Posted on 03/29/2015 4:16:53 PM PDT by NYer
But the bible not only mentions but discusses absolutely every thing we need to know that has to do with our salvation...
This is what the "spirit" said to the young man involved in this account.
I greatly desire that a church be built in my honor,
in which I will show my love, compassion, and protection. I am your Mother full of mercy and love for you and all those
who love Me, trust in Me, and have recourse to Me
. I will hear their complaints and I will comfort their affliction and their sufferings. So that I might show all My love, go now to the bishop in Mexico City and tell him that I am sending you to make known to him the
great desire I have to see a church dedicated to me built here." Read more: http://www.ewtn.com/saintsholy/saints/O/ourladyofguadalupe.asp#ixzz3VuhToJg1
If Mary always points to Christ as catholics claim then you can be rest assured, this did not come from Mary.
Would Mary request, even greatly desire, a church to built in her honor??
Again, what we see here is another aspect of the worship of Mary and almost deification of Mary.
You're kidding, right? Do you think they have any proof? Like the tenor of this thread, they are nothing but a cult, intent on propagating their lies and half-truths which conceal the Gospel. They claim to be the origin of all the purposes of God, while intentionally concealing and misquoting Scripture to support their idolatry, mariology, et al.
God will not be mocked, but Satan is proud as any peacock! The RCC cult is the largest group of deceived in the history of all creation.
Romans 9: ... 10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. ...
Saying something never happened because it was not in the Bible denies the humanity of the people in it. It also at times defies common sense. These were real people who lived and interacted with one another. They shared a common experience that no one can fully comprehend unless they lived it.
Then you open up truth to any source or any group who claims to have truth. It is easy to say, "I had a revelation and God said ______________". This is what the tv evangelists and the health/wealth preachers are ridiculed for.
A lot of false teachers are in the world today.
Without a standard of truth by which to measure their claims how do you know they are right.....or wrong?
Islam claims it is the truth but we deny it because it doesn't square away with the Bible.
Mormons claim the Book of Mormon is truth, yet we deny it because it doesn't square away with the Bible.
Mormons also claim Jesus visited the Indians of North America....do you believe them? If not, why? What source did you use to evaluate their claim?
This same line of reasoning can be said about any other group outside of Christianity.
If the Bible is not the standard, then what is?
Just like the forgeries of Ignatius???
This forgery is known as the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals, written around 845 A.D. The Decretals are a complete fabrication of Church history. They set forth precedents for the exercise of sovereign authority of the popes over the universal Church prior to the fourth century and make it appear that the popes had always exercised sovereign dominion and had ultimate authority even over Church Councils. Nicholas I (858–867) was the first to use them as the basis for advancing his claims of authority. But it was not until the 11th century with Pope Gregory VII that the these decretals were used in a significant way to alter the government of the Western Church. It was at this time that the Decretals were combined with two other major forgeries, The Donation of Constantine and the Liber Pontificalis, along with other falsified writings, and codified into a system of Church law which elevated Gregory and all his successors as absolute monarchs over the Church in the West.
In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.
That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians.
The most potent instrument of the new Papal system was Gratian’s Decretum, which issued about the middle of the twelfth century from the first school of Law in Europe, the juristic teacher of the whole of Western Christendom, Bologna. In this work the Isidorian forgeries were combined with those of the other Gregorian (Gregory VII) writers...and with Gratia’s own additions. His work displaced all the older collections of canon law, and became the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived all their knowledge of Fathers and Councils from it. No book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church, although there is scarcely another so chokeful of gross errors, both intentional and unintentional (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council
(Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 76-77, 79, 115-116)
Your entire religion is a sham...
Which again shows how little you know of Catholicism. We don't learn verse-by-verse: we learn in context. And we take the Bible as a whole, not simply what fits into discussion. It's amazing how many non-members have all the answers for us. We have the Scriptures translated by St. Jerome into Latin. We have the Magisterium, the Teaching Authority of the Church. We have our Sacred Tradition. And we're taught how to live it. (See below for an example.) Read up at the Vatican Website and the EWTN Document Library site, as well as the Apocrypha, then perhaps the answers we have will at last be evident.
Meanwhile, we'll just keep on going, as we have since Simon Peter received his commission from Jesus.
The Ten Commandments reflect the basic structure of the Natural Law insofar as it applies to humanity. The first three are the foundation for everything that follows: The Love of God, the Worship of God, the sanctity of God and the building of people around God. The other seven Commandments are to do with the love of humanity and describe the different ways in which we must serve the common good : Honor your father and mother, you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor, you shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour (Exodus 20:3–17). Our Lord Jesus Christ Summarised the Commandments with the New Commandment: "Love one another, as I have loved you" (John 13:34, 15:9–17). The mystery of Jesus is a mystery of love. Our relationship with God is not one of fear, of slavery or oppression; it is a relationship of serene trust born of a free choice motivated by love. Pope John Paul II stated that love is the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. By his law God does not intend to coerce our will, but to set it free from everything that could compromise its authentic dignity and its full realisation. (Pope John Paul II to government leaders, 5 November 2000.)
Which again shows how little you know of Catholicism. We don't learn verse-by-verse: we learn in context. And we take the Bible as a whole, not simply what fits into discussion. It's amazing how many non-members have all the answers for us. We have the Scriptures translated by St. Jerome into Latin. We have the Magisterium, the Teaching Authority of the Church. We have our Sacred Tradition. And we're taught how to live it. (See below for an example.) Read up at the Vatican Website and the EWTN Document Library site, as well as the Apocrypha, then perhaps the answers we have will at last be evident.
Trust me....I've done a lot of reading on roman catholicism and I find it lacking.
What I find interesting is that when roman catholic beliefs are shown to be false, the catholic defaults back to "we have been around xxxx number of years, or we have the magisterium, or sacred tradition, etc.
They cannot and will not support their positions with the Word. It is telling they don't.
Been good chatting with you but gotta run.
In that Church dedicated in honor of her appearance will come millions of pilgrims.They will come to hear the readings from Scripture, Old and New and they will come to worship her Son in the Mass.It is all about Him.
That is the bottom line.It is all about Him.
And as a Christian, this conversion story of this man coming to new life should be a source of joy to me and not an occasion for thinking how wrong he is.This was HIS experience.And he would probably rather give up his life than deny it.And I would never ask him to.Would you? .
Dollinger "Old Catholic Church" Under Anglican Communion
The term Old Catholic Church originated with groups which separated from the Roman Catholic Church over certain doctrines, primarily concerned with papal authority. These churches are not in full communion with the Holy See of Rome, but their Union of Utrecht of Old Catholic Churches is in full communion with the Anglican Communion[1] and a member of the World Council of Churches.[2] The formation of the Old Catholic communion of Germans, Austrians and Swiss began in 1870 at a public meeting held in Nuremberg under the leadership of Ignaz von Döllinger, following the First Vatican Council. Four years later episcopal succession was established with the consecration of an Old Catholic German bishop by a prelate of the Church of Utrecht. In line with the "Declaration of Utrecht" of 1889, they accept the first seven ecumenical councils and doctrine formulated before 1054, but reject communion with the pope and a number of other Roman Catholic doctrines and practices. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church notes that since 1925 they have recognized Anglican ordinations, that they have had full communion with the Church of England since 1932 and have taken part in the ordination of Anglican bishops.
ummm...that's not what I gathered from the reading. A church built in her honor??
That is the bottom line.It is all about Him.
On this I agree...it is indeed all about Christ and that is why our focus should always be on Him.....not Mary. Mary is not needed, Mary does not forgive, we don't pray to Mary as she does not answer prayer, we don't have idols of Mary, we don't bow down to Mary, etc.
All of this should be reserved for Jesus as we are going to be celebrating him overcoming death this Sunday.
And as a Christian, this conversion story of this man coming to new life should be a source of joy to me and not an occasion for thinking how wrong he is.This was HIS experience.And he would probably rather give up his life than deny it.And I would never ask him to.Would you? .
If he has become a Christian I am of course, thrilled. Who wouldn't be?
I'm glad to hear you identify as a Christian.
For the most part on this forum catholics will rarely ever identify as a Christian. It seems at times, for most, it's about being a member of the roman catholic church....not a follower of Christ. I hear stories of "I was baptized as a baby in the catholic church...." That doesn't save you. It only gets you wet.
Rarely, do I hear someone who is catholic say, "I believe Jesus died for my sins and I follow Him and Him only." This is the faith Paul writes about and it is the faith Jesus talks about in the Gospels. He tells us to believe in Him and Him only for our salvation.
Reading ON Catholicism, and ACTUALLY READING our Scripture, commentary, documents, lives of the Saints, Sacred Tradition, etc. are two different things.
>>What I find interesting is that when roman catholic beliefs are shown to be false, the catholic defaults back to "we have been around xxxx number of years,<<
If you check back on the post, it was you who put the numbers in, not I.
>>or we have the magisterium, or sacred tradition, etc. They cannot and will not support their positions with the Word. It is telling they don't.<<
For a Catholic, the three go together. That's simply how it is. There is no obligation on our part to explain to anyone. It is what we believe, and can seem very complex to those ignorant of our teachings, or misinformed.
As for what it tells, it tells that generations of Spirit have guided us through tribulations, scandals, rebellion, and yet the Word remains. It is when people presume they know more and can formulate ideas based on error and semantics that confusion begins. A true Catholic understands the humility and obedience required to accept the Church's authority, together with the hand-in hand relationship between faith and our obligation of love to God and to one another to do good works. It isn't an easy road to follow. It's much easier to interpret as one feels and independently follow one's own rules on how to live their life. That is not the "Catholic arrogance" spoken of earlier in our discussion.
Reading ON Catholicism, and ACTUALLY READING our Scripture, commentary, documents, lives of the Saints, Sacred Tradition, etc. are two different things.
Uhhh, no they're not.
Sorry, the texts in your Bible are the same as in mine except for the apocrypha.
Can you point to a specific Scripture that says Mary was immaculately conceived?
You cannot. How do I know this....I've read catholic apologists who admit it! Absolutely no support for this false teaching is in the Word, yet when this is pointed out catholics run from it like it's the plague. Which I guess to them it is.
When discussing the "perpetual virginity" of Mary and the Greek is used to show Jesus had siblings, what do catholics do? Duck their heads in the sand and fall back on "you don't know what the word "until" means or "the Greek word can mean cousins/brothers" when the clear context of the verse tells you Jesus had siblings.
>>or we have the magisterium, or sacred tradition, etc. They cannot and will not support their positions with the Word. It is telling they don't.<<
For a Catholic, the three go together. That's simply how it is. There is no obligation on our part to explain to anyone. .
Good thing Paul didn't have that kind of an arrogant attitude in explaining Christianity. I believe the NT tells us we are to be ready in season and out of season to give a defense of the Gospel.
Guess catholicism doesn't share that desire. And we still are waiting for an explanation of just what "sacred tradition" catholics claim was handed down by the apostles that isn't found in the Word.
When we observe Good Friday, we are emaphasizing the day when Christ died for our sins.What you may not realize is that what you say about our beliefs is taken as a GIVEN by Catholics.Of course, he became a Christian and a follower of Christ in the Catholic tradition.And to say Mary was not needed is to ignore her singular, beautiful role in the salvation story.
In my Catholic experience we were encouraged to give honor to Mary as the Mother of our Lord and NEVER to worship her.
The distinction was always very clear.
The difference between us, I believe, is that if I had read this conversion story about a man who found faith and God’s love in a Lutheran Church , my first thought would have been:” Praise God!”Not,that he is wrong in what he thinks happened to him.
I truly believe that you misunderstand what Catholics believe.
I'm sorry....Mary plays no on-going role in your salvation nor mine. That is a false doctrine grilled into the heads of catholics since they're born.
The catholic church is currently being asked to consider a fifth marian dogma which would officially declare mary to be co-redemtrix, mediatrix of all graces and advocate.
To date 550 cardinals and bishops along with 7 million catholics have written letters to support this dogma in the past 15 years.
http://www.fifthmariandogma.com/online-english/
What probably started off as innocent respect for Mary has now grown into full blown idolatry.
Some more discussion on this issue is presented below. The astute reader will recognize that the Holy Spirit is already our Advocate and Helper. He needs no assistance in His role.
There have been efforts to propose a formal dogmatisation, which has had both popular and ecclesiastical support. It was brought up at Vatican II by Italian, Spanish and Polish bishops but not dealt with on the council floor.[16] Subsequently, Popes, while perhaps sympathetic to requests from the faithful and bishops, pointedly did not include such language in their encyclicals.[17]
The proposal is the first-ever case that an alleged apparition, in Amsterdam, has supposedly proposed, or rather, demanded a dogma from the Church. Up to then, apparitions confirmed existing dogmas rather than demanding new ones. Since 2002, the Amsterdam apparitions have had approval of the diocesan bishop, Monsignor Jos Punt. However, given the fact that a non-approving decision from Rome in the 1970s seems to have had some degree of finality, it brings the subsequent jurisdiction Msgr Punt into question.
In the early 1990s Professor Mark Miravalle of the Franciscan University of Steubenville and author of the book Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate launched a popular petition to urge Pope John Paul II to use Papal infallibility to declare Mary as Co-Redemptrix. More than six million signatures were gathered from 148 countries, including those of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Cardinal John O'Connor of New York, and other cardinals and bishops.
Salvatore Perrella O.S.M. of the Pontifical Theological Faculty of the "Marianum" in Rome, thought that this indicated "...a certain 'under-appreciation' of the Council's teaching, which is perhaps believed to be not completely adequate to illustrate comprehensively Mary's co-operation in Christ's work of Redemption.[17]
Arguments opposed are that such a dogma might limit, in popular understanding, the redemptive role of Jesus Christ.
Faber says,
Our Blessed Lord is the sole Redeemer of the world in the true and proper sense of the word, and in this sense no creature whatsoever shares the honor with Him, neither can it be said of Him without impiety that He is co-redeemer with Mary. ...in a degree to which no others approach, our Blessed Lady co-operated with Him in the redemption of the world.[18]
He also explains that, "Thus, so far as the literal meaning of the word is concerned, it would appear that the term co-redemptress is not theologically true, or at least does not express the truth it certainly contains with theological accuracy."[19] Faber recognized that the term "co-redemptrix" usually requires some explanation in modern English because so often the prefix "co" tends imply complete equality.
This concern is shared by Perrella.
The semantic weight of this expression would require a good many other qualifications and clarifications, especially in the case under examination, where she who is wished to be proclaimed coredeemer is, in the first place, one who is redeemed, albeit in a singular manner, and who participates in Redemption primarily as something she herself receives. Thus we see the inadequacy of the above-mentioned term for expressing a doctrine which requires, even from the lexical standpoint, the proper nuances and distinctions of levels.[17] Another argument, though by no means the only one, is that it would also complicate ecumenical efforts for a better understanding of the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the salvation mystery of Jesus Christ.[3]
In August 1996, a Mariological Congress was held in Czestochowa, Poland, where a commission was established in response to a request of the Holy See. The congress sought the opinion of scholars present there regarding the possibility of proposing a fifth Marian dogma on Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. The commission unanimously declared that it was not opportune, voting 23-0 against the proposed dogma.[20][21]
By 1998 it was doubtful the Vatican was going to consider new Marian dogmas. The papal spokesman stated "This is not under study by the Holy Father nor by any Vatican congregation or commission".[21] A leading Mariologist stated the petition was "theologically inadequate, historically a mistake, pastorally imprudent and ecumenically unacceptable".[22] Pope John Paul II cautioned against "all false exaggeration",[23] his teaching and devotion to Mary has strictly been "exalting Mary as the first among believers but concentrating all faith on the Triune God and giving primacy to Christ."[22] When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger responded that,
the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings...Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. [24]
Pope Benedict XVI further explained his notable opposition of a dogmatisation, concluding that the title is sufficiently included in other better expressions of Catholic Marian teaching. For example, the Scriptural account is unsatisfactory, and above all, we are talking most of the time of a merit de congruo which would seem, by the very definition of de congruo, not fit into the exact clearness needed for dogmatic definitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix
Mary is the sealed fountain and the faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit where only he may enter...She is the sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity...the holy City of God, the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived...her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands...because it is always humble and conformed to his will, the dispenser of all he possesses...What immeasurable greatness...Mary has authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven...God gave her the power and the mission of assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels who fell away through pride....all the angels in heaven unceasingly call out to her
...They greet her countless times each day with the angelic greeting, "Hail, Mary", while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests...The whole world is filled with her glory,... Moreover, we should repeat after the Holy Spirit, "All the glory of the king's daughter is within".... Whatever desires the patriarchs may have cherished, whatever entreaties the prophets and saints of the Old Law may have had for 4,000 years to obtain that treasure, it was Mary alone who merited it and found grace before God by the power of her prayers and the perfection of her virtues." — St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, miscl. http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/docs/true.doc
Did you come from your mother?
Did you come from God?
If the answer to the first question is "yes" (which it is), that does not mean that the answer to the second question is "no" (which would be false). You came from your mother, and you came from God.
The same holds true for the "written record for Christianity". It came from God, and it came from the Catholic Church, just as God willed. Each of those assertions is true, and they are not mutually exclusive, just like "your life came from your mother", and "your life came from God" are both true, and are by no means mutually exclusive.
To refresh your memory, what we were talking about in post #14:, post #21:, and post #32:, was your totally baseless and unknowable claim in post #6:, that "Paul never asked Mary what to do....nor did Peter, James, Luke, Matthew, Timothy, Stephen, etc, etc, etc.", so you just abandoned that subject completely in post #33:, and jumped to a totally new subject. (That was what I meant when I spoke of you "changing the subject again".)
Does the Bible record all the prayers (morning prayers, evening prayers, meal blessings, etc.) that Paul, Peter, James, Luke, Matthew, Timothy, Stephen, (etc.), prayed to God, and the content of those prayers? (To save time, I'll provide the answer to that question, which of course, is no.) Does that mean those folks never prayed, or that they never asked God for anything in their prayers, just because the Bible does not say a peep about all those prayers?
Those folks asked God for many things in their prayers, and even though most of those prayers were not recorded in the Bible, those prayers really happened, and those prayers were very important, even though they were not written about in the Scriptures.
Might be good idea to go back thread and see where the conversation with the poster I’m posting with began...which was on who gave us the Bible.
Reading ON Catholicism, and ACTUALLY READING our Scripture, commentary, documents, lives of the Saints, Sacred Tradition, etc. are two different things.
Uhhh, no they're not.
Sorry, the texts in your Bible are the same as in mine except for the apocrypha.
And besides the Bible, have you read ANY of the OTHER documents mentioned above? Have you at least read the Apocrypha? If so, it isn't reflected in your postings
Can you point to a specific Scripture that says Mary was immaculately conceived? You cannot. How do I know this....I've read catholic apologists who admit it!
Excuse me, I'm the Catholic here, I know that's not in Scripture. It's a dogma of our Catholic Faith, stemming from Sacred Tradition. Per our Church:
Sacred Tradition is a term used in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (Holy Tradition) churches that designates that special tradition of apostolic teaching handed down through the bishopric of their churches--generation after generation. Such sacred traditions are equal in authority to Scripture and comprise the totality of the deposit of faith. Sacred Tradition is considered to be inspired--just as the Bible is inspired.
In the Eastern Orthodox view, Sacred Tradition is called Holy Tradition and is that tradition handed down via the apostles from one generation to another. It does not grow and expand over time.
The Roman Catholic view of Sacred Tradition is that the deposit of faith is ever deepening and expanding with new doctrines being revealed--doctrines that have been preserved in The Roman Catholic Church throughout its history.
By contrast the Protestant position is that the Scriptures alone are the final rule of authority in the Christian church. This is known as Sola Scriptura. Carmelite Spirituality
Absolutely no support for this false (sic) teaching is in the Word, yet when this is pointed out catholics run from it like it's the plague. Which I guess to them it is.
Not this Catholic, Brother. I don't care what others feel false. I know what I believe. What makes me sick is the lack of class, tact, and good ol' Christian charity with which Roman Catholics and our Church are treated. But it's truly painful when the most precious of our beliefs are derided- I'd rather it were aimed at me personally.
When discussing the "perpetual virginity" of Mary and the Greek is used to show Jesus had siblings, what do catholics do? Duck their heads in the sand and fall back on "you don't know what the word "until" means or "the Greek word can mean cousins/brothers" when the clear context of the verse tells you Jesus had siblings.
Not to me. St. Jerome translated, as we said before. I don't deal in semantics. I used to admire, I confess even envy folks I thought knew Greek. I only speak English- I no longer have that feeling. I've come to the realization that quibbling over words is not productive. Remember the Roman soldier who trusted that Jesus had healed his servant, miles away? Well, I believe that God, the Trinity, has guided the Church in matters of faith and morals- and that includes Scripture, dogma, etc.. I believe, as the soldier did.
By the way, does Luke,2:48 imply that Jesus was Joseph's son and not the Son of God?
>>or we have the magisterium, or sacred tradition, etc. They cannot and will not support their positions with the Word. It is telling they don't.<<
For a Catholic, the three go together. That's simply how it is. There is no obligation on our part to explain to anyone.
Good thing Paul didn't have that kind of an arrogant attitude in explaining Christianity. I believe the NT tells us we are to be ready in season and out of season to give a defense of the Gospel.
The Gospel has Jesus speaking metaphorically to Peter. The "keys" were not to a gate; they represent the gradual revelation of the Deposit of Faith through the Church Jesus founded. I am ready to defend not only the Gospel, but the teaching of the Church founded in the Gospel teachings.
What about the rest of Scripture? I mostly see Paul quoted. I often wonder why. The Bible is still a pretty thick book, even with the Apocrypha removed.
Guess catholicism doesn't share that desire.
You'd guess wrong. One preaches the Gospel by word and example. Trouble is, a lot of non-Catholics love to get their ears tickled with anti-Catholic falsehood. We've had problems throughout the centuries, as I mentioned in a previous post. There is a lot of prejudice against Catholics, from the Puritans on down. Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Clericalism
And we still are waiting for an explanation of just what "sacred tradition" catholics claim was handed down by the apostles that isn't found in the Word.
"We" being.....?
Please see the bold type above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.