Peter the Rock?

[Marymog]

Since I asked you repeatedly not to refer to me that way, it most certainly is disrespectful.


I thought you mistyped before. Now I see your mocking spirit is fully out in the open.

Not sure where you come off giving people degrading nicknames is the best way you can witness to Christ. I've mentioned your disrespectful replies for the last time, e.g., kiddo, wrongler. And have reported you. Either such posts will stop or I'll put you on ignore.

October 7th, 2022 in a post from Wrangler to Marymog: Yup. Stay in your lane kiddo.

Hmmmm....Maybe Marymog should have reported YOU back in October of 2022?

But YOU weren't being disrespectful....were you?

 

[Marymog]

No, but thanks. It is your church's practise to use history and it's links to the apostles as proof evident of your church's valid claims to truth, authority, and right to dominate the world. I am simply pointing out that it doesn't work that way. Many lines of Christian faith had their roots in the apostles, and possibly more deeper than Rome's. Alexandria certainly is a case in point, but gnosticism was a thorn in its side they never expelled, but carried into Rome. Constantinople was merely the result of an argument over who had rightful authority over the church. Both were wrong.

You and others here have a fixation on requiring others, may demanding others, surrender to Rome's authority in pastoral and doctrinal matters, and should we refuse, there are intimations we are somehow less Christian. I find it numbingly frustrating that Catholics who frequent forums; Catholics who are without doubt more connected to their church than the vast majority and more invested in Catholic faith and practise, cannot understand that submitting to Papal authority (and the council of Trent), as in centuries past being an absolute criteria to membership, holds immense impact on our relationship with Jesus. And what impact is that? We are replacing Christ with a vicar of Christ. Sorry my friend, but ought we not cleave to the real rather than surrender to a self exalting deputy with all the faults and failings as the rest of us?

Hey Brakelite,

I get it. There are many Christians who just cannot submit to "authority". For us Catholics it is, as you mentioned, Papal Authority or the authority of The Church (the magisterium) that we submit to. That's one way, out of many, how we fulfil Scripture; specifically, Hebrews 13:17 and Matthew 18:17 in this matter!! That is how we, as you say, surrender to a self-exalting deputy.

How do you fulfil Hebrews 13:17 and Matthew 18:17?

Mary

 

[ScottA]

Thanks for your opinion, Scottie.

I know, I know. Lil ol marymog is, according to Scottie, in error again.

And here comes Scottie on his white horse, riding high in the saddle to show marymog her error. So high in his saddle that his head is in heaven with the angels whispering in his ears.

Yup Scottie, I emboldened the words "foundation of the Apostles".....Now why did lil ol' stupid marymog who is always, according to Scottie, in error embolden the word Apostles and not the word prophets?

Maybe....JUST MAYBE......because we are discussing The APOSTLES?????

Sooo what is really going on here. On one hand Scottie throws me a doggie treat and tells me what Scripture I "gave is good". But then he chastises me like he is the master of knowledge and I am his student. Me thinks that Scottie felt rejected by marymog and is saying that I left HIM out when I didn't embolden the word prophets?

Curious Mary

Get over yourself. It was a gift--showing you the missing piece and error you have been under. Granted, pointing out such things is tough love. But apparently you would rather look to find error in others than look in the mirror. So, I leave you to it. That will be the last time I give you the benefit of the doubt and offer anything.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That is a matter of [private] interpretation. Which, in this case of being under protest, cannot be determined by either party. Only One is Judge, which will only come as it is written.

As you hopefully can see, your interpretation has failed you:

Mat 23:12​

And G1161 whosoever G3748 shall exalt G5312 himself G1438 shall be abased; G5013 and G2532 he G3748 that shall humble G5013 himself G1438 shall be exalted. G5312​

Ummm – WRONG.

Paul isn’t writing about self-exalted leaders here in 1 Thess. 5:12, 1 Tim. 5:17 OR 1 Cor. 12:28. It's about those who were appointed.
Matt. 23:12 Is about those who exalt themselves . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

BreadOfLife, you've brought a serious tone to the theological dance floor, and I appreciate your focus on the linguistic nuances. Let's address the Aramaic dance steps in Matthew 16:18 without missing a beat.

In the cosmic comedy of biblical interpretation, you rightly point out that Jesus likely spoke Aramaic, using the term "Kepha," which means "Rock." Now, imagine the linguistic tap dance, where the Greek translation introduces the distinction between "Petros" and "petra."

Here's the comedic twist: while the terms may differ linguistically in Greek, the Aramaic original is the true star of the show. "Kepha" maintains its rock-solid meaning, emphasizing the foundational role of Peter.

Now, as we navigate the cosmic dance of interpretation, let's appreciate the subtleties of the linguistic cha-cha. The punchline remains rooted in the foundational truth that Jesus identified Peter as the rock upon which He would build His church.

Shall we continue our dance through Matthew 16:18, embracing both linguistic intricacies and the foundational truth? After all, in this theological dance, every step contributes to the divine choreography. Let's tango through the cosmic comedy with grace and understanding.

All of your moronic euphemisms aside –
Your entire argument collapses like a house of cards when you realize the following fact: Paul refers to Peter as “Cephas” in his letters.

Tell me - WHY doesn’t he just call him “Petros”??

 

[RedFan]

What are you trying to prove? Please do better homework on early Christian writings. The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of apostolic succession. Far from being discussed by only a few, scattered writers, the belief that the apostles handed on their authority to others was one of the most frequently and vociferously defended doctrines in the first centuries of Christianity. Can't we start talking about THAT?

I am not trying to prove anything, Illuminator. And I totally understand that apostolic succession is well documented from an early time in the history of Christianity. I'm just asking about Peter and his keys here, nobody else.

There are two sets of "powers" to discuss here (probably not the right word) -- (1) the keys to the kingdom given to Peter, and (2) the power to forgive and retain sins bestowed on all of the apostles (Peter included). I do not assume -- and maintain it is a logical fallacy to assume -- that the validity of apostolic succession for (2) requires us to buy into the validity of Petrine succession for (1). So if your "Can't we start talking about THAT" means "Can't we start talking about (2)" I doubt it will advance the ball very far. I've already bought into (2). I want to discuss (1).

 

[ScottA]

Matt. 23:12 Is about those who exalt themselves . . .

Ummm – WRONG.

Hmmm, you acknowledge what I said and quoted as the truth--but then reply: "WRONG."

That explains a lot of replies from you. Unfortunately.

I now see the problem and will not trouble or torment you further.

 

[RedFan]

Hey RedFan,

I have thought about that also. Why doesn't Scripture OR even historical Christian writings tell us WHO replaced Peter just like it told us who replaced Judas. WHO was assigned the keys after the death of Peter is a good question. There are some writings from Ireneaus and Cyprian that give some credence to WHO. Maybe this is where 2 Thessalonians 2:15 comes into play?

Mary

It's an important question. Pope #2 is generally assumed to be Linus, per John Chrysostum’s Homily 10 on Second Timothy (“This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter”), but possibly Clement (per the Epistle of Clement to James). Regardless of who it was, HOW DID IT HAPPEN? Was he Peter's pick? Was he elected -- and if so, who voted?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hmmm, you acknowledge what I said and quoted as the truth--but then reply: "WRONG."

I did NO such thing – but you can pretend that I did.

That explains a lot of replies from you. Unfortunately.

I now see the problem and will not trouble or torment you further.

The only “torment” I endure from your posts is in holding my tongue - instead of pointing out your narcissism . . .

 

[ScottA]

It's an important question. Pope #2 is generally assumed to be Linus, per John Chrysostum’s Homily 10 on Second Timothy (“This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter”), but possibly Clement (per the Epistle of Clement to James). Regardless of who it was, HOW DID IT HAPPEN? Was he Peter's pick? Was he elected -- and if so, who voted?

Great work, good point!

I might suggest that your findings indicate a hole in the so-called "apostolic succession" doctrine. Except, that would assume that the matter were actually left in the hands of men. But no, if there is a hole--it was left by God.

 

[RedFan]

Great work, good point!

I might suggest that your findings indicate a hole in the so-called "apostolic succession" doctrine. Except, that would assume that the matter were actually left in the hands of men. But no, if there is a hole--it was left by God.

Well, I've made no "findings" as yet. I want to hear from others as I try to figure this out.

 

[ScottA]

I did NO such thing – but you can pretend that I did.

The only “torment” I endure from your posts is in holding my tongue - instead of pointing out your narcissism . . .

And you can pretend you "did NO such thing"--but I quoted you.

The above is also quotable (as fruit).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ah, BreadOfLife, let's embark on a theological journey filled with Calvinist humor, exploring the perceived pitfalls of the papal system. In the Calvinist comedy club, we'll dissect the errors through Calvin's lens, with a touch of wit and scriptural banter.

1. Singular Authority vs. Collective Leadership: Calvinism grooves to the collective leadership beat, with elders sharing the stage. The papal system insists on Peter as the exclusive "Rock," a one-man band. It's like trying to turn a group dance into a solo performance!
   BreadOfLife responds: "But wait, there's a choir of bishops and priests! Peter's just the lead vocalist. John 21:15-19 says so!"

And as usual - you have NO Biblical evidence to the contrary. Just idiotic “band” metaphors . . .

1. Sola Scriptura and Papal Tradition: In the Calvinist disco, sola scriptura takes the lead. The papal system, with its dance moves in tradition and the Magisterium, might be seen as stepping out of sync with the Calvinist groove. It's like dancing to a different scriptural beat.
   BreadOfLife retorts: "Scripture doesn't claim solo status! Christ's Church is our final earthly Authority, grooving to its own rhythm."

Grooving to Jesus’s rhythm, actually.

Maybe it time for YOU to start being obedient to Him and come home . . .

1. Priesthood of All Believers: Calvinism celebrates the universal priesthood dance, where everyone has direct access to God. The papal system introduces hierarchies and confession steps – it's like adding unnecessary dance partners in a solo dance.
   BreadOfLife counters: "Don't toss the baby out with the bathwater! We've got a three-tiered priesthood dance going on, just like the good ol' Old Testament days."

Apparently – you simply ignored the Bible Lesson I taught you with regard to the THREE levels of Priesthood.
Can you offer a Biblical refutation, Einstein?

I didn’t think so . . .

1. Salvation by Grace vs. Works: Calvinism's hip move is salvation by grace, no strings attached. The papal system throws in works, indulgences, and merit steps – it's like trying to dance the grace waltz with added spins.
   BreadOfLife clarifies: "Salvation's a grace-fueled dance, but true faith involves more than just belief – it's belief plus surrender and obedience, a dance of its own."

As I already schooled you – “Belief” gets you nowhere by itself. If that’s ALL you have – then you are NO better off than the DMONS who do the same (James 2:19) . . .

1. Scriptural Interpretation and Papal Infallibility: Calvinism grooves with rigorous biblical interpretation. Papal infallibility challenges this dance, like insisting on flawless choreography in a world of imperfect dancers.
   BreadOfLife counters: "But Jesus told Peter, 'Whatever you bind on earth…' – it's like heavenly dance moves endorsed by the divine choreographer!"

In this divine dance-off, let's appreciate the diversity of theological moves, recognizing that our shared journey holds different rhythms. After all, in this cosmic comedy, the punchlines are scriptural, and the dance moves are part of the divine choreography!

More mind-numbingly bad jokes - but not a SHRED of Biblical support for the false Protestant invention of Sola Scriptura.

When you grow up – MAYME you’ll understand what words like “Whatever” mean – but I won’t hold my breath . . .
Matt 16:19
WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

[Brakelite]

Hey Brakelite,

I get it. There are many Christians who just cannot submit to "authority". For us Catholics it is, as you mentioned, Papal Authority or the authority of The Church (the magisterium) that we submit to. That's one way, out of many, how we fulfil Scripture; specifically, Hebrews 13:17 and Matthew 18:17 in this matter!! That is how we, as you say, surrender to a self-exalting deputy.

How do you fulfil Hebrews 13:17 and Matthew 18:17?

Mary

Oh. Did I give the impression that I was under no persons authority? Yet even so, their jurisdiction is limited. Their authority over me does not extend to spiritual truth and doctrine. That prerogative belongs to Jesus, while man's authority pertains to behaviour.

 

[Illuminator]

No, but thanks. It is your church's practise to use history and it's links to the apostles as proof evident of your church's valid claims to truth, authority, and right to dominate the world.

The Lord's command to "preach the Gospel to all nations" does not mean "world domination". Authority does not mean dominating dictatorship, a fear mongering theme that shows up in a lot of your posts.

I am simply pointing out that it doesn't work that way.

No, it doesn't. Dominating dictatorship is more in line with Marx and Lenin's theories of the Church.

Many lines of Christian faith had their roots in the apostles, and possibly more deeper than Rome's. Alexandria certainly is a case in point, but gnosticism was a thorn in its side they never expelled, but carried into Rome.

Really? Then prove gnostic tendencies, even remotely, existed in any formal teaching in any century, or stop lying.

Constantinople was merely the result of an argument over who had rightful authority over the church. Both were wrong.

You and others here have a fixation on requiring others, may demanding others, surrender to Rome's authority in pastoral and doctrinal matters, and should we refuse, there are intimations we are somehow less Christian. I find it numbingly frustrating that Catholics who frequent forums; Catholics who are without doubt more connected to their church than the vast majority and more invested in Catholic faith and practise, cannot understand that submitting to Papal authority (and the council of Trent), as in centuries past being an absolute criteria to membership, holds immense impact on our relationship with Jesus. And what impact is that? We are replacing Christ with a vicar of Christ. Sorry my friend, but ought we not cleave to the real rather than surrender to a self exalting deputy with all the faults and failings as the rest of us?

Vatican II reformulated the Council of Trent, but you don't want to go there. "We are replacing Christ with a vicar of Christ" a gross misrepresentation of the papacy, another one of your phantoms of your own creation. "Vicar" means ambassador, it does not mean "equal to".

1. Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.

2. Alternate: I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to submit.

3. 2nd Alternate: I left Protestantism because it was seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., “faith alone” and its missing many other “Catholic” doctrines – see evidences below), inconsistently selective in its espousal of various doctrines of Catholic Tradition (e.g., the canon of the Bible), inadequate in its ecclesiology, lacking a sensible view of Christian history (e.g., “Scripture alone”; ignorance or inconsistent understanding of of development of doctrine), compromised morally (e.g., contraception, divorce), and unbiblically schismatic and (in effect, or logical reduction, if not always in actual belief) relativistic.

Disclaimer: I don’t therefore believe that Protestantism is all bad (not by a long shot – indeed, I think it is a pretty good thing overall), but these are some of the major deficiencies I eventually saw as fatal to the “theory” of Protestantism, over against Catholicism. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.

150 Reasons Why I Became (and Remain) A Catholic

Simple listing of 150 reasons in favor of the Catholic faith, featuring 300 biblical evidences favoring Catholicism, listed for reference purposes.

www.patheos.com

 

[Brakelite]

That would be all well and good if that Catholic line to the Apostles was the only line. But you and I know that it wasn't don't we. The Christian faith spread across Asia, Africa, and Europe, and Rome was just one of many equally young struggling local communities like any other, except for the intensity of persecution. The beginning of that spread was not Rome. It was first Jerusalem. Then it was Antioch, Pella, and the churches of Asia minor, with Thomas going to India, and the gospel spreading across southern Europe from Galatians through the Celtic peoples who populated the northern areas of Italy like Milan and Turin, southern France, and Britain, by-passing Rome. And the gospel flourished in the other direction also, going into Assyria, Afghanistan, and by the 8th century all the way into China, Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, all without the aid of one emissary or missionary from Rome, and without any connection or submission to Roman papal authority. Rome, without the advocacy of the emperors such as Constantine and particularly Justinian, was just another church. Rome wasn't granted it's status by Jesus, Peter, but by kings and generals who fought wars on her behalf, such as Clovis, and Belisarius. Apostolic succession and the primacy of the bishop of Rome was not instituted by Jesus, but through war and political compulsion.

I noticed you astutely ignored the above. Personally I think it's a valid argument, but hey, you do you right?

The Lord's command to "preach the Gospel to all nations" does not mean "world domination". Authority does not mean dominating dictatorship, a fear mongering theme that shows up in a lot of your posts.

And yet European domination was the intent of papal supremacy and primacy throughout the middle ages, and one could rightly argue, that there is more than a suggestion of global control coming through in the encyclicals of the last 3 popes.

No, it doesn't. Dominating dictatorship is more in line with Marx and Lenin's theories of the Church.

Indeed. But we shall not delve into the links between them and the Vatican at this stage shall we?

Really? Then prove gnostic tendencies, even remotely, existed in any formal teaching in any century, or stop lying.

Does Francis believe in a literal 6 day creation?

"Vicar" means ambassador, it does not mean "equal to".

Who are you trying to deceive? No-one said it means equal to, nor is the primary meaning ambassador. The word is derived in the ecclesiastical sense from the Latin vicarius...
"a substitute, deputy, proxy," noun use of adjective vicarius "substituted, delegated," from vicis "change, interchange, succession; a place, position". It is intriguing and thought provoking that the reformers who knew Latin and Greek better than most, noticed that the prefix anti, as in Antichrist, also means substitute, in the place of, in the room of, or instead of... Christ.

Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.

The only coherent view? Profound and sublime morality??? Come on now, seriously?

 

[Tulipbee]

All of your moronic euphemisms aside –
Your entire argument collapses like a house of cards when you realize the following fact: Paul refers to Peter as “Cephas” in his letters.

Tell me - WHY doesn’t he just call him “Petros”??

Oh, BreadOfLife, the cosmic dance floor just got a sprinkle of theological salsa! Your directness is like a straightforward cha-cha in the grand ballroom of biblical banter.
Now, let's salsa through the linguistic labyrinth you've presented. Paul, the apostolic choreographer, does indeed refer to Peter as "Cephas" in his letters. It's like a cosmic dance move, a subtle linguistic twirl that adds flair to the theological tango.
Why not "Petros," you ask? Well, it's the divine rumba of linguistic richness! "Cephas" in Aramaic maintains the rock-solid essence, giving it that celestial groove that transcends linguistic nuances.
Picture Paul leading the apostolic salsa, calling Peter "Cephas" with a theological shimmy. It's a dance of respect, acknowledging the Aramaic roots of the cosmic rock-solid truth.
Now, in this divine dance-off, let's waltz into the territory of apostolic succession. The papal system, like a dancer in error, might stumble in misinterpreting the steps. Apostolic succession isn't a solo act; it's a cosmic ensemble, and missteps can lead to theological tripping.
So, BreadOfLife, let's keep salsa-ing through the linguistic labyrinth and cha-cha into the theological truth, reminding ourselves that even in the dance of debate, respect is the celestial rhythm that keeps us all in step!

 

[Brakelite]

HOWEVER – the Bible does state that Christ’s Church is our final earthly Authority:

Identifying Christ's church is the question isn't it, and the specific criteria we use in establishing a conclusive answer.
The first criteria we need to discuss is the use of scripture, and the view of scripture any church adopts as it's source of truth, faith, and practise. Hence all the debates we currently pursue on these forums, and historically the debates between Rome and everyone else since the time of the Albigensian and Waldensian crusades going back over 1000 years.
The bottom line in these debates is twofold. One side holds as final authority in spiritual matters, Christ. The other, the church. While one side holds Christ as final authority in spiritual concerns, they recognise the church as having authority regarding behaviour as church members. Rome had always taken that a step or two further.
The other thing is religious liberty. Are Christians obliged to compel others to believe precisely as they do? Or are they to allow, even protect, the rights of others to believe, or not to believe, according to conscience? When Jesus said make disciples of all nations, preaching the gospel and baptizing, what methods did He use as our example in teaching, preaching, and sharing the love of God with the world?

That said, what specific biblical criteria are there in identifying God's church? Especially relative to the times in which we live?

 

[Tulipbee]

Identifying Christ's church is the question isn't it, and the specific criteria we use in establishing a conclusive answer.
The first criteria we need to discuss is the use of scripture, and the view of scripture any church adopts as it's source of truth, faith, and practise. Hence all the debates we currently pursue on these forums, and historically the debates between Rome and everyone else since the time of the Albigensian and Waldensian crusades going back over 1000 years.
The bottom line in these debates is twofold. One side holds as final authority in spiritual matters, Christ. The other, the church. While one side holds Christ as final authority in spiritual concerns, they recognise the church as having authority regarding behaviour as church members. Rome had always taken that a step or two further.
The other thing is religious liberty. Are Christians obliged to compel others to believe precisely as they do? Or are they to allow, even protect, the rights of others to believe, or not to believe, according to conscience? When Jesus said make disciples of all nations, preaching the gospel and baptizing, what methods did He use as our example in teaching, preaching, and sharing the love of God with the world?

That said, what specific biblical criteria are there in identifying God's church? Especially relative to the times in which we live?

Ah, BreadOfLife and Brakelite, you've turned the theological stage into a divine comedy duo! Let's dive into the cosmic carnival of criteria for identifying Christ's church, featuring a special guest appearance by our main man, John Calvin.

Now, BreadOfLife, you're rocking the mic with the Bible as the ultimate earthly authority. Bravo! It's like the divine script, and you're the lead actor, delivering the final lines of spiritual wisdom.

And Brakelite, you're spinning the cosmic carousel of criteria, questioning how we identify Christ's church. It's a theological rollercoaster with twists and turns that make even the most seasoned theologians hold onto their doctrinal hats.

But wait, let's bring in the star of the show – John Calvin! In his magnum opus, "Institutes of the Christian Religion," Calvin takes the stage to address the RCC's view of "the church." Drumroll, please!

Calvin, the theological maestro, points out that the RCC's view of the church isn't exactly in tune with his Calvinistic symphony. According to Calvin, the true church isn't just an institution with fancy robes and hats; it's a spiritual entity known by its adherence to the pure Word of God.

Calvin would be like, "Hey RCC, it's not about the grandeur of your cathedrals; it's about staying true to the divine playlist – the Bible." Picture Calvin dropping theological beats, and the RCC trying to keep up with its liturgical dance moves.

So, BreadOfLife and Brakelite, in this cosmic comedy of criteria, let's keep the theological banter rolling. Is it the authority of Christ or the authority of the church? Calvin's in the corner, nodding to the beat of sola scriptura. The cosmic dance of theological perspectives continues!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh, BreadOfLife, the cosmic dance floor just got a sprinkle of theological salsa! Your directness is like a straightforward cha-cha in the grand ballroom of biblical banter.
Now, let's salsa through the linguistic labyrinth you've presented. Paul, the apostolic choreographer, does indeed refer to Peter as "Cephas" in his letters. It's like a cosmic dance move, a subtle linguistic twirl that adds flair to the theological tango.
Why not "Petros," you ask? Well, it's the divine rumba of linguistic richness! "Cephas" in Aramaic maintains the rock-solid essence, giving it that celestial groove that transcends linguistic nuances.
Picture Paul leading the apostolic salsa, calling Peter "Cephas" with a theological shimmy. It's a dance of respect, acknowledging the Aramaic roots of the cosmic rock-solid truth.
Now, in this divine dance-off, let's waltz into the territory of apostolic succession. The papal system, like a dancer in error, might stumble in misinterpreting the steps. Apostolic succession isn't a solo act; it's a cosmic ensemble, and missteps can lead to theological tripping.
So, BreadOfLife, let's keep salsa-ing through the linguistic labyrinth and cha-cha into the theological truth, reminding ourselves that even in the dance of debate, respect is the celestial rhythm that keeps us all in step!

Other than being just plain stupid and impotent response – you have failed to answer my question.

Let me know when you’re ready to have a serious discussion. Only next time – doo your homework and leave the salsa dancing at the door . . .