I did not make it a direct reply to Radical’s post, I do address the claim that Radical is making in his/her reply.

Stay tuned.

If you have a blog, put it up there for safekeeping, easier viewing, and greater space availability. And because some random guy on the Internet suggested it.

 

[Radical]

I am currently typing a VERY lengthy reply to Radical’s interpretation on John 6…so far it is 10 pages long and I am not close to being done yet.

You know, all the way through my 11 years at University I always had to stretch what I had to say so as to meet the required numbers of words for all the various term papers etc…I get the feeling that you have never been plagued by that problem

 

[lyrikal]

You know, all the way through my 11 years at University I always had to stretch what I had to say so as to meet the required numbers of words for all the various term papers etc…I get the feeling that you have never been plagued by that problem

Haha! When it comes to secular papers for school, I have the same problem as you. When it comes to faith topics, I can go on forever. I apolgoize for that. It isn’t something I am going to direct at you so you don’t need to read it let alone reply to it. It is something I have been wanting to write for several days now and since it has been brought up, the time and place seems fitting. Please do forgive me.

 

[lyrikal]

If you have a blog, put it up there for safekeeping, easier viewing, and greater space availability. And because some random guy on the Internet suggested it.

I don’t have a blog but that is a good idea. I will create a blog and post it there. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[lyrikal]

By the way Radical, if you don’t mind me asking, what did you study at the University?

 

[CopticChristian]

I have looked at a few of the miracles and remain unimpressed. this came up back at post #238…at that time I noted that every faith has their miraculous claims…and I don’t see the Eucharistic miracles as being in a superior class. I also can’t help but note how the miracles are grouped (wrt frequency) by century…smells a little fishy

I am not at all convinced that they are real…but if they were real, then the CC has the opportunity to allow them to benefit millions of non-Catholics (and not just the Catholic faithful such as Andro, Ante, Franjo, Jadranka, Baldo & Marez). here is what I have proposed before:

1. pick the five Eucharistics miracles that enjoy the greatest confidence of Catholics;
2. run DNA tests on the flesh and/or blood samples from those five miracles;
3. the results should either:

a) prove to the rest of us that all the DNA samples came from a single person, a male semite to be precise; or

b) prove that the adherents are a gullible and mistaken lot (when it comes to Eucharistic miracles)

We have the technology, let’s do the test for the good of all of us…your Church has the opportunity, by way of independent scientific testing, to prove that God is working miracles wrt the Catholic Eucharist…that would go a long, long way in validating the Catholic claims wrt its Eucharist. (It would surely do it for me) Note, however, the emphasis on independent! Please don’t refer me to any tests conducted by Catholics (who are clearly out to prove the validity of their “miracle” w/o any independent checks on their methodology). If the Catholic claim of a RBP is true, and if the Eucharistic miracles are legitimate it would be shameful IMHO for the CC not to conduct these sorts of tests ASAP…millions of souls could be said to hang in the balance

You amuse me. He died on the cross. Many witnessed it. He rose from the dead. Many still refused to believe.

You never witnessed the death, the resurrection and you believe. Now don’t that get all!

 

[CopticChristian]

You know, all the way through my 11 years at University I always had to stretch what I had to say so as to meet the required numbers of words for all the various term papers etc…I get the feeling that you have never been plagued by that problem

I am curious. I went to University for 8 years. What did you study for 11 years?

 

[Pitcharan]

I have looked at a few of the miracles and remain unimpressed. this came up back at post #238…at that time I noted that every faith has their miraculous claims…and I don’t see the Eucharistic miracles as being in a superior class. I also can’t help but note how the miracles are grouped (wrt frequency) by century…smells a little fishy

I am not at all convinced that they are real…

I suggest that you tell this to our Lord while praying and He will cause you to personally witness such a miracle and then believe.

I am suggesting it because, this is what I did.

 

[CopticChristian]

I have looked at a few of the miracles and remain unimpressed. this came up back at post #238…at that time I noted that every faith has their miraculous claims…and I don’t see the Eucharistic miracles as being in a superior class. I also can’t help but note how the miracles are grouped (wrt frequency) by century…smells a little fishy

I believe that you see Calvin, Luther, Zwingli in particular as sort of causing a miracle and that occured in a particular century and the likes of it have not been seen before or since, unless you consider the Jehovah Witness and the Mormons as part of the ongoing miracle. Smells fishy to me too.

 

[Trebor135]

Don’t bother .Somewhere someone did a study(have it somewhere and debunked even your 5000 It is propaganda

Who did that study?

Please read “How Many Protestant Denominations Are There? the 20,000 30,000 numbers and David Barrett’s statistics” and “Specific List of 5000+ Protestant Denominations by Name”.

there are 6-7 branches of Christianity .

Then why haven’t the different subgroups in one branch merged into one denomination?

It is David A. Barrett’s “World Christian Encyclopedia”.but “www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm” reviews his data.

I can’t access that link, but it appears from a Google search that the website was run by Eric Svendsen–who wouldn’t even consider me a Christian.

Uniformity at the cost of freedom of conscience, or truth ,or personal divine revelation, isn’t worth it and has never been part of God’s desire.

1. How do you know that “uniformity” on doctrine isn’t “worth it” or “part of God’s desire”?
2. Why defend Christianity as the one true religion and work for the conversion of souls at all? How is this not forcing “uniformity” on billions of people “at the cost of freedom of conscience, or truth ,or personal divine revelation”?
3. Why must Oneness Pentecostals accept the “fundamental” doctrine of the trinity to become Christian? How is this not forcing “uniformity” on tens of millions of people “at the cost of freedom of conscience, or truth ,or personal divine revelation”?

The attitude you espouse is not Christian; it’s moral relativism.

There was division with the bite of that apple to cain and abel to us ,and it doesn’t bother God’s plan.

That doesn’t mean God approves of it. Surely you aren’t saying that he was pleased with Adam and Eve’s disobedience?

A Christian ,whether he be catholic or orthodox or protestant ,are all unified. by one baptism. into His body,into Christ.

How can Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants be “unified” when they don’t even agree about what baptism does?

Even if we all believed the same thing ,we would still be divided , by what really divides us all-sin .

But all Christians can agree what acts are sinful. Or at least they could, until most Protestants and some Orthodox yielded on divorce and contraception.

We remain sinful because of the consequences of The Fall. We’re still divided over doctrine because many wish to pretend history away.

Don’t you have luke warm catholics and on fire catholics, strong ,weak, and drinking catholics and gambling catholics etc etc ,as in protestantism ? that is division also. That hurts/divides us all, ,just as division on let’s say RP or Mary’s Ascension etc.

Sure, but widespread nonpractice of the faith and sometimes egregiously sinful conduct don’t indicate that we should condone divisions over doctrine. To be consistent, shouldn’t we then tolerate abortion, homosexuality, premarital sex, and contraception, since they don’t ruin God’s plan anyway?

Quite a range of corrections I make. First one says we are rebels and have rejected all our previous history ,and all things Catholic, to where anything good we have is from Catholics.

I meant this: the fairly small number of “novel ideas” Luther proclaimed, such as sola fide, led him to treat “all previous Christian teaching” on those matters as irrelevant.

I am sure some early Jews also looked down on the new Jewish sect -Christianity,as if their developments of the original faith promise (Adam and Eve /Abraham etc.) were “it”, and could this new sect dared offer anything better-remember, “you are from us and our ancestors -you are a Nazarite, a carpenter, you have nothing new on us” is what they said .Again ,you assume, like the Jews ,that the faith handed down to you is a perfect ,pure faith ,as from the beginning. How many times did Jesus have to, not invent the wheel as the Jews thought ,but to bring them Back to the original intent, “from the beginning”. So anything that Catholicism has ,that is from the beginning, hopefully protestants aspire to and retain.

You assume that Protestantism came first. This is unproven.

Beliefs we both hold about the afterlife and the ultimate resurrection of the dead developed throughout the Old Testament period as well. We read little about such matters until the New Testament.

During Jesus’ day (as I’ve read), the Sadducees rejected such doctrines as unscriptural, while the Pharisees accepted them as traditional. Why do you side with the Catholic/Orthodox-leaning Pharisees and not the Protestantizing Sadducees on these points?

Disagree,that the main authority(for creeds or councils) was “themselves” ? We both agree to written ,and we both acknowledge oral, just put different emphasis on oral .I thought that was the whole point for creeds ,to bring into alignment the oral developments .

They proclaimed, summarized, and protected already-held beliefs. Heretics were made to understand that they had no chance of remaking the faith in their own image, Luther-style.

I can’t believe that a letter by Iraneus was as authoratative as the epistle of John ., or that tradition done in Africa was as authoratative as the book of Hebrews.Notice I ackowledge ECF’s and tradition /oral , just not on par with Scripture.

When did I, e.g., claim Irenaeus was “on par with” a letter of John? Catholics and Orthodox will employ the writings of the Early Church Fathers to demonstrate that specifically Protestant beliefs were absent from theChristian scene until 1,500 years after Christ.

 

[CopticChristian]

Who did that study?

Please read “How Many Protestant Denominations Are There? the 20,000 30,000 numbers and David Barrett’s statistics” and “Specific List of 5000+ Protestant Denominations by Name”.

Then why haven’t the different subgroups in one branch merged into one denomination?

I can’t access that link, but it appears from a Google search that the website was run by Eric Svendsen–who wouldn’t even consider me a Christian.

1. How do you know that “uniformity” on doctrine isn’t “worth it” or “part of God’s desire”?
2. Why defend Christianity as the one true religion and work for the conversion of souls at all? How is this not forcing “uniformity” on billions of people “at the cost of freedom of conscience, or truth ,or personal divine revelation”?
3. Why must Oneness Pentecostals accept the “fundamental” doctrine of the trinity to become Christian? How is this not forcing “uniformity” on tens of millions of people “at the cost of freedom of conscience, or truth ,or personal divine revelation”?

The attitude you espouse is not Christian; it’s moral relativism.

That doesn’t mean God approves of it. Surely you aren’t saying that he was pleased with Adam and Eve’s disobedience?

How can Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants be “unified” when they don’t even agree about what baptism does?

But all Christians can agree what acts are sinful. Or at least they could, until most Protestants and some Orthodox yielded on divorce and contraception.

We remain sinful because of the consequences of The Fall. We’re still divided over doctrine because many wish to pretend history away.

Sure, but widespread nonpractice of the faith and sometimes egregiously sinful conduct don’t indicate that we should condone divisions over doctrine. To be consistent, shouldn’t we then tolerate abortion, homosexuality, premarital sex, and contraception, since they don’t ruin God’s plan anyway?

I meant this: the fairly small number of “novel ideas” Luther proclaimed, such as sola fide, led him to treat “all previous Christian teaching” on those matters as irrelevant.

You assume that Protestantism came first. This is unproven.

Beliefs we both hold about the afterlife and the ultimate resurrection of the dead developed throughout the Old Testament period as well. We read little about such matters until the New Testament.

During Jesus’ day (as I’ve read), the Sadducees rejected such doctrines as unscriptural, while the Pharisees accepted them as traditional. Why do you side with the Catholic/Orthodox-leaning Pharisees and not the Protestantizing Sadducees on these points?

They proclaimed, summarized, and protected already-held beliefs. Heretics were made to understand that they had no chance of remaking the faith in their own image, Luther-style.

When did I, e.g., claim Irenaeus was “on par with” a letter of John? Catholics and Orthodox will employ the writings of the Early Church Fathers to demonstrate that specifically Protestant beliefs were absent from theChristian scene until 1,500 years after Christ.

I like pictures. I uploaded some diagrams that illustrate these words. I included the mixed up split P’s the Presbyterian family tree for example.

 

[benedictus2]

IMHO this (what I have emboldened) is one of the greatest misconceptions concerning what happened that day. It appears to occur b/c modern Catholics (around here) simply do not take into account the perspective of that first century Jewish audience. There is no need for Christ to explain that he was speaking figuratively b/c there would have been only three ways that the Jewish audience could have understood him on that day:

How does that exactly preclude the necessity for Christ to explain Himself if indeed He was speaking figuratively?

a) they could have thought that he was speaking literally (which would have been cannibalism and not transubstantive eating)…

That is exactly how they understood it. They thought they were being asked to do just that. Read the text. That is exactly their objection and that is why they left.

but I doubt many, if any, would have held that understanding b/c it would mean that Christ was saying that they must kill and eat him (that would have been understood as being too improbable to actually be his meaning)

And that argument is not borne out by the text. If you are going to make an explanation it has to be supported by the text.

b) they could have thought that his words were extremely offensive nonsense (this would be the position of those who left)

And it was offensive. They had no idea how he would do it so your points B and A go together. They knew he was speaking literally and they found that offensive,

c) they could have thought that he was speaking figuratively (using an extremely offensive figure), but nevertheless believed that his words contained truth b/c he was the Son of God (this would have been the position of Peter et al)

Nope. There was nothing that indicates that at all.

Here’s a tip. If you are going to surmise, first of all ground it on the text, then if not in the text ground it on historical fact.

Point C is supported neither by the text, nor historical fact.

What option wasn’t even on the table to consider that day was that he was talking about some miraculous manner of eating that allowed one to consume a whole body in one bite w/o teeth ever touching flesh, bone or hair. These were first century Jews.

Top marks for understanding. And that is precisely why they left.

They were absolutely unaware that the Last Supper would be held some time in the future.

Exactly! That is why all Peter could say when they were asked if they would leave our Lord too, was to whom shall we go? It was like, if there was some other Rabbi out there who was like Jesus they probably would have packed up and left as well. But “ to whom shall we go. You have the words of eternal life”, so they stayed.

And here is an interesting thing.

That discourse would have happened one Passover before the Last Supper.

Read all the accounts of the last supper in the synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke).

When Jesus went a different tangent and started talking “This is my body… eat, my blood … drink”. There was no hooha from the group! He had just said something so mind boggling and so very un-orthodox and no one made so much as a beep.

Why? I think because the penny must have dropped.

They would have thought back to that previous pass over and the discourse about eating his flesh and drinking his blood,.

If you read John by itself, this discourse makes no sense because here He is telling them to eat his body and yet not giving them the wherewithal to do so.

And if you read the synoptics as well, by themselves, they equally do not make sense. Here He is telling them to eat His flesh and drink His blood… for what? What was the whole point of all that ?

The only time it makes sense is when you piece them together. Then it all makes sense.

 

[benedictus2]

CONTINUATION OF POST

They were absolutely unaware that a transubstantial mode of existence was even possible.

Correct. So what? Whether they were aware or not does not in anyway affect the reasoning behind their departure.

It is not as if the proverbial light would pop on with this sort of epiphany: "Oh now I get it…you know if he had only said it once or twice I would have missed his meaning, but since he said it four or five times and used graphic words, it has become clear as day.

Who said it was to make it clear as day? He repeated it to reiterate exactly what he meant. The disciples were already murmuring and He knew what their problem was. But instead of clarifying or softening His tone, He made it worse. He changed from phagein to trogein, from eat to gnaw to make sure that they got exactly what He was saying. He was NOT explaining, He was EMPHASIZING.

obviously, he is talking about a requirement that we actually eat his flesh, but we will do so by way of a miraculous presence whereby his flesh is really present, but not materially present…

His flesh is really present but not materially present? Don’t you know that the very word flesh means material? So you are saying that the material is really present but not materially present? What sort of convoluted thinking is that?

His presence is exactly that miraculous (or more precisely a mystery) because the Eucharist is really Him and yet our senses don’t quite grasp it.

You know, ten minutes ago such a thing hadn’t even entered my consciousness as a possiblility ( it was right up there with nuclear weaponry, which I haven’t envisioned yet either), but now it is plain as day! Undoubtedly, he’ll introduce a ritual where we are to do that fantastic eating. Now of course, when he said “flesh” he didn’t really mean flesh, b/c we are actually supposed to eat all of him and not just his flesh…we are to eat his whole body (well technically, it wouldn’t just be his body either, b/c that wouldn’t include his head, and he means that we are to eat him fully and not just partially). Oh my, that is disgusting. That is a hard requirement…I’m leaving." Nothing like that came close to happening. No Jew that day even began to contemplate the type of eating that Catholics believes happens at their Eucharist. If the Catholic understanding was Christ’s meaning, then that is the explanation that is missing and yet, was vitally necessary. What Christ didn’t explain that day was what his figure of speech meant…but his failure to do that didn’t result in the loss of anyone that the Father had given to him.

And sarcasm does not get you out of the fact that you your exegesis is not supported by Scripture nor by history. It is a work of fiction and not even a fine fiction at that.

Likewise at the last supper, there was no need to explain that he was speaking symbolically. That is the only way the disciples could have understood him.

Oh really? Here he was saying “This is my Body” and that is the only way the disciples could have understood him? And where is your support for that?

They could see that nothing had changed with the bread…it was still bread.

Again, where is your proof that because they see this bread, they could only have understood that He meant it symbolically?

Furthermore, what was the whole point of that? Neither before or after this event, is there anything in the text that makes sense of this sudden departure from Passover rite. It is not like every now and again someone says at Passover – this is my body eat it, this is my blood drink it.

That the bread had also become his body is something that would not have occured to them…

I don’t think they fully grasped the significance of it at that time. It would have only been through their meditating on what has happened that they would have grasped it. But it certainly would have happened during their time because St Paul writes about it.

no more so than when he said that any one who did his Father’s will was his mother etc. No one in that audience would have thought, “Hey, if I do God’s will the substance of my body will be transformed into the substance of Mary’s body.”

That was clearly figurative . And notice, no one questioned it. Jews knew when He was speaking figuratively and they also knew when He was speaking literally.

If in fact Christ had actually been talking about the bread really changing into his body, then that is the explanation that is both missing and vital

It wasn’t missing. He provided that BEFORE the last supper - one Passover prior - during the discourse on the Bread of Life.

 

[david_ruiz]

Provide chapter and verse that the bible was primarily meant to unify “liturgy”

 

[david_ruiz]

I was listening to Catholic radio today and heard on the coming home radio show a fellow who was a Sunday School teacher, plays guitar, did not get his name. The point of this is though after discussing John 6, what really got him turned around he said was when he studied the early liturgy of the Church.

Today any person can walk into a Church and ask, may I join in communion. Only in the Catholic Church will there be questions, I believe.

In the early Church this gentleman said that at the completion of the liturgy of the word, the catechumens left.

Focusing on what was meant in writing is OK, perhaps a look at what was done in practice might be fruitful as well.

I was challenged to read the early church ,Catholics thinking it would lead me their way .It all depends what time frame you mean .There is a lot of catholic stuff as time progresses say 300-400. BUT very little the first hundred yeras .Why is it in Acts people who wanted to be Christain were baptized Immediately after hearing the gospel and believing .Immediately .This waiting around stuff was a perversion of the Gospel . It doesn’t even make sense from Catholic sense ,for the catechumens are regarded as "believers ", just not baptized , yet one is born again ,regenerated, at baptism . How to you believe the gospel if you are not spiritually alive ? Are you saying ,against Paul’s teachings, that there is something good in us ,apart from his salvation, in the old man ? Again ,many remained catechumens (postponed baptism) till there deathbed almost, to avoid penance/confession, and be reall clean , as one is after “baptism”.Don’t you find that yucky ? I wouldn’t necesarily base RP on such “conditions” or take later writings with a grain of salt.

 

[david_ruiz]

I knew you wouldn’t be able to support your claim.

It’s always been like that with you.

Wrong I support my claim ,not the one you want me to.

 

[CopticChristian]

CONTINUATION OF POST

Correct. So what? Whether they were aware or not does not in anyway affect the reasoning behind their departure.

Who said it was to make it clear as day? He repeated it to reiterate exactly what he meant. The disciples were already murmuring and He knew what their problem was. But instead of clarifying or softening His tone, He made it worse. He changed from phagein to trogein, from eat to gnaw to make sure that they got exactly what He was saying. He was NOT explaining, He was EMPHASIZING.

His flesh is really present but not materially present? Don’t you know that the very word flesh means material? So you are saying that the material is really present but not materially present? What sort of convoluted thinking is that?

His presence is exactly that miraculous (or more precisely a mystery) because the Eucharist is really Him and yet our senses don’t quite grasp it.

And sarcasm does not get you out of the fact that you your exegesis is not supported by Scripture nor by history. It is a work of fiction and not even a fine fiction at that.

Oh really? Here he was saying “This is my Body” and that is the only way the disciples could have understood him? And where is your support for that?

Again, where is your proof that because they see this bread, they could only have understood that He meant it symbolically?

Furthermore, what was the whole point of that? Neither before or after this event, is there anything in the text that makes sense of this sudden departure from Passover rite. It is not like every now and again someone says at Passover – this is my body eat it, this is my blood drink it.

I don’t think they fully grasped the significance of it at that time. It would have only been through their meditating on what has happened that they would have grasped it. But it certainly would have happened during their time because St Paul writes about it.

That was clearly figurative . And notice, no one questioned it. Jews knew when He was speaking figuratively and they also knew when He was speaking literally.

It wasn’t missing. He provided that BEFORE the last supper - one Passover prior - during the discourse on the Bread of Life.

Prepare to counter Radical’s view by the use of Tertullian and what Radical believes was happening in Alexandria and Carthage.

 

[CopticChristian]

I was challenged to read the early church ,Catholics thinking it would lead me their way .It all depends what time frame you mean .There is a lot of catholic stuff as time progresses say 300-400. BUT very little the first hundred yeras .Why is it in Acts people who wanted to be Christain were baptized Immediately after hearing the gospel and believing .Immediately .This waiting around stuff was a perversion of the Gospel . It doesn’t even make sense from Catholic sense ,for the catechumens are regarded as "believers ", just not baptized , yet one is born again ,regenerated, at baptism . How to you believe the gospel if you are not spiritually alive ? Are you saying ,against Paul’s teachings, that there is something good in us ,apart from his salvation, in the old man ? Again ,many remained catechumens (postponed baptism) till there deathbed almost, to avoid penance/confession, and be reall clean , as one is after “baptism”.Don’t you find that yucky ? I wouldn’t necesarily base RP on such “conditions” or take later writings with a grain of salt.

Where in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence of the United States do we find anything about Green Cards, taking classes for citizenship and swearing allegiance to the United States in order to become a citizen?

 

[Radical]

By the way Radical, if you don’t mind me asking, what did you study at the University?

I am curious. I went to University for 8 years. What did you study for 11 years?

Study? Why ruin a really good time? I seem to recall a lot of history courses and I am able write 7 letters after my name…if I was ever so inclined.