The Life of Francis of Assisi

Every year – or so it seems – very good biographies of St. Francis of Assisi are published. The ones published in the last 10 years all share some great qualities: readable and increasingly historical – introducing the “real” St Francis of Assisi to the world. You might ask why I say the “real” St Francis?

Did you know that statues of St Francis are the second most popular lawn/garden ornament sold every year – right behind pink flamingos.  Rather like the popular icon shown above. That is an image many people have of St Francis, certainly one reinforced by Franco Zefferelli’s film Brother Sun, Sister Moon, another in a long line of romantic interpretations of the poor man from Assisi.  Especially in the 20th century, Francis was portrayed as “a free spirit, a wild religious genius, a kind of medieval hippie, misunderstood and then exploited by the ‘medieval Church.’ Or perhaps they know him as the man who spoke to animals, a nature mystic, an ecologist, a pacifist, a feminist, a ‘voice for our time.’  For others he is the little plaster man in the birdbath, the most charming and nonthreatening of Catholic saints…. almost everyone has his or her own Francis” (Francis of Assisi, Augustine Thompson OP).

Want to know about the “real’ St. Francis. Here are 32 posts about the life of St. Francis. Read one a day and that will take you right up to the Feast Day, October 4th. So, here they are.

Francis of Assisi – An Introduction

Francis of Assisi – The Young Man

Francis of Assisi – Military Adventures

Francis of Assisi – Period of Crisis: San Damiano

Francis of Assisi – Period of Crisis: Leaving the World

Francis of Assisi – Period of Crisis: Embracing the Leper

Francis of Assisi – “And the Lord gave me brothers…”

Francis of Assisi – The Fraternity Grows and Someone Has to Lead

Francis of Assisi – An Exhortation to the Brothers

Francis of Assisi – The Itinerant Life of the Brothers

Francis of Assisi – The Disposal of Worldly Goods

Francis of Assisi – The Conversion of Clare

Francis of Assisi – A Reputation for Holiness and Miracles

Francis of Assisi – The Problems of New Growth

Francis of Assisi – Francis and Nature: Part I

Francis of Assisi – Francis and Nature: Part II

Francis of Assisi – A Sacramental View of Nature

Francis of Assisi – Francis and The Eucharist

Francis of Assisi – Integrating Into the Church

Francis of Assisi – The Word of God

Francis of Assisi – The First Missions

Francis of Assisi – The Crusades (Part 1)

Francis of Assisi – The Crusades (Part 2)

Francis of Assisi – The Crusades (Part 3)

Francis of Assisi – While He Was Away

Francis of Assisi:  Charism of the Founder – Vocation of the Friars

Francis of Assisi: Hierarchy of Authority – Hierarchy of Example

Francis of Assisi: Franciscan Rules

Francis of Assisi: An Approved Rule of Franciscan Life

Francis of Assisi: Up to Now….

Francis of Assisi: A Time of Doubt

Francis of Assisi: The Stigmata

Instruction for the Community

This coming Sunday is the 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time. The previous two Sundays have focused on the gospel narrative that is set at the site of Peter’s great confession of faith: Caesarea Philippi.  This is also the place where Jesus’ first passion prediction occurs which leads to Peter’s exclamation: “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you” (16:22) – in effect denying the revealed nature and role of the messiah. Jesus corrects Peter in v.24: “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” Despite his confession of faith and the blessing in response to it, Peter initially rejects the possibility that Jesus’ messiahship could involve suffering.  This leads to Jesus’ instruction to the disciples about the true nature of the cross and the willingness to carry it in accordance with the will of God.

At this point in Matthew’s narrative the scene changes: “After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them” (17:1-2).  But even after the revelation of the glory of God in the experience of the Transfiguration, the disciples are still plagued by their “little faith” and their inability to perform great signs and wonders (17:16, 19) – almost a counterpoint to the glory just witnessed.  Yet in using the symbol of a mustard seed, Jesus still witnesses that through faith, he is present to the disciples.

The relentless movement towards Jerusalem continues as the disciples gather in Galilee (17:22).  This is a community gathered from the “faithless and perverse generation” (v.17).  Jesus’ witness of the second passion prediction serves to announce the focal point and bases upon which this new community gathers.  Nonetheless the gathered disciples are sorrowful because they as yet do not understand.  The disciples have a way to go, but slowly they are becoming church.

This perhaps the subtle but often overlooked element of Matthew’s narrative. Throughout the arc of the storyline Jesus has been addressing the gathering community. “But who do you say that I am?” is addressed not the singular “you” of Simon Peter, but the plural “you” of all the disciples – Peter is simply the one who steps forward to give voice to the response of the community.

Chapter 18 is considered by most scholars as containing the 4th of the 5 discourses, often labeling this section as “Instructions to the Community.”  The fourth major collection of Jesus’ teaching is concerned with relationships among Jesus’ followers, who are clearly seen as a distinct community (as 16:18 has led us to expect). Within such a community there is opportunity both to harm and to care for others, and the health and effectiveness of the group will depend on the attitudes to one another which are fostered. Matthew has brought much of the stories together in this compact form with a view to the needs of the developing church. It is not so much a ‘Manual of Discipline,’ with regulations parallel to those of the so-named document from Qumran, rather it is a guide to relationships within the community. It is only in vv.15–17 that specific procedures are set out, and those are not so much ‘disciplinary’ as pastoral.


Image credit: Sermon on the Mount (1877) by Carl Heinrich Bloch, Museum of National History at Frederiksborg Castle, Public Domain

A Question for a Lifetime

Who do you say that I am?” It seems like one of those “fish-or-cut-bait” moments, doesn’t it? Peter and the disciples have been with Jesus for some time.  They have heard the sermons, listened to Jesus open up the deeper meaning of the Commandments, witnessed the miracles large and small, seen all the people healed, restored, and heard the amazing words of forgiveness and love. Wouldn’t it seem as though they have had enough time to know Jesus in a deep, intimate, and personal way?

Who do you say that I am?”  I am not sure what the other disciples were thinking, pondering or what answer they were formulating, but Peter steps right up and responds: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Short, sweet, succinct and …. What more could one say? It is the perfect answer. It is the answer that even now we are tempted to use, falling back on religious language we have inherited, language we know so well, words we could recite in our sleep. And sometimes I wonder if we give enough thought and attention to the question and the answer. Maybe we are just so used to the answer, or maybe we are a little timid wondering if our own answer would hold water, pass muster, or be bodacious enough.

Yet today’s gospel raises the question for each of us to consider: “Who do you say that Jesus is?”   Don’t use Peter’s answer; take your time and consider your own response. Start forming our own response. I think “start” is the correct word to use. The German poet Rainer Maria Rilke noted that some questions are such that they have to be lived so that one day in the future, you might well live your way into the complete answer.  I don’t mean that Peter’s answer is somehow provisional or that we eventually discover some different answer. Peter has it right. But perhaps some answers are so large that knowing the words is only the beginning. We have to spend a lifetime discovering what those words mean.

Maybe some are wondering, “well…preacher that sounds kinda’ fuzzy.” Afterall, it is a straightforward question which has an approved, creedal answer. It is a “heart-of-our-faith” question, requiring absolute certainty and conviction.  Jesus is our Savior.  Our Lord.  Our Redeemer.  Our King.  There’s nothing ‘unsolved’ about Jesus; the Son of God isn’t a murder mystery.  He’s the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The mystery isn’t uncertainty about who Christ is. The mystery is the inexhaustible depth of what it means to know him, love him, and follow him. The answer doesn’t change. What changes is the depth with which we understand the answer.

But you know…we are not unfamiliar with straightforward questions which have an expected answer requiring absolute certainty and conviction. Think about it! You have spent several years with your significant other, opening up to them, revealing more and more of yourself even as they do the same for you. You have shared moments of love, tenderness, and forgiveness too! Then comes the straightforward question: “Will you marry me?”

Hopefully the answer is “yes,” and boom!… there is nothing else to know. The question and answer were both wrapped in absolute certainty and conviction that this was the love of a lifetime. “I love you with all my life. I would die for you….” Of course, this is the love language we have inherited… words we know so well we can say them on the spur of the moment. And that’s ok because at the moment of the proposal, isn’t all known, all revealed, all uncovered? … ahhhhh…, not really.

Couples that have been married for a while can tell you there is more to be revealed each and every day after the proposal…after the wedding … after the first child…. After everything… In listening to stories from couples of long marriages, the language is different from the language used by fiancés. A new vocabulary arises that does not simply speak of the promise of love. It speaks of the trust and the experience of love that “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor 13:7)

Who do you say that I am? “The Love of my life” – it has one meaning at the moment of the marriage proposal. It is a different meaning 25, 30, 40, 50 and even 5 years into a life together. Married folks have lived the question and grown more deeply into the answer. They know what those words mean in a way they simply could not have known on the day of the proposal.

St. Peter had the same experience. This week he provides the succinct perfect answer. Next Sunday he will be on the hot seat when he suggests diverting Jesus from his destiny in Jerusalem. Jesus “turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me.’”  St. Peter falls in line and follows Jesus, defends Jesus, denies Jesus, is restored and forgiven. Peter spends the rest of his life living into the answer he gave at Caesarea Philippi. “I love you with all my life. I would die for you….” and St Peter does, dying a martyr’s death.

For now, feel free to use St. Peter’s answer. It’s a very good answer. It’s the right answer. But don’t stop with saying it. Begin living it. “Who do you say that I am.” Live it fully, deeply. Live it until it resonates within you, until you feel the love of Christ. Trust in that love, knowing that in its power you can bear all things believe all things, hope all things, and endure all things.

Who do you say that I am?  It is the question for a lifetime.

Amen.


Image Credit: Pietro Perugino, The Delivery of the Keys (c 1481–1482). Sistine Chapel, Vatican City | Public Domain

Christology: Three Questions

This coming Sunday is the 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time. The Gospel according to Matthew accepts and uses the main Christological titles found already in the Gospel according to Mark, including Christ/Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, Rabbi, and Teacher. But in contrast to Mark, Matthew adds several new titles and emphasizes certain aspects of Jesus’ identity. Matthew’s Gospel begins by identifying Jesus as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1), showing Jesus’ Davidic/royal and Abrahamic/Jewish heritage, respectively.  Throughout Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus is presented as “the New Moses” for the people of Israel, and is given a variety of other titles, including Emmanuel, Savior, Prophet, and King of the Jews. It is in this light that our pericope asks its two questions.

The First Question: Who do people say that the Son of Man is?
Clearly the local “buzz” places Jesus among the greats of Jewish religious history.  Not only are all prophets, but all are already dead and thought to be resurrected or alive in heaven.  Elijah was whisked away to heaven in a fiery chariot, Herod thought John the Baptist was already raised from the dead, and there were non-biblical accounts of Jeremiah resurrected.  In other words, they place him in the cadre of prophets raised from the dead.  The first question, more literally phrased is “Who are the humans saying that the son of the human is?” The Greek anthropos (human being, person; mankind; man – EDNT 1:100) is used twice in the sentence.  There is indeed high praise in the “buzz,” but there is not enough for their faith to crossover and grasp the real identity of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Second Question: But who do you say that I am?

The “you” in the second question is emphatic and plural. It was not a question addressed just to Peter, but to the whole community. As in the first question, the word “saying” is present tense = “continue to say” or “keep on saying.” It is not a one-time declaration, but a repeated confession. Peter answers the question addressed to the whole group.  In Matthew’s narrative Peter sometimes represents the disciples, sometimes represents all believers, sometimes plays a unique role in founding the new community, and sometimes is just Simon/Peter. It is a valid question to ask which “Peter” is portrayed answering Jesus’ question?  Given the context of the verses that follow, there is something happening that is more than a simple, impulsive response.  In this scene Simon/Peter is answering for and on behalf of the new community emerging from discipleship to Jesus

The Response: You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God

Many have written about the lack of a consensus among 1st century Palestine about the meaning of “Messiah.”  All that can be said with certainty, whether Messiah be king or pauper, “Messiah” was a word of hope connected to God’s divine providence.  Just what shape that hope would take was not clear – even to Peter, the one who had confessed it.  By vv.22-23 it is clear that Peter’s understanding does not encompass the idea of a Messiah who suffers and dies.

Up to v.16, the account closely parallels Mark 8:27–29. But in v.16 Matthew seems to add to Mark’s narrative when he includes a further specification of Jesus’ identity “the Son of the living God.” It is not clear whether that is a modifier to “Messiah” or a separate title.  Most scholars hold that Matthew wants us to grasp that Peter’s confession, despite the potentially misleading nature of Messianic language and Peter’s own failure to grasp its practical implications, is telling us more. The addition goes beyond a merely nationalistic fervor to an awareness of Jesus’ special relationship with God.  The adjective living (which has a good Old Testament pedigree) may perhaps have been included to contrast the one true God with the local deities.


Image Credit: Pietro Perugino, The Delivery of the Keys (c 1481–1482). Sistine Chapel, Vatican City | Public Domain

The Feast of St. Clare of Assisi

Peter said to Jesus, “We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life.”  (Mt 19:27-29)

Today across the Church universal and especially among the Franciscan communities, we celebrate the Feast of St. Clare of Assisi. It is a very appropriate gospel chosen for the feast day. In the gospel we hear: “Peter said to Jesus, ‘We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?’” It is a replay of the rich young man who comes to Jesus and asks what more must I do to inherit the Kingdom of God. Jesus tells him to sell everything he has and give it to the poor and then follow Jesus. At least the rich young man supplies the answer to what’s in it for him – even as he walks away sad.

Clare could rightly be called “a rich young woman.” She was born into one of the majores families of Assisi, the nobility with homes “up town”, wealth, land and privilege. She did not want… at least not in the traditional measure.

Continue reading

In case you might be interested….

A great number of the good folks who subscribe to the FriarMusings blog receive the daily email(s) as posts are published. And so, rarely use the website to access content. So, in case you might be interested… the website displays the posts from newest to oldest, but there is also a menu system which allows you to access groups of posts.

“Francis of Assisi” is a gateway to 23 posts which cover the life of the saint and is a good way to get a detailed yet still beginning entree into his story.

These links give you access to detailed commentaries on each of the Sunday gospels across all the liturgical years, although I will admit I have been better about keeping the commentaries updated on the parish website.

“The Pacific” is a place to access the series on the Asia-Pacific War (1937-1945). “World War II” is the first series (written in 2025); “World War 2” is the follow-on series written in 2026.

Just case you might be interested.

Two Parables

This coming Sunday is the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time. “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant searching for fine pearls. When he finds a pearl of great price, he goes and sells all that he has and buys it. Matthew apparently intends the parable of the treasure to be interpreted together with the parable of the pearl, which immediately follows. The two parables do have common features: (I) In each case only a brief vignette of a crucial situation is given, without enough details to evaluate them as realistic stories. The interpreter should, therefore, be wary of filling in the gaps from pious imagination, but concentrate on what the parable does, in fact, portray.

(2) The primary common feature is surely central to the meaning of each: The protagonist goes and sells everything for the sake of the one thing. This is the action of both the plowman and the merchant. This movement of the story as a whole is to be compared with the kingdom of God, for the kingdom is “like” neither the “treasure” of v. 44 nor the “pearl” of v. 45, but in each case somehow like the story as a whole. In each case, the protagonist acts with the single-minded response of the “pure in heart.” From the story in Mark 10:17-31, Matthew and his community had long known of the kingdom’s demand of “all,” and of one who had failed (cf. esp. Mark 10:21, where selling everything and giving it to the poor is connected with true “treasure”).

R.T. France [France, 2007, 541] notes that the two parables are also different: (1) The plowman is doing his regular work, not looking for or expecting anything special, when he comes upon the treasure quite by accident. The merchant is actively seeking, knows what he is looking for, and still finds something beyond all his expectations. The kingdom can become real in either way (cf. 9:2, 22). (2) The great joy of the plowman is emphasized, but is altogether absent from the merchant. This does not mean that the merchant’s selling everything in order to obtain the pearl was joyless, but it does mean that (subjective) joy is not the main point of either parable. (3) What the merchant did, although it may not have measured up to everyone’s understanding of common sense, was unquestionably legal. The same cannot be said of the plowman, whose action may have been questionable, both legally and morally (we are not given enough details to know for sure). The disposition of buried treasure found on someone else’s property was widely discussed in Roman legal discourse. Some of Matthew’s readers may have expected a law-abiding plowman to have reported his find to the owner of the field rather than cashing in on it himself. Sensitive contemporary readers may wonder about the ethics of cheating the owner of the field out of his treasure, even if it was perfectly legal. The story does not legitimize the man’s actions. Jesus was certainly able to use questionable actions of characters in his parables to picture the urgency of acting to gain the kingdom while the opportunity is there (cf. Matt 12:29’s use of breaking-and-entering imagery, and more subtly, Luke 16:1-13).

In the story of the pearl, there is no moral or legal question at all, but still a surprising and provocative action. In the first-century Mediterranean world, the pearl was often a symbol of the highest good (as diamonds sometimes are in modern Western culture). Thus salvation is pictured in the Gnostic “Hymn of the Pearl” as the finding and safe return of a pearl lost in an alien land. Some scholars see both the parable of the treasure and the parable of the pearl as advent/reversal/action, expressed in the parallel sets of verbs in vv. 44 and 45-46: finds/sells/buys.” The advent of the kingdom, sought for or not, brings about a reversal of values, leading to the crucial action that obtains the new. This action, puzzling and out of step with those who live by the old values, is central in each of these parables. [France, 2007, 541]


Image credit: The Pearl of Great Price, by Domenico Fetti, 17th century |Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Bilddatenbank | Public Domain

A Pearl of Great Price

This coming Sunday is the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time. Pearls were as highly valued in the ancient world as they are today, and were a conspicuous way of displaying wealth (1 Tim 2:9; Rev 17:4; 18:12, 16). Huge pearls are the gates in the symbolic new Jerusalem (Rev 21:21). But there is a subtle difference between this and the preceding parable.

The man, likely a hired workman, who obtains the buried treasure risks everything to possess it, but he gains wealth upon which he can live. The pearl merchant is presumably a person of some substance already having great wealth. He impoverished himself to acquire something supremely beautiful and valuable which he could admire and display but could not live off unless he sold it again.

What the two parables share in common is the issue of priorities. The fact that what the dealer had to sell included presumably other, lesser, pearls might however have led the hearers to reflect on the value of the kingdom of heaven in relation to other competing ideologies; once you have it, you need no other. Hence the emphasis on the fact that this is just one pearl, whose value eclipses all others put together.


Image credit: The Pearl of Great Price, by Domenico Fetti, 17th century |Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Bilddatenbank | Public Domain

Married in Heaven?

In today’s gospel, the Sadducees are testing Jesus by presenting a reductio ad absurdum argument based on levirate marriage. A woman is successively married to seven brothers. They ask: “At the resurrection when they arise whose wife will she be” – which is interesting since the Sadducees don’t believe in the Resurrection. Jesus responds with “When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but they are like the angels in heaven.

Most Christians recognize that it was not really a question and since levirate marriage is not practiced in modern life, that problem is no problem at all… but there is modern fallout with a question often framed as: “If there is no marriage in heaven, does that mean I am not married, won’t love my spouse, may not even know my spouse… what about my family?”

The Sadducees’ question assumes that the resurrection is simply a continuation of earthly life under the same social arrangements. Our modern concern is whether any aspect of these important earthly social arrangements persists into the life to come. But notice Jesus does not say that people cease to know one another or to love one another. He does not say that earthly relationships become meaningless or that spouses become strangers. However, He does seem to say that marriage as an institution in the way that we know it does not continue in the resurrection.

In Scripture, marriage has several purposes: mutual love and companionship, the procreation and raising of children, as a sign of God’s covenant with humanity, and as a sacramental image of Christ and the Church. Theologians offer that marriage is like a sacrament pointing beyond itself. Just as we do not need a road sign after arriving at the destination, the sacramental sign gives way to the reality toward which it points. Mutual love is perfected, life is eternal, death is no more, and the covenant is fulfilled, In the resurrection, the purposes of marriage have reached their fulfillment.

The key point is that in eternal life relationships are transformed by perfect union with God. John Chrysostom argued that relationships are purified and elevated in the resurrection. The love spouses shared is not lost but perfected. One could easily extend Chrysostom’s argument to include family ties. Augustine of Hippo taught that personal identity remains and what passes away is not love but the juridical bond of marriage. Thomas Aquinas taught that the sacrament of marriage belongs to this life. Its function ceases in heaven because its purpose has been fulfilled. Yet the love formed through marriage remains.

So will I see my spouse in heaven? From a Catholic perspective, the answer is emphatically yes, assuming both are united with God. The deeper question is: What kind of relationship will that be? The Church’s tradition consistently says that you will not love your spouse less; you will love your spouse more perfectly than ever before. All the selfishness, misunderstandings, possessiveness, fears, wounds, and limitations that affected earthly love will be gone. The love remains.

Heaven does not erase human love; it brings it to its fullest perfection.


Image credit: iStock 2214229139 | seb-ra | downloaded 6-1-2026 | standard iStock license

Makes me wonder

If you spend anytime on your computer doing anyone of a variety of what today are mundane tasks, the internet (the amorphous “they” or sometimes, “them”) begins to know you, develop an algorithm about you and send you advertisements, promotions, and the like. Perhaps these things reflect you browser history and interests. Perhaps smart home devices like Alexa and Siri have been listening. Or maybe the random flotsam and jetsam of digital lives have finally been stitched together to reveal our deep identity, hidden desires, or better yet – our secret identities: mild mannered photojournalist novice Peter Parker by day and your friendly neighborhood Spider Man by night. Hard to say, difficult to know.

Why such musings? Well…. I have no idea why this morning I received this promotional email:

Unless there was some part of being a Franciscan and a parish priest about which I was not informed, I am not sure why I would be a prospective customer. Clearly I can not afford to purchase or lease such an aircraft – or pay the insurance, the fuel cost, the pilot or hanger fees. But just maybe I could “flexjet” off to my next meeting. Of course, my next meeting is at the parish approximately 0.25 miles through the woods… and I rather enjoy the walk.

I have to go to St. Louis in July for a gather of friars. I wonder if I could “flexjet” and hopscotch regional airports between here and St. Louis picking up friars to ride-share. There are a good number of friars here in the broader Washington DC area, Cincinnati (original settlement named Losantiville, in case you were wondering – now named after a dictator of the early Roman Empire – but that is besides the point… lots of friars live nearby)… I wonder if the Chicago area friars want in on the ride. Of course I would have to actually click the “Learn more” button to find out pricing… and that would add to “them” knowing more about me.

I have a good friend who works for an organization that has more than one private jet in their hangers. In chatting I have mentioned that it would be nice if they could “pick me up” on their way and drop me off. I don’t think I am being taken seriously. But it raises the possibility that “they” are monitoring my cell phone and have picked up the chatter that “flexjet” might be just the thing I need. I know that federal agencies can monitor “metadata” on calls, but I am not sure they could extract my “flexjet” needs or desires…perhaps a wiretap? That would explain a lot of things…but then that would also assume I am actually interesting enough to wiretap. I am sure that if I gave it a go I could weave any number of conspiracy plots that include private, next-level, jet service to some exotic destination. Sorry, St. Louis. A great American city I am sure… gateway to the west and all that, but Montevideo sounds more exotic. And I have been to St. Louis; never been to Montevideo. I would love to revisit New Zealand…

Of course it could all be random…like radioactive decay at the quantum level. You know true randomness is simply because we lack the right tools or information. It is fundamentally uncaused and unpredictable. Like the “flexjet” promotion in the inbox of a Franciscan friar.

By this point, you might be thinking, “where is all this going?” Most likely answer: nowhere. But then again you are reading a blog with “musings” in the title…just saying..