Transubstantiation

[Rolltide]

I’m about to go eat, so I’ll answer the above post in a little bit. In the meantime, I have another question (slightly off topic).

Let me play devil’s advocate for a second and say I believe your premise that Paul preached that the Eucharist was symbolic. (For the record, I don’t believe it for a second.)

What was it that happened after Paul’s death that caused the belief in a symbolic Eucharist to completely die off? Was it the persecution of the Romans? Was it too difficult to communicate the truth as an underground organization over 5000 miles of empire? Why didn’t it resurface at some point before 1500 AD? Did the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches all somehow collaborate to suppress the idea? Finally, what happened to all the “Christians” that held improper beliefs at this time? Were they all doomed to hell for idolatry?

 

[VociMike]

All it means is that I presented to you the Lord Jesus’ interpretation of His own words in John 6.

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

.

What flesh profits nothing? Does Christ’s flesh profit nothing? I’ve asked you this multiple times and all you say in reply is “context, context!” which is no answer at all.

And what words is Jesus referring to here? Could it not be the very words he has just spoken, about the necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood? Could not those be the words that are spirit and life? Of course, logic and common sense dictates that this is a definite possibility.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Indeed, this is why I’m using the authority of Gods written word to show you that the transubstantiation idea is wrong. I mean it’s foolish to use sources outside of the Bible to try to prove that the idea of transubstantiation is correct when God clearly tells us in His written word that it’s wrong.

.

Emerald, you have been given “clear” and rational evidence that real presence is what the apostle’s taught from many sources including: 1) Other NT scripture, 2) many references to OT prefigurements, 3) From dozens of early church fathers and 4) from solid rational argument and even from 5) history of the church. Yet you constantly fall back on your own personal monologue phrase “no its not”. Emerald, this is a serious question - are you really a Christian or are you an atheist “role playing” a rabid fundamentalist who’s putting on a robe of obstinance to discredit Christianity by making us all look pigheaded and irrational?

Really, I have never in my entire life EVER known anyone with such a closed mind as you. Are you even an adult? Seriously? A lot of good people here have taken substantial time to help you learn the truth and given you solid arguments and evidence to back up the apostolic teaching. But you just keep rejecting it like a broken record and don’t even seriously entertain the solid evidence nor even comment on it to refute it. You just say ‘nope - the Lord Jesus taught that his presence is symbolic’.

I am sorry to say this - but its clear to most of us here that you don’t know The Lord Jesus well enough to speak with a personal infallability like you presume to do in this forum. You are well beyond appeals to reason or even rational adult dialog.

Why are you here?

James

 

[Spirithound]

I, a Roman Catholic, am expected to believe that an ordinary man, an ordained Priest has the supernatural power to turn bread and wine into the flesh and blood of the Son of God, Jesus Christ!

Not only that, but this takes place thousands of times a day, all over the world, on demand!

…but only ordained priests have this supernatural power!

It`s not entirely clear why the Church believes that this power exists, that this power is real and that this power is actually given to the Church…nowhere have I seen instructions left by Christ in how to turn bread into his flesh and blood!

Perhaps you have not seen instructions on how to turn bread into His flesh because such an act is not within your prerogative. Perhaps we, the laity have not been instructed to do this because only a priest has such a power. Such a thing not meant for enactment by everyone would not be instructed to everyone. That is why Scripture is only one part of the Word of God. Such an instruction manual would be best transmitted by the Oral Teaching of the Church, passed on from bishop to bishop, and bishop to priest.

Now, as an actual Catholic, I would like to point out that the doctrine of transubstantiation is nowhere near the top of the list of crazy things I’m expected to believe. Try meditating on the idea of God becoming a man. Try to fathom the logistics of such a situation. Infinite God contained in finite body?

After that, contemplate the human soul. Do you believe in original sin? What about regenerative baptism? That means that baptism has a very real effect on the soul, and kind of re-configures it so that original sin has been washed away. After baptism, are you then just a mere man? Or, are you now a Christian, someone who has been adopted as a son or daughter of the Lord God Almighty, and can now enter Heaven to be with Him forever?

Next, what is the role of laying hands on someone in the NT? Are people given specific, though varying offices when hands are laid on them? Consider Acts says that some Apostles laid hands on many people after or at their baptism (sorry, I don’t have references available ). Also, the Apostles laid hands on the 7 deacons. Paul also mentions laying hands on Timothy to make him a bishop. Is there any evidence that a bishop ever became a deacon? Did the deacons become bishops? (in today’s Church, all bishops were at one time deacons, but I don’t think this is strictly necessary.) If these crossovers didn’t occur without a separate laying on of hands, then the offices must have been distinct, and laying hands on someone in a different situation (whether the word ‘situation’ refers to different words, circumstances or intentions, I will leave vague for now) would confer a different office.

Putting these 2 paragraphs together, when hands are laid on a person in a certain situation, he becomes a Christian, and with that, a new configuration of soul is effected. When hands are laid on him again in another situation, he becomes a deacon, or a priest, or a bishop. With these new offices, which carry specific obligations to Christ’s Body, the Church, a new configuration of soul is also effected, just as it was for the office of Christian.

Now, I have a final question. Do you believe that it could be possible for God to turn a piece of bread into His Body and Blood, regardless of whether it has ever actually happened? We believe that it is possible, that it has happened, and it does happen, confected by a priest, who has had hands laid upon him. Because of these hands laid upon him, he is no longer an “ordinary man”. His soul has been reconfigured to allow him to do things so wonderful it totally blows my mind.

 

[Spirithound]

One could argue the Catholic position is nothing if not controlling.

Why shouldn’t the Church control my knowledge of salvation? I’m a Master’s candidate in linguistics, so my knowledge in that area is probably the least controlled field. For information on bio-pharmaceuticals, I talk to a bio-pharmacologist. For information on salvation, I talk to a priest.

 

[jewelz]

do you consider Transubstantiation as a miracle of God?

 

[toaslan]

do you consider Transubstantiation as a miracle of God?

“You” who?

It is the Catholic Faith that Transubstantiation is a miracle of God.

 

[jewelz]

“You” who?

It is the Catholic Faith that Transubstantiation is a miracle of God.

if it is a miracle as Catholics say it is,
then there must be lots of miracles happening at least every week.
if i would count 1 wafer/host = 1 miracle, then in just 1 mass in 1 church, that’s lots of miracles indeed.

it’s hard for me to believe it is something indeed very miraculous,
unless everyone who took communion
got healed of a terminal illness if they were sick, or
got some miracle money to pay their lifetime debts, or
got delivered from their longtime vices and addictions and sins, or
got their broken family and relationships restored, or
got freed from demon possession and oppression and bad emotions, or
got their life totally changed for the better especially one 's character and outlook in life and how one lives…
which I believe/think some people may actually have received such miracles as those, but I doubt it was because of taking communion.

if God would do a miracle, would He not do it in a very obvious and visible way, that no one could deny the fact that it is a miraculous fact?

I know God performs miracles thru people also, but it would seem to me that it is something a Priest/Bishop does and that the miracle SHOULD always happen, though the wafer/host/eucharist is visibly the same in all aspects to our senses.

It’s like God doesn’t have a choice but to turn the wafer/host into a miracle bread as long as the Priest does the rites (correctly as prescribed).

if you were to tell a child, who had childlike faith (which is the kind of faith that Jesus always tells us to have), that the host/wafer is now transformed/changed into something else, do you think a child would believe it to be so? or wouldn’t the child think you’re either fooling him or just kidding around or making him believe in something that’s not?
of course, a child could agree to make believe or to play your game or to imagine that it is now a miracle bread.

i know that John 6 is believed literally by Catholics to prove their doctrine of Transubstation. if it were taken figuratively, the doctrine would not make sense.

anyways, I hope Catholics would ponder upon those thoughts.

 

[VociMike]

if it is a miracle as Catholics say it is,
then there must be lots of miracles happening at least every week.
if i would count 1 wafer/host = 1 miracle, then in just 1 mass in 1 church, that’s lots of miracles indeed.

it’s hard for me to believe it is something indeed very miraculous,
unless everyone who took communion
got healed of a terminal illness if they were sick, or
got some miracle money to pay their lifetime debts, or
got delivered from their longtime vices and addictions and sins, or
got their broken family and relationships restored, or
got freed from demon possession and oppression and bad emotions, or
got their life totally changed for the better especially one 's character and outlook in life and how one lives…
which I believe/think some people may actually have received such miracles as those, but I doubt it was because of taking communion.

Doesn’t God abide with every Christian each and every day? So why doesn’t the very presence of God within each Christian lead each Christian to expect the things on your list? Explain why the very presence and grace of God doesn’t result in the things you have listed. After all, isn’t God infinitely greater than any of his miracles?

 

[Spirithound]

it’s hard for me to believe it is something indeed very miraculous,
unless everyone who took communion
got healed of a terminal illness if they were sick, Prosperity Gospel
got some miracle money to pay their lifetime debts, Prosperity Gospel
got delivered from their longtime vices and addictions and sins, Only if they want to be
got their broken family and relationships restored, The family that prays together stays together
got freed from demon possession and oppression and bad emotions, Only if they want to be
got their life totally changed for the better especially one 's character and outlook in life and how one lives…Only if you receive worthily
which I believe/think some people may actually have received such miracles as those, but I doubt it was because of taking communion.

if God would do a miracle, would He not do it in a very obvious and visible way, that no one could deny the fact that it is a miraculous fact?
It’s not God’s fault that people are so hard-hearted. Thousands of totally obvious miracles have taken place; healings, Eucharistic-type miracles distinct from the usual transubstantiation, even the sun doing wonky things in the sky. If people would just look around, everyone would be Catholic and church attendance would be up 1000%

I know God performs miracles thru people also, but it would seem to me that it is something a Priest/Bishop does and that the miracle SHOULD always happen, though the wafer/host/eucharist is visibly the same in all aspects to our senses.
I hope you’ve put some air-holes in that box you’re trying to stuff God into.

It’s like God doesn’t have a choice but to turn the wafer/host into a miracle bread as long as the Priest does the rites (correctly as prescribed).
He made that choice nearly 2000 years ago, and has stuck with it ever since.

if you were to tell a child, who had childlike faith (which is the kind of faith that Jesus always tells us to have), that the host/wafer is now transformed/changed into something else, do you think a child would believe it to be so? or wouldn’t the child think you’re either fooling him or just kidding around or making him believe in something that’s not?
of course, a child could agree to make believe or to play your game or to imagine that it is now a miracle bread.

A child might not understand it, but perhaps will believe if he believes that God can do anything
***it’s been awhile since i’ve been a child

anyways, I hope Catholics would ponder upon those thoughts.

Ponderances made and expressed

 

[Koopa]

I’m glad you brought up that childlike faith point. In fact, I think that a child would absolutely accept it without question. That is how children are, and that is how Jesus is asking us to have faith. I mean, my mom once misheard her mom and thought that a “tomato” was going to storm across her house.

It is lots of miracles a day. It really seems as though some Protestants base their argument on the unbelievability of transubstantiation, which is a bit odd, seeing as how we all believe in a virgin giving birth, God becoming a man, and a dead guy rising from the dead, as well.

Peace!:getholy:

 

[CentralFLJames]

if it is a miracle as Catholics say it is,
then there must be lots of miracles happening at least every week.
if i would count 1 wafer/host = 1 miracle, then in just 1 mass in 1 church, that’s lots of miracles indeed.

…
anyways, I hope Catholics would ponder upon those thoughts.

Jewelz, and do you think it is not a miracle that thousands of Protestants everyday can scream out “I believe”, get baptised and suddenly be transformed from evil children of Satan to become “Christians” and God’s children?

Apart from getting one’s hair wet after you are all dried out how do we know any of of you Protestants are really saved and are real Christians?

James

 

[toaslan]

if it is a miracle as Catholics say it is,
then there must be lots of miracles happening at least every week.

Just because it’s lots of miracles per day does not mean it isn’t true, Jewelz. It may seem like the very high number is in itself an argument against the Eucharist being a miracle, but I don’t see the argument, myself. I understand that for Protestants, the day of miracles is over; but it never has been for Catholics. We are “used” to miracles through our Church.

jewelz:

if i would count 1 wafer/host = 1 miracle, then in just 1 mass in 1 church, that’s lots of miracles indeed.

yes, aren’t we blessed. Now we just have to live up to the miracle which enters into us at Holy Communion.

it’s hard for me to believe it is something indeed very miraculous,

it’s hard? does that mean you have tried?

unless everyone who took communion
got healed…

you don’t seem to know that the miracle is not only what takes place on the altar but also what takes place inside the Catholic soul–the total mutual self donation into which I am invited every single time I receive Our Lord in Communion.

if God would do a miracle, would He not do it in a very obvious and visible way, that no one could deny the fact that it is a miraculous fact?

Jewelz, was the moment of your redemption on the hill at Calvary an obvious and visible miracle? I don’t mean the signs that appeared; I mean the effect upon the world as saving grace poured out from His Passion and Death. That mankind was again the heir and son of the Kingdom–how was this clear to anybody?

That same moment on Calvary is made present on Catholic altars around the world at the words of Christ said by Him and repeated by His priests.

What really happened at Calvary is just as visible as what happens on our altars, jewelz.

It’s like God doesn’t have a choice but to turn the wafer/host into a miracle bread as long as the Priest does the rites (correctly as prescribed).

You are confusing superstition with faith and obedience.

i know that John 6 is believed literally by Catholics to prove their doctrine of Transubstation.

We take the bible more literally than our protestant brothers most of the time, contrary to the popular slur against Catholics.

Also, we don’t take Jn6 literally in order to prove Transubstantiation: we believe Transubstantiation because that’s what Jn6 says. (For 2,000 years the Church has interpretated that passage in the same, unchanged way; from which interpretation protestants departed in the 16th Century, following the apostate disciples who departed from Him in Jn 666–ch6, verse 66)

if it were taken figuratively, the doctrine would not make sense.

not only that, John 6 itself wouldn’t make sense; hence the nonsense the non-Catholic world makes of it.

anyways, I hope Catholics would ponder upon those thoughts.

likewise, jewelz.

 

[jewelz]

I understand that for Protestants, the day of miracles is over; but it never has been for Catholics. We are “used” to miracles through our Church.

the day of miracles is not over, maybe for the Baptists,
but not for all Protestants. i’ve seen many miracles inside
a church building and outside of it, but always in the life
of a Christian regardless of what Protestant church he goes to.

everytime that a person realizes his sinfulness and realizes his need for a Savior is a miracle, not everyone realizes that, unless the Father has drawn them near, God is at work in their lives.
lots of people have spiritual blindness or calloused hearts,
and really it would take a miracle for God to save them.

everytime i hear news of healing and restoration of health of very sick people, those are miracles, we visit hospitals and pray for them, though not all are healed, there are people who get healed and receive their miracle because of their measure of faith.

my neighbor had a miracle baby, 6 years of marriage and nearing her 40’s, and finally God opened her womb. she’s on her 2nd one now.

i’ve seen how my uncle changed from being an atheist, antagonist, agnostic, porn and sex addict, into a whole new creation of God.

i’ve seen how God still blesses our family inspite of the hard times, but we are never in DEBT.

and i’ve recently seen a movie documentary of two testimonies of nonCatholic Christians, who have been raised from the dead.
now that i wish i could witness for real and first hand
and i also wish i could see demon-possessed people set free by exorcism.

that is what i would call true miracles of God that changes lives.
of course, God makes small miracles too, which we usually just
dismiss as plain goodluck or natural coincidences instead of something God planned as Divine Appointment.

 

[jewelz]

Jewelz, and do you think it is not a miracle that thousands of Protestants everyday can scream out “I believe”, get baptised and suddenly be transformed from evil children of Satan to become “Christians” and God’s children?

Apart from getting one’s hair wet after you are all dried out how do we know any of of you Protestants are really saved and are real Christians?

James

how do you know? well, for one thing, it takes one to know one.
that’s how i know some Catholics are saved, and some Protestants are not. it’s not because they told me they were Catholic/Protestant. i can’t see their faith nor their heart, but i can see their attitudes, behavior and life.

if words were not spoken, you would know we are saved if we live as Christians should live.

if words were spoken, you would either believe we are saved if you see Christ in us, or consider us hypocrites if we’re still living in sin and still confessed that we were sinning Christians.

 

[jewelz]

to Spirithound,

I know you are saying that I’m preaching a “prosperity gospel”
but we’re talking about miracles here.

but even Jesus promised that to us, first for the prosperity of our soul/spirit (born above and grow spiritually), and then to live life more abundantly, in all aspects of it.

i know the prosperity gospel is a wrong approach to preaching the gospel of grace.
it is similar even to a gospel of faith plus works, that you have faith and also perform good works, so you get something which is attain salvation. that’s what prosperity gospel is = you give something so that you can get something.

 

[CentralFLJames]

how do you know? well, for one thing, it takes one to know one.
that’s how i know some Catholics are saved, and some Protestants are not. it’s not because they told me they were Catholic/Protestant. i can’t see their faith nor their heart, but i can see their attitudes, behavior and life.

if words were not spoken, you would know we are saved if we live as Christians should live.

if words were spoken, you would either believe we are saved if you see Christ in us, or consider us hypocrites if we’re still living in sin and still confessed that we were sinning Christians.

Well Jewelz, it sounds like you do believe in the power of God so there is very little remaining for you to know and believe before you can see the miracle of the eucharist.

Become Catholic.

James

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Well, I’ll only touch on EI’s two most common misinterpretations of scripture.

First, the claim that Jesus claimed to be speaking symbolically in John 6:63.

All it means is that I presented to you the Lord Jesus’ interpretation of His own words in John 6.

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

Jesus didn’t “interpret” Himself or claim to be speaking “symbolically”, He explained Himself by noting that He was not discussing the natural, physical reality that the Jews thought He was discussing, but a supernatural, metaphysical reality.

In fact, He pretty much repeated what He had said before to Nicodemus in John 3:6

“Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.”

When we are physically born, we are born in the flesh, in a state of original sin. When we are only born in the flesh, we are “dead in our sins”, we cannot enter the kingdom of God, hence, “the flesh counts for nothing.”

However, to have life, to enter the kingdom of God, we must be born again, specifically, “born of water & the Spirit.” In baptism, the water washes away our sin & we receive the Holy Spirit, since “the Spirit gives life.”

Second, his misinterpretation (via biblical cherry-picking) of Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist.

Did the Lord Jesus err in picking Paul and did the Holy Spirit err in inspiring him to state the following inerrant words;

For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. 1 Cor 11:26

Not at all.

But I note that the same guy who wrote 1 Cor. 11:26 also wrote 1 Cor. 11:27-29.

“Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. ”

Seems kind of silly to claim that one can be guilty of “sinning against the body & blood of the Lord” if it the body & blood of the Lord isn’t there.

St. Paul sure seemed to believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the bread & wine of the Eucharist.

I suppose the question becomes “Do YOU believe that the Holy Spirit erred in inspiring Paul to write these inerrant words?”

Of course, you can always use the Protestant fallback of

"You just don’t understand Scripture!!!

"



Chris

 

[CoboltBlue]

I will try to present some evidence for you in reverse order, starting with dates we can both agree on and then working backward. Keep in mind that despite my profession, I am no liturgical effort, and I’m sure others on here can help me out.

First, a couple of assumptions:

1. I think we can both agree that the idea of the Real Presence in the Eucharist is established by the Reformation, so I will leave any discussion from that era out.
2. Since the Eastern Orthodox Church also believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (and the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of the Real Presence in the Orthodox Eucharist), we can assume that the doctrine predates the Great Schism between the Catholics and Orthodox.

(Now, that said, the Orthodox will not use the word “Transubstantiation”. They leave the miracle of the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ as a mystery, but they DO believe in the Real Presence of Christ, and in basically the same way as Catholics.)

Ok, right away I suggest that we can push the date much further back, since the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East BOTH believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and they broke off from the Catholic Church as a result of the Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451. This fact pretty well speaks for itself, so we now have the date pushed back to the early to mid 5th century. Bear in mind that the word “Transubstantiation” did not develop until much later, as a result of challenges to this doctrine. The Catholic Church does not generally define dogmas unless the particular belief is challenged and requires further explicit explanation. You cannot judge when the belief began by the introduction of the word Transubstantiation.

While we’re at it, it’s probably good to look at what the Council of Ephesus had to say on the matter:

Council of Ephesus

“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

As an official pronouncement of the church, the date of the belief is now safely established at least as far back as 431 A.D.

UNBLOODY! I still say it all comes down to recalling our sin nature and accepting the body and blood with humility in the form of bread and juice. With the humand knowledge that Christ gave his life for us and we are commissioned to become as Christ like as possible during our life time. Transubstantiation is a man made word and way of receiving in REMEMBERANCE who Jesus Christ is in our lives.

 

[CoboltBlue]

Well, I’ll only touch on EI’s two most common misinterpretations of scripture.

First, the claim that Jesus claimed to be speaking symbolically in John 6:63.

Jesus didn’t “interpret” Himself or claim to be speaking “symbolically”, He explained Himself by noting that He was not discussing the natural, physical reality that the Jews thought He was discussing, but a supernatural, metaphysical reality.

In fact, He pretty much repeated what He had said before to Nicodemus in John 3:6

“Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.”

When we are physically born, we are born in the flesh, in a state of original sin. When we are only born in the flesh, we are “dead in our sins”, we cannot enter the kingdom of God, hence, “the flesh counts for nothing.”

However, to have life, to enter the kingdom of God, we must be born again, specifically, “born of water & the Spirit.” In baptism, the water washes away our sin & we receive the Holy Spirit, since “the Spirit gives life.”

+++++The reality of the water washing away our sins is not true. The water is an out ward sign of an inner working. It is the Holy Spirit who baptises /indwells Jesus into an individual who has asked Jesus into their hearts. An individual who has recognized their sinfulness and that they can not have salvation without the atoning blood of Jesus to wash them clean of their sins. The Holy Spirit brings Jesus into the person and the person into Jesus. Then the new born again saint in Christ asks to be baptized (full immersion) as a sign of their committement to remain in Christ Jesus and live a life worthy of Christ and his techings. The water is a symbol of Christ being the ‘water of the Word’, and that we are washed in the word --the Word is God–then when you learn the Word it is burried inside of your heart. All of the ‘water’ references are symbolic. +++++

Second, his misinterpretation (via biblical cherry-picking) of Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist.

Not at all.

But I note that the same guy who wrote 1 Cor. 11:26 also wrote 1 Cor. 11:27-29.

“Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. ”

Seems kind of silly to claim that one can be guilty of “sinning against the body & blood of the Lord” if it the body & blood of the Lord isn’t there.

St. Paul sure seemed to believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the bread & wine of the Eucharist.

I suppose the question becomes “Do YOU believe that the Holy Spirit erred in inspiring Paul to write these inerrant words?”

Of course, you can always use the Protestant fallback of



Chris