Ok, so we’re back to purchasing tickets out of purgatory again, eh?
“In recent months, dioceses around the world have been offering Catholics a spiritual benefit that fell out of favor decades ago — the indulgence, a sort of amnesty from punishment in the afterlife — and reminding them of the church’s clout in mitigating the wages of sin. . . . According to church teaching, even after sinners are absolved in the confessional and say their Our Fathers or Hail Marys as penance, they still face punishment after death, in Purgatory, before they can enter heaven. In exchange for certain prayers, devotions or pilgrimages in special years, a Catholic can receive an indulgence, which reduces or erases that punishment instantly, with no formal ceremony or sacrament.”
Not that we needed this for evidence, but it is more and more clear that the Roman Church’s claim to being Catholic is false. (ok, something that’s been glaringly obvious for over 500 years is not exactly a news flash, but it needs saying all the same).
So, the real answer to the question, “Is the Pope a catholic?” is “Not until he repents and leaves this sectarian, divisive church which has its headquarters in a really nice old building in Rome.”
[and I’ve been corrected, this is not something “new” (i.e. something resurrected that had been buried) rather, indulgences were never done away with, they’ve been around all along, you just can’t sell them for money anymore, as did our friend pictured above. Now, you simply have to pray or do some other works to get them.]
Read all about it: Catechism of the Catholic Church (1471..1479)
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm#1471
I am glad that God took me out of the Church of Rome.
Pastor Steve,
Someone e-mailed me about this article you posted. I have respectfully submitted a reply to this article on my blog.
I hope you are doing well. God bless!
I think it is a wonderful idea if we, the progeny of the Protestant Reformation, determine that we will collectively:
A. Vow to refuse to crack open the cover of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, much less read the blasted thing.
B. Damn their unrepentant Pope and the rest of the Roman Catholics all to hell, all 1.2 BILLION of them!
C. Having dispatched of fully HALF of the professing Christians worldwide, we can then more efficiently move on to fixing everyone else.
Wikipedia – “The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church, is the world’s largest Christian church, representing over half of all Christians and one-sixth of the world’s population. The Catholic Church is a communion of 23 sui juris particular churches. Among these are the Western Rite and Eastern Catholic Churches comprising 2,782 dioceses. The Church’s highest earthly authority in matters of faith, morality and Church governance is the pope, currently Pope Benedict XVI who holds supreme authority over the Church in concert with the College of Bishops, of which he is the head. The community is made up of an ordained ministry and the laity; members of either group may belong to organized religious communities.”
“The Church defines its mission as spreading the message of Jesus Christ, administering the sacraments and exercising charity. It operates social programs and institutions throughout the world, including schools, universities, hospitals, missions and shelters, as well as organisations such as Catholic Relief Services, Caritas Internationalis and Catholic Charities that help the poor, families, the elderly and the sick.”
Kevin,
I’m not sure I’m following here. Who “damned” the Pope and “the rest of the Roman Catholics” to hell? Not me.
Who *vowed* never to “crack open the cover of the Catechism of the Catholic Church much less read the blasted thing”? Not me. In fact, I’ve read it and searched the online Catholic encyclopedia to be sure I understood it. It confirms exactly what I thought:
1. Indulgences are still dispensed (though not bought with money, they are earned through good works).
2. They are dispensed from a “treasury of merit” which treasury consists not merely of Christ’s merit but that of the saints.
3. They secure relief from the temporal punishment of sins and/or the purification of veniel sins after death in the state called Purgatory.
So, if you want to defend earning exemption from temporal punishment of sins by your works, shortening your time in Purgatory through earning an indulgence, and depending upon the “treasury of merit” earned by the saints, have at it.
Just don’t call that the Catholic faith.
B.J,
Thanks, I’ll look at your response.
My point is this: Why don’t we just connect your dots and cut to the chase. As I read the post, you’ve publicly called out the Pope and the Roman “Catholic” Church as not being catholic, that is not being part of the whole or complete Church, not being (of) Christ’s body. So why not just clearly say what this (apparently) implies? The Pope is a _________ and the Roman Catholic Church is ________.
Kevin,
no, you’re missing my point. I’m saying the Roman Church has departed from the catholic faith (the faith once for all delivered to the saints) by maintaining, indulgences, purgatory, treasuries of merit, prayers to the saints, worship of Mary, etc., etc.
I’m NOT saying that members of the Roman Church are unbelievers or apostates. I’m saying the Roman Church is in error. You know, sort of like historic Protestantism has always held.
Before you connect the dots, make sure you understand the dots.
So in your blog entry you are using the word “catholic” in a very narrow sense, meaning “orthodox”, or “biblical”, nothing more, nothing less? Is that what you meant to say about the Pope and Roman Catholic believers? If that is what you meant, then I don’t think that is what the typical reader will think you meant, because I don’t think most Christians, certainly most Roman Catholics, understand the word “catholic” to have such a laser focused meaning as “correct” or “true”. The word is typically is used to convey the concept of being a part of the whole, universal entity, in this case, the Church.
I am not the only one who didn’t “get it”, if that is all you were trying to say.
And yes, I am familiar with the reformed position that “the Roman Church is in error. You know, sort of like historic Protestantism has always held.” But thanks for the reminder. I had almost forgotten that we are king of the hill.
MERRIAM-WEBSTER Online Dictionary
Main Entry: cath·o·lic
Pronunciation: \ˈkath-lik, ˈka-thə-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English catholik, from Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French catholique, from Late Latin catholicus, from Greek katholikos universal, general, from katholou in general, from kata by + holos whole — more at cata-, safe
Date: 14th century
1 a) often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal b) often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it c) capitalized : Roman Catholic
2: comprehensive , universal ; especially : broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests
WIKIPEDIA – Catholic
Catholic is an adjective derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “whole” or “complete”.[1] In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages. For Roman Catholics, the term “Catholic Church” refers to the Church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, including both the Western particular Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches. Protestants sometimes use the term “catholic church” to refer to the entire body of believers in Jesus Christ across the world, and across the ages. Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Christians hold that their churches are catholic in the sense that they are in continuity with the original catholic (universal) church founded by the apostles. In “Catholic Christendom” (including the Anglican Communion), bishops are considered the highest order of ministers within the Christian Church, as shepherds of unity in communion with the whole church and one another. [2] Catholicity is considered one of Four Marks of the Church, the others being unity, sanctity, and apostolicity.[3] according to the Nicene Creed of 381: “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”
Most Reformation and post-Reformation churches use the term Catholic (sometimes with a lower-case c) to refer to the belief that all Christians are part of one church, regardless of denominational divisions; eg Chapter XXV of the Westminster Confession of Faith refers to the catholic or universal Church. It is in line with this interpretation, which applies the word catholic (universal) to no one denomination, that they understand the phrase “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” in the Nicene Creed, the phrase the Catholic faith in the Athanasian Creed and the phrase holy catholic church in the Apostles’ Creed.
The term is used also to mean those Christian churches which maintain that their episcopate can be traced unbrokenly back to the apostles and consider themselves part of a catholic (universal) body of believers. Among those who regard themselves as Catholic, but not Roman Catholic, are Anglicans and some smaller groups such as the Polish National Catholic Church, Independent Catholics, Ancient Catholics and the Liberal Catholic Churches, as well as some Lutherans (though the latter often prefer the lower-case “c” and stress that they are both Protestant and Catholic). Some ninteenth and twentieth century churches like the Old Catholic Churches and Traditionalist Catholics (who may or may not be in communion with Rome) consider themselves to be Catholic and also “true” Roman Catholics.
The term can refer to the one (singular number) church that, according to Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus told the Apostle Peter he would build: “And I tell you, you are כיפא (Kepha) (Aramaic for “rock”), and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Some use the term Catholic to distinguish their own position from a Calvinist or Puritan form of Reformed-Protestantism. These include High Church Anglicans, often also called Anglo-Catholics, 19th century Neo-Lutherans, 20th century High Church Lutherans or evangelical-catholics and others.
Methodists and Presbyterians believe their denominations owe their origins to the Apostles and the early church, but do not claim descent from ancient church structures such as the episcopate. However, both of these churches hold that they are a part of the catholic (universal) church.
uh, i was using “catholic” to mean what it means, i.e. “universal” and the “catholic faith” is the “historic, universal faith” of the Church (but I appreciate you pasting all the definitions).
I’m opposing the sectarianism that pronounces anathemas on all who disagree that there are “seven sacraments”; purgatory; the granting of indulgences, and any number of other extra-biblical, non-catholic doctrines. We’re not the ones doing the anathematizing here — if anyone’s playing the King of the Hill, it ain’t us.
OK, so if you do mean “catholic” in the sense most of us do (universal church/faith), are the Pope and RCC included in the “one holy catholic and apostolic” church? You said that they are not apostate, but they are also not catholic. If you believe they are not “catholic”, why do they get a pass? How much more not “catholic” must they be to apostate?
Perhaps I should rephrase my last post/question and toss out “apostate”. How about this. If the Pope and RCC are not “catholic” (as you have used the term), i.e. having no part of the universal Church and Christian faith, then what are they?
Kevin, I have to admit, this is bizarre. You keep acting like I’m using “catholic” in some unusual, esoteric sense. “Catholic” means “universal.” Period. It is an adjective. The “catholic” Church is the Church universal. The “catholic” faith is the historic, universal faith of the Church. [And, strange as it may sound, this is how 99% of the world uses this term.]
I’m saying the Roman Church is not “catholic” when it departs from the “catholic” faith (as it does on the doctrines of purgatory, indulgences, the seven sacraments, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the immaculate conception, the infallibility of the Pope, etc., etc., etc., etc.). [and if you think this is a slander, I’ll be happy to listen to your biblical defense of these teachings]
Does this mean that the Pope is a non-Christian? No. Does this means that all members of the Roman Church are unbelievers? NO!
Have I consigned anyone who believes these things to hell? No I haven’t. [I really do believe in justification by faith. Thus, if they believe in Jesus, they are justified in God’s sight in spite of embracing these errors.]
BUT, (and here’s the brick in the pudding) THEY HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONSIGNING THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH THEIR TEACHINGS TO HELL. And I’m not talking about those who disagree with the Apostle’s Creed, I’m talking those who disagree with the teachings I listed above (read their catechism and the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, they don’t hide their contempt for those who differ).
When the Roman Church anathematizes me for believing that there are only two sacraments instead of seven, I call that sectarian and divisive. They are consigning their brethren to hell. Do you really think this is catholic?
When the Roman Church anathematizes me for not believing that purgatory is real, I call that sectarian and divisive. It is consigning other Christians to hell because they don’t accept an extra-biblical teaching. I have a hard time understanding why this is viewed as catholic.
Why is it ok for them to consign me and millions of other Christians to hell, but it’s wrong for me to call upon the Pope to repent of holding these extra-biblical doctrines AND anathematizing those Christians who disagree?
Honestly, your “sensitivity” is baffling and inexplicable to me.
But Steve, I thought all you FV guys were “romanists.” 🙂
When I read your post, I heard you saying that Pope Benedict XVI and the RCC were not catholic. (By the way, when I say the Roman Catholic Church, I mean the whole organic institution, by the way. I am not talking about each individual confirmed soul).
When I hear someone say that a man, a church, are not catholic, I hear him saying that the Holy Spirit is not to be found in that man, that church, for they have departed from the universal, catholic Body of Christ, the catholic church. When a Roman Catholic hears or reads such a statement, I KNOW they also understand the statement as I did. Reading Bobby Kennedy’s response, it is obvious that he did.
So when you later responded by saying that the RCC, having departed from the catholic church/faith, is not to be equated with apostacy, then I ask “well, does catholic mean something else to him than what I understand it to mean, which is the universal church”. I was trying to figure out how you can say the man, the church is not catholic, and yet at the same time the man, the church, is not apostate.
That is why I wondered out loud if you were using a more narrow definition of catholic. I was looking for a way for your statements to make sense, to me at least, in their totality. Clearly, you have convinced me that you and I mean the same thing when we say catholic.
I am just trying to figure out your bottom line stance on the RCC. So I ask again my earlier question, is the RCC included in the “one holy catholic and apostolic” church, or is it not? Are you saying (in so many words) that the Roman Catholic Church (the institution) is apostate?
And if you answer that the RCC is apostate, is not included in the “one holy catholic and apostolic” church, I understand that is not equivalent to saying every soul confirmed in the RCC is apostate or damned (including the Pope), although they would obviously be in great danger.
My sensitivity is baffling to you, I understand. My point is this. I understand the position of the RCC towards all the rest of us. I haven’t argued that point. Nevermind that the RCC cries anathema. What can we do about that? Nothing. But what I take from your post is the same..anathema, only with less explanation than the RCC packages with theirs
And I believe that even if turn about is fair play, what comes across as a slap in the face of our Roman Catholic brethren does no good for them or us. And you really can’t do a better job of collectively slapping in the face every Roman Catholic in the world at the same time than by blogging that the Pope is not catholic, unless you wanted to call him the anti-Christ.
I realize your intended message in the post “Is the Pope catholic” was not a blanket damnation, but lots of protestants, LOTS OF THEM, are more than willing to write them all off, with or without a little nudge, and that was the reason for my original post’s sarcasm (wasn’t saying you were damning them all to hell).
But it’s your blog, your entry, your platform, I’m just trying to figure out what you are really saying.
Is the RCC included in the “one holy catholic and apostolic” church, or is it not?
of course the Roman Church is included, but they depart from catholicity at these points.
and, I didn’t do what they have done to me (in spite of your insistence to the contrary — I don’t believe that “turn about” is fair play). It is interesting that a call to repent is interpreted that way, however.
Those who throw around anathemas like fairy dust, are usually the most sensitive about being called to repentance themselves.
Pastor Steve,
One of your responses to Kevin was very helpful to me regarding how the reader should understand what you are saying. I, like you, hate to say something, and not be understood in the manner which my comments were intended. So I hope I have arrived at an understanding of your position.
I hear you saying that the Pope and individual Catholics are Christians, because of their baptism, their living out of the faith, as far as they understand it and to the best of their ability, and because they are justified by faith, though you may not agree that Catholics believe in justification by faith in the a particular manner. You would argue that one does not have to believe in justification by faith to be justified by faith, or believe in a particular definition of justification by faith to be justified by faith. What you are denying is that the fullness of the Catholic Church subsists in the Roman Catholic Church, which in your mind excludes non-Catholics in her own right. You are throwing open the doors and saying that anyone who is baptized is a Christian and that the Catholic Church is comprised of those bodies of Christians which hold fast to the “faith once delivered” which you feel the Catholic Church as an institution has fallen away from. Is this a correct summary of your viewpoint?
I would now like to quote some of your comments and toss out some thoughts.
“I’m saying the Roman Church is not “catholic” when it departs from the “catholic” faith (as it does on the doctrines of purgatory, indulgences, the seven sacraments, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the immaculate conception, the infallibility of the Pope, etc., etc., etc., etc.). [and if you think this is a slander, I’ll be happy to listen to your biblical defense of these teachings]”
Each of the views has been held from ancient times, when the term “catholic” was used to describe the Church in total, which was indeed universal and one. There was only one Church to call Catholic, though there were sects arising which called themselves the true Church. This Catholic Church, the true one, was under the leadership of the Pope and the college of bishops in communion with him. This was fundamental to the basic essence of what it meant to be part of the Catholic faith. If you were a Christian, or a group of Christians, who left the fellowship of the one Church headed by the successor of St. Peter then you were departing the organic unity of the Catholic Church. You were still a baptized Christian, but you were walking away from the Church of the apostles. You were not founding a new Church, because the Church, by nature is one just as our God is one. You were founding a rival organization, which may call itself “catholic” or “church” but it was neither. Ignatius of Antioch makes that plainly clear in his letters. He saw fellowship with the bishop to be identical to fellowship with Christ, through his Church.
Some of the doctrines you call into question may have not been spelled out by the Church until the last couple hundred years, but that does not mean it was not part of the deposit of faith. You know as well as I do that often the Church did not define a particular belief or dogma unless some question or controversy arose which required the Church to definitively set boundaries for orthodox belief. Wrong views of the Godhead, for example, required the Church to define the dogma of the Holy Trinity, though the orthodox belief already persisted in the Catholic Church. Even the perpetual virginity, for example, was believed by the Reformers. My point is that I feel, perhaps, you have concluded that at a particular moment in the history of the Church, (I am not pretending to know which moment that was) the faith was defined in such a final and perfect manner that there is no further need for the Church to dogmatically define the bounds of orthodoxy on any other matter of faith. I would assume that, like us Catholics, you would agree that the Nicene Creed and Apostle’s Creed are excellent syntheses of the faith, but to look at them alone would not reveal everything we believe about the faith. We both, for example, profess the “Catholic Church” but we do not agree upon its nature. There is still room for further definition and dogmatic crystallization of matters of the faith, in my understanding. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but that is what I think I am perceiving.
“BUT, (and here’s the brick in the pudding) THEY HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONSIGNING THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH THEIR TEACHINGS TO HELL. And I’m not talking about those who disagree with the Apostle’s Creed, I’m talking those who disagree with the teachings I listed above (read their catechism and the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, they don’t hide their contempt for those who differ).”
I don’t find the Catholic Church to be quite as condemning as you feel she is, especially of the present generation of Protestants. When you read the Catechism you seem to pick up on a different tone than I discover. For example, here is what the Catechism says about other bodies of Christians and the individual Christians themselves.
818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”272
819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth”273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”276
The Catholic Church calls you a brother. It does not condemn you to hell. My view is that we are arguing the same case, but from different perspectives. Both of us call one another brothers. Both of us feel that our Churches are the authentic standard bearer of the Catholic faith, but you don’t view the Roman Church to be a true Church, much in the same way the Roman Church does not view Protestant Churches to be the authentic Catholic Church. So at least we have common ground. The issue then is who is correct? Which bunch of Christians, either the Protestants or the Catholics, are part of the organic and true Catholic Church, and which ones are in need of coming home and being fully reconciled to Mother Church? For us to come to that conclusion it would take serious study, openness to the Holy Spirit to show us the truth, and conviction to act upon what was discovered to be true. In other words, I find it doubtful that this can be arrived at in a discussion on a blog, but it would be nice.
Your post can be a starting point for dialogue among Protestants and Catholics, but first we all need to know exactly where everyone stands, which is why I asked you several times to state yes or no, is the RCC (the institution as a whole) included in the “one holy catholic and apostolic Church”.
The RCC makes no bones about their belief that the one Church of Christ subsists in the RCC. See the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (162). They are clear in their message and elaborate on it fully in the CCC. I understand what they are saying. And I really have wanted to make sure is that I clearly understand your bottom line position towards the RCC,
Anyway, we who are not in the RCC can take offense at the RCC position that we are separated from full communion with the one Church of Christ. However, in terms of ecumenicalism, and in fairness to the post Vatican II position of the RCC, the truth of the matter is that the cries of anathema from Rome have been shut up, and replaced by a different message, nevermind what individual Roman Catholics may believe or voice. Their message to Christians outside the RCC is fully explained in the CCC, and summarized in the Compendium to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Compendium of CCC 163 – “How are non-Catholic Christians to be considered? : …Members of these churches and communities are incorporated into Christ by Baptism and so we recognize them as brothers”.
Compendium of CCC 168 – “Who belongs to the Catholic Church?: The baptized who do not enjoy full Catholic unity are in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church”.
Compendium of CCC 164 – “How does one commit oneself to work for the unity of Christians? The desire to restore the unity of all Christians is a gift from Christ and a call of the Spirit. This desire involves the entire Church and it is pursued by conversion of heart, prayer, fraternal knowledge of each other, and theological dialogue”.
You questioned my “sensitivity”, and I explained it a bit earlier. I am not Rodney King (Can’t we all just get along?), however I will just close by saying that my reaction to your post (at first overflowing with sarcasm, and I hope more thoughtful as this thread has progresseed) as well as my (and others) efforts to discern exactly where you see the RCC , was fueled by a sincere desire to see the prayer of our Savior for his Body come to pass:
“I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.”
It looks and sounds to me like the RCC wants to talk (even if their message is “Y’all need to get on over here). I didn’t see the original post “Is the Pope catholic?” as conducive to ” fraternal knowledge of each other, and theological dialogue”.
As Forrest Gump eloquently put it, “And that’s all I have to say about that!”
I love you brother.
I just realized that my last post essentially repeated some of Bobby Kennedy’s quotes regarding ecumenicalism from the CCC (although mine were from the Compendium). Sorry about that. I should have read his post before I put mine up.
quick reply y’all (that’s all I have time for now):
BJ says: “I hear you saying that the Pope and individual Catholics are Christians, . . . and that the Catholic Church is comprised of those bodies of Christians which hold fast to the “faith once delivered” which you feel the Catholic Church as an institution has fallen away from. Is this a correct summary of your viewpoint?”
I say: Yep, pretty close.
BJ says: “Some of the doctrines you call into question may have not been spelled out by the Church until the last couple hundred years, but that does not mean it was not part of the deposit of faith.”
I say: Well, I hear you but here’s where I would differ. I don’t believe they were a part of the “deposit of faith” since you can’t find most of them in the Scriptures in any form and there’s no evidence of the Church holding them as they have been formulated by the Council of Trent until the 11th or 12th centuries.
BJ says: “I don’t find the Catholic Church to be quite as condemning as you feel she is, especially of the present generation of Protestants.”
I say: Hey man, I don’t FEEL anything about the condemning going on . . . that ain’t a feeling, it’s fact. Unless the Pope has repealed the anathemas of the Council of Trent, there ain’t no doubt about how the Roman Church views those who disagree. You, as a recent convert, have a much more catholic spirit. I suggest that your catholicity of spirit is a “new thing” altogether in the Roman Church.
BJ says: “The Catholic Church calls you a brother. It does not condemn you to hell.”
I say: So what does “anathema” mean?
BJ says: “The issue then is who is correct? Which bunch of Christians, either the Protestants or the Catholics, are part of the organic and true Catholic Church, and which ones are in need of coming home and being fully reconciled to Mother Church?”
I say: Here again we see a pretty big difference in perspective between the Roman Church and the historic Reformation position. I believe in “semper reformanda” and thus, do not believe that either the Roman Church or the Protestants are totally correct. I’m pushing for the third alternative: Admit we both are wrong at various points, examine all things by the Scripture, conform our views to the Bible, and commit to continuing reformation according to the Word. But that is out of the question (at least at present) from the Roman perspective. I’m told either to “come home” or stay out in the cold of my ignorance and unbelief. No third option. Not one.
I love your site!
_____________________
Experiencing a slow PC recently? Fix it now!
[…] was in early February of this year. At that time I read and responded to a blog post titled “Is the Pope a catholic?”, concerning the Church’s doctrine of Purgatory and it’s practice of granting […]
[…] this from Jim Jordan and this from Peter Leithart and this and this from us here — and that’s just to take a few of the more recent examples. Similar stuff […]