The Bible Is Not Enough For Salvation

[cdowis]

Is it possible that, though it appears a random order, there is actually an inspired reason for the Book of Revelations being the final book?

 

The NT order is not random -- Gospels, History, Epistles, Visions.

 

It is not "the final book", but merely the last book before the end cover.  It is a book binding issue.  Other books in the NT were written after Revelation.

Edited August 16, 2013 by cdowis

[Samlam]

While I agree with much of what you said, I do think the Catholic position is a little more nuanced.

 

Yes, Catholicism makes a distinction between "public" and "private" revelation.  I think that those words are a little unfortunate, since they don't really express what they mean in context, which leads to many misunderstandings (by both Catholics and Non-Catholics).  "Public Revelation" is basically what is needed to be known for salvation.  Catholics believe that all that we need to know about how to receive eternal life was Revealed anciently, reaching its high point in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ (and through Him and His ministry, we know who we receive eternal life from).  The way that we can receive eternal life will not change, and nothing can be added nor taken away from that.  "Private revelation" refers to revelations that not only individuals can receive for their own lives (Catholics believe that by virtue of baptism, all Catholics share in Christ's offices of Prophet, Priest, and King), but revelations from Heaven that can assist us in our journey to God, prophecies about the future, etc.  Catholic history, as 3DOP mentioned, is replete with prophets and prophetesses that have received revelations from Heaven, many of which have been approved by Catholic authority.

 

And interestingly, I do not believe that the concept of private revelation is a foreign concept to the LDS.  As you state "revelations from Heaven that can assist us in our journey to God"  is exceptionally critical to each individual and is very much a part of each individuals relationship with Jesus Christ.  The ultimate personal experience being that as referenced in the New Testament as one having their calling and election made sure. Neither would we require that another individual was required to accept the word of a person having receiving such a blessing as part of their personal belief.  So in this way we very much sustain the concept of private revelation. However, we also sustain a principle of ongoing revelation equal in validity and authority to early apostolic prophecy as being in existence and it is that mechanism that makes LDS theology unique from most others. 

Edited August 16, 2013 by Cucumber

[Samlam]

 

I also think it's important to point out that Catholics believe that inspiration and revelation are also given to the Catholic leadership, not only to guide them in governing the Church, but also in further understanding the "Deposit of Faith", the "Public Revelation" that has already been given.  By this revelatory experience, they are able to unfold the teachings contained within it, coming to deeper understandings and making the Public Revelation more explicit.  This can occur through Ecumenical Councils, an infallible declaration by the Pope by virtue of his office, etc.  So, Catholics accept not only private revelations that continue, but also the Divine guidance of the Church and its leadership, through their apostolic office, and the Divinely revealed/inspired unfolding understanding of the Revelation already given.  For Catholics, Heaven is not "closed", and has always been open. 

 

 

Again I can see no room to qualify the LDS perspective as much different from what you explain above.  However, I defer to the subtle clarification that 3DOP originally made that Catholics themselves impose a demarcation that as a body they see post Apostolic Catholic prophecy as not of "Apostolic Superiority"..."because we cannot raise it to the dignity of Scripture". I believe in a subtle nuanced manner you may be making the same distinction.  It is this distinction however, that enables us as a body of LDS believers to embrace the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants as the equivalent of scripture from a source as valid as Apostolic authority for it is the same authority.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Cucumber

[Samlam]

Also, I think that Catholics would similarly believe that the Pope, as Vicar of Christ, and all the Bishops as successors of the apostles, address all of God's children, and not just Catholics, and also desire all to come to Christ's Kingdom on earth, as they understand it.

 

So, while the Catholic and Latter-day Saint positions certainly aren't the same, I do think that the Catholic position is often misunderstood, by both Catholics and Non-Catholics.

 

This may be the root of the issue as far as my understanding as well. The many Catholic interactions I have had on this subject have always drawn the same demarcation that the text I quoted in my original post provided. In fact it was in such a conversation with a Catholic that I was made aware of this quoted source. Still it is difficult to distinguish commonality in thought since all can go along with us nodding our heads in agreement until we get to the proof of LDS distinctions which is the addition of the additional books of scripture.  Therein is the evidence of our equal sustainment of Apostolic authority or at least prophetic authority as the same in this day and age as before.   

[Samlam]

85      “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”⁴⁷ This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

 

86      “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.

 

91      All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them⁵³ and guides them into all truth.

 

93      “By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),… receives… the faith, once for all delivered to the saints…. The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.”

 

94      Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church

 

 

Thank you for this information. However do you see what I mean by a nuanced distinction?  If you notice in 85 it looks very similar to something that perhaps might be amenable to both sides of this discussion.  Then in 86 it makes that same nuanced appeal of a distinction of authority that is in its operation an authority subservient to the Prophetic and  Apostolic authority that rendered the Bible. As LDS we see no need to restrict the authority held by our leading men in the Church subservient only to Jesus Christ himself.  Theirs is the same apostolic authority in our minds as it might appear is the authority that line 86 implies is above the current perceptions of authority in the Catholic church as described in line 85.  It is that subtle but seemingly ever present distinction that delineates our two perspectives on this subject.   

Edited August 16, 2013 by Cucumber

[Samlam]

The NT order is not random -- Gospels, History, Epistles, Visions.

 

It is not "the final book", but merely the last book before the end cover.  It is a book binding issue.  Other books in the NT were written after Revelation.

My suggestion is not one I would stand on for any but myself.  I have a personal perception that nothing is random or coincidental with God and that all things related to his kingdom follow consistent and  predictable patterns which favor this type of interpretation.  So much of what many would class as coincidence for me is simply the wondrous manner in which God often inspires men to accomplish his will though they know it not.  To be clear my point is not that in Chronology it is the final written book, but that in priority of the message it represents the final Apostolic bridge between the end of one dispensation and the beginning of the next dispensation, that of the fullness of times. It speaks to the state of the church during the time between and then prophesies of another Angel that shall fly having the everlasting gospel to preach to institute the foundation of the next dispensation. Then it carries us with it's unique imagery through highlights of that era as it connects to the end of times. In my mind, it is an accounting consistent with how God would have this particular book placed as that of a final prophetic voice of a passing era that points the way to the next prophetic voice of a future era. For me this magnifies the message of the Book of Revelations as more than just distinct in style and imagery but also in the nature of the message it delivers.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Cucumber

[Calm]

Actually no...I still do not have it figured out...

Unless things have changed with the update, you should be able to cut and paste smaller sections of the text, then as soon as you paste it, when it is still highlighted, hit the quote button (the icon looks like a dialogue ballon between the two arrows coding icon and the twitter box).  It should enclose just that section in a quote.  Then go and type your reply to each section between the quoting code.

[Samlam]

Unless things have changed with the update, you should be able to cut and paste smaller sections of the text, then as soon as you paste it, when it is still highlighted, hit the quote button (the icon looks like a dialogue ballon between the two arrows coding icon and the twitter box).  It should enclose just that section in a quote.  Then go and type your reply to each section between the quoting code.

Thank you.  ... now that I can edit I can kind of fix things but this method you suggest sounds like the "right" way to get the job done. I will try it next. 

 

Thank you.  ... now that I can edit I can kind of fix things but this method you suggest sounds like the "right" way to get the job done. I will try it next. 

 

 

 

Unless things have changed with the update, you should be able to cut and paste smaller sections of the text, then as soon as you paste it, when it is still highlighted, hit the quote button (the icon looks like a dialogue ballon between the two arrows coding icon and the twitter box).  It should enclose just that section in a quote.  Then go and type your reply to each section between the quoting code.

 

 

 

Yes...this is working just fine...thank you for the instruction.

[Calm]

 

Yes...this is working just fine...thank you for the instruction.

Glad it still works this way, otherwise I would be having a hard time pretty soon.

 

PS:  did you used to post on this board (in one of its incarnations) or on ZLMB, for some reason your name sounds familiar (if your signature is your name).

Edited August 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[3DOP]

Thanks for pointing out that book!  I've been thinking of finding a book on that very topic, so I'll add it to my wish list.

 

Hi CK,

 

Originally written in 1941, republished by TAN in 1974. I grabbed it from a paperback from our parish bookstore for $10 and some change. It must still be in print. The subject of end times speculation isn't of great interest to me, but I am deeply interested in clarifying to Latter-day Saints that as you said, the heavens have continued speaking. I can't relate to the indignation expressed by the original post which seems to be directed against all of non-LDS Christianity:

 

Excuse me? The end? Of what? Gods word?

I wanted more. Much more. I hungered and thirsted for more scripture like a man in a desert thirsts for water.

Here is God, the creator of the Universe, who has an infinite mind, whose universe is endless, whose works are endless, whose words are endless. He sends his son to earth all we got was 403 pages of scripture? Half of which is just footnotes? Excuse me?

 

 

I bought the book for the sole purpose of finding reference material ready at hand to demonstrate to Mormons that if anything, there is so much post-apostolic revelation that it would be difficult to absorb it all. The original poster complains that Scripture is only 403 pages long. (That must be smaller print than I can see.) This book is 235 pages plus an appendix in small type that is mostly excerpts from longer works. The original poster could read all of Bl. Faustina's Diary! That is around 600 or 700 pages alone. He can't get enough Scripture but for some who are not so able to read and read and read, we can be thankful that the core revelation, the Scriptures are concise, full of profundity, and materially sufficient for our salvation without being longer. Surely all of us know good, active church people who never read a book most years. Reading isn't everybody's gift. But most Christians want to at least read the Scriptures once. How daunting to spend your whole life trying to read "God's Word" once, if it included all the private revelations since the times of the Apostles.

 

Rather than wanting more things from God to read once, many of us who also have a reverence for Scripture feel like after fifteen or twenty readings, there seems to be more and more to try to understand and appreciate. I am not quite convinced with the idea that as a desperately thirsty teenager the original poster had gained an adequate appreciation for the depth of God's Word simply because he read it once.

 

In any event, I am willing to admit with you that there is an unfortunate misunderstanding between LDS and Catholics about the meaning of the word "revelation". The Church has historically had more of an interest in emphasizing the way in which public revelation has ended. When she enters into dialogue with LDS, it seems to me to be of supreme priority to also emphasize the importance of how private revelation has continued. In this way we can sidestep the indignation that misinformed Mormons sometimes have when they hear or read that "revelation has ceased".

 

---------------------

 

Cucumber,

 

I think you asked why my Catholicism entered into the question of whether the order of the books of Scripture is inspired. I mentioned my faith identity not so much to say this is what the Catholic Church teaches, as to indicate that I am confident that my position is compatible with Church teaching. I have never heard anyone speculate that the ordering of the books were revealed through a supernatural medium. That is what I would understand by the word "inspired". Instead, I think the Church employed a prudential wisdom in its ordering of the books in a pleasing and systematic way without anyone receiving a message from God. I don't think it would be a problem if I became persuaded that some pope or St. Jerome, who arranged the Vulgate, received a revelation, but I am unaware at this time of any evidence to support the idea.

Edited August 16, 2013 by 3DOP

[ChristKnight]

Hey Cucumber,

 

And interestingly, I do not believe that the concept of private revelation is a foreign concept to the LDS.  As you state "revelations from Heaven that can assist us in our journey to God"  is exceptionally critical to each individual and is very much a part of each individuals relationship with Jesus Christ.  The ultimate personal experience being that as referenced in the New Testament as one having their calling and election made sure. Neither would we require that another individual was required to accept the word of a person having receiving such a blessing as part of their personal belief.  So in this way we very much sustain the concept of private revelation. However, we also sustain a principle of ongoing revelation equal in validity and authority to early apostolic prophecy as being in existence and it is that mechanism that makes LDS theology unique from most others. 

 

 

 

Again I can see no room to qualify the LDS perspective as much different from what you explain above.  However, I defer to the subtle clarification that 3DOP originally made that Catholics themselves impose a demarcation that as a body they see post Apostolic Catholic prophecy as not of "Apostolic Superiority"..."because we cannot raise it to the dignity of Scripture". I believe in a subtle nuanced manner you may be making the same distinction.  It is this distinction however, that enables us as a body of LDS believers to embrace the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants as the equivalent of scripture from a source as valid as Apostolic authority for it is the same authority.

 

 

 

This may be the root of the issue as far as my understanding as well. The many Catholic interactions I have had on this subject have always drawn the same demarcation that the text I quoted in my original post provided. In fact it was in such a conversation with a Catholic that I was made aware of this quoted source. Still it is difficult to distinguish commonality in thought since all can go along with us nodding our heads in agreement until we get to the proof of LDS distinctions which is the addition of the additional books of scripture.  Therein is the evidence of our equal sustainment of Apostolic authority or at least prophetic authority as the same in this day and age as before.   

 

 

Thank you for this information. However do you see what I mean by a nuanced distinction?  If you notice in 85 it looks very similar to something that perhaps might be amenable to both sides of this discussion.  Then in 86 it makes that same nuanced appeal of a distinction of authority that is in its operation an authority subservient to the Prophetic and  Apostolic authority that rendered the Bible. As LDS we see no need to restrict the authority held by our leading men in the Church subservient only to Jesus Christ himself.  Theirs is the same apostolic authority in our minds as it might appear is the authority that line 86 implies is above the current perceptions of authority in the Catholic church as described in line 85.  It is that subtle but seemingly ever present distinction that delineates our two perspectives on this subject.   

 

I tend to agree with you, though I do think the Catholic position (and hopefully 3DOP can clarify or correct what I say if it is incorrect), from what I understand, is that the prophetic and apostolic authority is still found within the Catholic Church, specifically in the Bishops as successors to the apostles, as well as people throughout Catholic history called to receive and give messages from Heavenly messengers.  I don't see paragraph 86 in the Catechism as restricting authority, or saying that the authority of the Bishops is subservient to the "prophetic and apostolic authority that rendered the Bible" (since Catholics would claim that it holds the same authority).  Instead, I see paragraph 86 as reiterating the point I made earlier:  when Catholics refer to "Public Revelation" or the "Deposit of Faith", this is referencing the totality of knowledge revealed on salvation.  All that we need to know to receive eternal life has already been revealed (also noting that Catholics do not restrict the "Word of God" to the Bible alone).  The "Magisterium" teaches only what has been handed on to it, which I see as saying that they cannot just make things up.  Catholics believe that when the Bishops meet in Council, for example, when they expound on a doctrine, this is a Holy Spirit-guided pronouncement, and Catholics are bound to adhere to it, as they are bound to adhere to the teachings contained in the Bible.  In that sense, I see Catholics believing that their leaders hold the same authority as the Apostles, and that all should follow their Spirit-guided pronouncements when they happen (such as the various documents that came from the Second Vatican Council), as well as the general belief that the Catholic Church has Christ at its head and is guided by the Spirit into all Truth, just like the New Testament Church (since they believe that the CC is the New Testament Church).  When Catholics believe their living teaching authority expounds and expands on a point of doctrine, they are to believe it and follow it just like what the ancient Apostles taught and received.

 

But yes, I do agree that so-called "private" revelations aren't scripture, because as mentioned, Catholics believe that Scripture and Tradition contain what is needed for our eternal life, beginning with the Creation and culminating in Christ's Incarnation, His ministry, death, and resurrection.  Revelations received after this Deposit of Faith has been revealed can aid us in our journeys, may have important messages from Heaven (and aren't necessarily meant only for the recipient(s), hence why "private" is often misunderstood in this context to mean "personal"), etc, however they don't add anything "new" per se to how we receive eternal life.  Latter-day Saints on the other hand would be open to canonizing additional scriptures, yes, however I don't necessarily see that this is because there is a difference in understanding of authority.  I see both Catholics and Latter-day Saints as claiming to have the same authority as the original Apostles (with Latter-day Saints specifically referring to such persons as "Apostles" in office, while Catholics see them as Bishops).  The difference is in how each sees the possibility of canonizing scriptures, though, at least to me, I see the documents coming from Ecumenical Councils, Apostolic Constitutions, Papal Encyclicals (such as Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), and the latest one from two months ago, Lumen Fidei (The Light of Faith), having perhaps the same authority as canonized scripture (maybe some would see it on the same level as the inspired messages heard in General Conferences).

 

Anyway, I have appreciated reading your comparisons, and essentially agree with you.

 

 

[3DOP]

Hi CK.

 

This probably won't mean much to anybody here except you. It is prompted by a comment you made above:

Catholics believe that when the Bishops meet in Council, for example, when they expound on a doctrine, this is a Holy Spirit-guided pronouncement, and Catholics are bound to adhere to it, as they are bound to adhere to the teachings contained in the Bible.  In that sense, I see Catholics believing that their leaders hold the same authority as the Apostles, and that all should follow their Spirit-guided pronouncements when they happen (such as the various documents that came from the Second Vatican Council), as well as the general belief that the Catholic Church has Christ at its head and is guided by the Spirit into all Truth, just like the New Testament Church (since they believe that the CC is the New Testament Church).  When Catholics believe their living teaching authority expounds and expands on a point of doctrine, they are to believe it and follow it just like what the ancient Apostles taught and received.

 

 

I do not believe the Church has fully expounded how the authority of ecumenical councils work. I think there are still a few holes in our understanding of papal infallibility. Ecumenical Councils can err. There is an example that I could give from the Council of Florence. I am not sure why but conservative Catholics hate the material I am about to present. Maybe it is because it makes the job of apologetics a little more complicated, especially when you have already published a load of garbage. Anyway, as you will see, I am convinced that Vatican Council II is unique in the history of the Catholic Church.

 

1) "Differing from other councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral."

 

Pope Paul VI, General Audience of August 6, 1975, To the rectors of the Universities of the Society of Jesus

 

 

2) "Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council...But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements..."

 

Pope Paul VI, Address of the last general meeting of the Council, Dec. 7, 1965

 

 

3) "There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."

 

Pope Paul VI, General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966

 

4) "Taking into account conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, the sacred synod defined as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forward as such."

 

Addendum of Nov. 16, 1964 (alluded to by Paul VI above) in the Explanatory Note to Lumen Gentium.

 

5) "The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

 

Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, Address to the bishops of Chile, July 13, 1988

 

--------------------

 

Never before had the pope and council fathers taken such pains to make the faithful aware that an ecumenical council was defining nothing dogmatically. Past conciliar teachings were issued in the form of "canons". These were brief, concise, precise, and clearly understood statements of doctrine that Catholics could believe and non-Catholics could reject. A major problem with Vatican II lies with the amount of verbiage. It probably contains more words than the previous 2,000 years of councils. It was hard to think that out of the whole rather difficult and controversial mess, there was not a single mistake.

 

Wisely, Pope Paul VI made clear that this council was different than all the rest, and that is what made it acceptable to the assembled Council Fathers, especially those who were concerned with whether some of the teachings could be reconciled with Tradition. They couldn't know that as Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict) says, certain powerful parties in the Church took this fallible council, contrasted it with what came before, and proclaimed a "superdogma".

 

Not my idea. Blame Popes Paul and Benedict. You can read it. I don't make things up. They denied Vatican II infallibility. In particular, don't we have to listen to Paul VI? Was he wrong about the Council he approved (for its pastoral initiatives)? Catholics who believed those popes and as a result have questioned certain teachings of the Council have been marginalized in the Church for the last half century. It has become a "superdogma" as Card Ratzinger said. I just don't understand why we have to pretend that Vatican II is the same as all other ecumenical councils. Popes have never ever offered disclaimers for councils the way Paul VI did for Vatican II. We ignore the disclaimers to our own detriment. The Church is learning the hard way how conciliar and papal infallibility works and how to distinguish fallible from infallible. Hint: Seldom infallible. The conservatives hate this kind of talk. Its what got me banned from Catholic Answers because they seem to want no opposition to this simplistic apologetic where they can pretend that every council is completely infallible and every pope (especially those of our lifetime) is perfect. I cannot and will not defend that point of view.     

 

By the way, there are a lot of good pastoral recommendations in Vatican II. Pride of place for Latin. The primacy of the theology and philosophy of St. Thomas in the seminaries. And much more.

 

3DOP

Edited August 17, 2013 by 3DOP

[canard78]

For instance is it possible that as is common in LDS circles, when the presiding person speaks there are no further speakers.

I don't think it was always that way. I think about 100 years ago the senior speaker went first and then the secondary one went second.

I've just been listening to some J. Golden Kimball stories and it talks of his frustration of often only getting to say the closing prayer because the senior GA had talked for the whole allotted time (and then some).

[Damien the Leper]

From the "United States Catholic Catechism for Adults":

 

Sacred Scripture is inspired by God and is the Word of God. Therefore, God is the author of Sacred Scripture, which means he inspired the human authors, acting in and through them. Thus, God ensured that the authors taught, without error, those truths necessary for our salvation. Inspiration is the word used for the dive assistance given to the human authors of the books of Sacred Scripture. This means that guided by the Holy Spirit, the human authors made full use of their talents and abilities while, at the same time, writing what God intended. There are many in modern society who find incredible the belief that Scripture contains the inspired word of God and so reject the Bible as a collection of stories and myths. There are others who profess belief in the Triune God and are even identified as "Scripture scholars" who work to "demythologize" the Scriptures, that is, they remove or explain away the miraculous as well as references to God's revealing words and actions. It is important to understand in the face of such challenges to Scripture that it is not simply the work of human authors as some critics allege, but truly the Word and work of God. USCCB, PP. 26-27

[We] forcefully and specifically exhort all the Christian faithful...to learn the "surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ" (Phil 3: 8 ) by frequent reading of the divine scriptures. "Ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ" (St. Jerome). Therefore, let them go gladly to the sacred text itself, whether in the sacred liturgy, which is full of the divine words, or in devout reading, or in such suitable exercises and various other helps which, with the approval and guidance of the pastors of the Church, are happily spreading everywhere in our day. Let them remember, however, that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that a dialogue takes place between God and man...

Just as from constant attendance at the Eucharist mystery the life of the Church draws increase, so a new impulse of spiritual life may be expected from increased veneration of the Word of God. - DWI Gerbil, Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, no. 25-26

Edited August 17, 2013 by Valentinus

[Samlam]

Glad it still works this way, otherwise I would be having a hard time pretty soon.

 

PS:  did you used to post on this board (in one of its incarnations) or on ZLMB, for some reason your name sounds familiar (if your signature is your name).

Yes I have been here for a couple of years and the issues with my account have been worked out and you may remember my former profile which is now my current profile as SamIam.  I believe the Cucumber account is now been inactivated and everything except for my previous post history and rep points have been assigned to this account. I remember you well as we have interacted many times in the past.

[Calm]

I believe the Cucumber account is now been inactivated 

Too bad, I was enjoying the puns and hoping for more Veggie Tales references (I can still get the latter from time to time, right?)