The Universal Church

[mcq72]

The Catholic Church sees that section, as participating in the mass

yes, it is about meeting together ( you say mass, I say service etc)…

Based on the consequences described, It’s a command

consequences for what? I explained in detail the two possibilities, your skipping a mass, or spurning the God/Christ of our faith, and leaving church altogether, back to Judaism…We dont disagree on what meeting together is, we differ on what spurning God is, what spurning His sacrifice is.

IOW Love requires obedience to His commands. Otherwise a “said” love is a dead love. .

Agree, and why I think the big stick consequences is another type of dead love, obedience not out of love but fear of punishment.

are you wanting to argue Protestant theology with Jesus over this ( eucharist)some day?

Already have.

How Jesus answered that in Lk 22…

?

 

[mcq72]

Mighty strong words for the neglect of an unnecessary, symbolic gathering.

Paul makes zero mention of this eucharistic advantage, rather the advantage is the fellowship with one another, in Him, the encouragement of one another to another…he does not say assemble together to eucharist, but assemble to bless one another, encourage one another.

Perhaps i see this encouragement in another part of liturgy or service, because it seems at Mass communion seems a very private and personal encounter with Christ, though in a corporate setting. Encouraging one another seems more corporate, like one praising God, thanking God…a sacrifice for sin is a more somber thing, in my opinion.

Again Paul does not mention eucharist at meeting in this text, but of interaction with other believers in encouragement.( i would not focus his text to communion, but to entire mass/ service…singing, praising, confessing, prophecy, scripture reading etc., not just communion.)

No, he explained it. What you need to do is compare your understanding of it to the consequences which St. Paul has listed for those who neglect this gathering.

Well, do you really think it consequential warning to people skipping service because they went to a football game, or went camping, or for people who only go to mass say 38 times a year instead of 52 times a year?..or is Paul talking about people who went back to sabbath and synagogue, or people who leave faith entirely, etc?, and really “forsake the assembling”?

 

[lanman87]

says who?

Pretty much ever Protestant Theologian.

There are people who (neglect to meet) on judgement Day as is the habit of some? Really !

No, you can infer that they are talking about Sunday (or maybe Saturday night). A paraphrase could be: “Don’t neglect meeting together on Sunday, as is the habit of some, but encouraging each other, even more as the day of judgement approaches.”

Re: sacrifice HERE

Needless to say, I disagree with the writer of that article. The one for all sacrifice of Christ was His death, burial and resurrection. The Last Supper was Christ changing the Passover Meal from remembering and celebrating and giving thanks for the Passover in Exodus to remembering and celebrating and giving thanks for what He was about to do on the cross. He was telling His disciples that He was about to give Himself up for mankind and that they are to “Do this in remembrance of me”. That is, to do this as a reminder of what Christ went through on the behalf of mankind.

 

[lanman87]

Ignatius wrote 6 letters to the Catholic Church in 6 locations.

First, There is a disagreement among historians and linguist as to the authenticity of those letters. Some believe all the letters are forgeries. Some believe the six you mention are authentic but were edited by someone later to reflect medieval thought. And some believe that are genuine letters that are more or less the same as the original writings. See Phill Schaff’s Introduction to the Epistles of Ignatius

Second, in the New Testament Bishop, Presbyter and Elder are all the same office. Ignatius separating the office of Bishop and Presbyter/Elder is a new innovation. It may very well be that by the time Ignatius wrote these letters that the Bishop had become what we would call the “Senior Pastor” and the Presbyters/Elders are under-shepherds. But when Hebrews was written the office of Bishop/Elder/Presbyter was all one and the same.

Third, (if you believe the letters are authentic and unedited) then you have to remember that Ignatius is not an Apostle and his letters are not scripture. Ignatius is giving his opinion. It is an opinion filtered through his experiences as a bishop and it is obvious he felt he didn’t get the respect he deserved from some people. Catholics creating doctrine from what Ignatius (or any other church father) said is no different than a Baptist creating doctrine from what Billy Graham says. Billy Graham was a well respected Baptist Preacher, Evangelist and Writer. However, you will not find a Baptist that says Billy Graham was infallible and “Just because he said it then it must be true”. In the same way, when we read the early church fathers and theologians (or any theologian) we must remember they are giving their opinions and speculations, that they are fallible men, and that just because they say something doesn’t mean it is true.

The fact that he was taught by John (if it is indeed more than legend) doesn’t mean he is infallible and his teachings can’t be scrutinized.

 

[lanman87]

By one offering He made perfect. Are you perfect?

This referring to the great exchange. Where we exchange our sin for Christ perfection through His sacrifice on our behalf.

Philippians 3:12Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect:

Why wasn’t he perfect by the once for all sacrifice of Christ?

b. Those who are being made holy. This is sanctification.

We strive to become Holy, to run the race, to become in our flesh what we already are in our Spirit because of the Sacrifice of Christ.

True. We have a need for a priest to offer the ONCE FOR ALL TIME sacrifice on our behalf.

Where does the Bible say that?
What Apostle taught that?

The Bible actually says that Christ isn’t offered repeatedly and He isn’t in a Holy place made with hands (like the tabernacle where the elements are kept in the Catholic church).

24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Hebrews 9:24-27

Christ body is not being broken over and over again, His body doesn’t dwell in “Holy places made by men”, He doesn’t suffer repeatedly, and He appeared once for all (not over and over again in the form of bread and wine).

Hebrews 13:10We have an altar

The alter is Christ himself. Not an alter in a tabernacle where the blood of animals are shed.

What sacrifice do we bring to this alter?

Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. 13:15

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice , holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Romans 12:1

 

[lanman87]

Mighty strong words for the neglect of an unnecessary, symbolic gathering.

No, Mighty strong language to those who go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth

26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

There is a paragraph break in my Bible between 25 and 26 which indicates a new thought. You’re conflating “not neglecting to meet” with “deliberately going on sinning”. The text joins “go on sinning” and the knowledge of the truth (the Gospel message). In other words, when you hear the Gospel message (the knowledge of truth) and deliberately go on sinning then you fall under judgement.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

By one offering He made perfect. Are you perfect?

This referring to the great exchange. Where we exchange our sin for Christ perfection through His sacrifice on our behalf.

When did this happen for you? This takes place, for us, in the Sacraments. Beginning with Baptism.

Philippians 3:12Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect:

Why wasn’t he perfect by the once for all sacrifice of Christ?

b. Those who are being made holy. This is sanctification.

We strive to become Holy, to run the race, to become in our flesh what we already are in our Spirit because of the Sacrifice of Christ.

Not an answer to the question I asked. If you are now perfect because Christ died on the Cross, why did St. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, say that he was not?

Where does the Bible say that?
What Apostle taught that?

The Church which Christ established to Teach all that He commanded, says that. Remember, we don’t go by the Bible alone. You do.

And remember also, that this was taught by the Early Church.

This is Clement of Rome:

In 1 Clement 40 we read about Christian priesthood.
Since, therefore, these things are now clear to us and we have searched into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do, in order, everything that the Master has commanded us to perform at the appointed times. (2) Now he commanded the offerings and services to be performed diligently, and not to be done carelessly or in disorder, but at designated times and seasons. (3) Both where and by whom he wants them to be performed, he himself has determined by his supreme will, so that all things, being done devoutly according to his good pleasure, might be acceptable to his will. (4) Those, therefore, who make their offerings at the appointed times are acceptable and blessed: for those who follow the instructions of the Master cannot go wrong. (5) For to the high priest the proper services have been given, and to the priests the proper office has been assigned, and upon the Levites the proper ministries have been imposed. The layman is bound by the layman’s rules. [Holmes, 73]

Excerpt from the Sacred Page.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

The Bible actually says that Christ isn’t offered repeatedly

That’s Catholic Teaching. Christ sacrificed Himself, once for all time. Christ offered Himself, once for all time.

The Mass is His sacrifice. Look what St. Paul says many years after Christ was sacrificed on the Cross.

1 Corinthians 5:7 … For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8 Therefore let us keep the feast, …

What are we feasting upon in the Mass? On Christ’s sacrifice.

and He isn’t in a Holy place made with hands (like the tabernacle where theelements are kept in the Catholic church).

So, according to Protestant doctrine, Jesus Christ is at the right hand of the Father and can’t be anywhere else. So, when two of you come together in His name, he isn’t there with you. Is that correct?

Yes, we believe is there in our Temple because He declared that the Bread is His Body and the Wine is His Blood.

So, to harmonize the Scripture, Jesus Christ is not entering a Temple made by human hands to offer Himself to the Father. He is doing that in the Temple in heaven. That is why Scripture says:

Revelation 5:6And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Jesus Christ is still offering Himself to God, because His offering is once for all time.

24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Hebrews 9:24-27

Thanks for posting that. See my explanation above.

Christ body is not being broken over and over again, His body doesn’t dwell in “Holy places made by men”, He doesn’t suffer repeatedly, and He appeared once for all (not over and over again in the form of bread and wine).

That is Catholic Teaching. Here’s the part you guys miss. To you, apparently, sacrifice means “kill”. Correct me if I’m wrong. You say, “Jesus was sacrificed. He was killed. It is done.”

But that’s not the Biblical sense of sacrifice. Look at 1 Cor 5:7-8, again. Jesus’ sacrifice is a particular kind. It is a “passover”. What happens at a Passover?

1. The lamb is sacrificed. That’s just the first part.
2. The lamb is eaten. That’s the second and final part.

Jesus is the Lamb of God. He is our Christian Passover. He offered Himself on the Cross. We consume His Body and Blood for the rest of eternity.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

The alter is Christ himself. Not an alter in a tabernacle where the blood of animals are shed.

Scripture says that we have an altar where upon we eat Jesus.

Heb 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.

We have an altar, upon which the Jews may not eat their sacrifices of animals.

12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

But Jesus, whose body and blood is brought in to the sanctuary, is offered upon this altar.

Besides, all the Churches from the time of Christ, has had an altar. You can verify this by looking at the all the ancient Churches. Even Lutherans still have an altar. But, some Proetestants have removed it.

What sacrifice do we bring to this alter?

The once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. 13:15

It’s the same Sacrifice. Thats why it’s called the Eucharist. We offer the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ upon that altar and we give God the glory.

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice , holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Romans 12:1

We do that too. We unite ourselves to the Eucharist. Have you not read in Scripture:

Galatians 2:20I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

 

[lanman87]

Not an answer to the question I asked. If you are now perfect because Christ died on the Cross, why did St. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, say that he was not?

He was speaking of his flesh and his physical life. Spiritually, he was already justified by faith.

So, according to Protestant doctrine, Jesus Christ is at the right hand of the Father and can’t be anywhere else. So, when two of you come together in His name, he isn’t there with you. Is that correct?

No, I was taught the Christ glorified physical body is at the right hand of God and He (in physical form) will one day come again. And that He is now Spiritually present in us and with us by the indwelling Holy Spirit. He is physically next to the Father but He is Spiritually omnipresent.

We consume His Body and Blood for the rest of eternity.

We feast on Christ by seeking after Him, we devour Him by listening to (and reading) the Word, we chew on Him by pondering and understanding who He is and what He has done for us, and we digest Him by faith.

Besides, all the Churches from the time of Christ, has had an altar.

That doesn’t mean they considered the Eucharist an actual Sacrifice of Christ.

It’s the same Sacrifice. Thats why it’s called the Eucharist. We offer the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ upon that altar and we give God the glory.

Except, it doesn’t say that the sacrifice of praise is the Eucharist, it says it is the fruit of lips that acknowledge His name. Your inserting the Eucharist where the Bible doesn’t.

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

One of my favorite scriptures. How does Christ live in me? By the Holy Spirit that testifies that I’m a child of God. Not because I ate a piece of Christ body.

 

[steve-b]

So why in Jesus day, did they the Jews in Judea, not have a unified canon?

mcq72:

not sure what you mean. How many canons were ther in Judea ?

Actually, in Jesus day, the Jews had no “official” canon of their books. It was a loose understanding of writings THEY in Jerusalem had vs those in the diaspora

Jews in the Diaspora, were way more in numbers than those in Judea, had a different canon written in Greek.

mcq72:

Is the Septuagints tantamount to a bible as we speak of today ? I thought it was for pagan king who wanted/collected religious writings from many sources, including Jewish writings. Religious writings can be scriptural writings and non scriptural yet religious writing.

Since There was no “bible” OT or NT, till the Church settled the canon, the Septuagint contained all the Jewish writings those in Jerusalem read from, + other books they in Jerusalem didn’t read from.

And

as I provided in an earlier link, the NT referenced writings from the Septuagint, and in extension, yes those books the Jews in Jerusalem didn’t read from.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Ignatius wrote 6 letters to the Catholic Church in 6 locations.

First, There is a disagreement among historians and linguist as to the authenticity of those letters. Some believe all the letters are forgeries. Some believe the six you mention are authentic but were edited by someone later to reflect medieval thought. And some believe that are genuine letters that are more or less the same as the original writings. See Phill Schaff’s Introduction to the Epistles of Ignatius

spurious works are clearly identified. Those letters are NOT spurious

AND

Schaff, a Protestant, has his own biases introduced via footnoting.

Example:

When He translates Bishop Irenaeus,

Irenaeus writes

In Irenaeus [Against Heresies] Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 2, Schaff admits to trying to find a less damaging phrase than “pre eminent authority” when referring to the Church of Rome, compared to all other churches… Schaff, clearly isn’t comfortable with this language of Irenaeus. He admits real difficulty reading this. So he tries to dismiss what Irenaeus writes through footnoting.

here’s the footnote (excerpted)

3313 The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better.…

Catch that?

Schaff, a Protestant, is trying to find a way to take that point away. It skewers his position as a Protestant.

AND

Irenaeus in time, is one man away from the apostle John. I say it that way because, Irenaeus knew Bp Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of John the apostle.

lanman87:

Second, in the New Testament Bishop, Presbyter and Elder are all the same office. Ignatius separating the office of Bishop and Presbyter/Elder is a new innovation.

Ignatius was bishop in ~68 a.d. Ergo before he was ordained, he knew many of the apostles. What he wrote about in his letters was what he learned from the apostles, and in particular John .

lanman87:

Third, (if you believe the letters are authentic and unedited) then you have to remember that Ignatius is not an Apostle and his letters are not scripture. Ignatius is giving his opinion.
[snip for space]
The fact that he was taught by John (if it is indeed more than legend) doesn’t mean he is infallible and his teachings can’t be scrutinized.

When he wrote, Ignatius was under arrest. He knew, he was on his way to be thrown to the lions. He even asked the Church of Rome in his letter to them, not to save him from this fate. Given his coming fate, he would NOT conflate, twist, or mess with the truth he had been taught directly by the apostles

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Not an answer to the question I asked. If you are now perfect because Christ died on the Cross, why did St. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, say that he was not?

He was speaking of his flesh and his physical life. Spiritually, he was already justified by faith.

Where does he make that distinction? You are reading that into his words. Either that or you will be able to show me from Scripture.

So, according to Protestant doctrine, Jesus Christ is at the right hand of the Father and can’t be anywhere else. So, when two of you come together in His name, he isn’t there with you. Is that correct?

No, I was taught the Christ glorified physical body is at the right hand of God

And, someone taught you that his glorified physical body could be no where else. Otherwise, you would not deny that Jesus Christ could be in the Holy Eucharist. So, who taught you to claim that Jesus’ glorified body could only be in one place at a time?

and He (in physical form) will one day come again.

He comes to us every time we have Mass.

And that He is now Spiritually present in us and with us by the indwelling Holy Spirit. He is physically next to the Father but He is Spiritually omnipresent.

But He says that the Bread is His Body and the Wine is His Blood. Thus, He says that He is physically present in the Holy Eucharist.

We feast on Christ by seeking after Him, we devour Him by listening to (and reading) the Word, we chew on Him by pondering and understanding who He is and what He has done for us, and we digest Him by faith.

All of that is good, no doubt. But He said that you need to devour His Flesh and His Blood:

John 6:53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

That doesn’t mean they considered the Eucharist an actual Sacrifice of Christ.

Yes. It does.

Except, it doesn’t say that the sacrifice of praise is the Eucharist,

It, doesn’t say that it isn’t.

it says it is the fruit of lips that acknowledge His name. Your inserting the Eucharist where the Bible doesn’t.

Not inserting it. Recognizing it. The Apostle who wrote that verse expects you to recognize that Jesus Christ offered His Sacrifice of Bread and Wine simultaneously giving thanks and praise to God.

Luke 22:19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

The author expected you to recognize that the offering of bread and wine is the offering of Melchizedek, which is known as the “thank” offering. Todah in Hebrew. Eucharist in Greek.

One of my favorite scriptures. How does Christ live in me? By the Holy Spirit that testifies that I’m a child of God. Not because I ate a piece of Christ body.

That’s what you say. Here’s what Jesus says:

John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

 

[lanman87]

Either that or you will be able to show me from Scripture.

I could but that topic has been beaten to death on this board and we would just go around and around.

So, who taught you to claim that Jesus’ glorified body could only be in one place at a time?

Where does scripture say that His physical body is omnipresent? Why do you believe His physical body is omnipresent? Is it possible for a physical body to be in more than one place at a time?

But He says that the Bread is His Body and the Wine is His Blood.

When He said “This is my body…” He was holding the bread and wine in his hands. Don’t you think that means He was speaking figuratively?

Jesus also said that He is a door, that He is light, that He is the true vine… Was he being literal in those statements as well?

Psalm 34:8 says Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good!
Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!

Is Psalm 34:8 speaking literally or figuratively?

The fact is, the Bible often uses ingestive language as a figurative way of showing our relationship with the Lord. See Hebrews 5:14, Psalm 119:103, Psalm 63:5, 1 Peter 2:2-3

If all those examples are figurative then why should I believe Christ was being literal and not using a metaphor to demonstrate a spiritual truth?

The Apostle who wrote that verse expects you to recognize that Jesus Christ offered His Sacrifice of Bread and Wine simultaneously giving thanks and praise to God.

So you know what the Apostles were thinking, instead of simply reading what they said? That smacks of “putting words into their mouth” to me.

 

[lanman87]

Catch that?

Schaff, a Protestant, is trying to find a way to take that point away. It skewers his position as a Protestant.

Actually it bolsters his position as being unbiased. He admits what current translators say it means and doesn’t just make something up as a different translation. If he were really biased he would have said, “But it really means…” and put something else as the translation.

 

[mcq72]

Actually, in Jesus day, the Jews had no “official” canon of their books. It was a loose understanding of writings THEY in Jerusalem had vs those in the diaspora

Well, i thought Hebrew and Greek scripture were simultaneously held in Jerusalem and diaspora.

as I provided in an earlier link, the NT referenced writings from the Septuagint, and in extension, yes those books the Jews in Jerusalem didn’t read from.

Would have to reread. Was stuck by how would one determine whether something is from Hebrew text or Septuagint when Greek scripture was written? After all, supposedly all OT scripture was written in Hebrew as original source, even the disputed books…unless you mean scripture texts coming from disputed books, of which i thought there weren’t any, if but a few only.

 

[mcq72]

Schaff, a Protestant, is trying to find a way to take that point away. It skewers his position as a Protestant.

Thanks for good info.

The same could be said (skewered) for any Catholic understanding of the latin that says the rendering is perfectly clear and 100% correctly translated.

I am not scholar of latin. I will take Schaff’s word that the phrase is not any easy translation but it is what it is, the best a Catholic or Protestant can honestly translate.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Actually, in Jesus day, the Jews had no “official” canon of their books. It was a loose understanding of writings THEY in Jerusalem had vs those in the diaspora

Well, i thought Hebrew and Greek scripture were simultaneously held in Jerusalem and diaspora.

as I provided in an earlier link, the NT referenced writings from the Septuagint, and in extension, yes those books the Jews in Jerusalem didn’t read from.

Would have to reread. Was stuck by how would one determine whether something is from Hebrew text or Septuagint when Greek scripture was written? After all, supposedly all OT scripture was written in Hebrew as original source, even the disputed books.…unless you mean scripture texts coming from disputed books, of which i thought there weren’t any, if but a few only.

Some history of the Septuagint Septuagint Version | Catholic Answers

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Catch that?

Schaff, a Protestant, is trying to find a way to take that point away. It skewers his position as a Protestant.

Actually it bolsters his position as being unbiased. He admits what current translators say it means and doesn’t just make something up as a different translation. If he were really biased he would have said, “But it really means…” and put something else as the translation.

Schaff said he tried to interpret the phrase differently but couldn’t. What I’m surprised at, is he admits he tried to introduce a different understanding that wasn’t so damaging to his own sensibilities.,

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Schaff, a Protestant, is trying to find a way to take that point away. It skewers his position as a Protestant.

Thanks for good info.

The same could be said (skewered) for any Catholic understanding of the latin that says the rendering is perfectly clear and 100% correctly translated.

I am not scholar of latin. I will take Schaff’s word that the phrase is not any easy translation but it is what it is, the best a Catholic or Protestant can honestly translate.

I’d say,

since Schaff is translating a Catholic Bishop who back in ~180 a.d., is writing against the Gnostic heresy, one could say, fast forwarding in time to Schaff’s day, Irenaeus is likewise writing against Schaff too.

AND

it’s reasonable to think then, that maybe Schaff , was feeling that point Irenaeus is making and he didn’t like it.

Just thinking out loud.