I can find only two instances of the Catholic Church specifically claiming infallibility. They are both related to the Blessed Mother - the Assumption (1954) and the Immaculate Conception (1854). Are there any others?

Please, if you don't believe in infallibility, no need to reply. Thank you.

Hisstorical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

* "Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
* Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
* Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
* occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
* Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
* Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
* Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.

For modern-day Church documents, there is no need for speculation as to which are officially ex cathedra, because the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can be consulted directly on this question. For example, after Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone) was released in 1994, a few commentators speculated that this might be an exercise of papal infallibility (for an example, see [2]). In response to this confusion, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has unambiguously stated, on at least three separate occasions [3] [4] [5], that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an ex cathedra teaching, saying that the content of this letter has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

The Vatican itself has given no complete list of papal statements considered to be infallible. A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, written by Cardinals Ratzinger (the later pope Benedict XVI) and Bertone, the prefect and secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated that this was not meant to be a complete list.

The number of infallible pronouncements by ecumenical councils is significantly greater than the number of infallible pronouncements by popes.

From Answers dot com.

I can find only two instances of the Catholic Church specifically claiming infallibility. They are both related to the Blessed Mother - the Assumption (1954) and the Immaculate Conception (1854). Are there any others?

Please, if you don't believe in infallibility, no need to reply. Thank you.

That is because the doctrine of papal infallibility itself is so recent (1870).

Sidenote: here is a good article about Infallability:
Papal Infallibility (http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp)

I can find only two instances of the Catholic Church specifically claiming infallibility. They are both related to the Blessed Mother - the Assumption (1954) and the Immaculate Conception (1854). Are there any others?

Please, if you don't believe in infallibility, no need to reply. Thank you.

Lest we forget, the first infallible Papal statements are here:

1 Peter
Douay-Rheims Bible, First Epistle Of Saint Peter (http://www.drbo.org/book/67.htm)

2 Peter
Douay-Rheims Bible, Second Epistle Of Saint Peter (http://www.drbo.org/book/68.htm)

Sincerely,

De Maria

Lest we forget, the first infallible Papal statements are here:

1 Peter
Douay-Rheims Bible, First Epistle Of Saint Peter (http://www.drbo.org/book/67.htm)

2 Peter
Douay-Rheims Bible, Second Epistle Of Saint Peter (http://www.drbo.org/book/68.htm)

Sincerely,

De Maria

Both links came up with blank pages

Thanks Choux.

DeMaria, I also got a blank on your link.

Thanks Choux.

DeMaria, I also got a blank on your link.

I don't know how to fix them.

I don't know how to fix them.

I thought that was in fact your answer - there is no validation in scripture for papal infallibility.

I thought that was in fact your answer - there is no validation in scripture for papal infallibility.

Actually, TJ3, there is strong validation in scripture for infallibility. See the Gospel where Jesus says "whatever you loose/bind on earth shall also be loosed/bound in heaven". Sorry, don't have the exact verse, but I'm sure you know it.

Actually, TJ3, there is strong validation in scripture for infallibility. See the Gospel where Jesus says "whatever you loose/bind on earth shall also be loosed/bound in heaven". Sorry, don't have the exact verse, but I'm sure you know it.

That is not referring to papal infallibility. Indeed you may not be aware but Pope John XXII referred to the belief in papal infallibility in the Bull Quia quorundam as coming from the "father of lies". Here is a brief excerpt.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the father of lies is said to have so blinded the minds of certain [men], that they by [means of] false madness have obscured Our constitutions—not without much punishable temerity, unless they retract and lean themselves [once more] upon the truth, which these contain—of which one begins: “Ad conditorem canonum,” the other indeed: “Quum inter non nullos,” arranged diligently by previously held deliberation certainly as much with Our brother Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, as with many Archbishops and Bishops, and other prelates of the [local] churches, and not a few masters of sacred theology, and professors of both [kinds] of law [i.e. civil and canon], and promulgated on the counsel of Our aforementioned brothers: lest by daring [and] pernicious deeds their pestiferous doctrine shake the souls of the simple so much, and prevail to lead them into the deviation of their own errors, on the counsel of certain brother [cardinals] We judge soberly to make provision concerning this matter, as follows [below]. Moreover, they have used as much as word as writing to impugn the aforesaid constitutions, for the alleged reason, as is shown: They say that “That which the Roman Pontiffs had defined by [means of] the key of knowledge, in faith and morals, once for all, persists unchangeable to such an extent, that it is not lawful for a successor to call it again into doubt, nor to affirm the contrary,” although concerning those things, which have been ordained by [means of] the key of power, they assert it to be otherwise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was the Pope wrong on this important matter?

If indeed it is Biblical, why were the Popes unaware of this?

Are you sure that pope was speaking infallibly? Are his words more important than the words of Jesus?

Are you sure that pope was speaking infallibly? Are his words more important than the words of Jesus?

Good questions.

But then again if the Pope is wrong on a matter of how you define doctrinal truth, then how could he be right on a matter of doctrine itself?

And, I agree that Jesus' words are more important than the Pope's words, but in saying so, are you not likewise acknowledging that the Pope's words must be submitted to and tested by the word of scripture?

The key thing that this shows is that the doctrine of papal infallible was rejected by the popes prior to the 14th century, and only made doctrinal for that one denomination in the 19th century.

It is interesting to note that Pope John XXII said that anyone opposing his Bull would be both a rebel of the church and an enemy of God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides after [having taken] the counsel of the same brother [cardinals] We forbid more broadly that [anyone] impugn with insane daring Our above said constitution, Ad conditorem canonum, which they are [doing], as has been shown, so that no one may, in word or writing, approve or defend anything knowingly against the things defined, ordained or accomplished by the same. If anyone truly would presume [to do such] against [it], let him be treated by all as contumacious, and a rebel of the Roman Church.

Therefore [it is in nowise licit] to any man [to infringe this page of Our declarations, statements, composition, command, constitutions, judgments, and dispositions, nor it is licit to such a one to oppose this by rash daring: if any one however would presume to attempt this, let him know that he has incurred the indignation of the Omnipotent God, and his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.]

Given at Avignon, on the fourth day before the Ides of November, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good questions.

But then again if the Pope is wrong on a matter of how you define doctrinal truth, then how could he be right on a matter of doctrine itself?

And, I agree that Jesus' words are more important than the Pope's words, but in saying so, are you not likewise acknowledging that the Pope's words must be submitted to and tested by the word of scripture?

The key thing that this shows is that the doctrine of papal infallible was rejected by the popes prior to the 14th century, and only made doctrinal for that one denomination in the 19th century.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was or wasn't. Yes, any Pope's words claiming infallibility must be tested by the word of Scripture. The Catholic Church, in my opinion (yours may be different), has met that test when the discussion is kept within the confines of the Bible. I understand that Protestant sects do not hold to this doctrine but, I remind you, my original question was not whether the doctrine is true, but what specific examples have there been? That's why I hoped to avoid getting bogged down in inter-Christian squabbles on the topic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was or wasn't. Yes, any Pope's words claiming infallibility must be tested by the word of Scripture.

Then it is scripture that would be infallible.


The Catholic Church, in my opinion (yours may be different), has met that test when the discussion is kept within the confines of the Bible. I understand that Protestant sects do not hold to this doctrine but, I remind you, my original question was not whether the doctrine is true, but what specific examples have there been?

Let's be clear. I am not protestant.


That's why I hoped to avoid getting bogged down in inter-Christian squabbles on the topic.

That is fine. I was merely responding to De Maria's comments.

Then take it up with DeMaria.

Sidenote: here is a good article about Infallability:
Papal Infallibility (http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp)

Interesting article, Rick, but it didn't answer my question.

Then take it up with DeMaria.

I did.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was or wasn't. Yes, any Pope's words claiming infallibility must be tested by the word of Scripture. The Catholic Church, in my opinion (yours may be different), has met that test when the discussion is kept within the confines of the Bible. I understand that Protestant sects do not hold to this doctrine but, I remind you, my original question was not whether the doctrine is true, but what specific examples have there been? That's why I hoped to avoid getting bogged down in inter-Christian squabbles on the topic.

Ex Cathedra means: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." (Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv)

There are many other encyclicals that are implicitly ex Cathedra. It’s my understanding that Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus are the only two encyclicals that are explicit in their claim of teaching ex Cathedra:

1) Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
2) Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.

Both contain language similar to the following: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine…”

It’s my understanding that the Pope also speaks ex Cathedra in his acceptance of each of the twenty-one Ecumenical Councils. The Council is called by the Pope and requires a cooperative effort between its members and the Pope. The Pope is to rule as the Vicar of Christ over the council and the council is to support and strengthen that rule. So, in a sense all ecumenical councils are examples of doctrine by “ex Cathedra”.

I wouldn’t put much credence in what some have written here, read it for yourself:

Ex Cathedra (link) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm)
Infallibility (link) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)

JoeT

Again, as I said, the fact that there are very few specifically identified is because it is only a recent doctrine (1870 it was declared).

Again, as I said, the fact that there are very few specifically identified is because it is only a recent doctrine (1870 it was declared).

I disagree. Although it was recently confirmed and defined in Catholid Dogma. The doctrine has been accepted since the time of Christ. It has, however, rarely been used.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I disagree. Although it was recently confirmed and defined in Catholid Dogma. The doctrine has been accepted since the time of Christ. It has, however, rarely been used.


Then you should read more of the thread. I already showed that Pope John XXII in 1324 declared that doctrine as coming from the "father of lies". We know therefore that it was not even accepted in your denomination at the highest levels prior to the 14th century.

Then you should read more of the thread. I already showed that Pope John XXII in 1324 declared that doctrine as coming from the "father of lies". We know therefore that it was not even accepted in your denomination at the highest levels prior to the 14th century.

Proof of papal infallibility from Tradition

"One need not expect to find in the early centuries a formal and explicit recognition throughout the Church either of the primacy or of the infallibility of the pope in the terms in which these doctrines are defined by the Vatican Council. But the fact cannot be denied that from the beginning there was a widespread acknowledgment by other churches of some kind of supreme authority in the Roman pontiff in regard not only to disciplinary but also to doctrinal affairs. This is clear for example, from:

• Clement's Letter to the Corinthians at the end of the first century,

• the way in which, shortly afterwards, Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church;

• the conduct of Pope Victor in the latter half of the second century, in connection with the paschal controversy;

• the teaching of St. Irenaeus, who lays it down as a practical rule that conformity with Rome is a sufficient proof of Apostolicity of doctrine against the heretics (Adv. Haer., III, iii);

• the correspondence between Pope Dionysius and his namesake at Alexandria in the second half of the third century;

• and from many other facts that might be mentioned (see PRIMACY).
Even heretics recognized something special in the doctrinal authority of the pope, and some of them, like Marcion in the second century and Pelagius and Caelestius in the first quarter of the fifth, appealed to Rome in the hope of obtaining a reversal of their condemnation by provincial bishops or synods. And in the age of the councils, from Nicaea onwards, there is a sufficiently explicit and formal acknowledgment of the doctrinal supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

• St. Augustine, for example, voices the prevailing Catholic sentiment when in reference to the Pelagian affair he declares, in a sermon delivered at Carthage after the receipt of Pope Innocent's letter, confirming the decrees of the Council of Carthage: "Rome's reply has come: the case is closed" (Inde etiam rescripta venerunt: causa finita est. Serm. 131, c.x);

• and again when in reference to the same subject he insists that "all doubt bas been removed by the letter of Pope Innocent of blessed memory" (C. Duas Epp. Pelag., II, iii, 5).

And what is still more important, is the explicit recognition in formal terms, by councils which are admitted to be ecumenical, of the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching.

• Thus the Fathers of Ephesus (431) declare that they "are compelled" to condemn the heresy of Nestorius "by the sacred canons and by the letter of our holy father and co-minister, Celestine the Bishop of Rome."

• Twenty years later (451) the Fathers of Chalcedon, after hearing Leo's letter read, make themselves responsible for the statement: "so do we all believe.. . Peter has spoken through Leo."

• More than two centuries later, at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), the same formula is repeated: "Peter has spoken through Agatho."

• After the lapse of still two other centuries, and shortly before the Photian schism, the profession of faith drawn up by Pope Hormisdas was accepted by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), and in this profession, it is stated that, by virtue of Christ's promise: "Thou art Peter, etc."; "the Catholic religion is preserved inviolable in the Apostolic See."

• Finally the reunion Council of Florence (1438-1445), repeating what had been substantially contained in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus approved by the Second Council of Lyons (1274), defined "that the holy Apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman pontiff himself is the successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians, and that to him in blessed Peter the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal Church was given by our Lord Jesus Christ, and this is also recognized in the acts of the ecumenical council and in the sacred canons (quemadmodum etiam.. . Continetur.

Thus it is clear that the Vatican Council introduced no new doctrine when it defined the infallibility of the pope, but merely re-asserted what had been implicitly admitted and acted upon from the beginning and had even been explicitly proclaimed and in equivalent terms by more than one of the early ecumenical councils. Until the Photian Schism in the East and the Gallican movement in the West there was no formal denial of papal supremacy, or of papal infallibility as an adjunct of supreme doctrinal authority, while the instances of their formal acknowledgment that have been referred to in the early centuries are but a few out of the multitude that might be quoted."


Source: New Advent (link) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)

This doesn’t sound like a doctrine “invented in 1870.” Rather, it is the re-asserting of a doctrine always understood to be true.

JoeT

Then you should read more of the thread. I already showed that Pope John XXII in 1324 declared that doctrine as coming from the "father of lies". We know therefore that it was not even accepted in your denomination at the highest levels prior to the 14th century.

:eek: Lol!!

There's an old saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Pope John XXII actually said exactly the opposite of what you think he said. In reading Papal declarations, you need to take into account to whom it was written and why.

In Quia Quorundam, Pope John XXII was changing the disciplinary rule of a house of St. Francis. The Superiors of that house defied Pope John XXII saying that he couldn't change the rule which had been approved by previous Popes because Popes were infallible.

I assume you know what I'm talking about? Perhaps I'm assuming too much. Do you know what "the rule of a house" is? It is the regulation which tells the Superiors and the other members of an order, how many times to pray, what color of clothing to wear, when to sleep, when to wake, and stuff like that.

Pope John XXII rightly corrected their understanding of Papal Infallibility.

1. Popes and Bishops change disciplines and rules of the Church all the time. For example, the discipline of fasting on Fridays.

2. Papal Infallibility extends only to teachings on faith and morals from the chair of Peter intended for the entire Church.

So what did Pope John XXII call "a doctrine from the Father of Lies"? The idea that he, the Pope, did not have authority to change the rule of a Catholic order.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Proof of papal infallibility from Tradition

I notice that throughout, you post references, but never provide quotes.

I note that you also have no way to refute what I actually quoted from the Pope, who is, after all, the highest authority in your denomination.

:eek: Lol!!!

There's an old saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Pope John XXII actually said exactly the opposite of what you think he said. In reading Papal declarations, you need to take into account to whom it was written and why.

I know exactly who and why he said it - but the fact remains he was concerned that the doctrine of papal infallibility proposed would reduce the ability of the papacy to make decisions, and that is the point - clearly it did not exist as a doctrine in your denomination at that time. The source, according to the Pope, was the "father of lies". Nothing you say can change that fact.

I notice that throughout, you post references, but never provide quotes.
(https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/catholic-infallibility-265467-3.html#post1309721) Proof of papal infallibility from Tradition

"One need not expect to find in the early centuries a formal and explicit recognition throughout the Church either of the primacy or of the infallibility of the pope in the terms in which these doctrines are defined by the Vatican Council. But the fact cannot be denied that from the beginning there was a widespread acknowledgment by other churches of some kind of supreme authority in the Roman pontiff in regard not only to disciplinary but also to doctrinal affairs. This is clear for example, from:

• Clement's Letter to the Corinthians at the end of the first century,

• the way in which, shortly afterwards, Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church;

• the conduct of Pope Victor in the latter half of the second century, in connection with the paschal controversy;

• the teaching of St. Irenaeus, who lays it down as a practical rule that conformity with Rome is a sufficient proof of Apostolicity of doctrine against the heretics (Adv. Haer., III, iii);

• the correspondence between Pope Dionysius and his namesake at Alexandria in the second half of the third century;

• and from many other facts that might be mentioned (see PRIMACY).
Even heretics recognized something special in the doctrinal authority of the pope, and some of them, like Marcion in the second century and Pelagius and Caelestius in the first quarter of the fifth, appealed to Rome in the hope of obtaining a reversal of their condemnation by provincial bishops or synods. And in the age of the councils, from Nicaea onwards, there is a sufficiently explicit and formal acknowledgment of the doctrinal supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

• St. Augustine, for example, voices the prevailing Catholic sentiment when in reference to the Pelagian affair he declares, in a sermon delivered at Carthage after the receipt of Pope Innocent's letter, confirming the decrees of the Council of Carthage: "Rome's reply has come: the case is closed" (Inde etiam rescripta venerunt: causa finita est. Serm. 131, c.x);

• and again when in reference to the same subject he insists that "all doubt bas been removed by the letter of Pope Innocent of blessed memory" (C. Duas Epp. Pelag., II, iii, 5).

And what is still more important, is the explicit recognition in formal terms, by councils which are admitted to be ecumenical, of the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching.

• Thus the Fathers of Ephesus (431) declare that they "are compelled" to condemn the heresy of Nestorius "by the sacred canons and by the letter of our holy father and co-minister, Celestine the Bishop of Rome."

• Twenty years later (451) the Fathers of Chalcedon, after hearing Leo's letter read, make themselves responsible for the statement: "so do we all believe . . . Peter has spoken through Leo."

• More than two centuries later, at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), the same formula is repeated: "Peter has spoken through Agatho."

• After the lapse of still two other centuries, and shortly before the Photian schism, the profession of faith drawn up by Pope Hormisdas was accepted by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), and in this profession, it is stated that, by virtue of Christ's promise: "Thou art Peter, etc."; "the Catholic religion is preserved inviolable in the Apostolic See."

• Finally the reunion Council of Florence (1438-1445), repeating what had been substantially contained in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus approved by the Second Council of Lyons (1274), defined "that the holy Apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman pontiff himself is the successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians, and that to him in blessed Peter the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal Church was given by our Lord Jesus Christ, and this is also recognized in the acts of the ecumenical council and in the sacred canons (quemadmodum etiam . . . continetur.

Thus it is clear that the Vatican Council introduced no new doctrine when it defined the infallibility of the pope, but merely re-asserted what had been implicitly admitted and acted upon from the beginning and had even been explicitly proclaimed and in equivalent terms by more than one of the early ecumenical councils. Until the Photian Schism in the East and the Gallican movement in the West there was no formal denial of papal supremacy, or of papal infallibility as an adjunct of supreme doctrinal authority, while the instances of their formal acknowledgment that have been referred to in the early centuries are but a few out of the multitude that might be quoted."


Source: New Advent (link)

This doesn’t sound like a doctrine “invented in 1870.” Rather, it is the re-asserting of a doctrine always understood to be true.

JoeT
Your eyesight must be as bad as your spiritual insight. The entire thing is in quotes and a link is provided to the website.

I note that you also have no way to refute what I actually quoted from the Pope, who is, afterall, the highest authority in your denomination.

That's because De Maria did it. And your response was classic Tj3 hogwash. You’ve made it apparent over the past few months how much you hate the Catholic Church; and how little you respect the truth. Maybe this is symptomatic of your insight problem? But, it does seem to get a bit old.

JoeT

Yes, there are some who hate all things Catholic because that is what they are taught for no good reason but the catholic church teaches it, they prefer to re-write history, as noted in the above posts to fit their agenda.

And to be honest, the OP did not want to hear anti christian
(catholic) rants, they made that clear in their question, they wanted to know from the Catholic teachings a specific answer.

Your eyesight must be as bad as your spiritual insight. The entire thing is in quotes and a link is provided to the website.

So you consider a summary of an interpretation denominational encyclopedia to be primary source?

Maybe you did not understand what I meant by a quote. I mean ORIGINAL quotes.


You've made it apparent over the past few months how much you hate the Catholic Church; and how little you respect the truth. Maybe this is symptomatic of your insight problem? But, it does seem to get a bit old.


Using your logic, I guess that you must hate the majority of Christians and Christian churches with the way that you attack anyone who is not Catholic and how little you respect the truth. Maybe this is symptomatic of your insight problem? But, it does seem to get a bit old.

BTW - I don't believe that you necessarily do hate - but if I use the logic that you and Chuck put forward, that would be my only conclusion. If you assume that to put forward differing views means that they only motivation if hate - then that must mean that is how you feel about those who disagree.

I, on the other hand, believe that we can exchange ideas, information, and yes, even differ on those view without making assumptions of hate or indeed any asumption of motivation, indeed even address the person. So you can choose to be bitter against anyone who dares disagree with you, but don't assume that others feel likewise.

The interesting thing is that these attacks started simply because I pointed out a known fact - the doctrine of papal infallibility was declared to be a doctrine in your denomination only very recently.

Not sure why the thread did not close on my last post, but it should be now,

But my dad once told me if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, Even the bible tells us we will know people by their works, your posts show what you are fairly easy.