Topic: mono(mia)physite/eastern orthodox

[TheMathematician]

what is the real Christological issues between the two churches, as it pertains to the council of chaldeon? I know its a debate between the natures of Chist, but. What does it really mean, the two viewpoints?

(i realize one of the descriptions in my title is offensive, i just didnt know which one was, and i put both to be sure i had the nice title at least. unless both are offensive, in which care i beg forgiveness and correction)
Montalo

[Salpy]

what is the real Christological issues between the two churches, as it pertains to the council of chaldeon? I know its a debate between the natures of Chist, but. What does it really mean, the two viewpoints?

(i realize one of the descriptions in my title is offensive, i just didnt know which one was, and i put both to be sure i had the nice title at least. unless both are offensive, in which care i beg forgiveness and correction)
Montalo

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36721.msg579408.html#msg579408

[TheMathematician]

what is the real Christological issues between the two churches, as it pertains to the council of chaldeon? I know its a debate between the natures of Chist, but. What does it really mean, the two viewpoints?

(i realize one of the descriptions in my title is offensive, i just didnt know which one was, and i put both to be sure i had the nice title at least. unless both are offensive, in which care i beg forgiveness and correction)
Montalo

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36721.msg579408.html#msg579408

to think with coming on five years in various internet fora, i would have thought to search. I apologize for that.
And also, thank you for the link/searching it.

[Salpy]

No problem.   

[Ioannis Climacus]

what is the real Christological issues between the two churches, as it pertains to the council of chaldeon? I know its a debate between the natures of Chist, but. What does it really mean, the two viewpoints?

(i realize one of the descriptions in my title is offensive, i just didnt know which one was, and i put both to be sure i had the nice title at least. unless both are offensive, in which care i beg forgiveness and correction)
Montalo

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hist_fourth.aspx

[Salpy]

what is the real Christological issues between the two churches, as it pertains to the council of chaldeon? I know its a debate between the natures of Chist, but. What does it really mean, the two viewpoints?

(i realize one of the descriptions in my title is offensive, i just didnt know which one was, and i put both to be sure i had the nice title at least. unless both are offensive, in which care i beg forgiveness and correction)
Montalo

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hist_fourth.aspx

Just a heads up:  orthodoxinfo.com does not accurately portray the Oriental Orthodox, or what we believe.

[peteprint]

A lot of what is on the "orthodoxinfo" website is not what many Eastern Orthodox believe either.  Most of the articles present a "traditionalist" i.e. fundamentalist view that is not consistent with the teachings of many Orthodox theologians and hierarchs.  He is very selective about what he puts on the site, which gives a one-sided view of Orthodoxy to the unwary.  I avoid using that site as a resource.

[Ioannis Climacus]

A lot of what is on the "orthodoxinfo" website is not what many Eastern Orthodox believe either.  Most of the articles present a "traditionalist" i.e. fundamentalist patristic view

Fixed that for you.

that is not consistent with the teachings of many Orthodox theologians and hierarchs.  He is very selective about what he puts on the site, which gives a one-sided view of Orthodoxy to the unwary.  I avoid using that site as a resource.

It is definitely not consistent with the teachings of the modernists and ecumenists. For people who actually adhere to the Fathers (i.e. adhere to the Orthodox view), it is an excellent site.

[Irish Hermit]

A lot of what is on the "orthodoxinfo" website is not what many Eastern Orthodox believe either.  Most of the articles present a "traditionalist" i.e. fundamentalist view that is not consistent with the teachings of many Orthodox theologians and hierarchs.

"Traditionalism" is, I find, one of the defining characteristics of Orthodoxy.    It is the norm throughout the Church and the great majority of our faithful and clergy are "traditionalists."

While all the articles on orthodoxinfo.com may not be congenial to all readers,  its approach is echoed by many Orthodox websites all around the world.

Here are two Greek examples:

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/root.en.aspx

http://www.oodegr.com/english/index.htm

[peteprint]

You are entitled to your opinion.  I think it was on "orthodoxinfo" where I read several years ago some fable about a young boy who died and went to hell because he masturbated.  The Theotokos then brought him back to life just long enough so he could confess and receive absolution, then he died again and went to heaven.  Talk about legalism.

Stories such as that, and the imaginary "Journey of Theodora through the aerial Toll-Houses," is the sort of nonsense that is found throughout the "orthodoxinfo" site.  Not to mention anti-OO material.  If some Orthodox want to consider the OO "heretics" they are free to do so, but it is disingenuous to make inquirers think these are dogmatic Orthodox teachings.

[peteprint]

Father Bless,

I was not addressing you in my post.  I appreciate your position Father.

Peter

[Salpy]

I cannot speak as to how well that website speaks for Eastern Orthodoxy.

I can, however, confirm that it badly misrepresents the Oriental Orthodox, saying much about us that is untrue.

[peteprint]

"Patristic view" is something that the tollers hide behind.  The Fathers disagreed on so many theological points that there is often no patristic view to speak of.  Also, defining who the "Fathers" are is problematic.  For tollers all the 19th century Russian saints that supported the view are "Fathers".

One mans saint is another man's "Father" and source of "patristic" citations.  

[Irish Hermit]

Here is the orthodoxinfo.com page on the Miaphysites

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.aspx

It comprises a comprehensive offering of statements including from the Ecumenical Councils.  It would be hard to find all this in one place anywhere else on the Web.

[peteprint]

Yes Father,

That is true.  I am just concerned that someone with little knowledge of Orthodoxy will be taken in by the problematic articles as well. 

[Salpy]

An alternative website:

http://www.orthodoxunity.org/

[Salpy]

Another good site with information about the OO's:

http://www.erkohet.com/

[Irish Hermit]

An alternative website:

http://www.orthodoxunity.org/

A good source for official statements of the 80s and 90s.

[Severian]

that is not consistent with the teachings of many Orthodox theologians and hierarchs.  He is very selective about what he puts on the site, which gives a one-sided view of Orthodoxy to the unwary.  I avoid using that site as a resource.

It is definitely not consistent with the teachings of the modernists and ecumenists. For people who actually adhere to the Fathers (i.e. adhere to the Orthodox view), it is an excellent site.

That website is based on Chalcedonian presuppositions. For one to truly have a full and complete understanding of the nature of the Orthodox Vs. Chalcedonian conflict we must look past our own assumptions and presuppositions and view the situation with a naked eye, if you will. That is, without the lenses of one's own biases and prejudices. It seems as if many fundamentalist "Patristic" EOs don't truly want to learn what the non-Chalcedonians believe and further their understanding of the nature of the conflict, rather they simply want to be confirmed in their own confessional dispositions, thinking "Haha, you guys are heretics, after all my Saints/Fathers said so!"

[Severian]

I would like to further clarify myself, I am not trying to stir up a polemical tangent. But, I dislike that site and I dislike it when people refer to it because it purposely distorts information, which is not intellectually honest. Feel free to believe that we OOs are heretics, however, all I ask of you is to come to that conclusion without relying on your own biases.

God bless you all,
Severian

[Alpo]

fundamentalist

A pot calling kettle black?

Nobody who upholds as outdated and rigid religious stances like Oriental Orthodoxy or Eastern Orthodoxy can accuse anyone of fundamentalism.

[Severian]

fundamentalist

A pot calling kettle black?

Nobody who upholds as outdated and rigid religious stances like Oriental Orthodoxy or Eastern Orthodoxy can accuse anyone of fundamentalism.

It was a play-on of what Ioannes Climacus said:

A lot of what is on the "orthodoxinfo" website is not what many Eastern Orthodox believe either.  Most of the articles present a "traditionalist" i.e. fundamentalist patristic view

Fixed that for you.
 

[Alpo]

D'oh! Mea culpa.

[Volnutt]

that is not consistent with the teachings of many Orthodox theologians and hierarchs.  He is very selective about what he puts on the site, which gives a one-sided view of Orthodoxy to the unwary.  I avoid using that site as a resource.

It is definitely not consistent with the teachings of the modernists and ecumenists. For people who actually adhere to the Fathers (i.e. adhere to the Orthodox view), it is an excellent site.

That website is based on Chalcedonian presuppositions. For one to truly have a full and complete understanding of the nature of the Orthodox Vs. Chalcedonian conflict we must look past our own assumptions and presuppositions and view the situation with a naked eye, if you will. That is, without the lenses of one's own biases and prejudices. It seems as if many fundamentalist "Patristic" EOs don't truly want to learn what the non-Chalcedonians believe and further their understanding of the nature of the conflict, rather they simply want to be confirmed in their own confessional dispositions, thinking "Haha, you guys are heretics, after all my Saints/Fathers said so!"

Weren't your own Saints and Fathers just as emphatic against the EO, though? Isn't trusting one's own reading of the situation over the traditional authorities basically the spirit of Protestantism?

I don't mean to stir up trouble. I'd honestly like to know.

[podkarpatska]

Yes Father,

That is true.  I am just concerned that someone with little knowledge of Orthodoxy will be taken in by the problematic articles as well. 

I agree, I try to never cite that source for those reasons.

[Salpy]

that is not consistent with the teachings of many Orthodox theologians and hierarchs.  He is very selective about what he puts on the site, which gives a one-sided view of Orthodoxy to the unwary.  I avoid using that site as a resource.

It is definitely not consistent with the teachings of the modernists and ecumenists. For people who actually adhere to the Fathers (i.e. adhere to the Orthodox view), it is an excellent site.

That website is based on Chalcedonian presuppositions. For one to truly have a full and complete understanding of the nature of the Orthodox Vs. Chalcedonian conflict we must look past our own assumptions and presuppositions and view the situation with a naked eye, if you will. That is, without the lenses of one's own biases and prejudices. It seems as if many fundamentalist "Patristic" EOs don't truly want to learn what the non-Chalcedonians believe and further their understanding of the nature of the conflict, rather they simply want to be confirmed in their own confessional dispositions, thinking "Haha, you guys are heretics, after all my Saints/Fathers said so!"

Weren't your own Saints and Fathers just as emphatic against the EO, though? Isn't trusting one's own reading of the situation over the traditional authorities basically the spirit of Protestantism?

I don't mean to stir up trouble. I'd honestly like to know.

I am unaware of the OO Fathers perpetrating misrepresentations and lies against the EO's in the way that orthodoxinfo.com does against the OO's.  I know the great Armenian Father, St. Nerses Shorhali, studied what the EO's believed and came to the conclusion that they believed the same as we did.  This was a thousand years ago. 

I know that in the Armenian Church I've never heard anyone say the sort of disingenuous things about the EO's that orthodoxinfo.com asserts against the OO's.  To the extent that I've been involved with the Coptic Church, I've never heard those sorts of lies perpetrated.

I really don't know to what extent orthodoxinfo.com truly represents the EO Fathers.  I do know, however, that I have never come across its equivalent among OO material.  It may exist.  I've just never seen it.

[Volnutt]

I'm sorry, I did not mean to defend orthodoxinfo. I find them troublesome as well. I was speaking of the general charge of heresy on both sides. I was unaware of St. Nerses Shorhali, actually.

One of these days, I'll need to read the Fathers on both sides to see what they really thought, I guess.

[Salpy]

I think to the extent that you see OO Fathers charging the Chalcedonians with heresy, it has to do with what was going on before your fifth council weeded out from the Chalcedonian communion what was left of the Theodoreans.  We still have problems with some of the language in the Tome of Leo, but that's a discussion for the private forum.

[peteprint]

Please forgive me if I state something that is incorrect, since I am by no means an expert on the subject.  The issue of Chalcedon is extremely difficult to understand since we are dealing with obtuse technical terminology and there was also the issue of politics (which I personally believe lie at the root of the whole problem).

As far as I can determine, the EO and the OO have the same understanding of Christ; they simply were expressing that understanding in different terms.

To believe that Christ was a man infused, so to speak with the Divine, would be Adoptionism, a heresy.

To believe that Christ was a Divine being with external human attributes would be a form of docetism, also a heresy.

Nestorianism, as commonly understood, makes it appear that Christ was two separate persons existing side-by side in one body, another heresy.

The Orthodox position is that Christ is truly human, and truly divine, with these natures neither separated, nor confused.  This is believed by both the EO and the OO.  The EO say that Christ has both Divine and Human natures, (diophysite)  united in one person, neither separated or confused; the OO say that Christ has one nature (miaphysite) that is both completely human and Divine, with the divinity and the humanity being neither separated, nor confused.

This is my understanding, please correct me if I am mistaken.  In either case we both see Christ as divine and human, truly Man, and truly God, in one person.

For me it is a matter of semantics.  I have also not found any other area in which the EO and the OO differ fundamentally in their theological beliefs and liturgical practices.  There are differences with the Roman Catholic Church too numerous to mention, but our beliefs and practices (EO & OO) are identical, other than the Chalcedon conflict.  I have no problem considering my OO brothers and sisters to be fully Orthodox Christians.  I pray to God that reunion will happen during my lifetime.

In Christ, His unworthy servant,

Peter 

[Volnutt]

I think to the extent that you see OO Fathers charging the Chalcedonians with heresy, it has to do with what was going on before your fifth council weeded out from the Chalcedonian communion what was left of the Theodoreans.  We still have problems with some of the language in the Tome of Leo, but that's a discussion for the private forum.

Ok.

I guess it's a moot point for me right now since there's no OO Churches here. I need to just focus on "mere Orthodoxy." I do plan to choose between EO and OO someday though, so I'll keep what you said in mind. Though I do pray reunion comes before I need to bother with it, of course.

[Severian]

Please forgive me if I state something that is incorrect, since I am by no means an expert on the subject.  The issue of Chalcedon is extremely difficult to understand since we are dealing with obtuse technical terminology and there was also the issue of politics (which I personally believe lie at the root of the whole problem).

As far as I can determine, the EO and the OO have the same understanding of Christ; they simply were expressing that understanding in different terms.

To believe that Christ was a man infused, so to speak with the Divine, would be Adoptionism, a heresy.

To believe that Christ was a Divine being with external human attributes would be a form of docetism, also a heresy.

Nestorianism, as commonly understood, makes it appear that Christ was two separate persons existing side-by side in one body, another heresy.

The Orthodox position is that Christ is truly human, and truly divine, with these natures neither separated, nor confused.  This is believed by both the EO and the OO.  The EO say that Christ has both Divine and Human natures, (diophysite)  united in one person, neither separated or confused; the OO say that Christ has one nature (miaphysite) that is both completely human and Divine, with the divinity and the humanity being neither separated, nor confused.

This is my understanding, please correct me if I am mistaken.  In either case we both see Christ as divine and human, truly Man, and truly God, in one person.

For me it is a matter of semantics.  I have also not found any other area in which the EO and the OO differ fundamentally in their theological beliefs and liturgical practices.  There are differences with the Roman Catholic Church too numerous to mention, but our beliefs and practices (EO & OO) are identical, other than the Chalcedon conflict.  I have no problem considering my OO brothers and sisters to be fully Orthodox Christians.  I pray to God that reunion will happen during my lifetime.

In Christ, His unworthy servant,

Peter 

That's a fairly decent exposition, I would think. It is a bit more complicated than that of course. However, that was a pretty good and concise summary.

[pasadi97]

1. when armenians did pay the turkish leader a sum of money, they were allowed to pray for Holy Light to come under the condition that if the holy Light did not come they will eat something very bad. They agreed so in that year armenians were allowed inside the church and Eastern Orthodox outside the Church. Holy Light come outside the Church to Eastern orthodox and Armenians had to eat something very bad. So Holy Light did not come to them showing that the difference was enough.

2.There is a description to the Last Judgement and there there are some paragraphs with people that had bad teachings and looks like usually they were found quilty: "Sergie, Onorie and Kir Pir
And then a great group of people come forward , in front of God and God said with anger: who told you that in me is one will and one work: and you ... my teaching and you ... to these people that stay here with your teachings? And the gave commands to the angels of fire telling them: take them from here and the angels took them and threw them in fire."

[Salpy]

1. when armenians did pay the turkish leader a sum of money, they were allowed to pray for Holy Light to come under the condition that if the holy Light did not come they will eat something very bad. They agreed so in that year armenians were allowed inside the church and Eastern Orthodox outside the Church. Holy Light come outside the Church to Eastern orthodox and Armenians had to eat something very bad. So Holy Light did not come to them showing that the difference was enough.

Can you or any other EO substantiate this story with a contemporary source describing the alleged miracle?  

2.There is a description to the Last Judgement and there there are some paragraphs with people that had bad teachings and looks like usually they were found quilty: "Sergie, Onorie and Kir Pir
And then a great group of people come forward , in front of God and God said with anger: who told you that in me is one will and one work: and you ... my teaching and you ... to these people that stay here with your teachings? And the gave commands to the angels of fire telling them: take them from here and the angels took them and threw them in fire."

What?

[Severian]

@Salpy I think he is telling a story about how God is going to punish us and our Saints for teaching that Christ had but one will and one energy/operation.

I am not playing this game with you Pasadi, feel free to think I'm a heretic, but keep polemics off of the public fora. If you would like to debate this issue with me, feel free to do so via PMs. We'll have fun, I promise.

[Severian]

2.There is a description to the Last Judgement and there there are some paragraphs with people that had bad teachings and looks like usually they were found quilty: "Sergie, Onorie and Kir Pir
And then a great group of people come forward , in front of God and God said with anger: who told you that in me is one will and one work: and you ... my teaching and you ... to these people that stay here with your teachings? And the gave commands to the angels of fire telling them: take them from here and the angels took them and threw them in fire."

Sergie=Sergius (a monothelite), Onorie= Pope Honorius, (another monothelite), kir pir= I have no idea (probably another monothelite)

As I have said, Pasadi, you are free to think of the OO as you please, but right now it looks like you're trying to stir up a polemical tangent, which is STRICTLY forbidden on this fora. Behave, remember this is the OO section of OC.net, you're in our "turf" now.

[Severian]

EDIT: *Nevermind*

[Shanghaiski]

A lot of what is on the "orthodoxinfo" website is not what many Eastern Orthodox believe either.  Most of the articles present a "traditionalist" i.e. fundamentalist patristic view

Fixed that for you.

that is not consistent with the teachings of many Orthodox theologians and hierarchs.  He is very selective about what he puts on the site, which gives a one-sided view of Orthodoxy to the unwary.  I avoid using that site as a resource.

It is definitely not consistent with the teachings of the modernists and ecumenists. For people who actually adhere to the Fathers (i.e. adhere to the Orthodox view), it is an excellent site.

Perhaps, but still read with caution. The man does not have a blessing to do the site. Helpful as it may be, it is still potentially the product of egotism.

[Shanghaiski]

1. when armenians did pay the turkish leader a sum of money, they were allowed to pray for Holy Light to come under the condition that if the holy Light did not come they will eat something very bad. They agreed so in that year armenians were allowed inside the church and Eastern Orthodox outside the Church. Holy Light come outside the Church to Eastern orthodox and Armenians had to eat something very bad. So Holy Light did not come to them showing that the difference was enough.

Can you or any other EO substantiate this story with a contemporary source describing the alleged miracle?  

I believe there is a contemporary account from Abbot Daniil, a visiting monk from Rus'. He also testified to fights between the EOs and RCs on Golgotha, IIRC. As for the pillar, one can see the crack where the holy fire struck it. It is venerated by pilgrims who go into the Holy Supulchre Church. I have seen it and venerated it. There are many little crosses around it. The other pillars are not venerated.

[Shanghaiski]

that is not consistent with the teachings of many Orthodox theologians and hierarchs.  He is very selective about what he puts on the site, which gives a one-sided view of Orthodoxy to the unwary.  I avoid using that site as a resource.

It is definitely not consistent with the teachings of the modernists and ecumenists. For people who actually adhere to the Fathers (i.e. adhere to the Orthodox view), it is an excellent site.

That website is based on Chalcedonian presuppositions. For one to truly have a full and complete understanding of the nature of the Orthodox Vs. Chalcedonian conflict we must look past our own assumptions and presuppositions and view the situation with a naked eye, if you will. That is, without the lenses of one's own biases and prejudices. It seems as if many fundamentalist "Patristic" EOs don't truly want to learn what the non-Chalcedonians believe and further their understanding of the nature of the conflict, rather they simply want to be confirmed in their own confessional dispositions, thinking "Haha, you guys are heretics, after all my Saints/Fathers said so!"

While this may be true for some, it is a simplification. When I look at the non-Chalcedonian teaching, I see, for myself, much in common. However, the problem is not that we or you are misrepresenting the other's position, but that we have yet to find a way to remain faithful to our tradition and still come to acceptable terms. It's not "Haha, you're heretics because our saints said so," as I see it, but "Our saints said you are heretics (well, perhaps and perhaps not)--how do we move on without disrespecting the teaching of our saints." The finger-pointing and name calling and intolerance I've seen on both sides, and it's really dumb. The current dialogues, I distrust, since they stem more from the spirit of the times, rather than from tradition. We have had many attempts in the past, at actual councils, to enter into communion. Circumstances did not permit a lasting reconciliation. Maybe there will be one, or maybe there really are irreconcilable differences between our Churches, and a union between them which did not involve an acceptance or rejection of Chalcedon would be a false one, leading to disorder and maybe schism and heresy.

[Severian]

While this may be true for some, it is a simplification. When I look at the non-Chalcedonian teaching, I see, for myself, much in common. However, the problem is not that we or you are misrepresenting the other's position, but that we have yet to find a way to remain faithful to our tradition and still come to acceptable terms. It's not "Haha, you're heretics because our saints said so," as I see it, but "Our saints said you are heretics (well, perhaps and perhaps not)--how do we move on without disrespecting the teaching of our saints." The finger-pointing and name calling and intolerance I've seen on both sides, and it's really dumb. The current dialogues, I distrust, since they stem more from the spirit of the times, rather than from tradition. We have had many attempts in the past, at actual councils, to enter into communion. Circumstances did not permit a lasting reconciliation. Maybe there will be one, or maybe there really are irreconcilable differences between our Churches, and a union between them which did not involve an acceptance or rejection of Chalcedon would be a false one, leading to disorder and maybe schism and heresy.

*Sigh* There are times where I feel you are right. I sometimes wonder: "would Sts Severus and Dioscoros et al approve of this"? Overall, I do support the unity, but I am not without apprehension concerning this dialogue. I want to respect the memory of my own Saints whom I love so dearly.

God bless,
Severian

[Salpy]

1. when armenians did pay the turkish leader a sum of money, they were allowed to pray for Holy Light to come under the condition that if the holy Light did not come they will eat something very bad. They agreed so in that year armenians were allowed inside the church and Eastern Orthodox outside the Church. Holy Light come outside the Church to Eastern orthodox and Armenians had to eat something very bad. So Holy Light did not come to them showing that the difference was enough.

Can you or any other EO substantiate this story with a contemporary source describing the alleged miracle?  

I believe there is a contemporary account from Abbot Daniil, a visiting monk from Rus'.

Did Abbot Daniil live at the time when the miracle allegedly happened?  Did he actually witness first hand the splitting of the pillar?  Is there a writing by him, written at the time of the alleged miracle, describing the event, that has been verified as authentic by neutral scholars?

I'm only asking because this story, like the St. Euphemia story (which is nowhere described in the minutes of Chalcedon, or any other contemporary document) is often thrown at the OO's as proof that we are a bunch of hell-bound heretics.  It gets a bit tiring, and I'd like it settled as to whether this is an historically verifiable event.

He also testified to fights between the EOs and RCs on Golgotha, IIRC. As for the pillar, one can see the crack where the holy fire struck it. It is venerated by pilgrims who go into the Holy Supulchre Church. I have seen it and venerated it. There are many little crosses around it. The other pillars are not venerated.

There are other legends and stories about how that pillar got that way--stories that have nothing to do with God performing a miracle to show that one Church is right and another Church is wrong.  The Copts evidently have their own story about it, but I don't know the details of it.

[Salpy]

@Salpy I think he is telling a story about how God is going to punish us and our Saints for teaching that Christ had but one will and one energy/operation.

Interesting.  In my entire life, I've never heard an OO tell a story like that about the EO's.

[Severian]

I think that citing miracles as "proof" that one faith is wrong and another is right is just unscholarly. I also think it is a sign of desperation. What if I cited the miracles performed by our Teacher Dioscoros and Patr. St Severus as "proof" that I am right and you guys are wrong? What makes your miracles any more verifiable/valid than mine?

[Severian]

Interesting.  In my entire life, I've never heard an OO tell a story like that about the EO's.

I would say why I think that is the case, but I want to keep nastiness and polemics off of the public fora.

[Severian]

Interesting.  In my entire life, I've never heard an OO tell a story like that about the EO's.

I would say why I think that is the case, but I want to keep nastiness and polemics off of the public fora.

I edited my post, fwiw.