Let's talk about primacy of honour

[tdgesq]

The inability of the Pope of Rome to intervene in the 9 month long dispute over the ordination of four bishops in the Ukrainian Catholic Church which is likely to bring it to schism is an example of what it means to enjoy primacy of honor but not primacy of authority.

Well, usually the example follows the definition. There is no definition here. The reason I asked is because I’ve received many different answers over the years to the question of what “primacy of honor” means, especially from the Orthodox. Some say it is just an honorary title and nothing more. Others say it affords the reigning Patriarch the sole prerogative of calling a plenary council. I’ve heard variations on these as well. I was just curious as to your take.

As for the situation with the UGCC, I’m not sure what you mean by the Pope’s “inability” to intervene. Any person among the Christian faithful have the right to bring their case before the Pope:

Canon 1059

1. In virtue of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, anyone of the Christian faithful is free to bring a case at any stage and in
   any grade of judgment before the Roman Pontiff; since he is the
   supreme judge for the entire Catholic world and he acts either
   personally or through tribunals of the Apostolic See or through
   judges delegated by him. 2. This recourse made to the Roman
   Pontiff, however, does not suspend the exercise of power by a
   judge who has already begun to adjudicate the case except in the
   case of an appeal; for this reason, the judge can pursue judgment
   up to the definitive sentence unless it is evident that the Roman
   Pontiff has called the case to himself. intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PTF.HTM

The Holy Father may very well deny them audience and allow jurisdiction to proceed under the bishops of the particular sui juris Church since:

Canon 1062

1. The synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, with due regard for the competence of the Apostolic See, constitutes the highest tribunal within the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PTI.HTM

As it turns out, the Pidhirtsi Fathers did appeal to the Roman See, which promptly refused to review the decision of the UGCC Synod of bishops who had original jurisdiction:

“…Having seen your instances to the Holy Father and the Major Archiepiscopal Tribunal enclosed with your letter, this Apostolic Signatura does not see any reason for it to intervene in this matter.”

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/11/rome-upholds-excommunication-of.html

The Holy See’s decision not to exercise jurisdiction does not mean it doesn’t have it.

 

[rad]

“…Having seen your instances to the Holy Father and the Major Archiepiscopal Tribunal enclosed with your letter, this Apostolic Signatura does not see any reason for it to intervene in this matter.”

I have never ever heard of the Apostolic Signatura but it must be something extremely important in the Catholic Church. Canon law says that there are only two organs against which there is no appeal - the Pope himself and the Apostolic Signatura.

I suppose that means that since the Signatura has made a decision not to admit the appeal from Ukraine that the Pope himself has no choice but to accept the Signatura’s decision?

Can anybody please explain the Apostolic Signatura?

 

[Aramis]

I have never ever heard of the Apostolic Signatura but it must be something extremely important in the Catholic Church. Canon law says that there are only two organs against which there is no appeal - the Pope himself and the Apostolic Signatura.

I suppose that means that since the Signatura has made a decision not to admit the appeal from Ukraine that the Pope himself has no choice but to accept the Signatura’s decision?

Can anybody please explain the Apostolic Signatura?

It’s the “Appellate Court of the Catholic Church”… For issues of trial, it looks for the trial being conducted fairly and by the law. For administrative acts, was the decision made in accord with law, and was it implemented fairly.

here’s a link to the download page for a lawyer’s paper on the Apostolic Signatura… good reading, BTW… 10 pages. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=985286

 

[rad]

The Pope has even given up the title of Patriarch of the West, and restricted it to Patriach of the Latins.

I was hoping you could find time to supply the references showing that Pope Benedict has adopted the official title of “Patriarch of the Latins”?

 

[rad]

here’s a link to the download page for a lawyer’s paper on the Apostolic Signatura… good reading, BTW… 10 pages. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=985286

Thank you. I have downloaded it. It does not answer my question though of why Canon law prohibts all appeal against its decisions.

 

[Aramis]

Thank you. I have downloaded it. It does not answer my question though of why Canon law prohibts all appeal against its decisions.

There is only one higher authority, and by constituting the Apostolic Signatura, the Pope has delegated that “final say” over issues of canon law being followed unto them.

 

[mardukm]

I was hoping you could find time to supply the references showing that Pope Benedict has adopted the official title of “Patriarch of the Latins”?

I already gave you an answer. HInt: The answer has the word “google” in it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad]

I already gave you an answer. HInt: The answer has the word “google” in it.

My dearest brother,

You are misremembering. You gave me no answer at all. Zero.

 

[rad]

Originally Posted by rad
I was hoping you could find time to supply the references showing that Pope Benedict has adopted the official title of “Patriarch of the Latins”?

I already gave you an answer. HInt: The answer has the word “google” in it.

OK, so I have just done that. I googled “Patriarch of the Latins”.

There was only a mere FIVE returns - and one of them was my own message in this thread.

There is absolutely NOTHING to support your belief that the Pope has the official title “Patriarch of the Latins”.

Please - try the google seach for yourself.

 

[steve_b]

OK, so I have just done that. I googled “Patriarch of the Latins”.

There was only a mere FIVE returns - and one of them was my own message in this thread.

There is absolutely NOTHING to support your belief that the Pope has the official title “Patriarch of the Latins”.

Please - try the google seach for yourself.

I was having a conversation about “patriarch” and 1st among equal, and sister Churches etc re: the pope, with someone else awhile back. Here is what I posted

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) wrote (emphasis mine)

:
:

1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among thesepatriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
2. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

It seems to me that what is being said is that the office of patriarch confuses in peoples minds who the pope is. And that an office (patriarch) as used by the East, equalizes power among 5 patriarchs, and 5 sees, was to distribute power away from the pope, rather than acknowledge the universal pastorate of 1 bishop , the pope of Rome, successor to St Peter.

 

[steve_b]

I was having a conversation about “patriarch” and 1st among equal, and sister Churches etc re: the pope, with someone else awhile back. Here is what I posted

Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) wrote (emphasis mine)

It seems to me that what is being said is that the office of patriarch confuses in peoples minds who the pope is. And that an office (patriarch) as used by the East Orth, equalizes power among 5 patriarchs, and 5 sees, was to distribute power away from the pope, rather than acknowledge the universal pastorate of 1 bishop , the pope of Rome, successor to St Peter.

 

[mardukm]

OK, so I have just done that. I googled “Patriarch of the Latins”.

There was only a mere FIVE returns - and one of them was my own message in this thread.

There is absolutely NOTHING to support your belief that the Pope has the official title “Patriarch of the Latins”.

Please - try the google seach for yourself.

I suspect we are using different search words. The ones I used dug up useful information. As it is, I am not quite sure what the exact words I used were . I THINK it might have been “West Patriarch Latin Rome Pope.” I’m not sure. Can you wait until the end of the week? I could do the search, but I wouldn’t have time to read through the hits right now.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JMJ_coder]

Just a couple pennies :twocents:

It seems that the most common objection (fear?) is that the Pope could do something. And then they project the absolute worst of human deceit and manipulation upon the Holy Father. That because the Holy Father has been invested with authority that he will turn into a tyrannical facist that will define ten new divinities and subject humankind into spiritual and material slavery, etc., etc. Now, I can’t blame some of our Eastern brethren for having this fear due to the ways they have been treated in the past – both from secular sources (Muslims, Communists, etc.) and from at times, sadly, the Church leaders themselves. So instead of seeing the Holy Father as the kind shepherd God has placed to guide His flock, they see a weak human who will, when given the chance (not a question of if, but when), stick it to you and exploit, persecute, and oppress you.

But, despite history and our own (mis)perceptions, we are called as members of the Church of Christ to place our trust in both God and His Church – to persevere past our personal hurt and woundedness, and that includes being obedient to those God has placed over us (which is doubly hard for those of us that were raised in societies that boast personal self-sufficiency and autonomy).

 

[Amadeus]

I have never ever heard of the Apostolic Signatura but it must be something extremely important in the Catholic Church. Canon law says that there are only two organs against which there is no appeal - the Pope himself and the Apostolic Signatura.

I suppose that means that since the Signatura has made a decision not to admit the appeal from Ukraine that the Pope himself has no choice but to accept the Signatura’s decision?

Can anybody please explain the Apostolic Signatura?

The Pope is the supreme authority in the Catholic Church. He is the Supreme Pontiff.

In sum, the Pope is the highest legislative, judicial, and executive authority. He exercises these triple powers through the Roman Curia. Each and every dicastery in the Curia (legislative, judicial, and executive) exercises its authority and powers as the alter ego of the Pope. Curial authority and powers are merely delegated by the Pope.

The Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura is the highest of 3 judicial bodies in the Roman Curia. Archbishop RaymondLeo Burke of St. Louis, MO, was recently elevated by the Pope as Prefect of the tribunal.

Accordingly, a decision of the Apostolic Signatura may be appealed to the Pope as a last resort. If the Apostolic Signatura has remanded its decision as final and unappealable, it is with the approval and confirmation of the Pope as such, by practice or under internal rules previously approved by him.

 

[Amadeus]

OK, so I have just done that. I googled “Patriarch of the Latins”.

There was only a mere FIVE returns - and one of them was my own message in this thread.

There is absolutely NOTHING to support your belief that the Pope has the official title “Patriarch of the Latins”.

Please - try the google seach for yourself.

After the dropping of the title “Patriarch of the West,” there remained 8 “official” titles of the Pope as Bishop of Rome. (No, the term “Pope” is not one of the titles!)

However, it was observed at that time that the Bishop of Rome, aka the Pope, remained one of the 5 ancient Patriarchs of the Church (the other 4: Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem) without correspondingly adding this title to the “official” list of 8 titles.

Technically, our brother marduk should be correct in referring to the Pope as the “Patriarch of the Latins,” although such title is not included in the list of “official” titles and is not currently in use in the Catholic Church.

 

[JJR1453]

Greetings and blessings JJR and all,
Hope you had a good thanksgiving,

First allow me to point out to you what I meant and/or was talking about ( In the blue) using your own posting ( the red highlighted Text in your posting)as just one of the many examples that History shows us, So the Highlighted in the red is clear evidence the Influence that the Bishop(s) of Alexandria possessed at that time, and if we read carefully we find that there was strife between the two Popes Alexandrian and Roman).
As for he attempted to excommunicate Pope Leo, actually he did excommunicate Pope Leo, as some records shows:
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/164420/Dioscorus
‘’…The following year Dioscorus presided over the Robber Synod of Ephesus. With the support of the Eastern Roman emperor Theodosius II, he reinstated Eutyches, excommunicated Pope Leo I the Great for censuring Eutychianism, and deposed Patriarch St. Flavian of Constantinople for opposing Monophysitism…" beleive you would have seen this if you would consider looking into other sources than the newadvent or RC sites. Remember for one to get a better picture, must look on all sides.
I hope that I have put forth enough evidence to support my “assertion” concerning this.

Hello again Brother Ignatios. I did have a good Thanksgiving, hope you had as well. Let me also apologize for my long absence; been hectic lately.

I must once again thank you for your encouraging words, I try constantly to broaden my horizons. Luckily enough, those horizons do stretch beyond that of the newadvent site.

As I have already offered, the Council of Chalcedon, in their letter to Marcian, state that Dioscorus “barked at the Apostolic See itself” and “even attempted” to excommunicate Leo. (Schwartz, Acta Conciliorium Oecumenicorum)

These are the words of the council, so your disagreement is not only with me, but also with the Church.
To maybe paint a clearer picture for you dear brother, ask yourself this question: In Dioscorus’ “excommunication” of St. Leo, was Dioscorus successful in expelling St. Leo outside of communion from the Church? I hope that makes things a littler clearer for you.
More to the point, this “proof of history” – for you – only speaks to the contrary. Dioscorus’ actions at the council, were nothing of a norm, and ran counter to the way the church saw things. Now, even someone with a moderate knowledge of church history will well discern this.
Allow me to quoye Dr. Schatz:

“For the Roman delegate Lucentius, Dioscorus’ crime was that he had ‘dared to hold a council without the authority of the apostolic see, something that has never happened beforeand should never happen’. He was not referring to the calling of the council as such, because it had been done by agreement with Rome and Roman delegates had been sent; he was thinking of the council’s actions, especially preventing the reading of Leo’s letter.”

Dioscorus’ actions here are completely foreign, and in opposition, to what the church knew. In any case, I find it humorous that you try and “prove” your assertions based upon a council that was condemned and is shining example and how not to hold a council.

God bless,

JJR

As for, your first above posting, it is a history but I really lost what is your point from posting it, and what is the relation to what we are talking about which is the Primacy of Honor, you have moved away from the subject at hand. Dioscorus and the Alexandrian See was no more than side comment of mine, But let me attempt to try to bring you back to where we started, all the above and again proves that the Bishop of Rome was not as the RCC says he was in the E.C.

Now, looking again at Hefele’s, again,( Let us remember once and for all that Hefele is a Roman Catholic bishop of Rottenburg, Karl Joseph von Hefele 1809-1893), reading his “history”, one can find it more as an apologetic work in defense of his church rather than “history”.
The above is a “ COMMENTARY” NOT history, that is, coming from a Roman Catholic Bishop, it is no more then the “History in the eyes of a Roman Catholic Bishop” who is trying somehow to funnel the history to the benefit of his own church , I would be foolish to expect something from him that would not support his church’s claim. Although there may be some views that would not be in-line with the RCC of today, since changing in the RCC are evident throughout its history.

If you see me to be as such, that is fine, but why not give illustration for us how is that?

Continue…

Well, as you state, you were the first to offer words, so I merely was replying to you. Secondly, I would recommend actually reading Hefele, as I can only assume you have not. Of course you should expect that Hefele’s viewpoints agree with the Catholic Church, he sees – like many others – that history agrees with the Catholic perspective. As you will well note after reading the Dr., he disagrees with many of his Catholic predecessors, such as he Ballerini and others, and thinks them too biased, in some respects. You may disagree, but as I have found, many Orthodox tend to quote the man when trying to prove their own points. You think him an Apologist, while many would regard the man as a respected Historian.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

…continued

So far, according to your above, I do not see any evidence of presidency as claimed by the RCC, but on the contrary all I see is a desparate moves and pleading, If he was as your church claim, then again he would have Issued a bull or convoked a council. But we do not see any of that.

Still yet to give an evidence of the presidency that it was claimed by your church, all of the above does not support your claim, but the contrary, or where do you see a sign of the presidency of the Pope as claimed by your church in the above so far in relation to the ecumenical Councils.?

Still, none of the above supports your claim, on the contrary the first Bolded sentence *“ … Leo did not see it to himself to call the council without the Emperor …”*is a clear evidence that your church in the beginning did not claim what it does today,

The Emperor was not charged, to use this word “charged” forgive me but it makes me laugh! the Emperor is the one who charges the others, it is clear from the historical records how he was a reference(if you will) to all’s actions, and those who didn’t they lost, and those who favored him won, as we see the case in Dioscorus.

While it is easy to just state “that doesnt support your claim”, it would be harder to offer up evidence to support your claim. Having said that, I must highlight once again your lack of an adequate knowledge regarding the convocation of councils regarding the Bishop of Rome. I dont so much fault you here, for I have observed myself those writings of very biased Catholic apologists who wish to skew the historical record to arrive at an extreme conclusion. In the first millennium it was the Emperor who called for the Ecumenical councils, of this fact you have opposition from me and any objective Catholic scholar. However, he can not do this without the consent from the bishops, and most assuredly their head bishop.
As far as the “presidency” you speak of, I may be a little confused. Are you referring to the presidency of the Ecumenical councils? Dear brother, if this is what you are referring to, it is common knowledge that the Bishop of Rome is the president of the Ecumenical council. This is why here I will not offer sources, that is unless you may wish to disagree. But just note, your church itself does not disagree.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

Confirm, like the rest of the Pentarchies, in order for that Council to be” Ecumenical”, for if he or others did not then it can’t be Ecumenical
Leo was a good negotiator, genius man, man with a great influence, indeed, and he achieved all that because of his great character, yes indeed if you are trying to say all the above, I have no problem with that, and I would add to it, that this is why he was called the Great, but if you trying to use this in order to turn it into an authority, then it is not, and the evidence is in the history that you have posted, if you take what you have posted, and try to compare it with the claim of today’s Papacy, it would contradict it, since there is no evidence of any authority, but on the contrary.
ldysinger.com/@magist/0451_Chalc_ec4/00a_start.htm
the emperor Marcian had, by an edict of 17 May 451, convoked the council for 1 September 451. Although the pope was displeased, he sent legates: Paschasinus bishop of Lilybaeum, Bishop Lucentius, the priests Boniface and Basil, and Bishop Julian of Cos. No doubt Leo thought that the council would cause people to leave the church and go into schism. So he wanted it to be postponed for a time, and he implored the emperor that the faith handed down from ancient times should not become the subject of debate. **The only business should be the restoration of the exiled bishops to their former positions. **

the last blue highlight, If he was in charge as the RCC claims why not issue an edict or a bull or what ever he has in his power to acheive that since he has the authority to do so, but this is what we see throught history everything is through the council.

The council was convoked at Nicaea but later transferred to Chalcedon … By their side were the imperial commissars and those serving on the Senate, whose responsibility was simply to keep order in the council’s deliberations.
The above is another clear evidence that even at some times there was, other than the President of that council who kept things in order, presidency in the council was not as some would like it to be.

Now, after viewing the above historical records, it is either I am misunderstanding you somewhere, or is it your quote above “… although it should be well observed of Leo’s determining actions that called for the eventual convocation …” is a dead smack contradiction to the historical record. Was that from yourself or from hefele? Seriously!

Continue…

Again we come back to the belief of the Pentarchy and the idea that Rome is only an equal member of that Pentarchy. Since it seems we are on the subject of Chalcedon, let us view the letter sent from that council to Pope Leo:

“*Whence we too, **wisely taking you as our guide *in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of Truth, not giving our instruction each singly and in secret, but making known our confession of the Faith in conceit, with one consent and agreement.”, the synod goes onto state,"Of whom you were chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you; while our religious Emperors presided to the furtherance of due order, inviting us to restore the doctrinal fabric of the Church, even as Zerubbabel invited Joshua to rebuild Jerusalem . (found in the Letters of Leo, Letter 98)

The letter from the Chalcedonian fathers to Leo addresses both of your concerns. First, it is only obvious how the councils views Leo “as their chief” and even more to the point, you assert that all the Pentarcy – which merely came about at this same synod – must submit, but then why would the council write personally to Leo asking his confirmation of the synod when his legates were present? The answer lies in that the legates objected to the 28th canon, and the council saw it fit to write to the Leo to receive his consent and confirmation. We may speak of the 28th canon if you’d like, I feel you may have the same arguements as your compatriots.
Secondly, the council also speaks of the imperial delegates that held the “presidency by order”, that is to say, they held the physical order of the council, as Dioscorus and the Robber synod two years before proved that things could get wildly out of hand during such councils. One could also offer up such imperial “overseers” as that offered by the Emperor for the Third Ecumenical council of Ephesus, but these imperial overseers are always ordered to not take part on theological discussions and do not preside in that capacity. The letter form Chalcedon elaborately explains for us who is charged with that responsibility.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

…continued

I will reposte this again, just for the record, concerning Dioscorus vs. Leo excommunication:
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/164420/Dioscorus
‘’…The following year Dioscorus presided over the Robber Synod of Ephesus. With the support of the Eastern Roman emperor Theodosius II, he reinstated Eutyches, excommunicated Pope Leo I the Great for censuring Eutychianism, and deposed Patriarch St. Flavian of Constantinople for opposing Monophysitism…"**** beleive you would have seen this if you would consider looking into other sources than the newadvent or RC sites. Remember for one to get a better picture, must look on all sides.

Ok, what I have said before is that the Council did not name him as heretic or condemned him as such, even after they heard of what he had confessed, still did not condemned him for that, but mainly because he did not summoned when he was called three times. So according to the Council he was not heretic if he was then this council failed, which it would be absurdity, BUT, what strikes the most, and I probably shouldn’t be saying this, for many readers, may use it as a propaganda, however, it is my opinion and I very well could be wrong, and that is, try to read what the Council confessed and then what Dioscorus had confessed, and then compare the two together, there is not any difference really to speak of, the way I saw it, like this, Dioscorus said that the Nature of CHRIST is one ( and I believe this where everybody went crazy without hearing the end of it), that is Fully man and Fully GOD, where the council said that the CHRIST has “two” natures fully man and fully GOD … loool…. It is the same thing, the approach is different, it is just like 2x2=4 and 2+2=4

Ive already addressed this above, but allow me offer a bit of advice brother. Just because a certain site may say one thing, does not mean that you are still not responsible for viewing all historical applications in their proper historical context. For instance, we agree that Dioscorus excommunicated Leo, but I think where me and the rest of the church disagree with you is the effectiveness of this excommunication. That is to say, Dioscorus verbally said “I excommunicate Leo”, but these words were as dust in the wind, and had entirely no effect. Again, this is why the council of Chalcedon, when writing to Marcian, state that Dioscorus “even attempted” to excommunicate Leo. You are in disgreement here with the church and the council fathers.

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

I don’t see the relation in your reply to what I have posted in the above, maybe you can clarify for me if I am missing something.
However to respond to your comments, Ephesus II was not held without Rome according to the historical records, using the ccel site:
“…condemned dyophysitism as a heresy, and deposed and excommunicated its advocates, including Theodoret, Flavian, and Leo. The three Roman delegates (the bishops Julius and Renatus, and the deacon Hilarus) dared not even read before the Council the epistle addressed to it by Leo,(This, moreover, made reference to the famous Epistola Dogmatica, addressed to Flavian, which was also intended to be read before the council. Comp. Hefele, ii. 352….) and departed secretly, that they might not be compelled to subscribe its decisions, Flavian was so grossly maltreated by furious monks that he died of his wounds a few days later, in banishment, having first appealed to a new council.

So the above is a multiple proof from history,
First, the council was not held without Rome as you asserted.
Second, and to comment again about you questioning my view of the Alexndrians being the leaders ( if you will) earlier, in that period of time, the above is another testimony how the pope of Alexandria was dominating.
And thirdly, that it was directed distinctly against the Orthodox (Rome was part of the Orthodox Church) whom Pope Leo with no doubt was Orthodox.
Fourth, just a remark, on how the Roman legate escaped ( My self I don’t blame them) but one might expect more out of THEE leading churchmen, such as Flavian the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople did as we see in the above.

Ive already addressed all this so Im just copying and pasting in case you may overlook it:

Allow me to quote Dr. Schatz:

"For the Roman delegate Lucentius, Dioscorus’ crime was that he had 'dared to hold a council without the authority of the apostolic see, something that has never happened beforeand should never happen’.* He was not referring to the calling of the council as such, because it had been done by agreement with Rome and Roman delegates had been sent; he was thinking of the council’s actions, especially preventing the reading of Leo’s letter**." (Papal Primacy: from its Origins to the Present)*

Dioscorus’ actions here are completely foreign, and in opposition, to what the church knew. In any case, I find it humorous that you try and “prove” your assertions based upon a council that was condemned and is shining example and how not to hold a council.

God bless,

JJR

*Also, you do know who it was that Flavian appealed to right?