Are there benchmarks by which a council is tested for infallibility?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 23, 2005

Answers

bump

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 23, 2005.

Only ecumenical councils ratified by the Pope have the charism of infallibility. Only those councilar teachings on matters of faith and morals in which the bishops are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held are infallible.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 23, 2005.

Why is there difference of opinion then as to whether or not Trent was an infallible council?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 23, 2005.

I wasn't aware there was any debate as to the infallibility of Trent. As a general (but not foolproof) rule, the "definitive" (and thus infallible) teachings of Trent can be identified by the anathemas attached to them.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 23, 2005.

Oliver

Trent is infallible.

all of the first 20 Councils [of which Trent is 19th] were truly "ecumenical" - ie composed of Bishops from the whole world whose decrees, being confirmed by the Pope, are infallible declarations. When any of these first 20 Councils defines some matter of Faith and Morals, or condemns a certain position, it cannot be in error.

liberals such as Newman have tried in the past to argue that the preambles to any dogmatic definition are not, in and of themselves infallible; but that cannot be true because it would imply that the definition is also untrue, and is therefore to be rejected. Vatican I makes this clear, in any event.

therefore, every single word in a Dogmatic Council that pertains to Faith and Morals is infallible - free from error; incapable of being reformed or developed; its meaning fixed for ever.

on pastoral and other matters, infallibility does not apply.

the 21st Council - Vatican II - is a pastoral Council. it claimed that at the outset. there is, therefore, no "infallibility" attached to its various new teachings. if it contradicts previous dogmatic teachings, it is plain wrong.

note also, the 15th century sessions at Basle and Ferrara [roughly speaking] are also fallible [wrong?] as they did not have the approval of the Pope. Florence saw the end of the Conciliar Church and the return to orthodoxy. Florence is Dogmatic.

here are the Councils.

Vatican II (1963-65)

Vatican I (1869-70)

Trent (1545-63)

Lateran V (1512-17)

Basle - Ferrara - Florence (1431-39)

Constance (1414-18)

Vienne (1311-13)

Lyons II (1274)

Lyons I (1245)

Lateran IV (1215)

Lateran III (1179)

Lateran II (1139)

Lateran I (1123)

Constantinople IV (869-70)

Nicća II (787)

Constantinople III (680-81)

Constantinople II (553)

Chalcedon (451)

Ephesus (431)

Constantinople I (381)

Nicća I (325)

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 24, 2005.

The distinction of pastoral vs. dogmatic is irrelevant as far as infallibility is concerned. All ecumenical councils possess the charism of infallibility, whether they choose to use it or not. The Vatican II council made very little use of infallibility. The Council of Trent made significant use of infallibility.

It is incorrect to argue that every word of Trent is infallible while nothing in Vatican II is infallible. There is nothing in the teaching of the Church on the matter of concilar infallibility that would justify such claims. Here is a more detailed discussion.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 24, 2005.

thx for the link Mark.

look forward to a good discussion - on the infallibility of VII.

the real problem faced, however, is that Paul VI [and John XXIII] denied its infallibility.

as we know, though there is a conciliar element to the infallibility of any Ecum Council, the Pope has to buy into it too or it's not. eg Basle and Ferrara. these Popes didn't, by their own words, accept VII as infallible - either before, during or after.

of course, if anyone wants to argue that the Council was infallible, we'd need to see where it was infallible. was everything infallible, or just bits of it?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 24, 2005.

When did either Pope say the Council wasn't valid?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 24, 2005.

Infallibility is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and it is subject to the Holy Spirit. It is not a mere matter of ecclesiastical law, which the Pope can turn on and off at will. Thus, to suggest that either Pope John XXIII or Pope Paul VI "turned off" the infallibility of Vatican II is just as absurd as suggesting that Pope John Paul II could issue a decree "turning off" the infallibility of his immediate successor. Infallibility just doesn't work that way.

Thus, Vatican II had the charism of infalliblity, because all ecumenical councils have the charism of infallibility, because that's how the Holy Spirit works, and no Pope can change that.

Pope John XXIII expressed his guidance that Vatican II avoid issuing new dogmatic pronouncements infallibly. The Vatican II fathers themsleves stated that the only infallible parts of the conciliar documents were where the binding nature of the teaching was specifically emphasized. This only happened a handful of times, and never for new teachings.

Pope Paul VI had the option to confirm the council, or not to confirm the council. There is no third option to confirm the council in a "non-infallible" manner. However, since the few places where the council invoked infallibility were limited to reiterations of previous teaching, Pope Paul VI chose to confirm the council.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 24, 2005.

look at Section 1 of Mark's link for Pope Paul. for Pope John - ths will sound unhelpful but i think it will show you the point - have a look at a reputable history book. or google "John XXIII" together with "aggiornamiento". here's one result:

"http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/english/sucebologna2.htm

to quote: "The Papacy of John the Good is far from being a papacy of status-quo. Short time after his coronation as Pontiff John XXIII, he announces his intention of calling an Ecumenical Council, a General meeting of Bishops that had not taken place for more than a century. The purpose of the papal initiative was to accelerate the "aggiornamiento" of the Catholic Church.

The declared intention of the Pope when he called the Second Vatican Council was to turn that meeting into a Pastoral Council. His purpose was not to provide a solemn framework for the declaration of new dogmas of the reexamination of old doctrines. John XXIII thought in a "New Pentecost" that renewed the flow of the Holy Ghost."

by my research, John XXIII's intention is all well known but don't trust me. further, it's the mindset of the presiding Pope that really maters, i guess, but he too is well reported as having considered it non-Dogmatic.

i'm sure you can drag the debate into other areas - and no harm there - but it's hard to see how this passes any muster without Paul VI's agreement that infallible teachings were being promulgated.

this conclusion, btw, favours all catholics. IF [hypothetical] it could be shown that VII contradicted prior dogma, then we would know infallibility to be a figment of the imagination. well, one conclusion only; but all conclusions are pretty unpalatable for all Catholics - and indeed all Christians.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 24, 2005.

Mark

"Infallibility is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and it is subject to the Holy Spirit. "

i gave you the examples of Basle and Ferrara. Councils, no Pope, no point.

recap also, all those early Greek synods that sought the Papal sign off - Roma locuta est. the formula of Hormisdas?

surely the most important part of the process is the Pope's assent, not the involvement of the Bishops? isn't that what puts the Roman in Roman Catholicism?!?!

if Paul VI sat through the Council considering it purely pastoral, then it is no more infallible that an ex cathedra statement signed by the Holy Father whilst under the influence of a sedative [hypothetical example].

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 24, 2005.

hypothetical example, and bad example - the Pope's back in hospital. mea culpa.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 24, 2005.

There are two possibilities:

(1) Pope Paul VI validly ratified Vatican II. Thus, it was a valid, ecumenical council. Thus, it possessed the charism of infallibility, as all ecumenical councils do.

(2) Pope Paul VI did not validly ratify Vatican II. Thus, it was not an ecumenical council. In fact, it was not a valid council at all, and thus has no authority whatsoever.

I claim that there are only these two possibilities for Vatican II because there are only these two possibilities for any supposedly ecumenical council, and the Church does not possess the authority to create a third possibility, not has it ever tried to create such a third possibility.

Ian, Do you claim that there is a third possibility, or do you claim that possibility (2) actually holds?

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 24, 2005.

i think you know more than me on this one. i can't think of a third possibility, but i have simply not researched it. i do see the sense in what you say, though.

gun to my head: it's (2). in the absence of an alternative, of which i cannot currently conceive.

i just wonder though about all those regional Councils that we hear of in the early Church. eg the African Synods. regional assemblies, granted. no absolute teaching authority. what were they?

perhap a bit like St Augustine and St Thomas. non-dogmatic centres of theological excellence: ocassionally prone to error - and certainly not guaranteed not to err.

my crude rule of thumb goes like this: in the earliest days, the Emperors called the Councils. that's a sad fact our our history. so a Council could meet in the East, be comprised solely of Eastern Bishops. yet, we Catholics only give it credence because the man with The Keys, currently Pope John Paul II, assents.

that's sketchy, i know. however, if it is true that Pope Paul never intended to assent to solemn definitons, i see none....

the other way, btw, to crack this nut, is to go through VII, page by page. that's going to be an awful job. however, if we go through the bits that the traditional movement most emphasise, the we can test, empirically, the thesis - to some extent.

anyways, that's my honest answer. over to you and the rest.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 24, 2005.

I'm certainly no expert on the regional councils, but they certainly did not have the charism of infallibility. If they needed confirmation by the Pope, and they did not receive that confirmation, then they had no authority. If they either did not need papal confirmation, or they did and obtained it, then they had (in my opinion) normal, non-infallible authority.

the other way, btw, to crack this nut, is to go through VII, page by page.

I've actually done this. I see somewhere between 4 and 12 infallible definition, none of them problematic in any way. The clearest infallible definition is in Lumen Gentium 18, where Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility is reconfirmed by an infallible act of Vatican II.

My belief is that all the post-conciliar statements (whether from Pope Paul VI or Cardinal Ratzinger) about the absence of new dogmatic pronouncements from Vatican II derive from a detailed, page- by-page knowledge of the contents of the Vatican II documents, rather than from some overarching "lack" of the charism of infallibility.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 24, 2005.

The second and third most clearly infallible declarations of Vatican II are in Unitatis Redintegratio 16 and Orientalium Ecclesiarum 5, that the Eastern Churches have the power of self- governance, subject to the universal Church.

The fourth most cleary infallible declaration of Vatican II is in Dei Verbum 19, on the historical character of the Gospel's account of Jesus Christ.

After that, the infallibility becomes less clear, but also less important, as the other statements are rather ho-hum. For example, Gaudium et Spes 18, that man has been created by God for a blissful purpose beyond the reach of earthly misery.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 24, 2005.

Ian,

Educate me here. Where does it say that an ecumenical council of the whole magesterium is NOT infallible if it is called "pastoral" by the pope or anyone else? A second question would be how does the word or meaning of "pastoral" negate the infallibility of an ecumenical council?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 24, 2005.

Frank

educate me here.

A/ "Where does it say that an ecumenical council of the whole magesterium IS infallible if it is called "pastoral" by the pope or anyone else?"

B/ "A second question would be how does the word or meaning of "pastoral" negate the infallibility of an ecumenical council?"

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 24, 2005.

Before anyone gets too hung up on the descriptive terms "pastoral" and "dogmatic", it is important to notice that Vatican II promulgated two "Dogmatic Constitutions". It's pretty unthinkable to suggest that Pope Paul VI failed to notice this when he signed off on the council.

From Lumen Gentium 25: This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.

If the fathers of Vatican II had meant to include only "dogmatic ecumenical councils" in this statement, or had wanted to impose any restiction at all on the kinds of ecumenical councils which exercised the extraordinary universal magisterium, then I'm sure they would have said so.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), February 24, 2005.

You’re flogging a dead horse Ian, in your increasingly desperate and futile attempts to find some valid reason why you should ignore/disobey the Church’s teachings of Vatican 2. You’ve also omitted from your list of councils the Council of Jerusalem (circa 40 AD) presided over by St Peter, which ruled infallibly that Gentile and Jewish members of the church are both full and equal members, and that Gentiles do not have to adopt Jewish practices.

The “reputable history book” you quote also has the elementary blooper “Short time after his coronation as Pontiff John XXIII, he announces his intention of calling an Ecumenical Council, a General meeting of Bishops that had not taken place for more than a century.” 1870 to 1958 = 88 years, not “more than a century”.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 24, 2005.

Also as Vatican 1 was cut short by the invasion and occupation of Rome by Italian forces, and was never officially closed, Vatican 2 could be considered as a continuation of Vatican 1.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 24, 2005.

Didn't think you were up to it Ian. All bark, no bite.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 24, 2005.

"You’re flogging a dead horse Ian, in your increasingly desperate and futile attempts to find some valid reason why you should ignore/disobey the Church’s teachings of Vatican 2."

Which teachings in particular? Now I'm not exactly sure, but I think it's been maybe, I don't know, four years or so that I've been asking this question. I'm going to ask again anyways:

Steve. Which teaching are you referring to, that is being ignored or disobeyed?

I even put it in bold so's you wouldn't miss it.

Now. Answer it.

Frank, I've been waiting on this answer for so long, especially from you. Are you up to answering it? lol.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 24, 2005.

Well Emerald I've been wondering that too, but it’s up to Ian to answer that question, not Frank or me. Ian’s obviously SO desperate to minimize the importance of Vatican 2, there must be SOMETHING vitally important to HIM, which HE objects to about Vatican 2. What is it Ian?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 24, 2005.

You say someone's ingnoring or rejecting a teaching of the Catholic Church, but, you can't name what it is.

Failing the ability to name what it is, you're going to want to have them tell you what it is?

There's only one solution to this riddle:

The charge is bogus.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 25, 2005.

Mark

I am away until Wed next. maybe we can pick up then. thanks for sharing. i might even find time to work through my hard copy of VII - but, given its length, i'll probably only have time to study the bits you mention as infallible [if i'm lucky].

Steve & Frank: perhaps, in my absence, you might find time to answer the real question here: "Which teaching are you referring to, that is being ignored or disobeyed?"

see Emerald's post above.

don't be shy!!

God bless.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 25, 2005.

Specific response to Steve:

Steve: "You’re flogging a dead horse Ian, in your increasingly desperate and futile attempts to find some valid reason why you should ignore/disobey the Church’s teachings of Vatican 2."

######good day to you too, Steve! nice to meet you!

Steve: "You’ve also omitted from your list of councils the Council of Jerusalem (circa 40 AD) presided over by St Peter,.."

#######....only because it seems to be ommitted on all official lists. perhaps that's because it's in the Bible. the Inspired Word of God, therefore already in the Deposit of Faith? i don't know. you tell me.

..or are you just point scoring. ie this point is not substantive.

Steve: "... which ruled infallibly that Gentile and Jewish members of the church are both full and equal members, and that Gentiles do not have to adopt Jewish practices. "

#####indeed.

interestingly the Council is ued by protestants to attack Papal primacy. they say that St Peter did not lead the Council. we know he clearly did. furthermore, we know that it would not have been a Council without the Pope there, in body and in spirit.

so, maybe, while i am away, you could spend some time Googling St Paul and his take on Vatican II - what did he think he was signing into? truly.

Steve: "The “reputable history book” you quote also has the elementary blooper “Short time after his coronation as Pontiff John XXIII, he announces his intention of calling an Ecumenical Council, a General meeting of Bishops that had not taken place for more than a century.” 1870 to 1958 = 88 years, not “more than a century”."

######that's a result of a Google [ie i did not say that came from a book] - as is clear from my post. it's the first result. if you are really interested in this subject, you will Google and read lots about it.

Steve: "Also as Vatican 1 was cut short by the invasion and occupation of Rome by Italian forces, and was never officially closed, Vatican 2 could be considered as a continuation of Vatican 1."

#####really? have you ever read the documents from Vat II. if not, read them. you'll see the folly in this.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 25, 2005.

A half clever attempt to twist my words Emerald, but I did NOT “say someone [Ian] is ingnoring or rejecting a teaching of the Catholic Church”. As Ian has reminded you, I merely pointed out the fact, obvious to all from his posts here, that Ian is desperate “to find some valid reason why he should ignore/disobey the Church’s teachings of Vatican 2”. Not that he DOES ignore or disobey anything. Since Ian , despite my direct request to him, studiously avoids mentioning WHY he is attacking V2, I would appreciate if you or anyone else could shed some light on the reason for his apparently irrational attacks on it.

And yes Ian I have read all the documents of V2. Please quote what it is they say which, you imagine, makes "folly" of what I said.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 25, 2005.

"benchmarks by which a council is tested for infallibility"

Simple, if it agrees with the so called Trad position, it is infallible, if it disagrees, then it is fallible. ;)

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.

Steve:"... Ian is desperate “to find some valid reason why he should ignore/disobey the Church’s teachings of Vatican 2”."

#### i have expressed the viewpoint that Vat II is a pastoral Council, and not, therefore, capable of speaking infallibly. i have given the reason for that - the words of the presiding Pope, Paul VI. IOW, Paul VI did not consider the Council to have contained and infallble definitions - so why should i, or you or anyone else for that matter?

maybe you could answer that one? what did Paul VI mean when he said there were no solemn definitions in the Council? how come you disagree with him?

Steve:"Not that he DOES ignore or disobey anything."

#####exactly. i do not ignore it, nor disobey it. i will post some stuff here in due course and you will, of course, tell me how to "obey it" - that's for later.

Steve: "Since Ian , despite my direct request to him, studiously avoids mentioning WHY he is attacking V2,..."

#### now, now!!! i am not attacking it, as you well know. i have explained why it is a purely pastoral Council. this is what Pope John called for when he called the Council; this is how Pope Paul described it after it had occurred.

Steve:"... I would appreciate if you or anyone else could shed some light on the reason for his apparently irrational attacks on it."

##### they are not irrational, nor are they attacks.. are you saying that Paul VI was irrational when he denied that it contained any solemn definitions? was he "attacking" the Council?? is that what you are suggesting??

Steve:"And yes Ian I have read all the documents of V2. Please quote what it is they say which, you imagine, makes "folly" of what I said. "

#### well Steve, what you said was this: "Also as Vatican 1 was cut short by the invasion and occupation of Rome by Italian forces, and was never officially closed, Vatican 2 could be considered as a continuation of Vatican 1."

my suspicion is that you think that, because Vat I was truly ecumenical (sense: infallible), you could argue that Vat II was also truly ecumenical (sense: infallible) on the basis that it is in fact Vat I.

....but you only need to go as far as para 1 of Dei Verbum to find this: "Therefore, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, ***this present council*** wishes to set forth ...."

indeed, if you read Pope John's announcement of the Council, you'll find the same things. why did he call an Council rather than re- boot Vat I? read his announcement and you'll see why.

not only is there no attempt in Vat II to make it a continuaton of Vat I, but it is littered with references such as these that make it clear that it is a distinct Council.

this is why i simply cannot believe that you have ever read Vat II. you can't have.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

Mark

i have looked at the examples you gave and do have some thoughts. i might first go through and look for others.

i do see yr point inasmuch as the Council "somemnly defines" or ascribes something as belonging to "Divine Revelation" in some of the cases you give.

my very outline thoughts are:

LG 18 - a repetition of papal infallibility, but in outline. is this really a solemn definition? UR 16/ OE 5 - isn't this discipline rather than faith/ morals? the Quo Primum line of debate? or its it an affitmation of the Catholicity/ orthodoxy of the rites? DV 19 - need to think about this. is this new? i recall reading somthing like this in Trent. must check.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

from Lumen Gentium 22

"But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact.

This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*)

The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college [of Bishops] enjoys, is exercised in a **solemn way** in an **ecumenical council**.

A council is never ecumenical **unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter**; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them."

goodness knows what this means.......

-- Ian (ib@bertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

how could trent be infaillable? wasen't this at the time of the reformation,the indulgences,the inquisitions,crusades...etc

you people are blind

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 03, 2005.

Ian,

I'm traveling, so here are some quick answers. First, notice that LG 22 also mentions "ecumenical" councils, not "dogmatic councils" vs. "pastoral councils". I think it is clear that Pope Paul VI acknowledged Vatican II as an ecumenical council.

LG 18 is clearly an infallible act of teaching, as it mirrors precisely the required level of solumnity as defined in LG 25, i.e., "definitively to be held".

UR 16/OE 5 is a matter of faith (just as no women priests is a matter of faith); it relates to how Christ set up the Church. Historically, it is hard to debate UR 16/OE 5 as it is readily confirmed by the early Church organization.

I don't think DV 19 is new, merely because it says itself that it has constantly been taught.

I'm coming around to thinking that the other statements aren't quite formal enough to qualify for infallibility, so I conclude that there are 4 infallible acts of teaching in the Vatican II documents.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 03, 2005.

OK Mark, i've been doing quite some background reading -- and, if we weigh it all up, one might argue that Pope Paul's statements are to the effect that Vat II was dogma-lite, not Dogma-free. less than 0.05% Dogma!!!

that's my sticking point.

..but in this light, we need to trawl the docs, as you have already done, to find those instances where the Council saw fit to give a solemn definition in some form or other.

i have seen enough internal references to Vat II being an Ecumenical Council, that i can take yr point. Pope Paul cannot have allowed these references to remain if he thought the Council un-ecumenical.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

...but i still think that Steve and Frank need to step up to the plate on the issues raised.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

top

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2005.

Dogma-lite is a good description. The primary purpose of Vatican II was updating the Church in a non-infallible manner; this clearly follows from the Pope John XXIII quote. However, since the Church only has ecumenical councils every century or so, I think that it made sense to take care of a few items of infallible Church business at the same time.

My guesses are that: LG 18 was needed to take care of those who thought that Vatican I was basically invalid because the Pope forced the bishops to declare papal infallibility after tricking them by keeping that agenda item hidden until the last minute. UR 16/OE 5 were probably done for ecumenical reasons, to help work towards resolving our differences with the Eastern Orthodox. DV 19 helped address the issue of how far modern biblical scholarship could (and could not) go.

That there are a few infallible acts of teaching scattered throughout the Vatican II documents is made clear by the theological note: "Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding." Note that by LG 25, "binding" is equivalent to "infallible".

The Vatican II fathers could have declared everything to be binding, but that would have gone against the purpose of the council, and Pope Paul VI probably wouldn't have ratified it anyway. On the other hand, if the Pope and the Vatican II fathers had intended that nothing was infallible, they could have just have easily said that, e.g., that nothing was binding. However, since they didn't say that, it seems to me that there is at least one infallible act of teaching in the Vatican II documents. Going further, the theological note indicates that the infallible acts of teaching are exactly the ones that explicitly declare themselves to be binding. In my search, I've found 4 such infallible acts.

..but in this light, we need to trawl the docs, as you have already done, to find those instances where the Council saw fit to give a solemn definition in some form or other.

A very good idea. Please post what you come up with in your examination.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), March 04, 2005.

i will do!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 06, 2005.