R
Red_Sox_1
Guest
Embarrassed in the sense that I feel that I fall short of showing you the respect and love you’re showing me.Bless you in kind Red and thank you! But why are you embarrassed my friend?
- Status
D
daler
Guest
Vouthon,Bless you Daler. It is a wonderful day and period indeed, in honour of the dead. Today is All Souls Day
Your words are very kind; very, very kind and I appreciate them although I must correct you on one point my friend: I am no saint!!!No, no, no…I am a sinner and a frequent one at that. I err continually, because I am fallen and fallible
I’m only contributing posts to a thread. Hopefully they are received in a spirit of friendliness and openness as I intend. I am glad to see that you receive them in that way.
. I want to thank you for posting the information and writings of the Pope and the ecumenical gatherings of the Catholic Church. It is helpful for everyone to know that these writings have been expressed and is very encouraging to see more and more of this spirit of tolerance and embrace of various peoples of the world and their beliefs.
. Whatever leads people out of the valley of separation, from the “us and them” syndromes, is healthy and regenerative to the human spirit and future of mankind. When I have gone to inter-faith gatherings, meeting representatives of Buddhist, Muslim, Zoroastrian, Sikh, Jewish, Christian, and Baha’i in one place, it is the most rewarding of experiences in my life, for it gives me hope that we are turning the corner.
. That there is yet so very far to go doesn’t matter so much as that we are going. The world is changing through the efforts of this ecumenical spirit of love and friendship. We need to go beyond mere “tolerance” to a proactive level of dialogue and genuine interest, participation in charitable activities. We see bits of this here and there, and it is good that we can share these experiences with others and maybe gain some momentum in these vital directions.
. As to the “saints” thing…
I have read that the reason God is called the “Ever-Forgiving” is that we are forever in need of forgiveness. The same would apply to the “All-Merciful”, for He is indeed the Lord of Mercy.Peace,
Daler
D
daler
Guest
SteveVH;11361981 said:
J
Jcc1960
Guest
Daler,
My take on this is that while it may seem impossible to convert 1.6 billion Muslims, there is also the principle that with God “all things are possible”. Rather than focus on whether it is possible that all or most Muslims could be convinced to abandon the Prophet Muhammad, I focus instead on whether that is actually God’s plan, and from the Baha’i perspective, of course it is not in God’s plan for this to happen, therefore it will not happen. The world will be united and it will happen by including all of the Divine Revelations, not by excluding all but one of them.
S
Servant19
Guest
Dear friend Vouthon,Dear Servant,
Friend what do you mean by this? I went to Catholic school as a child and Muslims were the largest number among non-Catholics. Many of my friends growing up were Muslims, so pray tell me what this means? I don’t get it
No other Christian denomination has given Muslims the honour of being mentioned in strictly positive terms in an official Catechism of doctrinal teaching or in an ecumenical council where the Catholic Church recognised them as belonging to the family of Abraham.
Paragraph 16 of The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) from the Second Vatican Council reads, in part:
I’m afraid I’ll have to get my “handy” quotes out again
Blessed Pope John XXIII back in the 50s praised the Muslim mystic Rumi on behalf of the entire Catholic World:
How much further do you expect us to go?
Firstly, I honour your spirit of dedication towards finding points of unity and commonality by which we can all advance in our discussions towards Truth
I also honour the Catholic Church for it truly has advanced tremendously (especially since the Second Vatican Council) in its acknowledgment and respect towards Islam and other Faiths which it shares this planet we know as earth with.
How much more can we do?
If I may, I will share with you some quotes and I pray that as much as I honour, study and appreciate your list of “handy” quotes, you will similarly study the following:
"For one of the greatest divine wisdoms regarding the appearance of the holy Manifestations is this: The souls may come to know each other and become intimate with each other; the power of the love of God may make all of them the waves of one sea, the flowers of one rose garden, and the stars of one heaven. This is the wisdom for the appearance of the holy Manifestations! When the most great bestowal reveals itself in the hearts of the believers, the world of nature will be transformed, the darkness of the contingent being will vanish, and heavenly illumination will be obtained. Then the whole world will become the Paradise of Abhá, every one of the believers of God will become a blessed tree, producing wonderful fruits." - Abdu’l-Baha
Please note how it refers to the Manifestations (plural) so this is in reference to all Founders of major global religions.
"Whensoever holy souls, drawing on the powers of heaven, shall arise with such qualities of the spirit, and march in unison, rank on rank, every one of those souls will be even as one thousand, and the surging waves of that mighty ocean will be even as the battalions of the Concourse on high. What a blessing that will be—when all shall come together, even as once separate torrents, rivers and streams, running brooks and single drops, when collected together in one place will form a mighty sea. And to such a degree will the inherent unity of all prevail, that the traditions, rules, customs and distinctions in the fanciful life of these populations will be effaced and vanish away like isolated drops, once the great sea of oneness doth leap and surge and roll." - Abdu’l-Baha
So it is not talking about one drop multiplying to form a stream etc etc. Here, the Master is talking about the SEPARATE drops, forming SEPARATE STREAMS, forming SEPARATE rivers, all coming to gather to form one MIGHTY SEA
How can a drop deny its identity of love (the very force that binds its hydrogen and oxygen atoms together) in order to be part of this mighty sea? It shouldn’t have to surely…
We cherish and value our rich diversity and to simply “delete” an integral part of our identity removes the very purpose and identity of the sea itself
We are united by our commonality in serving humanity with the chalice of life through showering the bounties of this mighty sea upon their parched spiritual lips
And finally:
“They should stand shoulder to shoulder with the friends, supporting them through their struggles and partaking in their joys. Some of these friends will quickly move to the forefront of activity, while others will step forward more tentatively; yet all require support and encouragement, offered not in the abstract but on the basis of that intimate knowledge which is only acquired by working side by side in the field of service. Faith in the capacity of every individual who shows a desire to serve will prove essential to the efforts of those who are to elicit from the believers wholehearted participation in the Plan. Unqualified love free of paternalism will be indispensable if they are to help turn hesitation into courage born of trust in God and transform a yearning for excitement into a commitment to long-term action.”*** - Universal House of Justice.
So, dear friend, here are these things before us. Let us investigate together to determine where and in what form the truth can be found
I can assure you that I am aware of the reality of Church Teachings on this matter, and how it is constantly striving to “advance”, I certainly am not here to strive to criticise anyone or any entity. I am simply asking for us all to REFLECT on the REALITIES that are present before us, for while Church Teachings say one thing, I personally feel Baha’i Teaching goes significantly into the “uncomfortable zone” for many, but the reality is present here in CAF. Do you feel the non-Catholic section in CAF is reflective of Church Teaching?
If not, how can we as Catholics striving to bring the Catholic Community more in line with official Church Teaching, and Baha’is who want to create a Mighty Sea, work together to bring this ideal into reality?
S
SteveVH
Guest
The fact that it may be difficult for one to give up their previously held faith tradition does not necessarily mean, therefore, that they should not conform their lives to the truth that has been revealed to us. For a Muslim to discover Christ for who he truly is would be the fulfillment of their faith in the one, true God. Now I am sure that you understand what I mean as this is basically the Baha’i position as well; You believe Baha’u’llah, rather than Jesus, is the fulfillment and that we should abandon our outdated religion in favor of Baha’i.
With all due respect, to a Christian it is a complete denial of the very essence of who Christ is. We believe, in no uncertain terms, that Jesus is God. This would apply as well to the Baha’i understanding of Christ. One cannot deny the divinity of Christ and simply go forward as if this was some sort of sideline issue that reasonable people can put aside in order to get to the really important stuff.
It is an all or nothing proposition. Either Jesus was God in the flesh or he was not. There is no grey area here. If he was not God in the flesh, who suffered and died for our sins, and who rose, physically and spiritually on the third day, then, as St. Paul said, we are to be pitied among all men. If we are right, then everyone should become Catholic and the sooner the better, including Muslims and Baha’i, regardless of the personal difficulty in doing so.
The words of the Son are the words of the Father as they share one divine will. The Father generates, the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds. They are distinct in their relationships and therefore speak to one another and about one another. The Father spoke about the Son: “This is my Son in whom I am well pleased”. He is the Father’s only Word and the Father has nothing more to say. We are to listen to his Son and only his Son.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Daler, testifying to the truth without compromise does not equate to demonizing. Our Church recognizes the truths present within Islam as it does with all religions; Islam even more because it is one the three great monotheistic religions. In addition our Church is the first to speak out about violence against any and all innocents in the world. We cannot compromise the truth, however, even for peace. That is the testimony of the martyrs.
S
Servant19
Guest
I respect this Steve, it is your belief, but I have yet to receive an opportunity to understand how, if Jesus is God (in no uncertain terms) can He state in no uncertain terms that “The Father is greater than I”?
Is the Father greater than God?
T
tonyfish58
Guest
There is an interesting section in the Kitab-i-Iquan as to what** Corruption of the Text in Holy Scriptures means**.
It is very interesting and here are a couple of quotes;
“…Verily by “perverting” the text is not meant that which these foolish and abject souls have fancied, even as some maintain that Jewish and Christian divines have effaced from the Book such verses as extol and magnify the countenance of Muḥammad, and instead thereof have inserted the contrary. How utterly vain and false are these words! Can a man who believeth in a book, and deemeth it to be inspired by God, mutilate it? Moreover, the Pentateuch had been spread over the surface of the earth, and was not confined to Mecca and Medina, so that they could privily corrupt and pervert its text. Nay, rather, by corruption of the text is meant that in which all Muslim divines are engaged today, that is the interpretation of God’s holy Book in accordance with their idle imaginings and vain desires. And as the Jews, in the time of Muḥammad, interpreted those verses of the Pentateuch, that referred to His Manifestation, after their own fancy, and refused to be satisfied with His holy utterance, the charge of “perverting” the text was therefore pronounced against them. Likewise, it is clear, how in this day, the people of the Qur’án have perverted the text of God’s holy Book, concerning the signs of the expected Manifestation, and interpreted it according to their inclination and desires”…
…"The same may be witnessed today. Consider how abundant are the denunciations written by the foolish divines of this age against this most wondrous Cause! How vain their imaginings that these calumnies are in conformity with the verses of God’s sacred Book, and in consonance with the utterances of men of discernment!..
…“We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!..”
Link - reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KI/ki-3.html
Regards Tony
It is very interesting and here are a couple of quotes;
“…Verily by “perverting” the text is not meant that which these foolish and abject souls have fancied, even as some maintain that Jewish and Christian divines have effaced from the Book such verses as extol and magnify the countenance of Muḥammad, and instead thereof have inserted the contrary. How utterly vain and false are these words! Can a man who believeth in a book, and deemeth it to be inspired by God, mutilate it? Moreover, the Pentateuch had been spread over the surface of the earth, and was not confined to Mecca and Medina, so that they could privily corrupt and pervert its text. Nay, rather, by corruption of the text is meant that in which all Muslim divines are engaged today, that is the interpretation of God’s holy Book in accordance with their idle imaginings and vain desires. And as the Jews, in the time of Muḥammad, interpreted those verses of the Pentateuch, that referred to His Manifestation, after their own fancy, and refused to be satisfied with His holy utterance, the charge of “perverting” the text was therefore pronounced against them. Likewise, it is clear, how in this day, the people of the Qur’án have perverted the text of God’s holy Book, concerning the signs of the expected Manifestation, and interpreted it according to their inclination and desires”…
…"The same may be witnessed today. Consider how abundant are the denunciations written by the foolish divines of this age against this most wondrous Cause! How vain their imaginings that these calumnies are in conformity with the verses of God’s sacred Book, and in consonance with the utterances of men of discernment!..
…“We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!..”
Link - reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KI/ki-3.html
Regards Tony
E
eddie_too
Guest
i did not know that the bahai believe the Father became man.
i thought the bahai did not accept the catholic doctrine of the trinity.
as for Jesus declaring the Father greater than Jesus, it is important when trying to understand the Catholic Sacred Scripture that one ensures his understanding is in accordance with the entire teachings of the RCC.
for example, Jesus sometimes referred to His divine nature when speaking and sometimes referred to His human nature when teaching.
both His divine nature and His human nature have a relationship with the Father. in particular the Church refers to the relationship between Christ’s human nature and His divine nature as a hypostatic union. on the other hand, the relationship between Jesus and the Father is not one of a divine nature related to another divine nature since both the Father and the Son have the SAME divine nature. there is only One Divine Nature.
the relationship of the Son to the Father within the Trinity is a relationship of two Persons, one to the other.
it is natural for people who are not well educated in or possess little knowledge of the teachings of the RCC and how those teachings are all consistent with each other, to misunderstood what the RCC meant when it composed the New Testament.
it is not necessarily a sin to be without the knowledge and understanding necessary to correctly interpret the Sacred Scripture that the RCC through the Holy Spirit gave to mankind. invincible ignorance does diminish a human being’s culpability for their sinful thoughts and actions.
however, it is quite presumptuous or arrogant to tell the people who wrote the New Testament that it means something different than what the authors intended it to mean.
the lack of knowledge and understanding of the RCC New Testament and the RCC doctrines that have developed over the past two millenium that the bahai who have been posting to this thread have displayed is obvious.
i would advise the bahai who wish to post here to refrain from interpreting the New Testament that the RCC wrote differently from the ones who wrote it.
i understand that the bahai are enamored by the words of bab and bahaullah. however, in the end, the RCCs face this choice.
whether or not to transfer their faith in Jesus Christ to bahaullah. the problem the RCCs face is that Jesus offered His life and suffering so that the RCC might have faith. in addition, and i know the bahai reject this, Jesus rose His body physically from the grave on the third day.
so the bahai believe the RCCs should give up their faith in these salvific acts of Jesus and instead believe that another man in the 19th century, who lived a life similar to all other men of his era, marrying, opposing civil authorities, writing interesting words, dying a natural death, and without adequate education or training told RCCs what the book they wrote really means.
i find it quite curious that the bahai think, considering the two choices i outlined above, that their arguments for RCCs giving up their faith in Jesus is persuasive.
i thought the bahai did not accept the catholic doctrine of the trinity.
as for Jesus declaring the Father greater than Jesus, it is important when trying to understand the Catholic Sacred Scripture that one ensures his understanding is in accordance with the entire teachings of the RCC.
for example, Jesus sometimes referred to His divine nature when speaking and sometimes referred to His human nature when teaching.
both His divine nature and His human nature have a relationship with the Father. in particular the Church refers to the relationship between Christ’s human nature and His divine nature as a hypostatic union. on the other hand, the relationship between Jesus and the Father is not one of a divine nature related to another divine nature since both the Father and the Son have the SAME divine nature. there is only One Divine Nature.
the relationship of the Son to the Father within the Trinity is a relationship of two Persons, one to the other.
it is natural for people who are not well educated in or possess little knowledge of the teachings of the RCC and how those teachings are all consistent with each other, to misunderstood what the RCC meant when it composed the New Testament.
it is not necessarily a sin to be without the knowledge and understanding necessary to correctly interpret the Sacred Scripture that the RCC through the Holy Spirit gave to mankind. invincible ignorance does diminish a human being’s culpability for their sinful thoughts and actions.
however, it is quite presumptuous or arrogant to tell the people who wrote the New Testament that it means something different than what the authors intended it to mean.
the lack of knowledge and understanding of the RCC New Testament and the RCC doctrines that have developed over the past two millenium that the bahai who have been posting to this thread have displayed is obvious.
i would advise the bahai who wish to post here to refrain from interpreting the New Testament that the RCC wrote differently from the ones who wrote it.
i understand that the bahai are enamored by the words of bab and bahaullah. however, in the end, the RCCs face this choice.
whether or not to transfer their faith in Jesus Christ to bahaullah. the problem the RCCs face is that Jesus offered His life and suffering so that the RCC might have faith. in addition, and i know the bahai reject this, Jesus rose His body physically from the grave on the third day.
so the bahai believe the RCCs should give up their faith in these salvific acts of Jesus and instead believe that another man in the 19th century, who lived a life similar to all other men of his era, marrying, opposing civil authorities, writing interesting words, dying a natural death, and without adequate education or training told RCCs what the book they wrote really means.
i find it quite curious that the bahai think, considering the two choices i outlined above, that their arguments for RCCs giving up their faith in Jesus is persuasive.
S
Servant19
Guest
Eddie I thought His divine and human nature is one. Isn’t that what an incarnation is?
E
eddie_too
Guest
Jesus human nature and His divine nature are perfectly united, but they are two different natures.
part of the reality Jesus reveals to mankind is the fact that our human natures can be perfectly united with God’s divine nature.
Jesus is One Divine (uncreated) Person with two natures.
the Trinity is three Persons with One Divine nature.
a human being is one created person with one human nature.
the above is some of what the RCC teaches.
part of the reality Jesus reveals to mankind is the fact that our human natures can be perfectly united with God’s divine nature.
Jesus is One Divine (uncreated) Person with two natures.
the Trinity is three Persons with One Divine nature.
a human being is one created person with one human nature.
the above is some of what the RCC teaches.
R
Red_Sox_1
Guest
Ask 100 Baha’is this question you may get 100 different answers.
Here’s my understanding. Read the “Tablet(s) of the Hair”, “Surih of the Temple”, and “The Hidden Words” to get a better understanding of this belief. I understand this as the Body of Bahaullah being sort of like the Burning Bush of Mount Sinai that said “I am God”. Or like the Father speaking through the Person of the Son. But the Bahai belief is a bit unique from these two examples because Baha’u’llah’s station relies upon the Forerunner the Bab spoke as the Burning Bush with the words “I am God”. But the Bab, in spite of His Claim to Divinity, spoke of the coming of One even greater, and said that He (the Bab) was the Forerunner of Bahaullah. ((((note that even Jesus spoke of the Father as one greater than Himself)))). But bear in mind that Baha’is don’t believe in a physical resurrection of mankind, so “incarnation” is an inappropriate term. Baha’is disbelieve in resurrection (and therefore incarnation) because Baha’is regard the physical world to be an illusion or a mere shadow of true reality (spiritual).
So with this backdrop, yes Bahaullah is regarded the Personification of the Father and His shadow is His Physical Body. Until this day of Bahaullah, the personification of the Father (The Most Great Name) was before always hidden from mankind. He was hidden in the days of Moses, He was hidden the days of Jesus, and He was hidden in the days of Muhammad. But He is now visible through Baha’u’llah.
R
Red_Sox_1
Guest
This is a key statement of your belief as a Catholic. Here’s how I understand the Baha’i belief in relation to your statement above:
It seems you are saying that: (1) although the human and divine nature of Jesus are in hypostatic union, (2) it was the human nature not the divine nature of Jesus that spoke of the Father as greater than Himself.
I am not sure how you can say (1) and then immediately say (2). I would argue that because of statement (1), both the Divine and Human Nature of Jesus must have said that the Father is Greater than Himself. As a Baha’i I regard the “Father” in this statement of the Human-Divine Nature of Jesus as a reference to the Human-Divine Nature of Baha’u’llah.
But I don’t think “Greater” implies that they are of different natures. I think “greater” can be a description of the *intensity *of the same Nature.
One thing I may be implying, having read over what I wrote, is that I disregarded Jesus and Baha’u’llah’s Human Natures. I think their Human Natures are incidental and would not even exist if mankind didn’t exist… in other words, I think the human natures of Jesus and Baha’u’llah are temporary, fleeting, unimportant, perhaps an illusion. I think Jesus and Baha’u’llah spoke as humans so that we human may be able to emulate them… otherwise, we are completely unable to understand a single one of their Attributes and Qualities if they only spoke to us as the Divine.
E
eddie_too
Guest
Jesus always spoke as a Divine Person.
He was saying that the Divine Person that is the Father with His Divine Nature is greater than Jesus’ Human Nature, but not greater than Jesus Divine Person or Divine Nature.
but, my main point is that it is ridiculous for people who are ignorant of the teachings of RCC to tell the RCC, who wrote the New Testament, what they meant when they wrote it.
He was saying that the Divine Person that is the Father with His Divine Nature is greater than Jesus’ Human Nature, but not greater than Jesus Divine Person or Divine Nature.
but, my main point is that it is ridiculous for people who are ignorant of the teachings of RCC to tell the RCC, who wrote the New Testament, what they meant when they wrote it.
R
Red_Sox_1
Guest
One thing I may be implying, having read over what I wrote, is that I disregarded Jesus and Baha’u’llah’s Human Natures. I think their Human Natures are incidental and would not even exist if mankind didn’t exist… in other words, I think the human natures of Jesus and Baha’u’llah are temporary, fleeting, unimportant, perhaps an illusion. I think Jesus and Baha’u’llah spoke as humans so that we human may be able to emulate them… otherwise, we are completely unable to understand a single one of their Attributes and Qualities if they only spoke to us as the Divine.
R
Red_Sox_1
Guest
Dear Eddie,
Please re-read what you yourself wrote above. Jesus was **always **speaking as the Divine, even when He said that the Father is Greater than Himself. Baha’is believe that Father is Baha’u’llah. I am not saying that Nature of Baha’u’llah is different from the Nature of Jesus. I am saying simply that the **intensity **of the Nature is Greater.
E
eddie_too
Guest
Jesus always spoke as a Divine Person, but He did not always limit His speech as applying or as only referring to His Divine Nature.
again, the more important point is the incoherence of people thinking they are right to tell the people who wrote the New Testament what they meant when they wrote it.
it is that absurdity that most defines bahaullah and bab.
again, the more important point is the incoherence of people thinking they are right to tell the people who wrote the New Testament what they meant when they wrote it.
it is that absurdity that most defines bahaullah and bab.
R
Red_Sox_1
Guest
Please allow me to think over this a bit more… I think I see the point you are making. I agree that the speech of Jesus may be limited at times to human speech. Baha’u’llah’s speech (from a Baha’i perspective) is also limited at times to human speech. For example in the “Fire Tablet” Baha’u’llah complains about and despairs His suffering, and asks God to bring down His Wrath upon His persecutors. But then the Voice of God (His own voice) responds to Himself in this Tablet and says that He must be patient, and that it is through suffering that His Sovereignty is established. So here, Baha’u’llah is always speaking as the Divine though it is expressed as the anguish of an injured and tired prisoner. Jesus does the same thing on the Cross when Jesus says “My God my God why have you forsaken Me!” So who really was in anguish (in Exile and Akka) or suffering (on the Cross) in the cases of Jesus and Baha’u’llah? Was it not God, also, who was being invoked by God? Baha’u’llah identifies Himself as the One who responds to His Own Despair in the “Fire Tablet”. Baha’u’llah also identifies Himself as the One who Jesus cried to from the Cross. When I think about this, I realize that Baha’u’llah and Jesus always spoke as the Divine even though they spoke in the words of a man.
Agreed. I don’t think I’m trying to demonstrate what the New Testament itself states necessarily, I am only trying to demonstrate the Baha’i belief.
E
eddie_too
Guest
much of bahai belief is based upon misinterpreting the New Testament written by the RCC.
- Status