WDTPRS 19th Sunday of Ordinary Time: sheer audacity

This coming Sunday’s Collect (or “Opening Prayer” as it has been called) was not in previous editions Missale Romanum before the 1970 Novus Ordo. It has roots in the 9th century Sacramentary of Bergamo and thus is ancient text.

Note that for the 2002 Missale Romanum there was a variation from the 1970MR.  In the 2002MR the ablative absolute clause “docente Spiritu Sancto” was inserted.

COLLECT – (2002MR):
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus,
quem [docente Spiritu Sancto –
not in the 1970MR]
paterno nomine invocare praesumimus,
perfice in cordibus nostris spiritum adoptionis filiorum,
ut promissam hereditatem ingredi mereamur

Paternus, a, um is an adjective, “fatherly”. Literally, a paternum nomen would be “Fatherly name”. In English we need to break that down a little, just as we do with the Latin for “Sunday”: dies dominica or “lordly Day” in place of what we say “the day of the Lord”. In English a paternum nomen is “the name of Father”. Latin uses adjectives and adverbs for more purposes than we do. Our trusted old friend Lewis & Short Dictionary informs us that invoco means “to call upon, invoke” especially as a witness or as aid. So, there is an element of urgency and humility in the word. Praesumo gives us the English word and concept of “presumption”. At its root it means, “to take before, take first or beforehand.” The adverb and adjective prae, the prefix element of prae-sumo, is “before, in front of, in advance of”. In a less physical sense it can mean “anticipate”, in the sense of “to imagine or picture to one’s self beforehand” or in a moral nuance “to presume, take for granted”. It is even, more interestingly, “to undertake, venture, dare” together with “to trust, be confident”.

Almighty eternal God,
whom, [the Holy Spirit teaching,
added in the 2002MR]
we presume to invoke by the name of Father,
perfect in our hearts the spirit of the adoption of children,
so that we may merit to enter into the inheritance promised

Notice that I translate filii as “children” rather than as just “sons”, according to the literal meaning. Latin masculine plurals, depending on the context, can also include females even though the form of the word is masculine.

Almighty and ever-living God,
you Spirit made us your children,
confident to call you Father.
Increase your Spirit within us
and bring us to our promised inheritance

Take careful note that the language of adoption has been expunged. Does this change the impact of the prayer? Does it present a different view of the Christian life than that presented in the Latin Collect?

An important element of our Collect comes from Paul: “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. We can invoke God the Father with confidence, not fear, when we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Romans 8:15… and “Abba” does not mean “daddy”).

Almighty ever-living God,
whom, taught by the Holy Spirit,
we dare to call our Father,
bring, we pray, to perfection in our hearts
the spirit of adoption as your sons and daughters,
that we may merit to enter into the inheritance
which you have promised

During the Holy Mass, through the words, actions and intentions of the ordained priest, as a Church we presume with trusting audacity to consecrate bread and wine and change them substantially to the Body and Body of the Second Person of the Trinity.

We do this because Jesus commanded us to do so, but it is a harrowing and consoling undertaking all the same.

We are laying hands upon truly sacred things, the most sacred things there can be: Christ’s Body, Blood, soul and divinity.

What could be more presumptuous?

Two sections of the great Corpus Christi sequence by St. Thomas Aquinas (+1274) remind us of what is at stake when we approach the Blessed Sacrament for Communion (not my translation):

“Here beneath these signs are hidden
priceless things, to sense forbidden;
signs, not things, are all we see.
Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine,
yet is Christ in either sign,
all entire confessed to be.
… Both the wicked and the good
eat of this celestial Food:
but with ends how opposite!
With this most substantial Bread,
unto life or death they’re fed,
in a difference infinite.”

That last part bears repeating: “Mors est malis, vita bonis: / vide paris sumptionis / quam sit dispar exitus.”

Eternal death for the wicked if they receive Communion improperly. Eternal life for the good if they receive well. See how dissimilar the different outcomes from the same act of Holy Communion can be?

This is good to ponder during Mass and the lead up to Mass:  Am I properly disposed to receive what Christ and the Church have promised are truly His Body and Blood? Do I dare receive? When was my last good confession?

Immediately after the Eucharistic Prayer but before our intrepid reception of Communion, we dare to pray with the words that the same Son taught us.

In introducing the Lord’s Prayer the priest says in Latin, “Having been instructed/urged by saving commands and formed by divine institution, we dare/presume (audemus) to say, ‘Our Father…’”. Audeo is “to venture, to dare”, and in this it is a synonym of praesumo. Jesus taught us to see God as Father in a way that no ever one had before. Christ revolutionized our prayer. In our lowliness we now dare to raise our eyes and venture to speak to God in a new way. We come to Him as children of a new “sonship”.

We learned from our examination of the Collect for the Third Sunday of Easter that adoptio is “adoption” in the sense of “to take as one’s child”. We find the phrase in Paul: adoptionem filiorum Dei or “adoption of the sons of God” in the Latin Vulgate of Jerome (cf. Romans 8:23; Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:5).

We do not approach God as fearful slaves. We are now also able to receive Communion with reverent confidence provided we have prepared well. God has done His part.

God will come to us not as a stranger God, but as a Father God. What God does for us is not cold or impersonal. It is an act of love. Even in commanding us, God the Son did not mean to terrify us into paralysis. This, however, was the result for some who, when hearing Christ’s teaching about His flesh, left Him because what they heard was too hard (cf. John 6). We need not be terrified… overwhelmed with awe, certainly, but not by terror.

Warned, urged, instructed by a divine Person who taught us with divine precepts, let’s get straight who our Father is and who we are because of who He is.

We are children of a loving Father. He comes looking for us to draw us unto Him because of His fatherly heart. The Holy Father Pope John Paul II wrote for the Church’s preparation for the Millennium Jubilee:

“If God goes in search of man, created in his own image and likeness, he does so because he loves him eternally in the Word, and wishes to raise him in Christ to the dignity of an adoptive son” (Tertio millennio adveniente 6).

As God’s adopted children we have dignity. The adoption brought by the Spirit is not some second rate relationship with God or mere juridical slight of hand. It is the fulfillment of an eternal love and longing. This is a primary and foundational dimension of everything we are as Catholic Christians. It is perhaps for this reason that that the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks so clearly to this point, in the first paragraph.

The adoption we speak about in this Collect is something far more profound than a juridical act by which one who is truly not of the same blood and bone is therefore considered, legally, to be so. Some Protestants see our return to righteousness in God’s sight, that is, justification through baptism, in these terms: a sort of legal sleight of hand whereby we remain in reality guilty and corrupt, but our disgusting sinful nature is ignored by the Father because the merits of Christ are interposed between His eyes and our debased nature.

However, we know by divine revelation and the continuing teaching of the Christian Church that by baptism more than a legal fiction takes place.

We are more than justified, we are sanctified.

Something of God’s divine grace is given to us, infused into our being so that we truly become sons and daughters of Almighty God, transformed radically from within, as members of Christ’s own Mystical Person. Thus, we too share Christ’s sonship. It is almost as if God infused His own Holiness DNA into us to make us His own in a sense far beyond any legal adoption could accomplish.  This transformation alters who we are without removing our individuality or dignity as persons. We are His and unified as One in Christ, and yet we remain ourselves. We are integrated into a new structure of Communion, indeed a new family.

By our discordant actions we can make this earthly dimension of our supernatural family, our Church, dysfunctional.

What a mystery it is that God, who lavishes upon us the mighty transforming graces we all have known and profess to love, leaves also in our hands the freedom to spurn Him and trivialize His gifts. This freedom, itself a gift, could only be a Father’s gift to beloved children.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. contrarian says:

    Whenever I read the Lame Duck, I have to take a short walk to calm down.

  2. In the dozen years of WDTPRS (print and internet) collect explications that have won for Father Z his ineffable fame, I’m not sure we’ve seen one better than this. But then, how often has he been given the opportunity of spotting a brand-new ablative absolute clause?

  3. Supertradmum says:

    Thank you, Father Z., and one of your best. I needed this today, so much, as I have not “felt” like the daughter of the Father God for a long, long time, which I know I am in Faith and Hope. Pray that this true illumination pierces my heart as well. I cannot thank you enough for these words and I shall read them again this evening. God bless you.

  4. Supertradmum says:

    PS, if I may add a prayer. Let us see ourselves, as You, Father God see us, and not as we see ourselves, so that we may love you more and more. Give us Your Heart and take away our puny, petty hearts. Give us the grace to be the children You created us to be.

  5. JacobWall says:

    Fr. Z, I only have one comment/question; the new corrected translation looks pretty good (measured against your literal translation as a standard), but I’m unsure about one part:

    “whom … we dare to call our Father”

    the Latin (as per your translation) says:

    “whom, … we presume to invoke by the name of Father,”

    To me “call” and “invoke” have different connotations. Webster’s 1st three definitions of “invoke” are: “1) to petition for help or support, to appeal to or cite as authority; 2) to call forth by incantation; 3) to make an earnest request for.” (merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invoke) To “call someone our Father” is simply stating a fact (He is our Father) but lacks the urgency and action implied in “petition, appeal and earnest request.”

    In the My Latin has gotten far too rusty to remember if “invocare” in Latin has similar connotations to “invoke” or if it can also simply be “call” (as in “call someone by name”) or if both are correct. Perhaps you (or a scholarly reader who knows Latin) could help me with this.

  6. JacobWall says:

    Considering what follows, I feel “invoke” captures the complete meaning much better; the prayer is invoking God by the name of the Father, specifically for the reason to make such a “petition, appeal or earnest request” – “perfect in our hearts the spirit of the adoption of children … ” It gives the relative clause a connection to the rest of the prayer in a more active way. But I still need to know if this idea is true to the Latin or not …

  7. teomatteo says:

    “It is almost as if God infused His own Holiness DNA into us to make us His own in a sense far beyond any legal adoption could accomplish. ”

    As the father of adoptive children i can’t help but find your words to be very meaningful. One of your best Fr. Z.

  8. Penta says:

    A brief question. In Hebrew (modern *or* biblical), what is…searching for a word here…the “sense” of “Abba”, usually? Is it formal? Informal? Either, depending on context?

    I’ve *always* heard that it was informal, but I’ve gotten very, very confused by it over the years.

  9. lucindatcm says:

    We do not approach God as fearful slaves. We are now also able to receive Communion with reverent confidence provided we have prepared well.

    You’re correct, Father, and yet I still have to recite prayers to Mary all the way up the aisle in order to get up the nerve to receive the Power that orders the hurricanes and keeps the universe from succumbing to entropy. I mean, the Power that is greater than Hurricane Katrina, and I must receive it? I couldn’t ever be pure enough to do it. I tell myself firmly that I have made a good confession and therefore I’m going to go because I need my spiritual food. Of course, now I have a couple of kids that are old enough to go to communion too, and they need good examples (another reason to pull myself enough together to receive Our Lord), so I go. Nevertheless, it freaks me out every time. Hopefully this is normal.

  10. Kent says:

    Thank you for putting to rest “Abba means Daddy”. I’ve been hearing that for forty years and it drives me crazy (it was a short trip). The Almighty, Omniscient Creator of the universe is not “Daddy”.

  11. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Abba is personal, and a form of address, but not informal. Not hideously formal, but formal.

    Like in Japanese, where there are words for “Mother” and “Father” that you only use for your own mother and father (as opposed to the words for other people’s mothers and fathers). That doesn’t mean they’re informal terms.

  12. yatzer says:

    Yes, thank you. We do not just have our sins covered over, but we are actually made holy. What a wonderful thing!

  13. fvhale says:

    “Abba.” Mamma mia.

    Having spent so much of my life studying words in many languages, and translations, and arguments, fights and theologies built rather shakily on this word or that in some language or another, I always advise a bit of prudence and caution, especially when a word is used rarely or in a special way.

    “abba” (alpha-beta-beta-alpha) occurs only thrice in the Greek text of the New Testament, and only in the phrase: “abba ho pateer” (Mc 14,36; Rom 8,15; Gal 4,6). In Latin this is always translated “Abba Pater.” Scripture never has “Abba” without “Pater” in Latin. Only three occurrences of one fixed phrase is really not enough data to make a definitive, solid case for the meaning of the word, one way or another. So I suggest that we be a bit open to the diversity of opinions of the meaning of “Abba.”

    Clasically, and in a recent rhetorical study, the meaning of “abba” seems to be best understood, in my opinion, by the Latin “paterfamilias,” as the head or senior male family member representing the household. (ref.: S. Tsang, “‘Abba’ revisited: merging the horizons of history and rhetoric through the new rhetoric structure for metaphors,” Acta Theologica Supplementum 9, 2007; focuses on how the Galatians would understand “abba.”).

    The notion that “abba” means the informal, very familiar “daddy” was popularized by the German Lutheran theologian Joachim Jeremias (1900-1979) in his study of our Lord’s prayer in the Garden of Gesthemane (Mc 14,36). From Jeremias:

    “With the help of my assistants, I have examined the prayer literature of late Judaism–a large, rich literature, all too little explored. The result of this examination was that in no place in this immense literature is this invocation of God as “Abba” to be found. How is this to be explained?

    The Church Fathers Chrysostom, Theodor of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus who originated from Antioch (where the populace spoke the west Syrian dialect of Aramaic) and who probably had Aramiac speaking nurses, testify unanimously that “Abba” was the address of the small child to his father. And the Talmud confirms this when it says, “When a child experiences the taste of wheat (i.e. when it is weaned) it learns to say “abba” and “imma” (“Daddy” and
    “Mommy”). ” Abba” and “Imma” are thus the first sounds which the child stammers. But these terms were not limited to small children; grown-up sons and daughters also used them to address their parents. “Abba” was an everyday word, a homely, family word, a secular word, the tender, filial address to a father: “Dear Father.”

    No Jew would have dared to address God in this manner. Jesus did it always, in all His prayers which are handed down to us, with one single exception, the cry from the cross, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34; Matthew 27:46); here the term of address for God was prescribed by the fact that Jesus was quoting Psalm 22:1. Jesus thus spoke with God as a son would with his father, simply, intimately, securely, filial in manner.”

    (Source: Joachim Jeremias, “The Lord’s Prayer in Modern Research,” in New Testament Issues, ed. Batey, New York: Harper & Row, 1970.)

    There has been, of course, a series of theological papers taking a view other than that of Jeremias. The most famous, perhaps, is James Barr, “Abba Isn’t Daddy” in Journal of Theological Studies vol. 39, no. 1, April 1988. Solid Catholic biblical scholars like Joseph Fitzmeyer, SJ, and Raymond Brown, SS (1928-1998) have also weighed in on the question. Brown, on pages 172-174 of The Death of the Messiah, vol. 1, quotes Barr’s position that since the use of “abba” as a child’s address “Daddy” is only attested late (after AD 200), it is not relevant to the usage in the New Testament (and should be dropped).

    Another respected Catholic theologian, now known as our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, wrote about this on pp. 161-162 of Jesus of Nazareth, part 2. Here Benedict seems to use the view of Jeremias, and the interpretation of “Abba” as “Daddy,” to bring out the intimate relationship of Jesus and his Father, and counter views that Jesus was just a man praying to a distant God.

    This brings us to one final point regarding Jesus’ prayer, to its actual interpretative key, namely, the form of address: “Abba, Father” (Mk I4:36). In 1966 Joachim Jeremias wrote an important article about the use of this term in Jesus’ prayer, from which I should like to quote two essential insights: “Whereas there is not a single instance of God being addressed as Abba in the literature of Jewish prayer, Jesus always addressed him in this way (with the exception of the cry from the Cross, Mark 15:34 and parallel passages). So we have here a quite unmistakable characteristic of the ipsissima vox Jesu” (Abba, p. 57). Moreover, Jeremias shows that this word Abba belongs to the language of children-that it is the way a child addresses his father within the family. “To the Jewish mind it would have been disrespectful and therefore inconceivable to address God with this familiar word. For Jesus to venture to take this step was something new and unheard of. He spoke to God like a child to his father … Jesus’ use of Abba in addressing God reveals the heart of his relationship with God” (p. 62). It is therefore quite mistaken on the part of some theologians to suggest that the man Jesus was addressing the Trinitarian God in the prayer on the Mount of Olives. No, it is the Son speaking here, having subsumed the fullness of man’s will into himself and transformed it into the will of the Son.

    In conclusion, this has been an “open question” of interpretation of the biblical text for the last 45 years, and it is likely to stay that way for some time. Sure, the “baby talk” aspect can be overdone, but it is perhaps also important to emphasize the point of Jesus’, and our own, relationship with God. He is not distant, but Our Father.

  14. Penta says:

    Suburbanbanshee: Sadly, I’m a monoglot (Rosetta Stone is not being helpful in teaching me Spanish!)…But fvhale, I think by accident, got more or less at what I was trying to ask: Basically, does Hebrew have a tu-vous distinction (like the Romance languages and German do, witness du vs sie in German), or is it like English in lacking one?

    Moving on: The evidence appears to be, so far as NT Hebrew or Aramaic goes, the jury is still out, if I’m reading fvhale correctly? Hm. I’d thought it was settled.

    Reason I ask: Father Z is, IMHO, likely right speaking strictly of the NT’s Hebrew or Aramaic, but I’m confused more broadly – I accept that Abba likely is not meant in a fully informal sense (“Daddy”) in the NT…But was it ever used informally, or was there/is there (revived languages are like time travel, making tense confusing!) another word? Is this a case of “So wrong it’s not even wrong” or is it a case of “Could be right, right word, but not right context”?

  15. Tom in NY says:

    Ad jucundum:
    His dictis, magis RP Moderatori in oratione dicere “nuncupatio” vice “adoptio,” sequendum “nomen” et “hereditas” docet?
    ad fvhale:
    Verbum hebrais litteris “pater”, “Ab” est. Etiam ego ipse puerum patri loqui audivit.

    Salutationes omnibus.

  16. Tom in NY says:

    erratum: ego..audivit
    corrigendum: ego…audivi

    pensandum ante scribendum.

  17. JKnott says:

    Very beautiful meditation Father Z.

  18. q7swallows says:

    I sooooo hear you about qualms before Communion.

    “The Church Fathers Chrysostom, Theodor of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus who originated from Antioch (where the populace spoke the west Syrian dialect of Aramaic) and who probably had Aramiac speaking nurses, testify unanimously that “Abba” was the address of the small child to his father. . . . ‘Abba’ was an everyday word, a homely, family word, a secular word, the tender, filial address to a father: ‘Dear Father.'”

    For those of us who have had a long and difficult time in being able to ‘switch-hit’ our worship of the creator of the universe and look upon (let alone invoke!) God as intimately interested and ever-loving Father, thank you.
    I have spent a lot of time in the presence of little children and the confidence they often show a father is a map for my feet. Those like me who have difficulty suffering themselves to be spiritually directed can benefit from the example of the abiding filial trust of small children. St. Francis de Sales often recommends that you see yourself as a child in the arms of God and be as calm as they, not worrying about where you are being taken and trusting to talk to Him very simply — even telling Him that you do not know how and ultimately committing your affairs into His emminently capable Hands.

    I’m going out on a limb here but I think a lot depends on one’s understanding of “Daddy.” I think there is room in the world for “Abba” qua “Daddy” as long as it is not in the disingenuous, fawning, manipulating, baby-talking sense.

  19. Absit invidia says:

    Like all things Woodstock, the 1973 translation smacks of haughtiness and presumption.

  20. VexillaRegis says:

    Thank you Fr. Z.! I’ve met so many people who have trouble viewing God Father as their father because they don’t know what a father is and what he is supposed to do. If you’ve never really experienced fatherly love and care, the concept of a Heavenly Father says you nothing or even makes you turn away from Him. This is one of the big tragedies for today’s children (of all agegroups).

    I thank God every day for my remarkable father, may he rest in peace.

  21. robtbrown says:


    Good stuff. Thanks.

    1. IMHO, the problem is not that Abba is translated “Daddy”, but rather that it is understood by some as “Bubba”. The use of “Daddy”as an address rather than the more formal “Father” still recognizes paternal authority, just as addressing a priest as “Fr David” is less formal than “Fr Jones”. Addressing him as “David”, however, means not expressing his priestly authority.

    2. In these matter I am always reminded that an Orthodox Jewish girl I knew in high school wrote in my yearbook almost 50 years ago: “May G-d bless you.” That reluctance to include all three letters of course follows from the First Principle of the OT, the Divine Transcendence, i.e., God is ontologically sovereign–he exists independently of everything else. The lack of understanding of this principle is everywhere. Not only is Pantheism common in non Catholics, but I heard a priest say in a homily a few years ago: God created all things because he needed something to love. Oy vey!

    3. Of course, the basis of Christian thought is that God is both Transcendent and Immanent. In human understanding (coming from both faith and reasons), the notion one must not usurp the other.

  22. Vecchio di Londra says:

    Thank you Father, for that inspired and inspiring commentary.
    I hope too (although as I’ll be attending a High Sung Mass in Latin I shan’t be in a position to check) that the new ICEL English translation of the Introit corrects the mistranslation of the old text, which wrongly quoted the last line of Psalm 73, instead of sticking to what the (freely adapted) Latin Introit actually says.
    The Introit I mean is ‘Respice, Domine, in testamentum tuum, et animas pauperum tuorum’ etc.
    It’s only very freely based on the Vulgate Latin of Psalm 73, and ends with the humbly pleading words ‘et ne obliviscaris voces quaerentium te’ (‘and do not ignore the voices of those who seek [or ‘call on’] you’).
    Some clever-clogs 1970 translator must have seen the word ‘obliviscaris’ and decided to amend the line to match the actual last line of the Vulgate Psalm as we have it, which is ‘ne obliviscaris voces inimicorum tuorum…’ – overlooking the fact that the Introit’s prayer follows, not the Vulgate, but the Greek Septuagint, whose final line is says: ?? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ???· ? ?????????? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ??? ??????. So the first part of that line does actually mean in Greek what our Latin Introit says: ‘Do not ignore the voice of your supplicants.’ And not ‘Do not ignore the voices of your enemies and their pride’
    In spirit we enter the altar, the courts of the Almighty, praying that our voices may mercifully heard by Him, not asking him to pay attention to the voices of His enemies and give them a good hiding!!

  23. Vecchio di Londra says:

    Apologies – I should have realized the Greek wouldn’t post itself. Anyone who wants to check it can go to http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=24&page=73
    and look at the last line of the Greek, bottom right hand of that page.

  24. Kathleen10 says:

    These words provide peace to my heart for another reason. One year ago Tuesday my beloved mother passed from this earth, at 95 years and 1 day. She was our jewel. At 75, she was baptized into the Catholic church, and I can’t tell you how much consolation that fact gives me. It is so important to be baptized. She also received the Sacrament of the Sick about five months before she passed, and that is consolation as well. I relied on that knowledge so often, still do. When I read about the hidden realities of baptism it lifts my heart, because I can feel at peace and be confident about where my feisty and wonderful little Momma is. Thank you Fr. Z.

  25. q7swallows says:

    Can anyone (esp. Fvhale) provide a link to the TEXT of the article referenced in Fvhale’s comment above: “Abba Isn’t Daddy” by James Barr, in Journal of Theological Studies vol. 39, no. 1, April 1988.

    I can find plenty of bibliographic references to it online but no actual readable text anywhere.

  26. fvhale says:

    Dear q7swallows,

    JTS is an academic journal with copyright owned by Oxford Journals. I think they do a good job of making free online copies difficult to obtain (so that they can sell expensive subscriptons to universities and seminaries!).

    You can buy “1 day access” for US $25. Or maybe access the journal through a university or seminary library with a subscription. Here is the link:

    It will also available in volume 2 of the 3-volume collected works of James Barr (1924-2006) to be published by Oxford University Press next year (expected), for a mere 300 GBP (British Pound Sterling, close to US $500).

    Sorry, I do not know where you can get the full article (20 pages in the journal). It is the fifth most often cited in the entire history of Journal of Theological Studies, and I expect it is quite a moneymaker for the publisher. If you do not want to pay Oxford for access, I recommend a university or seminary library.

  27. q7swallows says:

    Thank you! Since this is a rather buried post now, I was glad of your reply. Also was happy to stop banging my head on the ol’ cyber wall too. Am on the cheaper route you suggested.

Comments are closed.