Two Items from Scottish Priest, Mike Fallon, relating to liturgical texts
St Catherine’s
2 Captain’s Row
Edinburgh
EH16 6QP
18 April 2011
A second open letter to the priests and bishops of Scotland
Last month I wrote an open letter to bishops and priests. My purpose was to raise questions about a way forward for those who have conscientious difficulties with the New Translation and with the process by which it has been adopted.
Having managed to ensure that each bishop had the opportunity to look at my letter and consider my concerns, I have been disappointed that there has still been no response from any of them. As a result there has been no way of knowing whether all of the bishops have had the opportunity to compare the new translation with the 1998 ICEL version which was rejected by the Congregation of Divine Worship. I suspect not too many people have had that opportunity since the copyright belongs to ICEL and the present membership apparently do not openly share their work or put it out for consultation and comment. However it is possible to access a copy of the 1998 version, possibly dating back to the consultations undertaken by the previous ICEL Board.
Perhaps some will believe I was wrong to write an open letter and instead should have written to the bishops themselves personally. It could be that this is one of the reasons why none of the bishops have chosen to respond to me. However the reason I wrote an open letter rather than a private one was to generate debate about an issue which is so close to our hearts as ministers of Word and Sacrament and allow freedom of discussion which has not been afforded us throughout the long process of change. It was also my hope that the questions raised in my letter would be addressed.
After thought and prayer I have also decided to share, with those of you who care to read it, a copy of an interview with a journalist which expands on the points made in the letter. I myself would much prefer, however, if it was possible to debate the issues openly within the church.
Aware that it is Holy Week and that we are all busy about many things, I nevertheless decided to send out this letter given that it addresses how we celebrate the events we are calling to mind in a special way this week.
Mike Fallon
Interview between Brian Morton and Fr Mike Fallon
1. Is your primary objection to the new form of Mass substantive or procedural. You make the point that Pope Benedict’s comments about a fresh opportunity for ‘in depth catechesis on the Eucharist and renewed devotion to the manner of celebration’ was preceded by very important comments about appropriate review and approval of the new texts. Is it your sense that this aspect has been overlooked in Scotland?
I have concerns both about the substance of the new texts and how they came to be produced. In terms of substance, it is not only the Latin-esque English – which is bad enough in itself – but also the regressive shift in theological emphasis which is of concern to me. The total disregard for half of the human race with a refusal to acknowledge that there is a gender issue is a major deficiency. It is disrespectful.
With regard to the second part of your question: I believe that there has been a failure on the part of all of the English-speaking Conferences of Bishops. I just cannot understand how the Holy Father could come to the conclusion that the Diocesan Bishops of Britain should be thanked “for the contribution you have made, with such painstaking care, to the collegial exercise of reviewing and approving the texts” in his farewell address at Oscott in September 2010.
Rather bizarrely it would appear that, as Pope Benedict, he is unaware of how those texts have been changed and yet, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he seems to have been in the loop with Cardinal Medina during the period of transition in the late 1990s. This is brought out clearly by John Wilkins in an excellent article “Lost in Translation” for Commonweal in 2005. In addition, a credible first hand account surrounding the changes in English Texts is set out by Bishop Taylor in his book, “It’s the Eucharist: Thank God.” It is very clear from reading that book that such was the pressure from Vatican officials that the board members of ICEL were bullied. I believe they also felt blackmailed when Cardinal George threatened that the US Bishops might withdraw their support for ICEL.
2. Could you clarify how you believe the new texts should have been examined and approved?
The process for the approval of liturgical Texts demands that they are approved by the competent authority, ie the Bishops of the territory concerned. I set this out in pages 2 and 3 of my letter and Bishop Taylor made a very clear statement about the correct procedures in his book. The point at issue is that this process has not been followed in this instance.
3. Accepting that information from the bishops has not been forthcoming, why do you think this is the case?
This is a very good question and it requires a Rabbinical style response: does the reluctance of Bishops of English speaking Conferences to engage in conversations about the new translation indicate an unease either with the wording of the translation or the process by which it came about ? I don’t know the answer. Only the Bishops can answer that. I am not aware of any Bishop who has challenged the accuracy of what I have written. I do know that each Bishop has received a copy of my letter.
I should clarify that my letter was sent electronically to the priests of St Andrews and Edinburgh diocese who have an email address; the Scottish Bishops who have a (publicly known) Email address; and to each Chancery of the other seven Dioceses, asking that it be forwarded to priests. When I discovered that my letter had not been sent on, I sought assistance in trawling the Scottish Catholic Directory and compiling a list of email addresses of priests in Scotland. I then forwarded my letter to them.
4. Is there an assumption that the new texts will be accepted without protest or reservation?
Again I don’t know the answer to that: it is impossible to guess what the Bishops are thinking. Their coy behaviour leads me to believe that they are uncomfortable. I suppose I wonder if their reluctance to comment indicates a realisation of their failure to have been alert to their rights and to have exercised their responsibilities in this matter – and that the consequence has been a loss of moral authority.
5. Is there, on the contrary, concern that they will be resisted, in which case the bishops are avoiding confrontation or debate? Is it possible that this is simply a lapse or oversight?
It is extremely difficult to know what the Bishops are hoping to achieve because although this matter has been dragging on for many years they have not to my knowledge made any significant statement until the undated letter from Bishop Toal arrived with priests on 12 March. Since then Bishop Toal has issued a letter to all priests in Scotland as the President of the Liturgical Commission which I am happy to address at a later stage. Not all of the current Scottish Bishops were in post during the critical stages of this process – that is, during the late 1990’s when the ICEL text was rejected and their board in practice dismissed; and when Liturgiam Authenticam unilaterally changed the ‘rules’ of translation. Those who were in post then should know the history: I would hope that those who have joined the Conference more recently have read Bishop Taylor’s account of proceedings to understand exactly what happened and when.
6. I wonder if you could attempt to separate two possible problems: that Scottish Catholics are disturbed and dissatisfied by the new texts and/or that they are disturbed by the manner of their implementation. Is the problem primarily doctrinal or political ?
Yes. There are two distinct issues: the content and the process. I believe, and a scan through the web will confirm that I am by no means a lone voice, that both the content and the process are seriously flawed. The content is flawed both theologically and linguistically and it has resulted from a flawed process. So yes: there are two issues: doctrinal / theological and political / juridical. It could be argued that both emanate from the same source: an imperial / Roman mindset in the Curia which the Second Vatican Council sought to challenge and change.
7. Is there a risk that individual priests will defy the bishops and boycott the new form? Is such a thing desirable, in your view?
There is certainly talk of this in other countries. I don’t know if that will happen or what will happen in Scotland. But personally, I don’t think a boycott is the answer because we are talking about something that is much bigger than a mere change in language translation. We are talking about the core issue of the Church’s well established teaching authority. It has been hijacked from the Local Bishops by Vatican officials who simply do not have the right to determine how a Bishop discharges his Pastoral role in his diocese.
8. What are your own practical instincts at this point?
I have a concern about the way Rome has re-stressed faithfulness to the Latin language not least because of what one might call the theological mindset behind that language. I’m certainly not comfortable that the vehicle seems to have become more important than the driver and the passengers: that the container is considered more essential than the contents.
The Liturgy is, by definition, the work of the people. I wonder who are the people in Scotland who have been consulted in this process ? I’ve never heard of anyone being asked. It all seems to have happened in a very clandestine manner. Under the previous ICEL Commission, there was a culture of openness: texts were released for trial and assessment amongst a wide range of priests. The current board seem to have been much more secretive.
I’m aware that your questions have been asking how priests will respond and react to the changes. Priests are only the leading coordinators of faith communities. It seems to me that the changes specifically required of the priest in the new translation are much less radical and demanding than those asked of the laity. Perhaps the introduction of the new Translation is a real opportunity for the laity to find their voice – by accepting or rejecting the translation being offered.
I should make clear that it is not my contention that the Scottish Bishops have been any more remiss than any of the other English-speaking Conferences. On the other hand I strongly believe that it is regrettable that they were not more supportive of one of their number who was Chairman of the ICEL board at the time. My purpose in writing the letter was to raise the issue of what would appear to be a substantial change of direction and policy in the way the Church governs and teaches. On one level, my attempt to highlight the very questionable way in which the new translation has been arrived at is a compelling invitation to examine deeper issues about how the Church should teach and govern, and how it is actually doing so.
- What response has there been to your letter ?
There has been a considerable response to my letter. Priests from several countries have been in touch with me and for the most part the responses have been positive and encouraging. There have been only four negative responses. I have been surprised, pleasantly, by the number of lay people who have written and telephoned me after seeing it on the Tablet website. Again, with just a single exception, they have all been positive and encouraging and grateful that the matter is being aired. It strikes me that at the end of the day it may well be lay people who decide how well the new translation will be implemented.
Perhaps we are in danger of misjudging the impact the change will have on ordinary parishioners. The first Document of the Second Vatican Council to be promulgated was Sacrosanctum Concilium. The Council Fathers believed that it was important to address first of all the Liturgical life of the Church since this is the principal touching point of our faith for all members of the church. Sunday Eucharist is as they described, “…. the summit towards which the activity of the church is directed; at the same time it is the fountain from which all her power flows.” Simply put, Sunday Eucharist is both the source and the summit of our faith. Our Sunday gatherings at Eucharist are where the faith of ordinary church members is primarily expressed and becomes real. It is here that the faith community is initially formed, new members initiated and then sustained in the community’s worship. It is at the Liturgical Assembly that the sacramental life of the church unfolds and is celebrated. The liturgy is the catalyst of our faith.
Against this background, I am beginning to wonder if some people are coming to resent the fact that Bishops have been so busy dealing with many other things, albeit in other legitimate areas of life – local, national and international – that they have neglected to ensure that their rights as teacher and Vicar of Christ in their Diocese have been respected and honoured by Curial Officials who are supposed to be their assistants.
10. Have any Bishops responded ?
No they haven’t. When I had not received a response from any of the Bishops to my emailed letter, I sent a hard copy to the General Secretary of the Conference and enclosed copies for each of the Bishops lest they had not had sight of it and asked for it to be tabled at the Conference meeting on 11 -13 April. I asked that the Bishops’ attention be drawn to the questions in my letter and in particular to the question at the end about different Rites being allowed to co-exist. I received a reply from Monsignor Conroy, the General Secretary, telling me that he ‘gave copies of the letter to the Bishops, some of whom were already aware of it.’ There has still been no acknowledgement or response to me from any of the Bishops.
You will be aware that the Scottish Bishops have issued a statement from their Episcopal Conference meeting in Edinburgh through Bishop Toal as the President of the Liturgical Commission. It is in the form of a letter to priests. The statement did not address any of the questions raised in my letter. The underlying and un-stated sentiment seems to be that Rome has decided — so we all fall in to line. No explanation about why or how we have reached this stage. It’s perhaps unfortunate that it is Bishop Toal who is their spokesman because he was not a member of the Conference when the failures in governance occurred and the pass was sold.
A number of issues he touches on in his letter don’t sit comfortably with me, not least the explanation given for responses being changed so that they are more faithful to the Latin. What is it about Latin ? Was similar trouble taken to ensure that the Latin was faithful to the original Greek ? In particular I have difficulty with the restoration of “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault” as being more true to the Latin. That may be so but it is also a shift theologically. It changes the focus from salvation and redemption to sin. It makes Good Friday the key moment rather than Easter resurrection. As one young Mum said on seeing the new Confiteor, “There’s no way I’m asking my children to say that.”
Another example of a worryingly regressive shift to a pre Vatican 2 ecclesiology is the removal of the option to say “Pray brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable………” and being required to say “Pray brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable…………” The Second Vatican Council did all it could to demythologise the priesthood caste and described the Church as being made up of clergy and laity who are equal in God’s sight, their difference being one of function. In this change of wording a distinction is made between priest and lay people which is divisive and unwarranted. As I understand it, the Council sought to foster the view of the priest being a part of the people of God rather apart from the people of God
In regard to the reference to the Liturgy needing a strong sense of the sacred in everything surrounding it and “the necessary human stance of humility and unworthiness before our gracious God:” Did the Incarnation not conjoin the sacred and the secular and the secular with the sacred? I think in writing as he does Bishop Toal nails the Scottish Bishops’ colours to the mast of regression to an unhealthy culture for the Church. It seems to me to be indicating a return to an overstressing of personal sinfulness which in the history of the Church is often associated with ecclesiastical / clerical control and power. We all know to our great cost and shame where that sadly took us in terms of its abuse.
However, perhaps the most important feature of Bishop Toal’s letter is something which is not commented on specifically and is arguably the most important change in wording: that Christ died for many rather than for all. Highly credible scripture scholars seem to be in agreement that the meaning of the original wording — which they translate as for the multitude – is nearer to ‘all’ than it is to ‘many’. To claim that Jesus shed his blood for many is to imply that there are some people for whom he did not shed his blood. Where is evidence for this judgement sourced from I wonder? There is certainly no annotation in the New Translation of the Rite of Mass. Is such a stance not in danger of limiting God ?
The ideal would have been to hear the Bishops making a statement recognizing that there has been a lapse in proper governance and indicating a wish to have a moratorium in order to consult and take stock; and to give an assurance that the matter will now be addressed in a consultative manner. But that is not to be. Clearly the Bishops are not for budging. I can only imagine either that they don’t actually see – or that they aren’t able to accept – that they might well have been wrong not to act throughout the long process; nor to give sufficient support to Bishop Taylor when he was the Chair of ICEL and the whole debacle was unravelling. In failing to act they allowed their authority to be undermined by ecclesiastical civil servants.
I keep coming back to the bottom line question in my letter: is it not possible for different rites to be allowed in celebrating the thanks we all need to give to the Father in Eucharist ?
Surely it would be rather surprising — and inconsistent — if while the incoming Anglicans are being accommodated with their own version of Liturgical celebration, and the Traditionalists are being given increasing permission to celebrate in their particular way, those Catholics who have conscientious difficulties with the New Translation were not afforded similar latitude ?
I suppose it is too outrageous to wonder whether the smooth introduction of the new translation might even have been part of an agreement made in securing Pope Benedict’s visit to Britain last September ! I don’t know. None of us have any way of knowing because it’s impossible to debate or dialogue when there is a wall of silence and no Bishop seems able or is willing to comment on the matter or answer the questions raised.
It is worrying that there seems to be an increasing culture of secrecy both at the ICEL level and with our Bishops. I even heard of one of our Bishops who was making a pastoral visit to a parish and was asked a question concerning the introduction of the New Translation by a parishioner. He replied by saying that he was a bit deaf. When the question was repeated in a louder voice, the Bishop turned to someone else and started a new conversation. The longer the silence lasts, the more will questions be asked about whether something is being hidden and, if so, why ?
*************************************************
Changes required of the priests are less radical than those required of the laity? Surely not.
Fr Fallon has done a good job in smoking out the coyness of the bishops. St Paul says, “whatever does not proceed from conviction is sin.”
Father Fallon’s ignorance of just about everything ecclesiastical, is breathtaking.
He clearly does not know that Vatican II retained Latin as the official language of the Church and the liturgical norm.
The original “new Mass” was supposed to retain the key prayers in Latin (or,in the case of the Kyrie, Greek) and the priest was suppposed to face the east (this is clear from the original Paul VI rubric)
Yet Fr Fallon speaks as if Vatican II swept everything away and started again. Wishful thinking on his part, an error shared by all the proponents of Vatican II as they imagine it to have legislated.
Vatican II was (to quote Cardinal Ratzinger) a “merely” pastoral council. No big deal. A blip on the computer screen that is the history of the Church.
It’s been an unmitigated disaster. We now have priests like Fr Fallon who haven’t even got a grasp of the basic Catholic theology of the Mass. He is living proof of the truth of the warning of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci about the new Mass, when they described it as “a grave departure, in whole and in part, from the Catholic theology of the Mass.”
A protestantised Mass has led to a protestanised priesthood. God help us all.
But my key question, as a Scots laywoman, is this: what gives Fr Mike Fallon the right to appoint himself as spokesman for the clergy and people of Scotland? Reading his Morton interview in particular, with the whopping great errors about the nature of the Mass and the governance of the Church (he does not appear to know that the Pope is the Supreme Pastor and is not subject to the bishops: the bishops are subject to the Pope. See Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25) I think we need to know if he is speaking with any authority.
A nod and a wink from Cardinal O’Brien, perhaps?
Is anybody apart form Joe O’Leary allowed to comment on this blog?
Mr Fallon is a prime example of what Scottish seminaries (Drygrange? Gillis? Chester’s? Scotus?) produced and why I, for one, rejoice that there is no longer a major seminary in Scotland sowing the seeds of ignorance and dissent.
Forget K. P. O’Brien … it is clear he has lost his grip on the archdiocese (Messrs. Monaghan, Gilhooley, Fallon, Dalrymple inter al. …) and would rather court publicity and be photographed for the Catholic Times with the wretched ex-“Mgr” Bruce Kent of CND.
Having just read the “Objectives” of your Association, I am curious as to why you have the unmitigated temerity to call yourselves Catholic priests. Every single one of your objectives is either heresy, or error, or ignorance, or devious vagueness, or a combination of all of the above. That is, the “Spirit of Vatican II” par excellence.
Do us and the Church a favor: leave, and form your own church. I’m sure you will attract enough of your fellow Marxists and homosexuals to last a few months, before you collapse from sheer self-deception and delusion.
I don’t think Patricia McKeever (aka EditorCT) is doing much good by her inflammatory postings. The rage against Vatican II and the liturgical changes implemented by the Pope and bishops of Vatican II is addressed to the wrong target. But it must be admitted that there is a deep crisis in the Catholic liturgical culture that is prompting such rage. The way out is a deeper reflection on what we are doing when we celebrate Mass. The promised catechesis on the new translation is not getting anywhere near what is needed. The absence of a wider context for the mass and the still rampant routinization of masses are problems that need to be addressed. Before Vatican II the Mass was flanked by Benediction, the Rosary, Novenas etc. and the lack of these today has been compensated for by the culture of pilgrimates, World Youth Day etc. But the fabric and structure of Catholic liturgical and prayerful fare has not been addressed. The Church has failed in a most basic duty: to provide the faithful with a Prayer Book. The unwieldy Breviary is another flop. Some very basic engineering is needed to set up a practical and functional framework for the expression of faith. We need to consult the other Christian churches who have been more successful in creating a culture of bible reading, prayer services, truly living communal celebration of the eucharist etc.
I wonder what motivates JoeO’Leary to break with blogging convention to divulge my name? I have chosen a username that allows anyone who wishes to find out who I am, so to do without too much difficulty, but if I’d wanted to post my real name, I would have done so. I can find no good reason why Joe O’Leary (sorry, but I just can’t bring myself to call you “Father”) would take it upon himself to do that. No good reason. Mischief-making, rather. Sorry if I’m wrong, but I’m so seldom ever wrong that it’s unlikely. I await your grovelling apology for thus breaching blogging convention. Mind you, given your attitude to the two thousand years old convention of Catholic fidelity to Catholic Tradition, I don’t suppose I can be too surprised.
And that old trick again. To name-call my comment. What on EARTH is inflammatory in my previous post? I give facts that Joe O’Leary doesn’t like, hardly inflammatory. But if you didn’t like THAT post, you’ll jes HATE this one, Sugar Plum…
With all due respect, Joe O’Leary, (she said cutely, fluttering those long black eyelashes in an attempt to disarm) taking your final remarks, where you speak about “the other Christian churches” is revealing indeed, given the fact that Christ founded only ONE Church, giving to Peter the keys (i.e. the final authority over His Church on earth. Further, you speak about these (non-existent) churches having a “truly living communal celebration of the eucharist.” Un-absolutely-believable. Are you for real?
Tell me this, Joe O’Leary: what do you believe about the Catholic Eucharist? We know that Fr Mike Fallon is crazily mixed up about it – he actually thinks the Mass is about the resurrection, not Calvary whereas even the modern CCC acknowledges that the Mass as the Sacrifice of Calvary is at the heart, is the very summit of the Mass – so I’m guessing that you are cut from the same clerical cloth, so to speak. What do you believe – same as Fr Fallon or same as the CCC? And here’s a related question for you:
Is Jesus truly present in the Sacred Species, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine – or what?
Cos that’s not what the “other Christian churches” believe – no siree, they sure don’t.
Well?
It says a lot about the editorial policy of the ACPI that they publish the views of sarto2010 and Torquay, both of which are characterised by inflammatory ad hominem argumentation and an avoidance of the substance of the thread.
No one is persuaded of the reasonableness of their views, polluted as they are by such personalised, intemperate and gratuitous vitriol.
Father Mike Fallon’s contribution is enhanced by such opposition.
Patricia McKeever writes, “what gives Fr Mike Fallon the right to appoint himself as spokesman for the clergy and people of Scotland?”
What gives McKeever the right to appoint herself as guardian of Catholic truth and morals in Scotland? Surely not double standards from the Editor of Catholic Truth?
Suspicious unity of style in the four postings form EditorCT, Joe Bloggs, sarto2010, Torkay above. EditorCT believes that Msgr Marcel Lefebvre should be beatified and denounces all the Popes since Pius XII as “wishy washy” modernists. But by huffing and puffing she hopes to bring down the edifice of modern Catholicism, since she believes it is on the brink of collapse anyway. The Church was just dandy in 1958 and nothing good has happened since.
EditorCT — the blogging convention to which you in practice subscribe and which is common on rightwing Catholic and Lefebvrist sites is to “out” people in every possible way; I gave your name, as found in your newspaper articles, only to undercut the air of authority you assume by calling yourself Editor and also to encourage you to curb your wild attacks on others.
I’d be saying nothing if I were you Fr. Joe about people’s identities or comments or whatnot. I’ve had more faces than Big Ben on this site and I know for a fact that comments are routinely deleted if they don’t fit the agenda of the site patrons or if they want to control any ‘consensus’ that might be emerging. They post a few, but not too many orthodox Catholic comments. I’ve seen the ‘suspicious unity of style’ in many of the back-slapping and supportive comments of the ACP featured since the site began. I bet this post won’t even be posted. Wanna bet? (Saying that, it might just be approved to show everyone that no games are being played as regards the comments. I can’t win, can I?)
Joe O’Leary,
I would be grateful if you would address the issues and the points I make in my posts instead of spreading falsehoods about me and blackening my lily white character.
Please name anyone “outed” by me on our blog and explain what they’d done that required “outing”.
Also give even one example of a “wild attack” by me – specifics please.
Eamon, I have been pleasantly surprised that my posts have been allowed – so far, but you are right, it’s unusual for ‘liberals’ to NOT censor us. Let’s hope that doesn’t change now that the cat is out of the bag and I’m identified as having incurred the wrath of the (notoriously anti-Catholic) London Times.
“for the contribution you have made, with such painstaking care, to the collegial exercise of reviewing and appoving the texts” — yes, Fr Mike, I was also struck by this remark. In the case of the US bishops, there were complaints from them at their Nov 2008 meeting that they had not time to study the texts (which I believe were sent to them in March). Bp Trautman pointed out that only five bishops had bothered to send in written comments — surely a clear indication either that the bishops just don’t want to be bothered with troublesome deskwork (not to mention sending the texts to priests and laity for consultation), or that their bad experience the last time round (1997) has left them with the impression that it is no use sending observations or criticisms to Rome as they will either be ignored or misunderstood. Then when the texts came back in 2010 with 10,000 changes made unilaterally at the Vatican, did the bishops make any protest or demand to look at the texts again? No.
I have many differences with the editor sometimes I accuse her of going over the top but when I read Fr Fallon and comments from Joseph O`Leary I fully understand her position. That the understanding of the Catholic Faith is so poor in Scotland is a cause of shame. I have still to read one criticism of the new translations that make any sense. The Church for example did not invent what Jesus said “For you and for many..” Jesus said it. It has been in the translations of the Gospels since they were written. This scriptural connection seems to escape O`Leary and Fallon. But more `many` is in context. “Poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” Perhaps the two gentlemen do not like the mention of sin but what is meant is that those who wish their sins to be forgiven by Jesus will be saved by his actions. For those who do not repent HIs death will have been in vain. I think Jesus meant `many` in that sense. I am sorry if He let down O`Leary and Fallon. But should the Church correct Jesus? Perhaps O`Leary and Fallon would. I find it hard that in 2011 there are still catholics who know so little about Vatican II and are prepared to talk vaguely about `The Spirit of VAtican II” and actually think the bishops there approved of the Novus Ordo. Where I would disagree with the editor is that I think there was genuine efforts going on before the Council for greater participation of the Laity in the litugry, note the Dialogue Mass of Pope St Pius X, but the Novus Ordo was not the answer since the Mass began to lose its meaning and people like Fr Fallon and Joseph O`Leary now have no idea what they are celebrating. I am not talking about getting back to Latin or Latin translatioins I am talking about getting back to scripture which the whole Tridentine Mass was dedicated to in its wording.
Joseph O’Leary,
I’m waiting for your specific replies to my questions. Come on now, you can’t throw out all those unsubstantiated accusations and then ignore my request for you to provide the evidence.
Signed: confused, Glasgow…
EditorCT
You haev asked for instances where you ‘outed’ people. There are too many to list, but I will give you a few examples. Fr Jock Dalrymple, Fr John Breslin, Fr Ed Hone, whom you threatened to ‘doorstep’ if he didn’t reply to your harassing emails. I could go on, but I think the above is sufficient.
In my mind, the ACP are looking more and more like another desperate group in the north of Ireland. A marginalised, fringe group, with very little real support in the community, who use threats and protest to try and achieve their [futile] and mindless objectives. ACP need to change track, and fast.
The ACP are on to something if they stick to protecting the rights of priests, but by setting themselves up as a parallel magisterium, it’s the road to nowhere. Take my advice, please!!
CathedralMan,
I have never outed anyone in the newsletter. We merely reported that which is in the public domain. True,we were given the scoop of Fr Jock Dalrymple attending (with a group of brother priests) the attempted marriage of a fellow priest in a Protestant church, which the secular media then picked up and reported widely, but since Fr Dalrymple and his fellow clerics were publicly attending a public wedding, that can’t be regarded as “outing.”
The other priests you mention were actively involved in promoting homosexuality; we reported on activities that were in the public domain. No scoops there.
And it is a grave sin to keep peddling a falsehood, as you have done repeatedly on various blogs. I did not EVER “threaten to doorstep Fr Ed Hone if he didn’t reply to my emails.” Litmus test – I’ve never met Fr Hone and never set foot anywhere near his doorstep. This lie was first published in The Times but they later admitted that their article contained errors. Being entirely dishonest, they refused to allow me a letter of correction
http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NDc0NA==
So, stop lying CathedralMan – it tends to adversely affect your credibility.
Joe O’Leary
April 26th, 2011 at 8:16 pm….wrote that “Right wing” people and Lefebvrists….try to “OUT” people…..
Joe, you got the cart before the horse old salt.
Me, I’m for ever IN..ing people. I have spent 20 of the last twenty two years occasionally reminding my wife that the Novus Ordo is crap and that it doesn’t work.
Then up pops Pope Benedict XVI and Summorum Pontificum, my wife starts reading Traditional leaning Catholic blogs, then she starts, of her own accord attending Traditional Latin Masses…..now after just 2 years, she wouldn’t go to any other mass but the Traditional Mass.
Joe your kidding your self if you think that it’s only “Right Wing” Catholics that attend the Traditional Mass….
You’d be nearer the mark if you were to admit that it is mostly Socialist Dupes, who after attending the Novus Ordo would vote for a slug if it had a Labour Party ribbon on it, whilst it crawled up a Pro Abortion Poster.
Much more of these guys around for you to have a pop at Joe.
Can I believe that someone is comparing the ACP with the Real IRA? Threats and protests to achieve futile and mindless objectives?
Priests are very timid and law-abiding people who rarely let out a peep against authority. Their present mild-mannered disquiet about the awful new translations could be seen as comparable to terrorism only by someone with an axe to grind.
Here is what Cardinal Ratzinger said about Klaus Gamber: “What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it – as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy…. The pastoral benefits that so many idealists had hoped the new liturgy would bring did not materialize. Our churches emptied in spite of the new liturgy (or because of it?), and the faithful continued to fall away from the Church in droves… In the end, we will all have to recognize that the new liturgical forms, well intentioned as they may have been at the beginning, did not provide the people with bread, but with stones.”
I think this passage shows a depressive and unconstructive mindset. Ironically, the new translations are far more a “fabrication” that those we have lived with since 1975 (excepting always our sawdust preces) whereas the organic development represented by the 1998 translations was given short shrift.
“Is Jesus truly present in the Sacred Species, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine – or what? Cos that’s not what the “other Christian churches” believe – no siree, they sure don’t. ” Patricia McKeever
If you want to know what someone believes, ask them. It is better to allow someone to speak for themselves instead of putting words in their mouth. I would trust the following quotation (lex orandi lex credendi) as a more accurate expression of what the Church of Ireland believes about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist than Patricia McKeever’s.
“Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son, Jesus Christ, and drink his blood…” from the Prayer of Humble Access of the Book of Common Prayer.
Gerard Flynn,
The Church of Ireland, I believe, is part of the Anglican ecclesial community and so of course it is well known that there are some Anglicans who believe in the real presence of Christ (although since Anglican orders are null and void, they are NOT receiving Christ, as we know.)
I was thinking more of the Presbyterians and other so-called “reformed” groups who, when they do communicate (not regularly), believe they are receiving Christ spiritually but not physically. Members of my family are Presbyterians, so I guess you could say that I haven’t at all put words in their mouths, as you allege. Plus, all the school textbooks that I’ve ever seen in any RE Departments in schools north and south of the Scottish border, teach that Protestants believe they are receiving only bread and wine.
Still, like I say, you put us all right, Gerard Flynn – “lex orandi lex credendi” as you say…
But you keep me right on this, Gerard Flynn – DO all Protestants believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?
Calvinist eucharistic theology does not say one is receiving only bread and wine. I think it says something like this: one is caught up into heaven and fed by the body and blood of the Redeemer seated at the right hand of God. Maybe someone could research this.
I believe that whenever Christians come together to celebrate the Eucharist as Christ commanded that Christ supplies exactly what he promised.
Joe O’Leary,
Protestans believe they are being spiritually fed by the bread and wine which is symbolic of Christ’s Body and Blood on those occasions when they communicate. After these 50 years of post-Vatican II “dialogue” with our separated brothers and sisters, I would have thought that that much elementary theological difference would have been established.
Surprising, too, is your assertion that “Christ supplies exactly what he promised” (in the Eucharist)to those outside the Catholic Church.
This would appear to mean that the Catholic priesthood (not to mention the Church itself) is really unnecessary. Or, have I misunderstood your meaning? If so, would you explain very clearly and very simply what you are actually saying – as if you’re the author of “The Idiot’s Guide to Eucharist Theology”
Please and thank you!
“I was thinking more of the Presbyterians and other so-called “reformed” groups who, when they do communicate (not regularly), believe they are receiving Christ spiritually but not physically.” P.McE.
First the more substantial point: No one receives Christ physically in the Eucharist. Christ is received sacramentally.
Secondly, Presbyterians do receive the Eucharist regularly. Usually, once a quarter. This may not be frequent, compared to other groups, but it is regular.
Finally, the intemperate content and vitriolic tone of your postings, when discussing the question of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, coupled with the personal vilification of those who disagree with you, is most inappropriate.
John Knox may have wiped the smile off Scotland’s face. Isn’t it time to give him a break and replace it, after nearly half a millenium?
Gerald Flynn writes:
“First the more substantial point: No one receives Christ physically in the Eucharist. Christ is received sacramentally.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, section headed ‘Meaning of the Real Presence’ teaches: (see also CCC # 1413)
“…Here the pastor should explain that in this Sacrament are contained not only the true body of Christ and all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews, but also Christ whole and entire. He should point out that the word ‘Christ’ designates the God-man, that is to say, one Person in whom are united the divine and human natures; that the Holy Eucharist, therefore, contains both,and whatever is included in the idea of both, the Divinity and humanity whole and entire, consisting of the soul, all the parts of the body and the blood – all of which must be believed to be in this Sacrament. In heaven the whole humanity is united to the Divinity in one hypostasis, or Person; hence it would be impious, to suppose that the body of Christ, which is contained in the Sacrament, is separated from His Divinity… Nor should it be forgotten that Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species…”
Sound pretty physical to me. Maybe (with respect) you’re misunderstanding what the Church teaches, but it seems pretty clear to me, that, as the Catechisms state, we receive, in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine. Whole and entire.
Gerard Flynn also writes:
“Secondly, Presbyterians do receive the Eucharist regularly. Usually, once a quarter. This may not be frequent, compared to other groups, but it is regular.”
I reply:
With respect: wrong – quarterly is not regular. It’s occasional. Some Catholics go to Confession only once a year. Is that regular? Of course not. And it wouldn’t be regular if they went every quarter either. At LEAST once a month, you might get away with saying you confess regularly, but not quarterly.
Gerard Flynn further writes:
“Finally, the intemperate content and vitriolic tone of your postings, when discussing the question of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, coupled with the personal vilification of those who disagree with you, is most inappropriate.”
I reply:
This is an unsubstantiated personal attack. I can see nothing to warrant these nasty and judgmental remarks. Indeed, in my previous post I infer that it is I who needs an “Idiot’s Guide to Theology” in seeking a response from Joe O’Leary which, I note, has not been forthcoming.
In justice, then, I ask you to supply an example of each of the following personal criticisms made by you about me:
1) the intemperate content (of my posts)
2) the vitriolic tone (of my posts)
3) the personal vilification of those who disagree with (me)
Gerard Flynn now writes:
“John Knox may have wiped the smile off Scotland’s face. Isn’t it time to give him a break and replace it, after nearly half a millenium?”
I reply:
Would you please explain precisely how I could do that. You sound like a man with a plan, and I would love to hear precise details of how I could put the smile back on “Scotland’s face” after 400 years of it having been wiped off by Knox, according to you. I’m an ordinary lay woman and I don’t think most of Scotland will have heard of me, but I’ll do my best, if you just give me a clue as to what it is you mean. Please and thank you.
” a response from Joe O’Leary which, I note, has not been forthcoming ”
I have just seen EditorCT’s posting — she has a curious idea of the speed of theological communication.
I agree that in the Eucharist Christ gives us his body and blood to eat and drink, in the most intimate union possible with his followers.
Yet the mode of all this is rather mysterious — it is what we call sacramental.
I once took part in a Calvinist Eucharist, in Amsterdam. It was one of the most reverent celebrations of the Lord’s Supper I even witnessed. I think I may believe that Christ was present there as he promised to be. You say that is impossible because the forms are invalid — but remember that the Church can supply what is missing in some cases of invalid celebration (Ecclesia supplet) — so I suppose Christ is even more capable of doing the same? As we have baptism of desire, we may have Eucharist of desire, so to speak.
I note that EditorCT made no effort to research Calvinist theology of the Eucharist. Just do a google and you’ll find this:
Calvin said: “It is not the chief function of the Sacrament simply and without higher consideration to extend to us the body of Christ. Rather, it is to seal and confirm that promise by which he testifies that his flesh is blood indeed and his food is drink that leads us to eternal life.”
Calvin then tries to explain how he believes that Christ is both present bodily in heaven, and we can be partakers of his body and blood. “Even though it seems unbelievable that Christ’s flesh, separated from us by such great distance, penetrates to us, so that IT BECOMES OUR FOOD, let us remember how far the secret power of the Holy Spirit towers above all our senses, and how foolish it is to wish to measure his immeasurableness by our measure.”
So, as I surmised, it appears that Calvinists do believe that in the Eucharist they eat the body of Christ under the sacramental forms. Note that transubstantiation is not a Catholic doctrine; it is merely a word that Trent says is suitable to express the transformation occurring in the Eucharist. The doctrine is the Real Presence. The Catechism of the Council of Trent with its reference to bones and sinews is not part of the doctrine and does not take into account the nature of Christ’s glorified body as described in I Corinthians 15 (not of course that we can say much about this).
EditorCt
Once again, you are being disingenuous. Did you, or did you not, email Fr Ed Hone and threaten to doorstep him if he did not replay to your email, and then claim that it was your sense of humour that he did not understand? Yes or No. Simple.
Joe O’Leary,
I finished researching Luther & Co, including Calvin some years ago, in my long gone student days, but to please you, I dug out the following:
“I hold…that the sacred mystery of the Supper consists of two things—the corporeal signs, which, presented to the eye, represent invisible things in a manner adapted to our weak capacity, and the spiritual truth, which is at once figured and exhibited by the signs” Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 4, chapter 17, points 10-11
And…
“Against Luther and Rome, Calvin denies physical presence, which necessarily involves a christological heresy: [W]e must establish such a presence of Christ in the Supper as may neither fasten him to the element of bread, nor enclose him in the bread, nor circumscribe him in any way, [nor] parcel him out to many places at once, [nor] invest him with boundless magnitude to be spread through heaven and earth. For these things are plainly in conflict with a nature truly human.” http://www.theologian.org.uk/doctrine/calvinonthelordssupper.html
What on earth makes you so keen to defend what you see to be Calivinist theology of the eucharist, however, when you are so quick to dismiss the teaching quoted to you from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, that Christ is truly present, WHOLE AND ENTIRE (which suggests bones and sinews) beats me.
CathedralMan – you ask for a “yes” or “no” answer to you question about my alleged threat to Fr Ed Hone. I’ve never threatened anyone in my entire life, except perhaps my naughy nephews who owe their lives to having obeyed, under threat of an early visit to the next world, my perfectly reasonable instructions to be good and behave. So, in a word, my answer is…
No.
If you persist with this nonsense, which gets really boring after a while, trust me, I insist that you produce the alleged email – copied verbatim on this blog. ASAP. Please and thank you.
EditorCT who describes herself repeatedly as a “simple gal” nonetheless has mastered Lutheran and Calvinist eucharist theology so well that she has nothing more to learn! Still it is worth conning old lessons from time to time, for instance, the ARCIC statements on the Eucharist: http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcic_eucharist.html
http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcic_elucid_euch.html
“Simple gal” may ask why theology has to be so complicated. Why should we doubt that the risen body of Christ has bones and sinews in something like our ordinary sense of these words? The problem is that if you swallow everything the most conservative documents you can find say, including the alleged revelations of Our Lady of Fatima or of Medjugorje, you end up with a mass of contradicts, that sends you back again to the complex task of hermeneutics.
EditorCT
Below are your very own words taken from your very own blog regarding Fr Ed Hone:
“My emails were offering Father Hone an opportunity to deny the very serious allegations against him and there was no doorstepping. That – as I am tired of telling you – was a joking remark. Had I known that he was a literalist, unable to understand the significance of an exclamation mark, I would never have made that joke, but one lives and learns.”
You seem to think that a threatening email is nullified by the inclusion of an exclamation mark. Strange, dangerous woman.
Could you reveal who made these ‘very serious allegations’, and what they were? Could you also reveal the exact wording of the emails so that we can all appreciate your sense of humour? No? Well, I didn’t think you would. Cowardly.
Martin,
Fatima is a notch above a private revelation. It is a public prophesy that has come true, and the first time ever that a miracle was foretold to the day and the hour and witnessed by 70 thousand plus people, including people who were up to 20 miles away when it happened, the miracle of the sun I mean. Two of the three seers have been beatified and everything prophesied has come true except the annihilation of nations, so it is way more important than any unapproved apparition, especially Medjugorje which is very controversial and probably a scam. I believe the bishop caught the children lying on tape. That’s it – no way could this be true and the way they are making money hand over fist is just proof positive that Mary is not appearing at Medjugorje.
CathedralMan,
I used to read the Catholic Truth website and contributed occasionally as “Joan” so I know that you have a fixation with the editor. If I remember right, this is about a priest, Ed Hone, handing an email from editor to a newspaper and frankly I don’t think that is at all professional. I remember you kept on about this, her “threatening” Hone – was he afraid of her really doing something to him? If so, why didn’t he go to the police? It’s more likely that he was angry that she exposed his gay group and took his revenge by going to the papers, which is a shameful thing for a priest to do. Shouldn’t he have tried to show some pastoral concern for her if he really thought she was dangerous? EditorCT can speak for herself, she doesn’t need my help, but I think it is unbecoming for a Catholic to name call another human being the way you keep name calling her. This is the season of Easter joy and in charity, should you not now put your hatred of EditorCT aside? If you don’t it’ll keep eating away at you. If you’re a friend of Ed Hone’s then your loyalty is praiseworthy but you can’t really be loyal to one human being while hating another.
Sorry if this sounds preachy but I worry that you will become very bitter if you don’t let go of the hatred you obviously feel for EditorCT.
Annette
It is very gallant of you to come to EditorCT’s iad.
However, you are well wide of the mark. EditorCT used her Catholic Truth blog to continuously harry and threaten those who did not agree with her narrow views. I was only trying to counter that behaviour. If you believe that her behaviour towards people like Ed Hone (whom I have never met or even spoken to) and Fr Jock Dalrymple (ditto) is acceptable, then perhaps you are of the same mindset as her.
The Catholic Truth website was poisonous and evil. It traduced the reputations of innocent people with no accountability whatsoever. What duty have Frs Hone, Dalrymple, etc to answer to the self-appointed guardians of morality and rectitude like EditorCT? She is renowned (and laughed at) in Catholci circels in Scotlnad for her perversity. The only ones not laughing are the vulnerable people who fall prey to her insiduous behaviour. She is a nutcase, and should be recognised as such.
A public prophecy that has come true…. Let’s see. “your children are already returning from the battlefield” in Oct 1917 — the war ended in Nov 1918. War will break out during the reign of Pius XII — a prophecy so not public that it was revealed after the event. Russia will be converted — actually Russia is probably as religious now as it was secretly during the soviet time. As to the Third Secret — about a white robed man shot at by arrows — the interpretation officially given by the Vatican, that it referred to the Turk shooting at John Paul II — is so remote from the prophecy that it hardly convinces. Then there is the “miracle of the sun” — a miracle NOT observed by the three seers of Fatima on their own account, and photos of the miracle show slightly puzzled people looking not at the sun but at the camera. The eye looking at the sun (which is a dangerous thing to so) will see it dancing (that this also happened 20 miles away on the same bright day is not surprising), and an excited crowd can magnify this effect — psychology 101. Fatima may be an authentic private revelation — the Church has indeed acclaimed it as such; but let’s not exaggerate how easy it is to believe in it.
Cathedralman,
I am shocked at your post. How full of hatred you are, not just at EditorCT but at all of us who participated in the Catholic Truth blog. It was very far from being poisonous – it helped a lot of us to learn more about the Faith and I don’t recall any nastiness at all from anyone except a small circle of idiots who kept returning to attack the editor. They just ignored the issues and ranted on about her and they sounded like jealous schoolgirls to me. For you to call her names like “nutcase” says more about you than it does about her. In fact, I presume you came to this blog like me, through the Catholic Truth homepage. Why are you visiting her website and keeping raking up the stuff about Ed Hone and Jock Dalrymple? BTW I disagree about the dissenters and priests who cause scandal not being accountable to us – it’s us laity who put the money in the plate and I want to know if priests are abusing their position. Catholic Truth represents a lot of people like me who are wondering what is going wrong in the church and what to do about it. I am also sorry, CathedralMan but I find it hard to believe you don’t know these priests you keep on about. For years I’ve read your posts always focusing on these priests and bullying EditorCT, and why? You surely know them? Sorry, I don’t mean to call you a liar but I’ve a feeling we’re not getting the whole story about you. You know who the editor is, but I don’t remember reading your real name. That’s not a level playing field. I am kind of surprised she has not been on to answer your recent comments but then again I wouldn’t blame her for throwing in the towel. Nothing she says seems to satisfy you. I even remember her giving some of the idiots sincere apologies for annoying them but that didn’t work.
Joe O’Leary,
I don’t know where you are getting your information about Fatima from but it’s very far from the truth. The secular newspaper of the day was ready to go with a mockery of the event but completely changed it’s tune and headlines to “The Day The Sun Danced At Fatima.” Both the Communist mayor and journalist converted to the Catholic Faith on the spot. They reported that the “puzzled” people you speak about fell on their faces on the wet and muddy ground and rose up clean and dry. The three seers did so see the miracle – and they saw, also, the vision of hell. You focus on the Third Secret which the Fatima scholars insist has not been fully revealed.
But you are a self-admitted dissenter, who is in favour of women priests and gay rights and you hate the new translation of the Mass, so it is not likely that you will believe in Fatima.
The style and tone of this posting are suspiciously similar to those of Patricia McKeever. A quick search online shows that, when it comes to Catholic Truth, allegations of the same person’s posting under more than one name are not new.
An academic liturgist, who credits the use of common texts in English by very many Christian denominations, to the inspiration of the Roman Catholic Church and Vatican II has said that other Christians were ‘stunned and dismayed’ when the Vatican abandoned these common texts and when the Vatican discouraged Catholics from consulting ecumenically on the new translations.
See below for the link.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101794.htm
Gerard Flynn,
Are you saying that I am EditorCT posting as Annette? Would you post the link that shows EditorCT has posed as someone else, because I’ve never heard of such allegations and I followed the Catholic Truth blog regularly although I didn’t join in very often, due to work commitments. I don’t see any “style and tone” in my post that’s different from any of the other posts. I can’t see any difference in your posts from Joe O’Leary’s posts either, so I don’t know what you are on about. I think you don’t like to think EditorCT has anyone who agrees with her so you come up with rubbish accusations like this. No wonder she’s stopped blogging here. Who can blame her.
Annette
As has been said above, you seem to be cut from the same cloth as EditorCT.
As I have said repeatedly, I would not recognise either of these priests if I bumped into them in the street. I live at the other end of the country from them, so I would have no reason to know them. It is the policy of EditorCt, like you, to call those who oppose her views liars. It is also pathetic.
We have to speak the real truth, not some Orwellian version of it. I repeat, in truth, that EditorCT is a bully, a woman full of anger at something, and this anger is vented on those who do not agree with her narrow world view. She is nasty, vindictive and should be recognised as such. If you choose not to recognise this, then that is your right.
I am not full of hatred; I am simply trying to counter the evil perpetrated by EditorCT.
I will cite you an example. My moderate posts were censored on the CT website. However, there was one of the regular supporters of EditorCT who suggested that one of the ‘dissident’ priests should be hunted down and hanged for his ‘crimes’. This was allowed without moderation by EditorCt, until I complained about it. Where is the hatred there? Would you like it if someone was peddling this hatred against you or your family and encouraging such violence? That is the reality of extremists like EditorCT and the other pathetic souls in Catholic Truth. Their actions and words are designed to be poisonous and hate-filled. If you are not EditorCT in a different guise, Annette, you should distance yourself from this damaging mindset.
I am withdrawing from this blog. Two of my comments have failed to make it through the moderation process yet every Tom, Dick, CathedralMan and Gerard Flynn are allowed free rein to insult and attack me. Now I’m accused by Gerard Flynn of posting as Annette (previously someone accused me of posting as Sarto and Torkey) so I’m finished with this blog. It seems anyone who disgrees with a “liberal” is given short shrift. So much for “dialogue” and being “inclusive”. So, I’m outa here. I intend to leave you to establish your new Church as per your stated objectives, and to enjoy your conspiracy theories.
I had planned to post the following link for the attention of Joe O’Leary, despite HIS personal remarks about me, so as a gesture of good will I do so now. As he will see, from the lips of a Presbyterian Minister, Calvinists believe that Christ is present in the heart of the believer, not in the eucharistic elements. I tried to tell him that, but got nothing but abuse in return. Let’s see if he goes onto this linked blog to similarly abuse the Minister. I doubt it.
http://www.chnetwork.org/forum/the-sacraments/calvin's-view-of-the-eucharist/msg62946/?PHPSESSID=5e42e9d9b959b16a0c4cacf6d6384481#msg62946
EditorCT
I am glad you are bowing out. You were not keen on ‘dialogue’ when you censored opposing posts on your own blog. When you are on a level playing field with those who challenge your extremist, fanatical, absurd views, you are found wanting.
As they say, if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I’m gone to inform my little brother, that he should also pay a quick visit this weblog on regular basis to get updated from latest news.
If the individuals responsible for postings on this site are Christians, we have progressed little in two thousand years.