Question to Protestants regarding certain Catholic beliefs

[FireDragon76]

Read Luther, you'ld be surprised how Catholic he was. Later followers of his distanced themselves from the Catholicism, of course, but Luther himself seems to have affirmed all those things you mention. He just questioned the spiritual value of some of them relative to the position they were held in their day (such as the intercession of saints... even though his discourse on the Magnificat ends with a prayer of intercession to the Mother of God). Erasmus did something similar, he criticized the perception that people often had shrines to Mary but often didn't feel compelled to develop any particular virtues of Mary.

Basically, Luther was criticizing the belief that you bury a statue in your back yard to sell your house, or throw holy salt over your shoulder, or confess in a certain manner to a priest who then says some words you can hardly understand, and those are the defining things of being a Christian. Multitudes of people in Europe lived with that sort of religion, and the complicit clergy simply did not care. As a result, people like Luther grew up with an abiding fear of the supernatural, but not necessarily in confidence in God as Savior.

 

[Albion]

Basically, Luther was criticizing the belief that you bury a statue in your back yard to sell your house, or

Cripes! I thought it was to bury the statue in the front yard next to the realtor's sign. No wonder it didn't work!

 

[FireDragon76]

That which constitutes the Church is 1.) succession back to the Apostles. This is one of the five principles of a covenant relationship. 2.) valid Sacraments. None of the other 40,000 Christian denominations in the world today have valid Sacraments

Scholastic distinctions of validity aside, I've never met any Catholic clergy that believe that Protestant rites are of no spiritual efficacy.

And many Protestants don't even believe that there are such things as sacraments (though I personally think that's a bizarre idea). So it mostly seems to be only a handful of churches, not "40,000", that statement could apply to. Which makes that claim a lot less impressive.

 

[Albion]

Scholastic distinctions of validity aside, I've never met any Catholic clergy that believe that Protestant rites are of no spiritual efficacy.

Very true. And for some simple examples, we know that the Church absolutely does consider baptisms performed in non-RCC churches to be valid if there is a Trinitarian invocation plus the use of water; and she absolutely does acknowledge the validity of Holy Orders in the churches of the Union of Utrecht, in the Eastern Orthodox churches, and some others. Our friend is working from a framework that is not the Catholic Church's standard for deciding these matters.

 

[com7fy8]

but you really don't understand what the belief in Mary is about.

There are people who are giving her a lot more attention, than they give to Jesus. I think the real Mary would be not happy with how certain ones give so much more time and attention to her, instead of to Jesus. I'm not saying they who do this represent true Catholicism, though. But it looks like this is a major problem; so if this is a problem, really, how has the Catholic group officially dealt with this major problem?

In 1 Timothy 2:1-4, I understand, our Apostle Paul says "first of all" to pray for "all men" and "all who are in authority". I understand that "first of all" can mean what first needs to get our attention, which here is how we ourselves pray for others. So, is it Biblical for a person to first and mainly be seeking the prayer of Mary and passed saints, instead of how "first of all" God wants us ourselves to pray? Does the Catholic group officially make a point of emphasizing that we do what our Apostle Paul says to do, "first of all"?

By the way, our Apostle Paul also says that "Christ" "also makes intercession for us", in Romans 8:34. This, to me, means that we have Jesus Himself praying for us who are God's children; and if Jesus is making intercession for us, this means He is praying for us according to His own faith which is able to get all that which His faith can get for us!!! So, how much does official Catholic instruction make sure we know about this . . . versus the attention to Mary making intercession?

And what, if anything, do you officially teach will come because of Jesus praying according to His faith, for us?

Actually, I can see that if Jesus is already interceding for us, then how much does He need to be asked to intercede for us? But if the real Mary loves and cares for us, she also does not need to be asked, I consider . . . if she is already obedient to God. So, who is it, really, who needs to be asked repetitiously for prayer, by means of strings and strings of "Hail Mary's"?? Our Apostle Paul says for us children of God to pray "for all the saints" (Ephesians 6:18). So, even we who are so imperfect are commanded to pray "for all the saints". No one has to ask us; we are so commanded; so why would the real Mary who is perfectly obedient need to keep being asked for prayers???? If anyone would need to be constantly reminded and asked to pray "for all the saints", I would think it would be us ourselves!

So, how much does official Catholic teaching emphasize how our Apostle Paul wants us to pray "for all the saints"?

 

[Albion]

There are people who are giving her a lot more attention, than they give to Jesus. I think the real Mary would be not happy with how certain ones give so much more time and attention to her, instead of to Jesus. I'm not saying they who do this represent true Catholicism, though. But it looks like this is a major problem; so if this is a problem, really, how has the Catholic group officially dealt with this major problem?

Well said. That's the real issue in a nutshell...and what the Church does about it is to indulge it.

She does so in the belief that it promotes devotion or spirituality or something like that--even when the clergy know full well that the stain on the concrete wall or the potato that looks like Mary or whatever the "apparition du jour" happens to be--is phony.

 

[FireDragon76]

I have a hard time getting to grips with Protestant distate for Catholic practices. Probably because I approached Christianity as a lapsed adult from the standpoint of someone deeply interested in Church history.

I've talked about this with my local Lutheran pastor, it's a major issue for me just jumping in, even though I appreciate the Jesus-center approach of mainline Lutheranism. My biggest concern is that, in rejecting a lot of Catholic distinctives, Protestants downplay a lot of the implications of the Incarnation, Resurrection, the Body of Christ, etc.
Protestant Christians have been so obsessed with morality and ethical concerns they are no longer stunned by the implications of the simple, earliest beliefs of the Church, the Incarnation and the Resurrection. We in the WASPY west don't live as incarnational or resurrection people, we live as functional moralists or sentimentalists. It's no wonder that the world doesn't take us seriously- we have therapists now that do a better job healing our minds, social sciences to tell us what is conducive to human flourishing, why would we want something so dull and impoverishing in a world of Hadron colliders, "God-particles" and quantum physics, and offers only moral platitudes and shell-game "atonement" to assuage our over-wrought and narcissistic guilt.

Even Luther's "law and gospel" hermeneutic rings hollow in a world where we can can pay somebody else to listen to our troubles and be our confessor if need be. It seems Protestantism is a kind of poor-man's placebo therapy, if all it is, is about an angry Father figure in the sky that nonetheless loves us and has Jesus die for us to take care of some kind of cosmic book-keeping problem that he seems to have with us. Most mentally healthy people would see that it is that God, not us, that needs to spend time on the couch.

 

[com7fy8]

Fiery Dragon That is interesting

But . . . most of all . . . I have been my own problem. Even Satan has not been as much trouble for me, as I have been for myself. And I notice how Jesus says,

"If anyone desires to come after Me, let Him deny Himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me." (Luke 9:23)

So, first is not exactly some need to deny the devil and deny certain religious groups, whichever each of us prefers to make a project of denying!

I was into Roman Catholic activity . . . the way I was able to understand and do it . . . while I was so limited by my own character and personality and therefore how I was able to understand and dictate, without ever praying in order to make sure with God about what He really desires. Then I broke down and asked Jesus to come into my life and save me and take care of me for all eternity. And, right away, I was out attacking Catholics because they had not told me how I needed to get "saved".

So, right away . . . like the twelve . . . I was into being the one who was greater . . . after so being able to welcome being in the religion which had been telling me how it was greater than all the rest. The way I was as a Catholic was wrong, then I morphed into just another way of being conceited. And I think some number of people who dump Catholicism are not going on to what is right, but their nature has them only morphing into another form of wrong stuff.

For one example, if certain ones left their sort of Catholicism witch had torturing and murdering of nonconformists, then they themselves could get into killing and burning people they did not agree with.

I was not first about getting all the correction which I myself needed!!!! Hebrews 12:4-11, Matthew 11:28-30.

But there was a woman who I did not care for and so I was doing things to keep her at a distance so she could not find a way to get me to marry her. I rather proudly reported this to one of the guys and he said something like this > "You were not being kind to her; Jesus wants us to be kind to people." And I understood I needed to not be acting out of fear of her, but to love, instead. So, this helped to show me that I needed to find out how to love any and all people the way Jesus wants.

 

[FireDragon76]

Then I broke down and asked Jesus to come into my life and save me and take care of me for all eternity. And, right away, I was out attacking Catholics because they had not told me how I needed to get "saved".

Who says you need to pray anything to be saved? It seems like to me you bought into a particular kind of assumption, one that not even all Protestants would share. You attacked other people perhaps because of pride, which is what this sort of "decisional theology" does. If salvation is all about my choice to follow Jesus, then there's something to boast about. But if salvation is something given to us, whether as a helpless child at baptism, or as a searching adult who finds God's grace in Christian friends or a pastor's sermon, then we have nothing to boast about. And its here perhaps Lutheran and Reformed beliefs can start to intersect with the kind of sacramentality I am talking about. God tends to use real, physical means to communicate with us. In fact, it is the astonishing and central Christian claim that God himself became a real, physical means to our salvation in the Person of Jesus Christ.

 

[com7fy8]

@FireDragon76 > "the preaching of the cross is" "the power of God" "to us who are being saved" (in 1 Corinthians 1:18). And repenting is needed. And Jesus says we need to carry our cross "daily". I think it could be interesting to see how Catholic ideas compare with Protestant ideas about what Jesus means by our "cross", plus how either Catholic or Protestant ideas compare with what the Bible says. I suspect that some number of both Catholics and Protestants are focusing on their outward things and ideas in comparison with others, versus feeding on what is in scripture without any second-hand hand-me-downing.

I personally find that what Jesus means means by our "cross" is not only some hard thing or suffering, but how Jesus on the cross was loving any and all people, and was so sweetly pleasing to our Father while being sacrificed; and God desires for us to follow this example . . . of love > Ephesians 5:1-2. So, our cross really means how we make sacrifices sweetly (Philippians 2:13-16) and in submission to God in His peace (Colossians 3:15, Matthew 11:28-30), while caring for any and all people, with hope for any evil person, at all. This is not what I have found emphasized by a number of institutionalized religious people who can be into copy-catting what is done on Sunday, but be done-in on Monday . . . instead of feeding on how Jesus gives us "rest for your souls" (Matthew 11:28-30).

 

[Cis.jd]

There are people who are giving her a lot more attention, than they give to Jesus. I think the real Mary would be not happy with how certain ones give so much more time and attention to her, instead of to Jesus. I'm not saying they who do this represent true Catholicism, though. But it looks like this is a major problem; so if this is a problem, really, how has the Catholic group officially dealt with this major problem?

Whether or not there are people from localities who do give her more attention than Christ doesn't mean that's Catholicism in general. There are many Catholics who do see that as misguided but it's not a major problem. There are people in every sect and religion that do take their practices way far from the actual doctrine. Protestantism is guilty of that if you watch some of the videos of churches playing with snakes or even preaching hate.

In 1 Timothy 2:1-4, I understand, our Apostle Paul says "first of all" to pray for "all men" and "all who are in authority". I understand that "first of all" can mean what first needs to get our attention, which here is how we ourselves pray for others. So, is it Biblical for a person to first and mainly be seeking the prayer of Mary and passed saints, instead of how "first of all" God wants us ourselves to pray? Does the Catholic group officially make a point of emphasizing that we do what our Apostle Paul says to do, "first of all"? snip

It is biblical for a person to ask others for assisted prayers. By your logic "God wants us ourselves to pray" does this mean the protestant churches who conduct prayer circles -where members of the church are holding hands in prayer while one person is praying- should be banned? Should protestant churches now ban prayer leaders who place their hands over a members head and pray for them after service because "God wants us to pray for ourselves". Just because people ask others who are much more gifted or strong in their spirituality for prayers doesn't mean those people don't pray for themselves.

By the way, our Apostle Paul also says that "Christ" "also makes intercession for us", in Romans 8:34. This, to me, means that we have Jesus Himself praying for us who are God's children; and if Jesus is making intercession for us, this means He is praying for us according to His own faith which is able to get all that which His faith can get for us!!! So, how much does official Catholic instruction make sure we know about this . . . versus the attention to Mary making intercession?

So.. again, your reasoning should also go against the praying leading activities done in other churches.. why does a Pastor need to close his message in prayer, and why does the audience have to bow their heads as the pastor is praying when Christ also makes intercession for us. Your reasoning here forces you to be against that. If you go "well.. that's different because they are alive" then that is a baseless argument because now you've contradicted your form of reasoning.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

..who was already God before assuming the nature of a Man. Mary was, therefore, the mother of the Man who was also God. How we treat her because of that unique situation is the subject of endless discussion, much more so than whether Jesus was God or whether Mary gave birth to the baby Jesus.

Well put!

Thank you Albion! Mothers bear Children; Mary bore a Child that was was God and Man at the same time; so since we confess that Jesus is God; the blessed virgin Mary is "mother of God".

When Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven, it was both His Divinity and his wounded but resurrected body that ascended to Heaven; just as it was His Divinity and humanity the decended the blessed mother's birth canal.

 

[TheNorwegian]

Yes, i did. Just read it. How can this Kecharitomene be that low in meaning when you have the word "hail" (Chaire) right before it. It seems you just wanted to ignore the other greek in it that puts it in the context of a title.

One of the most reputable Biblical Greek Scholar named Joseph Thayer underlined the differences between the Kecharitomene in Luke and in Sirach.
Luke 1:28: "to pursue with grace, compass with favor; to honor with blessings."
Sirach 18:17: "to make graceful i.e., charming, lovely, agreeable."
(Thayer, 667; Strong's word no. 5487)

My point it that the same word is used both in Luke and Sirach. Before we even consider context it is important to understand the basic meaning of the word. Only after that can we discuss context. Without understanding the separate words we can not make meaning of the context. I take it that we now agree that the same word is used in both places. Then we can move on to context ...

So in short, because of how it is translated to the Latin Vulgate as Gratia Plena - Full of Grace (you ignored this),

Yes, of course I ignore the Latin translation - why wouldn't I? Luke rote in Greek - not in Latin

So in short, because of how it is translated to the Latin Vulgate as Gratia Plena - Full of Grace (you ignored this), the fact that "Chaire" is stated in Luke before Kecharitomene, and because of the fact that the context in Luke puts it in masculine form, then academically, Kecharitomene in stated in title format. It's not an adjatiave like Sirach's. inKecharitomene is formed from the same root charitoo, where in Sirach do you see that? Why is that you are not caring to acknowledge that the "gracious" stated in Sirach is not said in a title, unlike in Luke.

Chaire does not denoting a "title format". As I am sure you are aware, chaire, is a common word of greeting in Ancient Greek, used all the way from Homer to the new Testament

the fact that "Chaire" is stated in Luke before Kecharitomene, and because of the fact that the context in Luke puts it in masculine form, then academically, Kecharitomene in stated in title format.

What?? Luke has it in feminine form. It is Sirach who has it in masculine
This proves beyond doubt that you do not know Ancient Greek but are only copying things you do not understand

Did you get this from James White?

Who is James White?

My argument comes from reading the original words in Greek

 

[Cis.jd]

My point it that the same word is used both in Luke and Sirach. Before we even consider context it is important to understand the basic meaning of the word. Only after that can we discuss context. Without understanding the separate words we can not make meaning of the context. I take it that we now agree that the same word is used in both places. Then we can move on to context ...

And i've showed you that the context is different. You have to consider the context because that is what reveals the actual meaning of the word, so in short. Luke and Sirach have different meanings. One is as an adjatiave (Sirach) the other is a title (Luke).

Yes, of course I ignore the Latin translation - why wouldn't I? Luke rote in Greek - not in Latin

You have to consider the latin. Since both are written in Greek, then why are they translated different in Latin? This is to show you that based on it's meaning, it isn't the same.

Chaire does not denoting a "title format". As I am sure you are aware, chaire, is a common word of greeting in Ancient Greek, used all the way from Homer to the new Testament

It actually does. It looks like you are trying to find things you can think of to defend your case. Chaire means "hail".. "Hail" is not a common greeting in Ancient Greek unless it is towards someone with high stature.

What?? Luke has it in feminine form. It is Sirach who has it in masculine
This proves beyond doubt that you do not know Ancient Greek but are only copying things you do not understand

Read my post again.

Who is James White?

My argument comes from reading the original words in Greek

So the argument returns to my second quote here. Why are they both translated differently in Latin?

 

[com7fy8]

Even if you get a word meaning which is intellectually correct, this does not automatically mean your own character is God's way . . . making us gentle and humble like Jesus. Even if a certain group did have all the correct ideas and practices, this would not prove they are approved by Jesus. Because the Bible says we need leaders who meet God's qualifications for taking "care of the church of God" > 1 Timothy 3:1-10.

In both Catholic and Protestant groups I see problems >

> there are leaders who are not qualified in character.

> and various pew members can not tell the difference.

One reason why is people have established superficial standards, only, of what someone says and how someone behaves. And so, they can't see deeper to know if someone is a true example of how God has us become in His love > 1 John 4:17, 1 Peter 5:3. Ones might have some ideas about this so they judge by how a person acts, in order to say if he or she is truly loving and of God's nature. But they do not have sense which is in God's love.

John 7:24, Hebrews 5:14, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, John 10:1-30.

Then, when at times they are proven wrong, they blame the false religious leader, instead of confessing how they themselves have had false character witch made them dark so they could not see who they were trusting, and disconnected from God so they did not make sure with God about whom they trust.

Isaiah 58:11, Joshua chapter nine

Jesus makes even His "sheep" (John 10:1-30) able to tell the difference > sheep can smell deeper than the show and telling. But according to what I have been told, there are even high-up Protestant and Catholic leaders who can't tell the difference between who to ordain and who not to, and these unqualified persons have been kept in their offices, which shows me that ones they are with do not have an effective and efficient way of correcting their leadership.

But Jesus has always had His obedient succession, which has been perhaps gentle and humble and not making a big public show, and possibly which unapproved people would not have reported in the history books. Jesus knows who you are

 

[TheNorwegian]

And i've showed you that the context is different. You have to consider the context because that is what reveals the actual meaning of the word, so in short. Luke and Sirach have different meanings. One is as an adjatiave (Sirach) the other is a title (Luke).

I have never denied that the context is different - only that the word is the same
While context give nuance to a word - the basic meaning of a word does not change completely from one context to the next

, so in short. Luke and Sirach have different meanings. One is as an adjatiave (Sirach) the other is a title (Luke).

No, it is not an adjective in Sirach or a title in Luke. Both words are participles. Where do you get your ideas from? Do you know anything at all about Ancient Greek? Claiming that participles are adjectives and that Luke uses masculine form when he uses feminine, etc.

You have to consider the latin. Since both are written in Greek, then why are they translated different in Latin? This is to show you that based on it's meaning, it isn't the same.

No, I do not have to consider the Latin. I do not speak Latin, but I do know Greek. Since the Bible was written in Greek it makes more sense to argue the meaning of the Greek word, than any given translation of it

It actually does. It looks like you are trying to find things you can think of to defend your case. Chaire means "hail".. "Hail" is not a common greeting in Ancient Greek unless it is towards someone with high stature.

Do you deny that the word chaire is used in Homer as well as in other Ancient Greek literature?? That is a true novelty!

No one denies that the angel had great respect for Mary. Of course he did!
However it is not true that chaire signals a title as you suggested

I am not trying to find things to defend my case. I share my knowledge of Greek grammar and linguistics fro those who want to learn. You do not seem to be able or willing to accept normal linguistic arguments, but that's OK. You have proven time and again that you do not know any Greek, so I will not spend more of my time discussing this. I hope it has been helpful for other readers, even though you are not interested

 

[Cis.jd]

I have never denied that the context is different - only that the word is the same
While context give nuance to a word - the basic meaning of a word does not change completely from one context to the next

If the context is different then the word is not really the same. Therefore your argument in the past that is making Luke's word of the same value as the one in Sirach is just invalid.

No, it is not an adjective in Sirach or a title in Luke. Both words are participles. Where do you get your ideas from? Do you know anything at all about Ancient Greek? Claiming that participles are adjectives and that Luke uses masculine form when he uses feminine, etc.

It's an adjective in Sirach, read my post again. If it was not an adjective and was just like a title as to Luke's then they would both have the same translation in the Latin.

No, I do not have to consider the Latin. I do not speak Latin, but I do know Greek. Since the Bible was written in Greek it makes more sense to argue the meaning of the Greek word, than any given translation of it

You don't get why i'm taking about Latin. If these two words are the same in "Greek" then why are they both different when translated to the Latin? Latin was the closest to Greek more than English ever was. You will have to consider the Latin into the argument because it just shows that all you've implied about "Hey Sirach says the same thing.. so Luke is not saying anything special" is academically wrong.

Do you deny that the word chaire is used in Homer as well as in other Ancient Greek literature?? That is a true novelty!

No one denies that the angel had great respect for Mary. Of course he did!
However it is not true that chaire signals a title as you suggested

But that is some high respect to use Hail and Full of Grace as a title. That form of respect exceeds anybody other than Jesus. As for your last line, if it did not signal the title as I suggested then why is it signaling it when translated in Latin?

I am not trying to find things to defend my case. I share my knowledge of Greek grammar and linguistics fro those who want to learn. You do not seem to be able or willing to accept normal linguistic arguments, but that's OK. You have proven time and again that you do not know any Greek, so I will not spend more of my time discussing this. I hope it has been helpful for other readers, even though you are not interested

Sorry, but you have no knowledge of Greek at all as to what you've shown here. You just went around google and read some anti-catholic sites on this issue. The reason why you've proven to have no knowledge of the greek is because you did not understand the necessity of me bringing in the Latin - Gratia Plena which clearly means the title Full of Grace. If you knew Greek, you would understand why the Kecharitomene in Sirach and the Kecharitomene in Luke come out different when render in Latin.

 

[TheNorwegian]

It's an adjective in Sirach, read my post again. If it was not an adjective and was just like a title as to Luke's then they would both have the same translation in the Latin.
.

κεχαριτωμένῳ (Sir 18:17) is simply not an adjective. This is not how adjectives look like in Greek

Sorry, but you have no knowledge of Greek at all as to what you've shown here. You just went around google and read some anti-catholic sites on this issue. The reason why you've proven to have no knowledge of the greek is because you did not understand the necessity of me bringing in the Latin - Gratia Plena which clearly means the title Full of Grace. If you knew Greek, you would understand why the Kecharitomene in Sirach and the Kecharitomene in Luke come out different when render in Latin.

I have told you my qualifications in Greek many times, which includes top gades from University
I have asked you to share your qualifications

You refuse to tell your qualifications, which I guess is OK, although not helpful for the discussion
If I knew your level of Greek, the discussion would have been more fruitful

However, you tell me I am a liar - and that is an insult
I am sad this can happen on a "Christian" site

 

[Cis.jd]

κεχαριτωμένῳ (Sir 18:17) is simply not an adjective. This is not how adjectives look like in Greek

It's an adjective, accept it. That's why in the latin, both words are translated differently. κεχαριτωμένος ‘having been graced’ is a participle (verbal adjective). δικαίωσις (as translated by Jerome) ‘justification’ is an abstract noun.

I have told you my qualifications in Greek many times, which includes top gades from University
I have asked you to share your qualifications

I don't believe you have. Please don't use that card on me, because if you did then you would have understood what i suggested in the Latin Vulgate and you clearly passed that off as of little significance. Why would those two words be translated differently if both have the same meaning?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

κεχαριτωμένῳ (Sir 18:17) is simply not an adjective. This is not how adjectives look like in Greek



I have told you my qualifications in Greek many times, which includes top gades from University
I have asked you to share your qualifications

You refuse to tell your qualifications, which I guess is OK, although not helpful for the discussion
If I knew your level of Greek, the discussion would have been more fruitful

However, you tell me I am a liar - and that is an insult
I am sad this can happen on a "Christian" site

I personally have no doubt that you are very educated, and have been educated in ancient Greek.

St. Jerome was also, and lived from 347 to 420 a.d. Jerome was contextually closer to the living form of the Biblical languages as "living" languages. It has only been in more recent times that a few translators have not used Jerome's Vulgate as a cross reference; those who translated the KJV as well as Martin Luther when he translated the Bible into German looked to the Vulgate, other translations and commentaries as well. Jerome's Vulagate was certainly good enough in that it's use was retained in those Lutheran Churches that continued to use Latin into the 1500's.

We need to keep an open mind. If one studies at a Catholic Sem, one will receive Catholic indoctrination; if one studies in a Lutheran Sem, Lutheran indoctrination will be the norm; if one studies in a particular protestant or reformed school, you will get their slant on things. If one's professor has a bit of an anti-traditional stripe, like it or not, that will influence what he teaches; we all have bias and to say otherwise is self deception.

If we can't agree, we can't agree. When that happens, it is time to respectfully accept differences and maybe walk away. Beating each other with rhetoric and rolls of sheep-skin only tend to degenerate the discussion.

Let's keep it civil.