T
TCEL
Guest
Yes. Important distinction. Here’s a meditation from Pope Benedict. I don’t know the original source, but it was in my Magnificat some time ago.
- Status
A
Abu
Guest
During the Great Jubilee year, Bl John Paul II issued a famous “apology” or act of contrition on behalf of the entire Catholic Church for the serious sins committed by its members over its almost 2,000 years of history.
PUBLIC ACTS OF CONTRITION IN THE AGE OF SPIN CONTROL
Mary Ann Glendon
“…in a new book titled When a Pope Asks Forgiveness, Luigi Accattoli counted no less than ninety-four instances where John Paul II himself had, acknowledged the mistakes and sins of Christians in connection with, among other things, the Crusades, the Inquisition, persecution of the Jews, religious wars, in re Galileo, and the treatment of women.”
vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01071997_p-26_en.htm
Thus in *First Things *(November 1997), Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote that “the Pope himself has acknowledged the mistakes and sins of Christians in connection with, among other things, the Crusades, the Inquisition, persecution of the Jews, religious wars, Galileo, and the treatment of women. Thus, though the Pope himself is careful to speak of sin or error on the part of the Church’s members or representatives, rather than the Church in its fullness, that important theological distinction is almost always lost in the transmission.”
The Pope never apologises for the Church which is ‘held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy’ [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium, art 39].
PUBLIC ACTS OF CONTRITION IN THE AGE OF SPIN CONTROL
Mary Ann Glendon
“…in a new book titled When a Pope Asks Forgiveness, Luigi Accattoli counted no less than ninety-four instances where John Paul II himself had, acknowledged the mistakes and sins of Christians in connection with, among other things, the Crusades, the Inquisition, persecution of the Jews, religious wars, in re Galileo, and the treatment of women.”
vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01071997_p-26_en.htm
Thus in *First Things *(November 1997), Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote that “the Pope himself has acknowledged the mistakes and sins of Christians in connection with, among other things, the Crusades, the Inquisition, persecution of the Jews, religious wars, Galileo, and the treatment of women. Thus, though the Pope himself is careful to speak of sin or error on the part of the Church’s members or representatives, rather than the Church in its fullness, that important theological distinction is almost always lost in the transmission.”
The Pope never apologises for the Church which is ‘held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy’ [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium, art 39].
S
steve_b
Guest
Card Kasper then head of ecumenical dialogue for the Vatican, made the similar point.
“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”
http://www.zenit.org/article-3885?l=english
has this changed at all, since Kasper said this in 2002?
c:
Then Card Ratzinger, talked about 1st among equals and the pentarchy, both ideas never accepted by a Roman Pontiff
"3. 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 these patriarchal 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.
- 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."
c:
twice is a misunderstanding
Jimmy Akin gives the following example to what language is used that triggers an infallible teaching (teach and define)
The following internal links (in green) are functional
"In the course of performing a canonization, the pope states “we declare and define that Blessed N., is a saint” (example). This triggers the Church’s gift of infallibility, which Vatican I teaches “the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals” (source). Consequently, the verb “define” has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements [snip] (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.) "
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html
c:
Maybe Bp John’s answer will help here.
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome
J
jinc1019
Guest
I appreciate you sharing your view and personal story. Faith certainly is NOT a poor reason for believing in the papacy. Truthfully, I would much rather KNOW than THINK anything…and only faith can afford that luxury. Thanks again for your time!Well, I’ve only been passively following this thread, so I haven’t been reading through every post. Since I only provided a link I found helpful, and I’m sure different points have been discussed with great acumen, perhaps I can weigh in from a personal standpoint why I accept papal infallibility (at the risk of beating a dead horse).Plus, I like the spirit with which you approach these things, and I think you have good questions.
I haven’t done a lot of historical research into the topic. I really do take a lot of it on faith. But first, I do accept that Jesus established Peter as “al-bayit” (over-the-household), and gave special distinction to Peter when He prayed specifically for his faith (Luke 22:31-34). I also accept that this is an office that is passed on. Given that I accept those things, I have faith that Jesus would protect what He established.
In fact, I want to draw attention again to Luke 22:31-34.
One may think that this proves exactly what you contend, Peter’s weakness. And it does! But in this, I see the paradox of papal infallibility. Despite his weakness, Christ prayed for Peter’s faith specifically, after having already given him the keys. Peter stumbles, but his stumbling is that of personal fault, not heresy.
As far as what to do when a pope is in error? I’m sure other people have better answers on this than I do. I’ve had doubts about this very issue too. It caused me some darkness. It was my to-be husband, who hadn’t converted yet, who reassured me the best answer was to have faith in what Jesus said. I didn’t like it because I didn’t get everything tied up in a nice, neat bow, but I think he was correct. I was approaching it with the presumption that Jesus did not in fact guarantee protection in the matters of faith and morals. So, that probably doesn’t help you, but I do feel ya! I don’t think there’s one quick, easy answer. Ultimately, in my case, it came down to the obedience of faith, as Christ was obedient to his father. That’s the best analogy I can think of whenever I go through my personal doubts and struggles.
Thanks for you taking the time to look into this! It really is important. And not to turn you off or anything, but my husband ended up picking Peter as his confirmation saint when he came into the Church.
J
jinc1019
Guest
Yes, but you have 2,000 years of other apostolic sees saying Rome doesn’t have the authority it claims, so that argument is not very persuasive.
However, I have already stated that I am willing to accept at this point that Peter was the “Head of the Church” and that the position was some kind of an office. You should read my very long post on page 11.
J
jinc1019
Guest
I appreciate the endeavor! However, I don’t disagree that Peter had a special role. Read post 155Out of interest, I decided to look at all the interactions between Jesus and Peter. So far I’ve only gotten through Matthew, and I’m even more surprised by what I see than I expected to be.
Matthew 4:18-20 - Jesus calls Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew before any others, calling them to be fishers of men.
Matthew 10:2-4 - Peter, specifically, is called “the first.” Not Peter and Andrew together, as one might expect if this was a chronological phrase.
Matthew 14:27-31 - Jesus spoke to “them,” and Peter responds, taking the lead, and walks on the water with Jesus, until his weak faith betrays him. Peter is shown to be personally weak.
Matthew 15:14-20 - Jesus is speaking to the disciples, and Peter responds, asking for clarity, again taking the lead. Jesus points out Peter’s lack of understanding.
Matthew 16:14-19 - Jesus asks “them” who “they” say He is. Peter responds publicly on their behalf with true Doctrine, "You are Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus declares that it was the Father who revealed this to Peter, not “flesh and blood.” He then names him Peter, and that he would build His church on him, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Then he confers on Peter the keys of the Kingdom, granting him the authority to loose and bind.
Matthew 16:21-25 - Jesus foretells His own death, and Peter disputes Him privately. Jesus calls him Satan, and accuses him of desiring worldly things. This passage, immediately following the one where Jesus pronounces Peter to be the foundation of the Church, demonstrates that Peter’s public pronouncements on doctrine come from the Father, but his private doubts come from the world.
Matthew 17:1-5 - Jesus takes Peter, James and John as witnesses to His transfiguration. Peter, taking the lead once again, offers to build a tent for Him, Moses and Elija.
Matthew 17:23-26 - “They that received the didrachmas” come to Peter for payment, giving recognition to his authority among the Disciples.
Matthew 18:21-22 - Peter, among the other listeners, asks a question about forgiveness.
Matthew 19:23-30 - Jesus speaks to “them,” and Peter answers on their behalf as “we,” and Jesus promises them glory in the resurrection.
Matthew 26:31-35 - Jesus speaks to “them,” and Peter answers on his own behalf, and Jesus promises that he will fail, by rejecting Him three times that very day.
Matthew 26:36-45 - Jesus again taks Peter, James and John with Him to guard His private prayer. When He finds them asleep, He addresses Peter.
Matthew 26:56-58 - Jesus is arrested and “the disciples all leaving Him, fled.” But Peter follows from afar, then goes into the court of the high priest and sits among the servants to witness it to the end.
Matthew 26:69-75 - Peter fulfills Jesus’ prophecy and denies Him three times before the cock crows. Peter weeps bitterly in shame.
From Matthew alone, it’s clear that Peter has a leadership role among the Apostles. I will continue this venture in future posts.
T
TCEL
Guest
HAHAHA! I certainly do think. I came to the conclusion that Scripture and Tradition were right.
Jacob wrestled with God, too. Maybe you should ask for the gift of faith, if you don’t mind my being brash in saying so. I had to.
J
jinc1019
Guest
Steve…Please read post 155.
Additionally, I am well aware of the difference between impeccability and infallibility. No one here is claiming (at least I am not claiming) that the Pope suggests he is impeccable. He obviously is not. That isn’t an issue at all.
J
jinc1019
Guest
I don’t really feel the need to respond to any of your points here. You need to read post 155.
J
jinc1019
Guest
It’s absolutely not brash! I ask (nearly) every single day.HAHAHA! I certainly do think. I came to the conclusion that Scripture and Tradition were right.
T
TCEL
Guest
That makes my soul happy.
A
Abu
Guest
There are no other Apostolic Sees other than Rome!
“APOSTOLIC SEE. Title given to Rome since the first Christian centuries. It applies to the Pope and the persons and offices directly under his authority. It implies that, as successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, he has the primary duty of extending the Christian faith to all the world.”
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
Thus the mere claims of other sects, and even of the various separated Orthodox Churches to parity, are hollow against the reality that is Christ’s Church founded on St Peter with His authority and teaching dogma and doctrine infallibly.
Do you still doubt Peter’s authority and the evidence?
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).
Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).
After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).
Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
Is it not time to face the facts of reality and listen to Christ who founded His Church on St Peter – His Supreme Vicar with His authority to teach infallibly on faith and morals? Your progress in truth has been very welcome and impressive.
S
steve_b
Guest
I read it.
j:
putting your mind at ease, It doesn’t appear so to me.
your post #155 continues
j:
Ever see a 2000 year old Redwood tree? The seed that such a tree comes from is the size of a pepper flake. All that is necessary to produce such a tree is in that tiny seed.
here’s what a 2000 + year old Redwood tree looks like.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7144137&postcount=84
with some of these trees they fell, they count rings going back to 1st and 2nd century B.C. That’s right, some of these trees were 200 years old when Jesus was born. Over 2000 years, it weathers fire, drought, floods, pollution, pests, governments, you name it. That stuff all comes and goes.
Given that God created both the redwood tree & the Catholic Church, and both are here 2000 years later, only the Catholic Church is worlwide, what’s REALLY your question?
j:
you’re not helping yourself here.
j:
No pope has ever taught heresy. That’s fact.
It doesn’t mean a pope can’t have wrong ideas. By the Holy Spirit, he is prevented from teaching wrong ideas to the entire Church for the entire Church to believe.
j:
All the what-ifs don’t help. The Church is 2000 years old. Give a specific example.
S
steve_b
Guest
Then why did you ask your question this way?
The difference between the Catholic Church and all the others that have committed grave errors is that they don’t claim to be perfect on “faith and morals” and they don’t claim to have supreme authority over all other Christians and they don’t claim to be “infallible on faith and morals.”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11667108&postcount=160
What do you mean by perfect then?
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Hi Jinc, I think your points, as always, are well considered but I’m still concerned especially what you say on this issue:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (art. 1782) states: “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. ‘He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.’” Though, it is true, a person’s conscience must be properly formed.
Having said that, I want to reiterate again that the Pope cannot declare anything infallibly on matters of discipline, so he cannot command anyone to behave immorally or contrary to their conscience, even if it concerns a matter of faith.
Again, I would put it back to you: what is your alternative? Would you prefer the Protestant route, with thousands of segregations and denominations? Or would prefer the Orthodox route, which is essentially effete in achieving any form of doctrinal and moral consensus? If the doctrine of papal infallibility is true, then it forestalls the problem you mentioned. However, I do think you need to consider its merits and legitimacy based on theological rather than practical arguments.
All the best to you.
I do agree, and in fact, so does the Catholic Church. The Pope has no infallible authority in disciplinary matters, only in doctrinal ones, and so could not even in principle order you to violate your conscience in such a way.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (art. 1782) states: “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. ‘He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.’” Though, it is true, a person’s conscience must be properly formed.
In doctrinal matters, you’ve made a reasonable point. However, it has never occurred in Church history that a Pope has preached an article to be held infallibly and as faith (on a matter of faith and morals) which is contrary to the faith. As Catholics, we believe the Pope is protected from doing this by a special charism of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, it cannot happen. And I would count the evidence of history in its favour, as well as certain biblical passages.
Having said that, I want to reiterate again that the Pope cannot declare anything infallibly on matters of discipline, so he cannot command anyone to behave immorally or contrary to their conscience, even if it concerns a matter of faith.
Again, I would put it back to you: what is your alternative? Would you prefer the Protestant route, with thousands of segregations and denominations? Or would prefer the Orthodox route, which is essentially effete in achieving any form of doctrinal and moral consensus? If the doctrine of papal infallibility is true, then it forestalls the problem you mentioned. However, I do think you need to consider its merits and legitimacy based on theological rather than practical arguments.
All the best to you.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear Jinc1019,
As an Oriental Catholic (not a Latin Catholic), my answers to your concerns might be different from a Latin Catholics.
Blessings
As an Oriental Catholic (not a Latin Catholic), my answers to your concerns might be different from a Latin Catholics.
- Although I can accept that it’s likely that the Bishop of Rome after Peter’s death became the “Head of the Church,” that bishop, the Pope, can only inherit whatever powers Peter himself had. The problem still remains: What powers did Peter have? Did Peter have the power to do all that modern Popes do? Historically, I don’t think he did. Peter didn’t confirm every single bishop appointed in every diocese in the world.
The problem here, jinc, is not the powers that the Pope possesses, but the powers that the Pope is imagined and pretended to possess according to the exaggerations of Absolutist Petrine advocates and other detractors of the papacy (yes, I believe that Absolutst Petrine advocates are in fact detractors of the papacy because their position formally promotes what the papacy formally and doctrinally stands against - disunity). A perfect example of this “imagined power” is the example you give here (and others you enumerate below). The fact is, the Pope does not confirm every bishop in the world. He only confirms bishops in the Latin Catholic Church. Patriarchs, Major Archbishops and Metropolitans of sui juris Churches confirm their own bishops. What the Pope does is give a collegial assent to non-Latin bishops. “Assent” and “confirm” are two very different animals. If you need an explanation of the difference, let me know.
We don’t need to give evidence for something the Catholic Church does not teach nor claim. The authority of Peter that is passed on to the Pope can only be exercised in communion with the College of bishops. Absolutist Petrine advocates (and other detractors of the papacy) imagine and pretend that the Pope’s personal authority is a UNILATERAL authority. It is not. The Church herself does not teach nor conceive that the Pope’s authority is just “his way.”
You won’t find that evidence because there is none. It is not the Church that teaches or claims this, but merely Absolutist Petrine advocates and other detractors of the papacy. I’ll tell you what. Present to us evidence from a MAGISTERIAL source (not popular apologetics or singular theologians) which supports your claim - that Peter was infallible ALONE separated from the Apostles, or the Pope is infallible ALONE separated from the Church or his brother bishops, and we can discuss it from there. Seriously consider this - or rather, seriously REconsider your position if you cannot find the evidence for your claim aside from the meanderings of popular apologists and singular theologians.
What many Catholics believe, and what the Church teaches are, unfortunately, not always aligned.
The Pope has no authority to force us to submit to something immoral or destructive of the Church. That’s a given. Where have you obtained this other “imagined power” of the Pope? It can’t be from a Catholic source, as is evident from the fact that every single Catholic who has responded to you has stated what I have just stated.
Blessings
S
spina1953
Guest
Mardukm: As always you give the best arguments for the Catholic position. It seems to me that when a Pope is selected the other Bishops know the person who by the Holy Spirit is elected by his fellow Bishops, so I rather doubt that they would knowingly elect someone who would try and teach error in faith or morals.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear jinc1019,
I wanted to give a more complete answer to the following portion of your post:
mad, you’ll likely not have all these imagined problems with Catholicism.
As far as the infallibility to St. Peter, the Church does not teach that it is “separate,” but only “distinct.”
Here is the statement from the official Relatio of Vatican 1, which is the OFFICIAL explanation of the text on infallibility given by Bishop Gasser, who was the OFFICIAL spokesperson of the OFFICIAL Commission deputized by the Pope to formulate the Decrees of V1:
“In what sense is the infallibility of the Pope to be called “separate?” It may be called “separate,” or rather “distinct,” because it is founded on the special promise of Christ…But we do not thereby separate the Pope from his ordinated conjunction with the Church. For he is infallible ONLY…as representing the universal Church…He can no more be separated from the Church than the foundation can be separated from the building it bears. Further, we do not separate the Pope infallibly defining from the co-operation and concourse of the Church…we do not exclude the co-operation of the Church, because the Pope’s infallibility does not come to him by way of inspiration or revelation, but by way of divine assistance. Hence the Pope is BOUND by his office and the gravity of the matter to take the means apt for ascertaining the truth and enouncing it…Finally, we do not in the least separate the Pope from the consent of the Church, provided that consent be not put as a condition, be it antecedent or consequent…”
This excerpt might require more explanation, according to your disposition. The official Relatio explains the matter more completely, but I just wanted to quote you a pertinent portion. Just to warn you, there are certain small portions that Absolutist Petrine advocates will wrench from the Relatio and pretend that it supports their sola papa errors. In context, however, the Relatio obliterates their position.
Blessings
[/quote]
I wanted to give a more complete answer to the following portion of your post:
First of all, the Church does not teach that infallibility is obtained through the keys. Read Pastor Aeternus, and you will see that this is indeed the case. The Church does not use the concept of the keys as biblical support for her teaching on “papal” infallibility, but rather the “rockiness,” as well as Christ’s unique prayer for St. Peter in order to confirm his brethren. The keys is used to support infallibility only in popular Catholic apologetics, but it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. As I’ve often stated, if you just stick to the Magisterial documents, instead of relying on popular Catholic apologetics or NON-Catholic descriptions of the Catholic Faith
mad, you’ll likely not have all these imagined problems with Catholicism.As far as the infallibility to St. Peter, the Church does not teach that it is “separate,” but only “distinct.”
Here is the statement from the official Relatio of Vatican 1, which is the OFFICIAL explanation of the text on infallibility given by Bishop Gasser, who was the OFFICIAL spokesperson of the OFFICIAL Commission deputized by the Pope to formulate the Decrees of V1:
“In what sense is the infallibility of the Pope to be called “separate?” It may be called “separate,” or rather “distinct,” because it is founded on the special promise of Christ…But we do not thereby separate the Pope from his ordinated conjunction with the Church. For he is infallible ONLY…as representing the universal Church…He can no more be separated from the Church than the foundation can be separated from the building it bears. Further, we do not separate the Pope infallibly defining from the co-operation and concourse of the Church…we do not exclude the co-operation of the Church, because the Pope’s infallibility does not come to him by way of inspiration or revelation, but by way of divine assistance. Hence the Pope is BOUND by his office and the gravity of the matter to take the means apt for ascertaining the truth and enouncing it…Finally, we do not in the least separate the Pope from the consent of the Church, provided that consent be not put as a condition, be it antecedent or consequent…”
This excerpt might require more explanation, according to your disposition. The official Relatio explains the matter more completely, but I just wanted to quote you a pertinent portion. Just to warn you, there are certain small portions that Absolutist Petrine advocates will wrench from the Relatio and pretend that it supports their sola papa errors. In context, however, the Relatio obliterates their position.
Blessings
[/quote]
A
Abu
Guest
The teaching of the Church is crystal clear on the supreme authority of the Pope which is often misrepresented by some. The pope has, by Christ’s mandate, final authority in defining teaching on faith and morals, challengeable by no one.
From Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25:
“And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.”
As is glaringly evident falsification occurs when withheld assent is driven to misrepresent.
From Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25:
“And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.”
As is glaringly evident falsification occurs when withheld assent is driven to misrepresent.
- Status