Is The ' Lords Supper ' a cannibalistic ritual?

[Skeptical Greg]

Seems that way to me..

At least for the Catholic Church.

Pope Paul II reaffirms value of cannibalistic ritual..

Ecclesia de Eucharistia (http://www.newadvent.org/library/jp02ee.htm)

. The Eucharist is a true banquet, in which Christ offers himself as our nourishment. When for the first time Jesus spoke of this food, his listeners were astonished and bewildered, which forced the Master to emphasize the objective truth of his words: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you" (Jn 6:53). This is no metaphorical food: "My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (Jn 6:55).

Wouldn't a Chardonay be better with that fillet of Christ?

I realize that many Christians denominations do not suggest that the communion wine and bread are actually transformed into the body and blood of Christ.


Imagine the fuss that would be made if group of pagans or Devil worshipers made it well known that they frequently (weekly ) participated in a ritual where they consumed what they believed to be the blood and flesh of a human being.

[Tricky]

Though it may seem a moot point, I think there is a difference between a "cannibalistic ritual" and "ritual cannibalism".

A cannibalistic ritual would be a ritual that involved real cannibalism, but in "ritual cannibalism", only the notion of cannibalism is performed. These days, we would probably call it "virtual cannibalism".

But as I recall, one of the fundamental debates in Christianity is whether the wine and bread symbolize Christ's blood and body, or whether they actually become the blood and body (transubstantiation). There has been at least one war (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/notes.htm) fought over this question.

If transubstantiation is true, then it is real cannibalism. It's also magic.

[BillyTK]

This one got me into real trouble at Sunday School, what with the Roman Catholic belief that at the moment the priest asks for God's blessing on the communion wine and wafers, it is transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. And the whole thing about Christ being a lamb which is sacrificed. I know now that it was a device to make christianity more attractive to the godless cannibal heathens. So anyway, what with being a vegetarian, I no longer take holy communion when I attend mass...

Edited for spelling and intials

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tricky
Though it may seem a moot point, I think there is a difference between a "cannibalistic ritual" and "ritual cannibalism".

For sure..

In one, you are pretending..

How do you think parents ( in general) in our western culture would feel about their children ' pretending' to drink the blood and eat the flesh of their playmates.
What is an average age for young Catholics to celebrate their first Communion?

Fornication = mortal sin

Thigh sandwich, glass of blood = oh, whatever


( Yes, I know I am being ridiculous. But I am trying to point out how we accept or ignore certain behaviour, that is wrapped in religious tradition, that would otherwise be unacceptable. )

[Socrates]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Pope Paul II reaffirms value of cannibalistic ritual..
Ecclesia de Eucharistia (http://www.newadvent.org/library/jp02ee.htm)


Symbolically, yes. The ritual of Communion is symbolic act of cannibalism. But, you would be foolish to believe that the Catholic Church condones cannibalism.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Diogenes

What is an average age for young Catholics to celebrate their first Communion?


About 6 years. You have a First Communion Breakfast, but at least they don't transubstantiate that... *eeyew, what a thought*

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Socrates


Symbolically, yes. The ritual of Communion is symbolic act of cannibalism. But, you would be foolish to believe that the Catholic Church condones cannibalism.

Yes, I would. I alluded to this here......I know I am being ridiculous.

[thatguywhojuggles]

I was walking down a street recently when I walked past a church. They had a sculpture of Jesus hanging on the cross on the side of the building. The artist rendered Jesus looking very malnourished. He also looked very dead from a distance. I found this strange. Imagine from an unbiased anthropological view, how strange it must be that people hang a statue of a dead man on the side of a building.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Socrates


Symbolically, yes. The ritual of Communion is symbolic act of cannibalism.

No seriously--like I said above, this one got me in real trouble for asking--it's not symbolic, Catholics are supposed to believe that the communion wafers and wine are actually turned into the body and blood of Christ.

This is the consecration Prayer from the Eucharist (commentary in italics):

At the Consecration our focus is on the altar where the priest presents to the Most Holy Trinity a glorious gift when he elevates the Sacred Host. We are blessed to be present at a most holy and sublime moment. When the priest holds up the host and says the words This is my Body we silently look with reverence on the Sacred Host knowing that Our Savior himself is hidden under the appearance of bread and say silently as did St. Thomas, “My Lord and My God. This Sacred Host is Jesus, the immortal King of
heaven and earth, who at the word of the priest has become present upon the altar.

On the night he was betrayed,
he took bread and gave you thanks and praise.
He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you, and eat it:
this is my body which will be given up for you.

When the priest holds up the chalice with the precious blood we can say the words “My Jesus Mercy” The words “This is the cup of my blood...” means the blood in this chalice is the very same blood Jesus shed on the cross two thousand years ago. Precious Blood cleanse and sanctify me that nothing may ever separate me from you.

When supper was ended, he took the cup.
Again he gave you thanks and praise,
gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
this is the cup of my blood,
the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for all
so that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me.

Source (http://www.catecheticalresources.com/The%20Mass.pdf) NB--it's a .pdf

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Wouldn't a Chardonay be better with that fillet of Christ?
"Jesus- the other white meat"? :D


I realize that many Christians denominations do not suggest that the communion wine and bread are actually transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

Oh, but some do! Transubstantiation is (or was) a VERY real thing to them; hence all the protocols about handling the hosts, and debates about whether you're supposed to chew the wafers or let them dissolve on the tongue, etc.


Imagine the fuss that would be made if group of pagans or Devil worshipers made it well known that they frequently (weekly ) participated in a ritual where they consumed what they believed to be the blood and flesh of a human being.

I don't know about the Satanists, but pagans do Communion all the time. Bread and wine are passed around, but nobody thinks it's more than just symbolic, at least not until after the ritual. The Dionysians my wife hangs with did a goat roast a few years back: the goat wasn't sacrificed TO the god, it was killed AS the god in enactment of the annual birth/death/rebirth cycle. See, the Christians didn't invent this stuff.

[Kiri]

Originally posted by BillyTK
This one got me into real trouble at Sunday School, what with the Roman Catholic belief that at the moment the priest asks for God's blessing on the communion wine and wafers, it is transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. And the whole thing about Christ being a lamb which is sacrificed. I know now that it was a device to make christianity more attractive to the godless cannibal heathens. So anyway, what with being a vegetarian, I no longer take holy communion when I attend mass...



Just imagine Jesus as being made of tofu....:D

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Kiri


Just imagine Jesus as being made of tofu....:D

I carnt, cos when i swallow it's still Jesus (and that brings to mind some rather unpleasant thoughts). And even if Jesus were tofu, he'd probably turn himself into loaves and fishes or summat!

[Dancing David]

I am sure that many gods filled heathens have had this thought. The first I know of is A. Crowley ponting out that the communion is cannibalism.
MMMM, mommy I want the white meat.
While we are on the subject I have a friend who objects to the fact that the babtists use grape juice, after all Jesus did not say 'and this Juicy Juice shall be my blood', he also thought that oyster crackers were declasse.

Peace
dancing david

[Imaginist]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I am sure that many gods filled heathens have had this thought. The first I know of is A. Crowley ponting out that the communion is cannibalism.
MMMM, mommy I want the white meat.
While we are on the subject I have a friend who objects to the fact that the babtists use grape juice, after all Jesus did not say 'and this Juicy Juice shall be my blood', he also thought that oyster crackers were declasse.

Peace
dancing david


LOL :D As Archie Bunker would have said, "It says 'bread' and 'wine' right there in Enlgish, the laguage that the Holy Bible was written in!"

On the other side of the coin, when I was a teenager one of my Methodist youth directors tried to argue that grape juice was okay because the actual word for wine in the original texts could be interpeted either way. Boy, did I ever breathe a sigh of relief! ;)

[BobK]

That Jesus guy must have been one enormous dude if they're still devouring him after 2000 years.

Where did they get a crane large enough to stand that cross up after nailing him to it??:)

[Kiri]

Originally posted by BobK
That Jesus guy must have been one enormous dude if they're still devouring him after 2000 years.


Portion control, Bob, it's all about portion control. That, and Tupperware. :D

[Socrates]

Originally posted by BillyTK
No seriously--like I said above, this one got me in real trouble for asking--it's not symbolic, Catholics are supposed to believe that the communion wafers and wine are actually turned into the body and blood of Christ.

If it were not a symbolic act of cannibalism, then there would actually be flesh consumed.

Anyone, including a Catholic looking at a wafer and imagining, "Our Savior himself is hidden under the appearance of bread," knows a cracker when they see one.

Imagination doesn't make it real, except maybe for a young materialists trying to beg an argument.

Love,
Socrates

[Tricky]

Originally posted by BillyTK


I carnt, cos when i swallow it's still Jesus (and that brings to mind some rather unpleasant thoughts). And even if Jesus were tofu, he'd probably turn himself into loaves and fishes or summat!
I know wotcher mean. I have a hard time swallowing anything concerning Jesus.:D

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Tricky

I know wotcher mean. I have a hard time swallowing anything concerning Jesus.:D

Tricky, it is one of my fondest dreams to one day be as funny as you! :D :D :D

[c4ts]

What kind of a sick religion eats the flesh of and drinks the blood of the only person who's supposed to live forever?

[Yahzi]

What kind of a sick religion eats the flesh of and drinks the blood of the only person who's supposed to live forever?

Because, if you drink of his blood, you too will live forever.

Oh wait... that's vampires... nm.

[Socrates]

Originally posted by c4ts
What kind of a sick religion eats the flesh of and drinks the blood of the only person who's supposed to live forever?

Well, technically, he isn't the only person who is supposed to live forever. Cannibalism is not unique to the Christian religion. It was practiced for centuries in Central/South America and in Africa. There are rumors that it is still practiced on a limited basis in some places.

If I recall correctly (I would refer you to Joseph Campbell's writings on the subject for a more reliable opinion), the idea behind cannibalism is that the person being eaten obtains immortality through the act of cannibalism.

The body and spirit, of the person being consumed, live on in the bodies and spirits of those that consume him. And, because he is in those people, he will be in the next person to be cannibalized and so on. He will live as long as there are people eating him. :D

Weird, eh?

Love,
Socrates

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by BillyTK


And even if Jesus were tofu, he'd probably turn himself into loaves and fishes or summat!

Who was the comedian that did a great take on the whole loaves and fishes thing? Wasn't it Kinison who stated that it wasn't a miracle because the fish and loaves were days old so, when the baskets were passed around, people took one look and just put them back???

[stamenflicker]

This concept is discussed in depth in Young's "Origin of the Sacred;" and numerous different mythologists including Campbell, Jung, and Frazier. If you ask me, it's a brilliant mythological coding of a basic human psychological need to tear flesh. It many ways it serves to curb the animal, not throw him into a cannibalistic frenzy.

Flick

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Socrates


Symbolically, yes. The ritual of Communion is symbolic act of cannibalism. But, you would be foolish to believe that the Catholic Church condones cannibalism.

It's only symbolic when the question of cannibalism emerges. Other than that it's supposed to be literal.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
This concept is discussed in depth in Young's "Origin of the Sacred;" and numerous different mythologists including Campbell, Jung, and Frazier. If you ask me, it's a brilliant mythological coding of a basic human psychological need to tear flesh. It many ways it serves to curb the animal, not throw him into a cannibalistic frenzy.

Flick

Assuming the animal needs to be curbed.

Is this considered to be an underlying trait of those who tend to participate in this ritual?

[Lord Kenneth]

Jesus Christ is walking down the street. He is preparing to unlease himself to the world, thus the Second Coming.

A boy, of mere 16, is hiding in the bushes. He sees Jesus, and he knows what to do.

Suddenly, like a tiger, he pounces on Jesus, his mouth swooping down onto his chest, pulling out the flesh and gobbling it up raw.

Jesus, of course, is screaming in pain, but Dark Cobra continues to chew into his body. DC, feeling a belch coming on, lifts his head for a second, blood dripping down his chin like a messy spagetti dinner. He belches, his Christ-gut breath filling the air around them, while Jesus continues to scream. After hallowing Jesus' insides, DC slips inside him, hallows out his head, then eats Jesus' face from the inside after cracking his skull like an egg.

Finally, Christ is all gone, with only bits of lung and blood and bone splattered on the ground. This was DC's holy eucharist, The blood and body of Christ.

DC shall ascend into heaven, despite eating the Son of God.

-Hack fiction bought to you by Dark Cobra

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Jesus Christ is walking down the street. He is preparing to unlease himself to the world, thus the Second Coming.

.............. snip...
Finally, Christ is all gone, with only bits of lung and blood and bone splattered on the ground. This was DC's holy eucharist, The blood and body of Christ.

DC shall ascend into heaven, despite eating the Son of God.

-Hack fiction bought to you by Dark Cobra

Uhhhh... You forget that J.C.'s buddy, Peter, is with him.. Peter whips out his sword, planning to to cut off D.C.'s ear.. He misses, and cuts off his head.. Armageddon ensues. Satan perishes..

[stamenflicker]

Is this considered to be an underlying trait of those who tend to participate in this ritual?

It is a universal underlying trait. It doesn't matter what your religious or anti-religious stance may be. It's a part of the universal collective unconscious-- that's why it springs up in almost every religion regardless of how far the groups are separated.

Dudley Young's book explains this very well. The shedding of blood meant life to the ancients in that killing and eating are so closely tied. I suppose it still does. The American Indians for example has numerous different rituals surrounding the slaying of their next meal. Even today, a common ritual for deer hunters is applying a spash of blood to their face after killing their first deer. Blood is for very good reason attached to the concept of life. By consuming the flesh of the beast, we gain vitality.

Modern man thinks he has "grown-up" and no longer carries such superstitions in his highly developed brain. But these connections are made in his unconscious and are part of his evolutionary history; they find their way out in numerous un-pleasant ways. Why is it that in our highly developed and intelligent society we lead the world in murders per capita? Why does a movie like Hannibal draw millions to the theater? How does the American economy develop expressions like "dog-eat-dog" or why do merchants refer to patrons as "consumers?"

We are a society consumed by violence. It is estimated that a child will see over 100,000 acts of violence on television before he leaves middle school. Why? Because violence sells? Because it is stimulating to us? Why? Why do we instinctively find violence more appealing than peace? Look at any local news outlet... the bad is reported, because the bad is newsworthy. Why? Why are we in tune more with murder, rape, war and the likes.

Because we are hard wired that way. Thank evolutionary biology for that. The need to tear flesh is like a vestigle organ in the brain-- it was once a solid and welcomed part of being human and staying alive. The sacrifice motif is engrained, mythologically speaking. The Christ motif takes an existing metaphor in the attempt to saitate the beast.

Flick

[Skeptical Greg]

Oh, I understand our passion for violence, and how we satisfy it with video games and movies.. ( .... was comic books for me) But I don't see eating a cracker, taking a sip of wine and pretending you are snacking on Jesus, as filling this need. Sure the metaphor is there, but I would venture that 99% of the people who take communion would be revolted with the true meaning of what they are doing.

[stamenflicker]

The thing is it is a ritual. Rituals meets the needs of the subconscious and its particpants go through the ritual, not to gain a conscious understanding of the outer world, but to organize and distribute emotional-sprititual energy in their inner worlds. The notion that the Catholic church has taken such a powerful experience and tried to literalize it, has only served to reduce its mythological power base-- and I think in a sense it cheapens it.

I agree with you that most people would be revolted, even if they just think about it deeply for 5 minutes. I completed a screenplay in December 2001 that traces the elements of the sacrifice metaphor as it ran through characters in a highly competive community. I think most folks are totally oblivious to the implications, as you have noted. It sure made for some sickening and hilarious scenes though...

Flick

[shemp]

What wine does one serve with Roast Leg of Jesus?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by shemp
What wine does one serve with Roast Leg of Jesus?

Only the vintage California transubstantiated kind, of course.

[susheel]

Anthropological studies have shown that ritualistic cannibalism is a part of quite a few cultures. Perhaps they are all remnants of a very distant past when cannibalism was very much a part of man's daily life.
Again, many pagan (somehow I dislike this word, but I am using it since I can's find a better one now) cultures have legends of cannibalism.
Hey there seems to be something for a really nice paper in this. Maybe I will work it out into an article.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by BillyTK
This one got me into real trouble at Sunday School, what with the Roman Catholic belief that at the moment the priest asks for God's blessing on the communion wine and wafers, it is transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. And the whole thing about Christ being a lamb which is sacrificed. I know now that it was a device to make christianity more attractive to the godless cannibal heathens. So anyway, what with being a vegetarian, I no longer take holy communion when I attend mass...

Edited for spelling and intials
Not that it really matters to anyone on this thread, but transubstantiation does not change the physical properties of the bread and wine, it changes the substance. In other words, it may look like bread and wine (and by any physical test it would remain bread and wine) but it's substance is no longer bread and wine. I'd be the first to acknowledge that it's hard to understand what substance there is beyond what you can physically detect, but that's what transubstantiation is alluding to. Here's a little blurb about it (written by a priest) if anyone cares:

"Normally we speak of the substance of anything as that which makes a thing what it is. With transubstantiation, however, the substance of bread and wine becomes everything which Christ is. After transubstantiation, the physical properties of bread and wine remain. But the "itness" or "thingness" of bread and wine ceases to exist. What had been the substance of bread and wine now becomes the whole Christ, in the words of the Council of Trent, the totus Christus. "

It's a mystery most Catholics accept because of their faith in their Church, not because it makes any logical sense.

Tim

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Rockon

Not that it really matters to anyone on this thread, but transubstantiation does not change the physical properties of the bread and wine, it changes the substance. In other words, it may look like bread and wine (and by any physical test it would remain bread and wine) but it's substance is no longer bread and wine. I'd be the first to acknowledge that it's hard to understand what substance there is beyond what you can physically detect, but that's what transubstantiation is alluding to. Here's a little blurb about it (written by a priest) if anyone cares:

"Normally we speak of the substance of anything as that which makes a thing what it is. With transubstantiation, however, the substance of bread and wine becomes everything which Christ is. After transubstantiation, the physical properties of bread and wine remain. But the "itness" or "thingness" of bread and wine ceases to exist. What had been the substance of bread and wine now becomes the whole Christ, in the words of the Council of Trent, the totus Christus. "

It's a mystery most Catholics accept because of their faith in their Church, not because it makes any logical sense.

Tim

Gah! Abusing Aristotle! Bad bad bad bad bad bad bad! Aristotle deserves to beat that blurb with a metal baseball bat, if he had one. "Itness," and "thingness" is a reference to ousia (better known as "thinghood") which is composed of substance and form, which excludes properties, but that means you can't affect thinghood, because thinghood is what underlies the substance and all the properties! If you were to cause the ousia of the bread cease to exist, the ability to rationalize form and its material would topple like a house of cards. If you want to change the "it-ness," you have to destroy the wafer, and you'd need to destroy the idea or form of a wafer, if you want to destroy wafer-ness itself, because the ousia underlies its properties as well as its materials (since they both come from the form of a wafer, which isn't destroyed). To quote the Metaphysics, in context this time (Sachs translation, which is incredibly close to the Greek, especially in meaning):


Now thinghood is meant, if not in more ways, certainly in four ways most of all; for the thinghood of each thing seems to be what it keeps on being in order to be at all, but also seems to be the universal, and the general class, and, fourth, what underlies these. And what underlies the others is that to which they are attributed, while it itself is not attributed any further to anything else; therefore one ought to distinguish this sort first, since thinghood seems most of all to be the underlying thing. And in a way material is said to be of this sort, but in another way the form is, and a third that which is made out of these. (And by material, I mean, for instance, bronze, by the form I mean the shape of iits look, and by what is made out of these, the statue.)So if the form is more primary than the material, and is more, it will also, for the same reason, be more primary than what is made of both.

For example, in order to change the thinghood of a bronze statue, you would either have to melt it down and pour the bronze into a different cast (changing the form), or you would have to change the material, perhaps by pouring gold into the cast instead of bronze. So, you can't eliminate a statue without destroying its statue-ness that underlies it. You could destroy the form, perhaps by melting the statue and the cast the bronze was poured into down to an amorphous puddle, or destroy the material (you could separate the bronze into copper and tin while leaving the mould intact). But if you were to simply point to the statue and say "this is not a statue, because even though it looks like a statue and has the form of nude Aphrodite, it lacks the thingness underlying it" you're violating Aristotle's law of contradictions, that is, something cannot be and not be at the same time in the same respects that it is not. So the wafer cannot have the "itness" of the flesh of Christ if its original ousia is destroyed, and if the "itness" of flesh is to replace it, it must underlie a replacement in either substance or form, neither of which occurs.

No matter who tells you what it is, it is still the same chalky wafer it was before the priest got to it! Communion is all about ritual; it's supposed to be symbolic of accepting the gifts Jesus gave to mankind by his sacrifice, and it works better that way than if you decide to flush rational thought down the great metaphysical toilet in the process. Why are they coming up with complicated excuses for making it an act of cannibalism if they don't say that it is supposed to be cannibalism?

Barbarians.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by c4ts



No matter who tells you what it is, it is still the same chalky wafer it was before the priest got to it! Communion is all about ritual; it's supposed to be symbolic of accepting the gifts Jesus gave to mankind by his sacrifice, and it works better that way than if you decide to flush rational thought down the great metaphysical toilet in the process. Why are they coming up with complicated excuses for making it an act of cannibalism if they don't say that it is supposed to be cannibalism?

Barbarians.
In the case of Catholicism, it's not symbolic. It's the real presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. The ritualistic aspects of it are important, but Catholic doctrine states that there is a real miracle at every Mass when the transubstantiation ocurrs.

As to why....well, because Catholics believe that's what Jesus taught them. Catholics have always believed in transubstantiation, although the phrase wasn't coined until the 1200's I think.

Tim

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Rockon

In the case of Catholicism, it's not symbolic. It's the real presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. The ritualistic aspects of it are important, but Catholic doctrine states that there is a real miracle at every Mass when the transubstantiation ocurrs.

As to why....well, because Catholics believe that's what Jesus taught them. Catholics have always believed in transubstantiation, although the phrase wasn't coined until the 1200's I think.

Tim

The only miracle I see is the ability to go mad and have a surreal tea party while they're at it. Happy unbirthday, Mr. Rabbit! Would you like some jam on your corpse flesh? I have all flavors but strawberry. Our human blood selection is very fine indeed, because we live in an English house. The salad oil was not rancid today. Waiter, I would like seven razor blades and a jar of vasoline...

[GrapeJ713]

Maybe jesus turned himself into crackers and wine just before he died so xians wouldn't really be cannibals. I stole that from South Park, those guys really know how to skewer the faithful.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
Maybe jesus turned himself into crackers and wine just before he died so xians wouldn't really be cannibals. I stole that from South Park, those guys really know how to skewer the faithful.

So saying it's really flesh and blood anyway defeats the purpose of the miracle, as you are admitting to eating flesh and drinking blood in spite of the miracle.

[stamenflicker]

From tonight's reading...

Freud, "Civilization and It's Discontents" Section VI

The natural instinct of aggression in man, the hostility of each one against all and of all against each one, opposes the program of civilization. This instinct of aggression is the derivative and main reprenstative of the death instinct we have found alongside Eros, sharing this rule over the earth.

And now it seems to me, the meaning of the evolution of culture is no longer a riddle to us. It must present the struggle between Eros and Death, between the instincts of life and the instincts of destruction as it works itself out in the human species....

I think here you have a good picture of sacrifice / Eucharist bringing mythological harmony to these two competing human realities: the unity of death and rebirth, or life extending outward from death... And as we see through the demystification of this ritual under the light of modernity, some other form of unification must occur as a replacement, lest the whole mess continue in this insane "out of balance" world of sex and violence-- two extremes of the human experience wrestling for our control.

Flick