www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West A New Ecclesiology?

The word hypostasis is a biblical term (cf. Hebrews).

That said, as far as innovation is concerned, I should have specified more precisely what I meant, because what I reject is any form of innovation in connection with the content of the faith, but I have no problem with the development of language in order to express more clearly the immutable mystery.

You are correct. What I think our friend Max was thinking of was homousios--that is not a biblical term.

Thanks. This is precisely where I wanted to keep the discussion.

Deacon Anthony,

Thank you for providing a link to that valuable document on "Sister Churches." Perhaps I need to alter my original contention and state that the theological basis given in this and other documents does not seem to have been put into practice as yet with regard to the Eastern Catholic Churches.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

True, but the New Testament neologism "epiousios," which probably refers to the bread that "meets our essential needs," is related to the word for essence in Greek.

But that really is beside the point, because the Church Fathers allowed for linguistic adaptations in order to protect the integrity of the immutable mystery, but they never confused linguistic elaboration with Newman's 19th century theory of dogmatic development, which allows for mutations � in the sense of intellectual advancements � in the faith of the Church; thus positing the idea that later generations know more than the Apostles knew about Christ even though they were specifically chosen by Him as the very foundation stones of the Church.

Fr. Florovsky stated the Orthodox position on this issue when he said:

"Dogma is by no means a new Revelation. Dogma is only a witness. The whole meaning of dogmatic definition consists of testifying to unchanging truth, truth which was revealed and has been preserved from the beginning. Thus it is a total misunderstanding to speak of 'the development of dogma.' Dogmas do not develop; they are unchanging and inviolable, even in their external aspect � their wording. Least of all is it possible to change dogmatic language or terminology. As strange as it may appear, one can indeed say: dogmas arise, dogmas are established, but they do not develop. And once established, a dogma is perennial and already an immutable 'rule of faith' ('regula fidei'; o kanon tis pisteos, ο κανων της πιστεως). Dogma is an intuitive truth, not a discursive axiom which is accessible to logical development. The whole meaning of dogma lies in the fact that it is expressed truth. Revelation discloses itself and is received in the silence of faith, in silent vision � this is the first and apophatic step of the knowledge of God. The entire fulness of truth is already contained in this apophatic vision, but truth must be expressed. Man, however, is called not only to be silent but also to speak, to communicate. The silentium mysticum does not exhaust the entire fulness of the religious vocation of man. There is also room for the expression of praise. In her dogmatic confession the Church expresses herself and proclaims the apophatic truth which she preserves. The quest for dogmatic definitions is therefore, above all, a quest for terms. Precisely because of this the doctrinal controversies were a dispute over terms. One had to find accurate and clear words which could describe and express the experience of the Church. One had to express that 'spiritual Vision' which presents itself to the believing spirit in experience and contemplation" [Fr. Georges Florovsky, Revelation, Philosophy and Theology, this article originally appeared as "Offenbarung, Philosophic und Theologie" in Zwischen den Zeiten, Heft 6 (M�nchen, 1931). Translated from the German by Richard Haugh].

Dear Alexis...

Please read my entire reply before deciding what it is I am saying. And thank you for not judging me.

Here is the last part of the Creed of Trent which all clergy and all Catholic education had to recite and sign. A profession that no one can be saved outside of the true Catholic faith which the Catholic church (of Rome) has due to the Primacy and its Infallibility (which it alone has).


The traditional Catholic interpretation of UNAM SANCTAM (1302) is that it contains an Infallible definition ... and I believe that is the same as dogma ... is it not?

Of course other are other things I could quote ... you will find that any balanced education upon the Middle Ages will include historical fact that the Roman Catholic church declared that salvation (the saving of souls accomplished by Christ) only happens in it (the Roman Catholic church) alone.

We can mince words and do semantic gymnastics if we care to ... but that Middle Ages Infallible dogma is quite different from current Roman teaching which teaches that Christ is also at work (saving souls - that is what He does) within other 'sister churches' not in communion with the Roman Pope.

That the Popes were appointed by the Holy Roman Emperor, that each local king appointed the bishops of his own nation, that corruption in the form of bishops holding more than one bishporic (receiving salary from each), that some bishops lived openly with concubines and their illegitimate sons were appointed church offices ... and a ton of other abuses which gave cause and fuel for the Reformation ... these are all a matter of history.


>Ray, if you believe everything you've written, why are you still Catholic?

These things of which we hate to admit or even know about ... are not limited to the Roman Catholic Church alone. Some of them (such as teaching that God desires religious wars in which conversions are obtained by threat of death) were just the way the entire world was at the time. The massacre done by Rome on the Alexandrian Church (now called Coptics) was just the way these things were done and of course the church taught that this way was not only condoned but desired by God.

The reality of it is that Christianity (especially what became the Orthodox and Latin churches) grew like any other empire. Political intrigues among the princes of the church were not much different than in any other empire. Bishops among the churches were well known to imprison and assassinate each other. Of course .. this was not all bishops .. of course!

This 'news' is of course is upsetting to someone who has held the myth that their church had always been as near perfect spiritually and any lapses were temporary mistakes and anomalies.

The other side of holding the Orthodox and Catholic mythos (that my church has always been holy in all was) is that once one finds out that their church is not perfect ... they search for mental ways to justify it and if they can not .. they leave it for another church.

I have come to know that one must separate the message (the gospel) from the messenger (the human church). And that the human failings of the messenger (the churches) .. really do not invalidate the message ... once that separation is made.

In fact ... being able to separate the message out from the messenger .. brings some simple clarity and real relevance ... back to the message.

In normal life .. eventually .. one must separate math from the math teacher (the messenger). One must separate science from any particular science teacher, etc... the teacher represents what is being taught .. the teacher is not himself .. what is being taught. Just as the newscaster is not himself the news that he is publishing. Nether is the church (in any form) the same thing as the gospel it has responsibility to proclaim. However much our human nature wants it to be the same thing .. it is not.

The guidance of the churches which comprise Christianity (directly apostolic or a derivative from that root) has always been just that ... guidance by the Holy Spirit. Nothing greater than the guidance Jesus gave his own apostles and disciples. Each apostle (disciple) retained his own free will and had to come to his own personal spiritual development. They still (even after the Resurrection when actually doing their apostolic work) made human mistakes and evidenced sins of their own. The point being that God does not violate anyone's free will - ever. Cardinals do not go into conclave and in some mysterious way oar overtaken by the Holy Spirit so that they no longer have human sins and imperfections and are possessed to acts in exactly the way God would want. So too with Councils and Synods and bishops ... history shows how they have not all been saints as we assumed them to be ... nor produced the best results.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit remains at all times - guidance. Which means we always remain human and our personal sins and lack of real spiritual growth are obstacles to being able to follow that guidance.

The guarantees that Jesus the Son of God made with his gospel which is published by the churches that he founded (published if not always in actions free of being confused by the human nature of the churches) should not be understood or assumed as the same things as also a guarantee that Christ's presence and work is in some way exclusive to that Church ... or to any particular church ... and does not also exist outside of the church in other ways and forms.

The sun gives its light to all men not just to selected nations or individuals.

The core message of all religions that have stood the test of time .. is pay over-riding attention to your own conscience and cooperate with Providence, and do not imagine yourself to be your ego (thoughts and reasonings of the psychological mind). This is said in various ways (according to traditions and cultures) ... but it is universal.

Providence arranges our experiences of reality specifically tailored for each man, woman, and child ... the world over. And all men of all times and cultures innately recognize the inner voice (guidance) of conscience as being their own highest good. This is innate from birth ... but we can be talked out of it or ignore it for the pursuit of our own self-providence (our own manipulation of life for the goals of ego).

In other words: every human created - is called, invited, and given the full means .. to become sons of God. Not one ... is left an orphan.

Christ role in God's relation to the entire world (by whatever means) is unique. No other religious figure ever claimed to be the same as God ("begotten not made" is the way Christianity puts it). This has to be noticed. And the rest of his gospel (his life and teachings) bear witness that he could not have been mistaken to such a delusion. Just was definite not a man of delusions.

(Reminded of when Christ gave the parable of all the massagers being sent to Israel but now .. the landowner's own son is sent).

But such a unique sonship does not mean that all of the other of the messengers that God sent to Israel were wrong in their message. The message is the same ... the authority of the messenger is what has been further validated. That message remains in human language (down to our level). It remains something that points to a reality which can not be had without over-riding attention to one's own conscience and knowing cooperation with Providence (the Will of God). Again - I remind you - means which are available to all men of all times and all cultures and not exclusive to any ethnic group or any group (particular churches included).

The progress we follow when reading the Old Testament into the New Testament - is witness to a particular human group (Israel) as it progressed in understanding God. The edicit that Israel should kill all the Cannanites (man women and child) and later punishment for not doing so ... is the way man (Israel) understood God at the time and we understand God far better now thanks to the gospel. But it must be noted that Christianity (the new church) has also gone through the same progress and that near its beginning it was (supposedly) God's will that all pagans and infidels and heretics be killed.

Thank God we no longer kill out heretics and the church has been reformed on that teaching.

The most difficult thing in the world is to follow one's own conscience voluntarily (that is: without promise of reward nor threat of punishment). Yet that is the final of what God calls us to. I don't know if I can do that fully till the end of my days. I don't even know if I will ever get there.

There are two theologies of the Roman Catholic church. And they are sometimes opposed. When one comes to that realization - one should choose which to follow. On one hand there is its Mystical theology which is essentially the same and the Eastern Mystical theology of our fellow churches. On the other hand there is a governing theology ... how to govern the human side of the church in its operations and membership. A current example of where they sometimes diverge is the example of how the church have exhumed the body of Paidre Pio - against the ardent wishes of his relatives and legal family - in order to put his body on public display. What accounts for this when the church is also the primary proponent of the sanctity of the family and the rights of family in society?? Is the body of Parde Pio being used as an public advertisement to buy into the church and increase membership? You decide.

The organization and management of the church should be noted as quite separate from the life of the church .. which life is evident in the real saints and mystics of the church (the Doctor's of the Church etc..). It is historical record going way back that there is often tension between the two. The hiarchy (management) often persecuting someone who they later declare to be saints (John of the Cross, Padre Pio). Cults are seen as a threat to management - but when the cult becomes too stong in puplic poularity - the management has no choice but to turn on a dime and adopt the dead saint by aborbing him into the apparatus of the church. Sorry to put it that way.

What am I still a Catholic???

Where would I go? Once the mythos is seen for what it is ... one leaves the mythos .. which does not exist as reality ... in any church. One now 'becomes' a member of the church and to some extent the holiness (or lack of it) of your own church depends upon - you. This can be seen as a responsibility. But it need not become a public responsibility.

There is an image which does come to my mind of the set of Russian dolls .. you know the kind. You open the doll and inside you find another doll .. and you open that doll and inside that doll is another doll.. etc...

When you first approach the Russian doll .. the one you see seems to be the real doll... but once you open it you realizes that it has simply been a container for the real doll inside. And once you open that doll .. you find that it too has simply been a container for the real doll inside ... and on an on until you actually get to the last doll which is the real doll and not just a container which appears to be a doll.

The most difficult thing in the world is to follow one's own conscience voluntarily (that is: without promise of reward nor threat of punishment). Yet that is the final of what God calls us to. Total fidelity to conscience while being placed within the day to day experiences that we have of the world around us and its events an people. I remind you that this means of besoming like God is available to all men at all times irregardless of group philosophy or particular religion.

The unity of apostolic churches can only be had through human friendships. Fellowship in Christ. Love of one another. Any other type of 'love' which is contingent and conditional .. is not the same love Jesus that had for his own disciples. Jesus made that clear when He asked Peter "Do you love me?" and the only right answer was "Yes.. but only in a human friendship like way." This unconditional love for all humans is also highlighted when Jesus said we are to love our enemies and not just the people who are like us.

But back to radical attention to one's own conscience while being placed within the daily experiences of the events which God arranges to come to us as individuals or groups.

This is the message that the messenger brought to us. This is the message of the gospel. For the Christian .. this is that Will of the Father known to us in our hearts. This is the real 'doll' of which all else had been an image, container, and less perfect image of.

-ray

Shall we propose this forum only be postable by credentialed people? Credentialed by who ..? reading which history? adhering to which set of conflicting doctrines?

My understanding is that this forum is for anyone of any church who follows forum guidelines. By that ... we will always see conflicting and confusing and even wrong information in here. This is a forum of friendships .. and the perfect need not post.

Not all my details are entirely accurate and I am not a teacher and I have no authority. I am just a man who wonders about God and faith and speak as honestly as I can about it all. Nothing more.

-ray

I think everyone is "credentialed" initially: I should want to believe everyone. But I do object to intellectual gossip, especially if there is a lot of it. What I object to is the "character assassination" of facts, i.e. the equivalent of saying I really don't know X and what I say may be incorrect but I think he drinks, and I hear he beats his wife and therefore ... etc. -- but I've never met him (the pervert), so everything I said is ok to say, but it may be wrong. Bother to met him and verify the facts.

Concerning facts, one example,



Specifically, how does Trent's Canon IV on baptism:

Canon IV. If any one says, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, anathema sit.

allow one to make the bald statement:

"In Trent ... Christ is only at work within the Roman Catholic church ..."

rather than to inquire:

What does the Catholic Church now say about the sacraments in other Churches (properly so called according to its understanding) and even ecclesial communities? What do those Churches hold regarding Catholic sacraments?


Dn. Anthony

Yes. Bob. Exactly.

Trent was a real reformation of the Roman Church. Reform .. a new-form ... change of and to ... doctrines, teaching, and pratice.

We can call these changes "further understanding" or 'better understandings', or 'further developments' .. but that does not gloss over nor invalidate that they were - real changes.

Other religions now had to be tolerated in existence - forced upon the church by social realities. The Holy Roman Empire was gone (co-regency of emperor and Pope). Wars did not turn back the clock to one state and one religion. The peak of Western Christdom (joint government and religion) had passed. Just as the Christendom of the East (Byzantine) had passed.

Church and Kings could no longer arrest 'heretics' and execute them. And that which was taken for granted as common knowledge under one religion ... had to now be declared and defined and pronounced (Papal Primacy over all Christianity). A pronouncement in words and ideal .. but not on the ground, reality in your face, fact.

This is reflected in the fable of the emperor (Pope) having no cloths.

The Pope can declare from his chair (which he did) that the earth is the center of the solar system (based upon Joshuah where the sun stood still which was considered divine revelation) .. which he did in the condemnation of Copernicus ... but now that too lays in dust and is best forgotten as a mistake. But it should be remembered it was also a dogmatic mistake which 'heretics' were killed to protect and perpetuate. Never mind that Papal authority felt threatened ... (the real reason behind the motives) ... what was done was done.

I do not bring theses things up to attack the church. Not at all. I bring them up to put the church (hierarchy and doctrine and dogma) into perspective. I do not throw out the baby with the bath water. One does not divorce his wife just because she is sometimes mistaken or bone headed. Neither do I. I remain a Catholic (even if some teachings of the church say I am automatically not a Catholic anymore for disbelief in Primacy). I pull the trump card of the Catechism where it says that a man MUST obey the clear judgments of his own conscience.

But I will say that shaking the mythos (that image of the perfection of church management) we desire hierarchy to have (and hierarchy thinks it has) .. certainly does make people uncomfortable.

Vatican I and II are just such reforms as Trent was. I thank God the church can reform itself! But I personally think Primacy and Infallibility (as you say to counter trends of the Reformation) inhibit (in their own way) areas where reform is needed (unity).

Trent also initiated that seminaries be built for the first time .. that priest receive real education in theology, philosophy and classical sciences, that priest adopt a uniform (up to that point priest wore normal clothing), it put a damper and controls upon conferternities(sp) and Catholic associations, the noble elite purchasing of dispensations and indulgences was reformed, and it put scriptures into the hands of its laity for the first time. What had caused the Protestant Reform - was finally reformed!

I have not 'condemned' Trent. Hurray for Trent! Hurray for Vatican I and II!!

But as to the items which were also reformed, and further reformed ... into the current notions of Primacy and Infallibility ... made from something less absolute ... this was a two sided coin. A bridge too far.

It saved and strengthened the Roman Catholic church while at the same time solidified and cemented (making permanent) the walls between the rest of the churches which had once comprised the total One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ... which Christ founded and which was existent in more than just the West of Latin Rites.

Rome no longer had any way to have friendly ecclesiastical relations with any other church not being judicially subordinate to it. For a long time it needed no way (geographically and schismaticly separated for generations). And there was still no need in play. Times have changed and there is now a need .. but still no way.

How can the 'Chief of equals' be equal anymore when Rome put into absolute and infallible and irreformable terms ... that no other church or Patriarch is equal to its own superiority?? I am equal but superior in every way???

This is 1984 double speak!

My equality with the rest of you is the based upon my superiority over the rest of you??

What blinds us to this?? ... Faith over reason and intellect?? is that why we accept this? Is it really 'faith' when it flys against reason? I thought faith and reason must be compatible. Faith being used where reason can not penetrate (the nature of God) ... but compatible where reason can by used.

The mythos which Primacy and Infallibility has put upon Catholics ... does us damage no only within the community of apostolic churches but amongst ourselves. Catholics can hardly speak of mistakes or human defects within their own church without expecting other Catholics (eager to prove their Catholic faith) speaking out against any criticism. To critique one item ... is equated to falling away from true and Christ altogether.

No offense meant to anyone ... but my simply writing about a few facts which are mostly historical facts certified by even Catholic historians of the church ... results in "So then why are you still Catholic?" (please .. no offense meant to the person who said that .. it is a typical Catholic response and had once been my own response to like situations).

The reforms of Vatican I were followed closely by the further reforms of Vatican II. I suspect the next reforms will come quickly also. The span of time between reforms shrinks as the progressive changes of civilization increases.

But the Roman Catholic Catechism over 800 pages (!!) of sometimes conflicting statements .. is the gospel now something that only trained theologians have hope of understanding? Where did the gospel go? I think we have lost site of it buried under 800 pages.

I advise anyone to take Bob's opinions over my own. I freely admit I am in a state of searching within myself and have always found Bob to be pretty darn solid. Bob's spirituality is a model for us all.

Peace to all churches.
-ray

You are correct. What I think our friend Max was thinking of was homousios--that is not a biblical term.

Yes, thank-you, that is exactly what I meant. Thank-you for salvaging my post.

While I agree with the notion that the faith is complete, I think it gets hazier than Apotheoun seemed to be suggesting. For instance, the liturgy, the cycle of feasts, etc... developed over time, and probably continues to develop.

While I agree that the notion that we are smarter than the apostles is to be avoided, I think we also benefit from the communion of saints that have passed before us and among whom we live now.

Dn. ... does that stand for Deacon? If so please accept my calling you Deacon Anthony.

I can understand how one can equate Christ working within churches with sacraments. But in my thinking I was not limiting his salvific work of Christ to just valid sacraments or lack of valid sacraments. That very well may be what the Cannon you refer to is in context of.

The sacraments are just one of the ways that Jesus works ... and to my mind not his most important ways. According to Councils there are ifs, ands, and buts, to the effectiveness of receiving the sacraments (as Paul also notes in his epistles). Early councils made great efforts to distinguish sacrements from magic. So while sacraments do assist those in whom they will be effective ... they are not strictly nessesary for sanctification.

In the Middle Ages laity received only once a year (Easter) while clergy received weekly. I believe it was also around the reforms of Trent that allowed laity to begin to receive weekly Eucharist.

I think very few in this forum are credentialed. Most are laity. There are a few with actual authority (either in education or holy orders) but not many and they seldom teach in here as it is a forum of discussion. We just talk about things. At least that is the way it used to be. We are just men passing on the street and our opinions are nothing for anyone to shape one's religious beliefs around.

I am no one. I tell you that up front. I have done a lot of serious study in areas ... spirituality East and West. I am Roman Catholic but am also fairly close to the Orthodox people and church. Friends and family are Orthodox. We Catholics are not better than they are. There is nothing lacking to them in Christ. We are -both- wounded by division. We are both lacking on that score.

-ray

Generally speaking, these are not the kinds of developments Apotheoun is talking about. He is talking about innovations in doctrine and dogmas.

God Bless,
R.

"Dear Alexis...

Please read my entire reply before deciding what it is I am saying. And thank you for not judging me."

I did read your entire post. And I didn't judge you? At all! That's why I said "...though I may be mistaken." That's why I asked why you stayed Catholic, instead of saying you *aren't* Catholic. I don't know if I could possibly be any clearer.

The Catholic Church still teaches, as always, that no one is saved outside of her. That's the same now as it has always been. Is your point that while the actual teaching hasn't changed, the "popular understanding" of the teaching has? Or are you saying the official teaching has in fact changed (which I would reject)?

Alexis

No. I know you didn't. And I was thanking you for that kindness.

Peace be with you Alexis.
-ray

Ray,

Yes, the Dn. is my abbreviation for Deacon, and I sincerely accept and thank you for the sentiment.

By being so broad in my critique I did not want to seem belligerent or authoritarian. You say "I think very few in this forum are credentialed. Most are laity." But anyone, laity or otherwise, scholar or otherwise, who holds the true belief and teaching is properly "credentialed" by the faith that is within him.

I would suggest, if I may, more cautious consideration of some of your sweeping conclusions. For instance, I would take issue in particular with the latter part of a statement like "The sacraments are just one of the ways that Jesus works ... and to my mind not his most important ways."

There is hope: Jesus prayed that we may all be one, and He is also among us that wounds may be healed.

Dn. Anthony

Below .. Christ has bound salvation to the sacraments ... but has not limited his salvific grace to the sacraments alone.

Bellow ... all who dies in God's grace and friendship (which is not bound to the sacraments alone) have salvation.

Purgation (Purgatory) is not just for Catholics.

Below ... from EWTN library..

Further from the Holy Office by Pope Pius XII ... if a man wishes and desires to conform his will to the will of God .. he will be saved.

and Lumen gentium...

St. Justin the Martyr ...

St. John Chrysostom ...

Agustine ...

From these teachings and statements it is clear that the Roman Catholic church does teach that the is salvation outside of formal membership in the church - and she gives some of what it believes the criteria is.

So where ? does the solid "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church" that some Popes and some times in history it has taught .. where does it come from??

There are two things to note here if we wish to understand better. The first is that Jesus IS the Logos. What we call Providence. Sometimes called the Word. Which all men can know through the things that God has created (at least) because through it all things come into being and without it no-thing comes into being.

All men also posses conscience.

Right there are the two essential means to salvation without which even sacraments do no good.

The second thing to note is that the proper understanding of 'no salvation outside the church' as used by early councils ... the term 'salvation' had been used to signify the sacraments. The phrase was used in context of break away heretics and mostly had the effective meaning that the sacraments of any heretical group which is excommunicated ('outside the church') are not valid. Over time .. this phrase became un-anchored from that context.

Being 'outside the church' also originally meant a culpability. That is: that one to have been a member of the church who knows and fully understands the true (regarding something in the church) and he/they knowingly reject it. One should compare this to a moral act of knowing full well that murder is wrong - but deciding to go ahead and murder anyway. One rejects what one knows by mind and conscience is right. One is rejecting - conscience.

One should also compare this to being a heretic - where someone who is not a member of the church can not be a heretic (he can be in error - but not a heretic). The Canons for declaring someone a heretic are clear. That is: that a member of the church must fully understand - and knowingly and willing reject some item. There are no automatic heretics as specific Canons must be followed to the letter.

And so originally ... being 'outside the church' referred to someone who had been a member of the church and has now rejected the church .. and is not ignorant (having no real understanding) of what he is rejecting. Again .. a violation of conscience.

A man can not be held responsible for what he does not understand. Neither is grace and salvation held back by Christ from someone is is not a member of the Catholic Church (unless he had been a member and fully understood something and rejected it willingly).

I for one am not willing to say that all Jews are going to hell. And I am not willing to say that all Catholics are going to heaven. That would be Calvin's wrong idea of pre-destination.

The 'trick' in understanding the Catholic church (and I include all its churches) is that God has revealed to it certain things ... but at no time did God say his grace and salvation are exclusive to it. He left that part blank. His business and not our business. We know what is for us and we know very little about what is for anyone else. We sometimes know one thing and fly off into further assumptions which are not justified.

These are just my own thoughts.

These things are all difficult to understand and are attacted many ifs ands and buts ... over time the church (hierarchy) has indeed spoken and taught contractory regarding a few of them. She is not perfect and is also in progress to perfection in as much as each of its members is in progress. The church can error as it is not entirely infallible at all times regarding all things .. and the church can be expressing an opinion which we can disagree with ... not all items are Revelation.

Enuff for me for tonight. Please excuse my typos as I work in the moring and do not have time now to check.

Thank you for listening with an open mind Alexis.

-ray

Yes, you are correct