G
Geremia
Guest
Have you read The Natural Desire to See God According to St. Thomas And His Interpreters by Ave Maria University theologian Dr. Lawrence Feingold? See this review in The Thomist.
- Status
G
Geremia
Guest
What was the purpose of the 1917 Code regarding studying St. Thomas in seminaries?
which requires 2 years of Thomistic philosophy and 4 years of Thomistic theology, and:
which says that students must “religiously adhere” sancte teneant] to the Angelic Doctor’s philosophy and theology.
In Memory and Identity, Wojty’a basically admits that his phenomenology/personalist approach is “not set out from such [Thomistic] ‘realist’ presuppositions” and thus its conclusions “end up in a vacuum”:http://www.worldcat.org/title/memor...ns-at-the-dawn-of-a-millennium/oclc/607605694
“If we wish to speak rationally about good and evil, we have to return to St. Thomas Aquinas, that is, to the philosophy of being. With the phenomenological method, for example, we can study experiences of morality, religion, or simply what it is to be human, and draw from them a significant enrichment of our knowledge. Yet we must not forget that all these analyses implicitly presuppose the reality of the Absolute Being and also the reality of being human, that is, being a creature. If we do not set out from such ‘realist’ presuppositions, we end up in a vacuum.”
Neither are Thomists.
The excellence of his works is a product of his holiness.
I highly suggest Fr. Ramirez’s The Authority of St. Thomas Aquinas.
J
JReducation
Guest
But the current code is the Code of 1983. The current code does not require this. One reason is that the big religious order always had dispensations not to study Thomas for two years. It became clear that there were very good theology programs that were not Thomist.
The Augustinians, Franciscans, Jesuits, Carmelites and Benedictines were not Thomists and produced very good theologians, priests and brothers.
After 1983, we continue to produce very good theologians, priests and brothers, many of whom are not Thomists, including our current pope.
There is no connect between not being Thomist and Modernism.
That his work is the product of his holiness is not the question. That his holiness is not the product of his work is the fact.
It’s not a matter of refusing to study Thomas. The matter is refusing to be forced to study Thomas, because it pleases some people, when we know that many doctors of the Church were not Thomists, many saints were not Thomists, and popes have not been Thomist. We can’t make Thomas the requirement for holiness or orthodoxy, because it does not work that way. Many who studied Thomas were also heretics, but that’s not Thomas’ fault.
If we’re trying to avoid error, forcing Aquinas is not going to do it. History has proven that heretics can start out as Thomists and it has proven that saints can live without being Thomist.
The Franciscans have more doctors than any other religious family. We have never been Thomist. Bonaventure and Thomas were contemporaries. Bonaventure was not a Thomist, because Thomas’ work was not complete until the end of their lives. They died the same year. They were very good friends and colleagues, but they disagreed on many points. So Bonoventure imposed his system on the Franciscans. The Benedictines adopted Augustine and the Carmelites adopted Bonaventure. Yet all of them produced great theologians and great saints.
It’s not a matter of being anti-Aquinas. The point is that Aquinas is not the only resource available to theology students. They’ll still end up in the same place. St. Lawrence of Brindisi never took a course on the Summa. He knew parts of it, as do most Franciscans. He became a great saint and a Doctor without it. St. Anthony of Padua, same case. The same is true of the Carmelite doctors.
What most of us react to is the insistence on the part of some people that we have to be Thomist to be credible and orthodox. That’s a false assumption.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Melchior_1
Guest
It may shock some people, but even among the Dominicans there are a few people who aren’t Thomists. We follow the Rule of Augustine after all, so Augustine has considerable weight amongst some within the order.
St. Thomas is always respected and revered, but even his brothers don’t necessarily agree with some of what he wrote.
St. Thomas is always respected and revered, but even his brothers don’t necessarily agree with some of what he wrote.
E
Exsilivm
Guest
Thank you!
G
Geremia
Guest
Yes, I know, but I am wondering what the reason was in 1917 for requiring it. I assume it’d be the same reason for Pope Leo XIII promulgating Æterni Patris.
I’m confused. Isn’t that like saying his holiness was not the product of his contemplation and prayer? His studies, contemplation, and prayer were one. He said he learned more at the foot of the altar than in all the other various man-written books.
I hardly doubt Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris, Pope St. Pius X in Doctoris Angelici, Pascendi, and Sacrorum antistitum, Pope Pius XI in Studiorem Ducem, and Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis advocated Thomism just because it pleased them.
But there has to be some regularity in training seminarians, and that is my guess for the disciplinary norms in the 1917 Code proscribing studying St. Thomas in the seminaries.
A theologian can certainly become a saint without Thomism, but it is going to be more difficult and prone to error.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I love my brother Thomas, but he wasn’t the be all and end all of theologians. Again, like I said, Augustine played (and continues) to play a heavy role in our family, and several people look to him for their theology. Remember; the man is in exclusive company as being a Doctor AND Father of the Church. The Rule he wrote is the one that Thomas’ family followed.
But fundamentally, the logic is a bit flawed. There was one man who came before him who everyone admired, and that was Holy Father Francis. After Francis, there came another man whom he respected, one who he worked with for a bit of time.
Thomas may be the Angelic Doctor, which is a fitting title. However following the path of the Seraphic Doctor will yield just as good of fruits.
M
Mintaka
Guest
Why the old Thomas study requirement?
In the late 19th and early 20th century, there was a rebirth of interest in actually reading St. Thomas Aquinas, as opposed to reading his interpreters (who sometimes distorted his thought) or only reading more modern theologians. Not being familiar with some kind of older theologians had been leading a lot of priests to have serious problems with preaching and teaching and orthodoxy.
The Pope decided that seminaries which weren’t with the program yet, and weren’t members of traditions getting a waiver on it, should be made to study up like everybody else. In other words, it was a regulation to counter bishops and seminaries that were dragging their feet about giving diocesan priests a solid theology education.
Not that such a thing would ever happen any more…
In the late 19th and early 20th century, there was a rebirth of interest in actually reading St. Thomas Aquinas, as opposed to reading his interpreters (who sometimes distorted his thought) or only reading more modern theologians. Not being familiar with some kind of older theologians had been leading a lot of priests to have serious problems with preaching and teaching and orthodoxy.
The Pope decided that seminaries which weren’t with the program yet, and weren’t members of traditions getting a waiver on it, should be made to study up like everybody else. In other words, it was a regulation to counter bishops and seminaries that were dragging their feet about giving diocesan priests a solid theology education.
Not that such a thing would ever happen any more…
J
JReducation
Guest
The bold is mine. I believe this may be where you may be getting stuck. This actually does not work and lets look at some examples of theologians who did very well teaching truth and disproving error, without ever having read Thomas.
Anthony of Padua - follows Augustine
Bede the Venerable - follows Augustine
Bernard of Clairvaux - follows Augustine
Bonaventure - Creates his own system
Catherine of Siena - follow St. Bernard of Clairvaux
John of the Cross - follows Bonaventure
Peter Cantius - follows Augustine
Peter Damian - follows Augustine
Robert Bellarmine - combines Augustine and Thomas
Teresa of Avila - follow Bonaventure
Therese - follows Teresa
In modern times, candidates for the title of doctor are:
Juan of Avila - follows Bonaventure
Maximilian Kolbe - follows Bonaventure
John Henry Newman - follows Bonaventure
It was Bonaventure who first introduced the concept of the development of doctrine in his Theology of History. He coined the term. John Henry Newman used the term as the title for his work.
I’m not sure why Traditionalists are up in arms over this, since it goes back to the 13th century mendicant movement of Paris.
As we can see, along with many fine Thomists, there are also many fine non-Thomists and they seem to have no trouble separating truth from error.
The fact that Canon Law put it into the code in 1917 and took it out in 1983 is very important. It was taken out at the request of religious orders, because they were not doing it anyway, nor were they teaching it to diocesan seminarians, those religious who taught in diocesan seminaries. They were constantly getting indults to get around it. Eventually, the indults become so frequent, that common sense tells you that you may as well not put it into the law.
The popes wrote many praises of Thomas. That is not to be denied. He deserves them. But I can look in papal documents and find many praises of Bonaventure too and of Augustine, beginning with our current pope. I have not seen our current pope trip up once in matters of faith and morals. He describes himself as Bonaventurian/Augustinian.
Let’s give people a break and let them study whatever works for them, as long as it’s consistent with the faith of the Church. I studied very little Aquinas and I’m a very orthodox theologian and I dare anyone to say the contrary.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
G
Geremia
Guest
What I said is only a paraphrase of what Pope St. Pius X wrote in Pascendi (1907): “Further let professors remember that they cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave detriment” and, with a meaningful modification in Sacrorum antistitum (1910): “Let professors remember that they cannot set St. Thomas aside, however slightly, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave detriment.”
I think the seeming crosstalk between us results from us trying to prove two different things. It seems you’re trying to show that sanctity results only indirectly and not necessarily from being a systematic theologian, but directly from grace; this is true. If it weren’t true, I’d be be advocating naturalism (or Pelagianism or Modernism or another such heresy that denies the supernatural or reduces it to the merely natural). I’m only restating the popes’ teachings that, to be a good theologian, it is safest to follow St. Thomas Aquinas’s principles and method.
Well, it’s not just that. It has to do with different interpretations as to how much authority should be given Church teachings like Aeterni Patris, Doctoris Angelici, Pascendi, Sacrorum antistitum, Studiorem Ducem, Humani Generis, etc. Some don’t heed those documents at all (saying they’ve been superseded just like Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanæ appears to supersede Bl. Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus), and others do heed it (saying they have equal weight as the current Magisterium’s teachings).
Well, technically it is still the law as long as you believe the aforementioned papal documents have any authority.
Certainly, but read what Pope St. Pius X wrote in Doctoris Angelici:
So, if one doesn’t know what St. Thomas’s principles are, one cannot judge if a doctrine is in conformity with them, and thus one cannot know if they are in conformity with the Faith.
There’s the rub.
Determining that consistency amongst a pluralism of systems isn’t that easy. It would require another St. Thomas to do in our time what he did in his. So the question then becomes: Why reinvent the wheel?You’re missing out
(my declared conflicting interest: patron saint is St. Dominic 
). Well, only in Dante’s Paradiso (and certainly in the real paradiso, too) could St. Thomas and St. Francis praise God harmoniously together.
J
JReducation
Guest
Here is the glitch. St. Bonaface established that a pope is not bount by anything written by previous popes, canon law or any council, other than what is dogma, natual law and moral law, in other words, what comes to us through Revelation.
While the writings of previous popes are a very important part of Church history, they do not bind future popes. All too often people use the writings of St. Pius X or others, to bark at Pope Paul VI, Bl. John Paul II or even Pope Benedict. However, popes know what binds them and what does not bind them. They also know why their predecessors wrote something and when it applies or does not apply. Popes are intelligent men and are not heretics.
For example, Pope Benedict has openly disagreed with St. Pius X’s opinion on St.Thomas Aquinas. He values St.Thomas Aquinas, but he has some strong words about his conclusions and his analyses. Bl. John Paul loved the systems of St. Thomas and often quoted him, especially in philosophy. Yet, many people in the Traditionalist sector hate the man and would like nothing better than to whiteout his name form Church history.
As I said, look at all of the doctors who never read Thomas and had no problems sorting error from truth. Before Thomas came along, we were already doing so. Not having taken two years of St. Thomas does not mean that one has not had a good theological education. I did not have two years of St. Thomas. He was dispersed here and there. However, I had six years of St. Augustine, four of St. Bonaventure and the other Franciscan doctors, as well as Catherine of Siena, the Carmelite doctors and many other theologians who were never declared doctors, but were excellent, such as: John Henry Newman, John Duns Scotus, Francis of Osuna, Meister Eckert, Leonard of Port Maurice, of course the Fathers, and many others from the early years of the Church to the time I left post graduate school.
If you go to Rome to any of our Pontifical schools or to any of our Pontifical schools in the USA, Aquinas is interwoven along with other theologians. Theology is studied by areas, not by theologians. One does not sit down and study Aquinas or Bonaventure. You sit down and study each area and everyone who made a contribution to each area.
Obviously, if you belong to a religious order, you’re going to study more of the theologian that your founder followed. In the case of Franciscans, that would be Augustine and later our own doctors were added to the mix. We take courses in Franciscan approach to theology, which a Jesuit would not take.
This is not knew. That’s what I’m saying. The orders were never attached to Aquinas. Every brother and priest went through theological formation according to the program of studies prescribed for his order and approved by the conference of bishops.
When Dominican, Franciscan, Jesuit, Opus Dei, and Carmelite canon lawyers sat down to work on the code of 1983, they took out the Aquinas requirement, because there were so many indults given, including by St. Pius himself, that it didn’t make much sense to keep it in the law, if you were only going to dispense with it. It was easy to get a dispensation from that canon, because the orders are older than the canon. The law allows you to keep whatever has been your custom for at least a century. All of the orders were founded before 1600. The last order ever founded was the Society of Jesus.
Since the popes are not bound by the writings of previous popes except on matters of Revealed Truth, nor are they bound by previous councils, except on matters of Revealed Truth. They can borrow and restate from their predecessors unilaterally. If there is a conflict of opinion, the opinion of the reigning pope takes precedence. This was written by St. Boniface VIII and has never changed. St. Boniface didn’t pull it out of his hat. He was simply describing what had been done up to that point in time when he was pope.
To go back to the OP, I don’t understand why people associate Bl. John Newman with Modernism, since he borrows heavily from St. Bonaventure’s work, Theology of History, which was one of our current pope’s doctorates. Bl. John Newman simply restates what Bonaventure thought in more contemporary language and he develops it further. His theological work earned him a red hat too.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
G
Geremia
Guest
Until the canon lawyer Ed Peters let me know, I didn’t know about 1983 Code 252 §3 (commentary):
So, indeed, studying St. Thomas is still the law (at least in the Western Church)!
J
JReducation
Guest
This is in the canons, but most religious are exempt from teaching Thomas and many diocese are too. The religious are usually exempt because there are scheduling conflicts. They must get in their own theologians. That’s required by their proper law. As to the dioceses, my guess is that the reason will vary from diocese to diocese, including that you can’t always find someone who can teach it, especially in some remote places. But I can’t vouch for that, because I’m not diocesan. I know that we cover Thomas throughout the curriculum, not as one specific course as we do for Francis, Clare, Bonaventure, Lawrence of Brindisi, Leonard of Port Maurice, the Franciscan Mystical Masters, Maximilian Kolbe, Anthony of Padua, Francisco of Osuna and many other, both classic and contemporary. If we added a separate course just on Thomas, we’d never get out of school. As it is, it takes eight years to get through it all, if one counts undergrad.
The Sacred Congregation grants indults to the religious orders. You don’t have to renew it. It’s remains in effect until the Sacred Congregation repeals it or the order no longer needs it. There are over 300 orders with the same indult.
One has to look at the wording of the canons, but also at the spirit and traditions of the canons. There are certain individuals and groups of people to whom canons do not apply, because of tradition or because the canon is speaking about something that is very specific.
In this case, the canon is speaking about the formation of priests. However, there is a “pre-existing condition”, if you will, that there are religious communities that date back 1500 years. Their focus is not on forming priests, but on forming religious. Their academic program is going to focus on the consecrated life, which is meant to enhance and strengthen the religious vocation of the individual. They add to that the minimum number of courses necessary for the priesthood. The canon does not speak to that situation.
It very cleverly slips in “especially with St. Thomas as teacher” instead of “must use St. Thomas of Teacher.”
St.Thomas is to be include, but it does not say that he is to be the sole teacher. Those orders that form their own priests include what Thomas says about let’s say penance, along with what St. Francis says about Penance. Then you’re told, “You will follow Francis, not Thomas.” If you were at a Carmelite house of studies, you would be taught penance from St.Thomas perspective and then from the Carmelite Masters and then told, “But we follow the Carmelite Masters, not Thomas.” These men, be they priests or brothers, bring the perspective of their particular tradition to their preaching and teaching.
One must look at the law, find out what are the exceptions to the law that are not mentioned and how those exceptions came about or why.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
That writer could not be more wrong about Newman. And I would advise people to actually read Newman to find out what he really says rather than pass on the paranoid conspiracy theories of some traditionalist theologians regarding any thinker who does anything other than relate what commentators have said about Thomistic texts.
Newman’s education was classical and patristic, he was hardly exposed to St. Thomas. He called Aristotle the “the oracle of nature and of truth” and went on to say “In many subject-matters, to think correctly, is to think like Aristotle.” The Idea of a University, I, V, 5] He called Thomas the “champion of revealed truth” (II, V, 2) and one of the truly great intellects of mankind (I,VI, 5).
Regarding assent:
To her [the Church] is committed the care and the interpretation of the revelation. The word of the Church is the word of the revelation. That the Church is the infallible oracle of truth is the fundamental dogma of the Catholic religion; and “I believe what the Church proposes to be believed” is an act of real assent, including all particular assents, notional and real.
The Grammar of Assent, 5, 3]
I would read this whole section of the Grammar.
This is so because Newman saw dogmas as expressing revealed facts; and facts call forth real assent.
Catholic dogmas are, after all, but symbols of a divine fact, which, far from being compassed by those very propositions, would not be exhausted, nor fathomed by a thousand. . . . Such sentences as “the Word of God” . . . or “the Word was made flesh”. . . are not a mere letter which we may handle by the rules of art at our own will, but august tokens of most simple, ineffable, adorable facts, embraced, enshrined according to its measure in the believing mind.
[John Henry Newman, *Oxford University Sermons 15:23; 24 (3)]
Newan sees dogma at the heart of Catholicism.
The principle of dogma, that is, supernatural truths irrevocably committed to human language, imperfect because it is human, but definitive and necessary because given from above.
Essay on the Development of Christian Dogma, II, 7, 1, 4]
“Reason, thus considered, is subservient to faith, as handling, examining, explaining, recording, cataloguing, defending the truths which faith, not reason, has gained for us, as providing an intellectual expression of supernatural facts, eliciting what is implicit, comparing measuring, connecting each with each, and forming one and all into a theological system.”
Essay on the Development of Christian Dogma, II, 7, 3, 1]
He explicitly and vehemently rejects liberalism and rationalism:
“Now by Liberalism I mean false liberty of thought, or the exercise of thought upon matters, in which, from the constitution of the human mind, thought cannot be brought to any successful issue, and therefore is out of place. Among such matters are first principles of any kind; and of these the most sacred and momentous are especially to be reckoned the truths of Revelation. Liberalism then is the mistake of subjecting to human judgment those revealed doctrines which are in their nature beyond an independent of it, and of claiming to determine on intrinsic grounds the truth and value of propositions which rest for their reception simply on the external authority of the Divine Word.”
The third example he gives of Liberalism is “No theological doctrine is anything more than an opinion which happens to be held by bodies of men. Therefore, e.g., no creed, as such, is necessary for salvation.”
Apologia Pro Vita Sua, (NY: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1900), p. 288, Note “A”, Liberalism.]
“Rationalism is a certain abuse of reason; that is, a use of it for purposes for which it was never intended, and is unfitted. To rationalize in matters of revelation is to make our reason the standard and measure of the doctrines revealed; to stipulate that those doctrines should be such as to carry with them their own justification; to reject them if they come into collision with our existing opinions or habits of thought, or are with difficulty harmonized with our existing stock of knowledge. And thus the rationalistic spirit is the antagonist of Faith; for faith is, in its very nature, the acceptance of what our reason cannot reach simply and absolutely upon testimony.”
Essays, Critical and Historical, 2 vols., London: Basil Montagu Pickering, 1871, 1:31.]
Newman’s education was classical and patristic, he was hardly exposed to St. Thomas. He called Aristotle the “the oracle of nature and of truth” and went on to say “In many subject-matters, to think correctly, is to think like Aristotle.” The Idea of a University, I, V, 5] He called Thomas the “champion of revealed truth” (II, V, 2) and one of the truly great intellects of mankind (I,VI, 5).
Regarding assent:
To her [the Church] is committed the care and the interpretation of the revelation. The word of the Church is the word of the revelation. That the Church is the infallible oracle of truth is the fundamental dogma of the Catholic religion; and “I believe what the Church proposes to be believed” is an act of real assent, including all particular assents, notional and real.
The Grammar of Assent, 5, 3]
I would read this whole section of the Grammar.
This is so because Newman saw dogmas as expressing revealed facts; and facts call forth real assent.
Catholic dogmas are, after all, but symbols of a divine fact, which, far from being compassed by those very propositions, would not be exhausted, nor fathomed by a thousand. . . . Such sentences as “the Word of God” . . . or “the Word was made flesh”. . . are not a mere letter which we may handle by the rules of art at our own will, but august tokens of most simple, ineffable, adorable facts, embraced, enshrined according to its measure in the believing mind.
[John Henry Newman, *Oxford University Sermons 15:23; 24 (3)]
Newan sees dogma at the heart of Catholicism.
The principle of dogma, that is, supernatural truths irrevocably committed to human language, imperfect because it is human, but definitive and necessary because given from above.
Essay on the Development of Christian Dogma, II, 7, 1, 4]
“Reason, thus considered, is subservient to faith, as handling, examining, explaining, recording, cataloguing, defending the truths which faith, not reason, has gained for us, as providing an intellectual expression of supernatural facts, eliciting what is implicit, comparing measuring, connecting each with each, and forming one and all into a theological system.”
Essay on the Development of Christian Dogma, II, 7, 3, 1]
He explicitly and vehemently rejects liberalism and rationalism:
“Now by Liberalism I mean false liberty of thought, or the exercise of thought upon matters, in which, from the constitution of the human mind, thought cannot be brought to any successful issue, and therefore is out of place. Among such matters are first principles of any kind; and of these the most sacred and momentous are especially to be reckoned the truths of Revelation. Liberalism then is the mistake of subjecting to human judgment those revealed doctrines which are in their nature beyond an independent of it, and of claiming to determine on intrinsic grounds the truth and value of propositions which rest for their reception simply on the external authority of the Divine Word.”
The third example he gives of Liberalism is “No theological doctrine is anything more than an opinion which happens to be held by bodies of men. Therefore, e.g., no creed, as such, is necessary for salvation.”
Apologia Pro Vita Sua, (NY: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1900), p. 288, Note “A”, Liberalism.]
“Rationalism is a certain abuse of reason; that is, a use of it for purposes for which it was never intended, and is unfitted. To rationalize in matters of revelation is to make our reason the standard and measure of the doctrines revealed; to stipulate that those doctrines should be such as to carry with them their own justification; to reject them if they come into collision with our existing opinions or habits of thought, or are with difficulty harmonized with our existing stock of knowledge. And thus the rationalistic spirit is the antagonist of Faith; for faith is, in its very nature, the acceptance of what our reason cannot reach simply and absolutely upon testimony.”
Essays, Critical and Historical, 2 vols., London: Basil Montagu Pickering, 1871, 1:31.]
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
I read it. It is terrific; and completely sold me that de Lubac got it wrong on what the natural desire to see God really is. Feingold’s scholarship is meticulous and comprehensive.
J
JReducation
Guest
I fail to understand where these writers come up with these conspiracy theories about Bl. John Newman. The man’s writings couldn’t be more orthodox, if they had been written by Peter himself.
What he does is use very fresh language. People seem to have a real problem with that, which is silly. The important thing is content and context. Newman passes the test or orthodoxy in both.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
Absolutely!
I fail to understand where these writers come up with these conspiracy theories about Bl. John Newman. The man’s writings couldn’t be more orthodox, if they had been written by Peter himself.
What he does is use very fresh language. People seem to have a real problem with that, which is silly. The important thing is content and context. Newman passes the test or orthodoxy in both.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
I had a strong background in St. Thomas before I studied Newman. He is no threat to the truth explored and taught by Thomas; but he is a concrete, literary thinker. Newman is a man of letters, not a systematic philosopher; and he makes no pretense to advance a comprehensive system with a univocal technical vocabulary. But as a good litterateur he can shed light in crevices too narrow and convoluted for conceptual systems to reach. Perhaps he expressed it best: “This is the true office of a writer, to excite and direct trains of thought; and this, on the other hand, is the too common practice of readers, to expect everything to be done for them,–to refuse to think,–to criticize the letter, instead of reaching forward toward the sense.” Oxford University Sermons, 13:35]
It is a both-and situation with Newman and Aquinas, not either-or.
- Status