Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[seamusmohr]

Well that is not quite true because the other countries were able to wrestle the power from the Pope without the kings declaring themselves head of the church.

Kings and Pope were Heads of State, that was their job and there was no one to gainsay them, especially in the early years of the Church. The fact was never queried, henry simply took the matter to its logical conclusion by putting the title in to law, in an effort,(according to Gee,) to protect the Church in England from being taken over by Lutherans, this in case of the King’s demise. European Monarchy, Emperors, Kings or Popes all abused their civil positions. All stole from the Church and milked it for their own dynastic gains.

 

[guanophore]

Nestorius was condemned by a council of Bishops. It is totally bizarre to say this was a unilateral decision by the papacy.

I agree. Nothing the successor of Peter does is a “unilateral decision by the Papacy”. Such a perspective is totally foriegn to Catholic faith. Peter NEVER acted apart from the other apostles “unilaterally”, and the successors of Peter never act “unilaterally” apart from the council of bishops.

This notion of separating and dividing is the purview of the Reformation, not the Apostolic Faith.

 

[GKC]

The King being head of the Church is not right, the head of the Church is the Holy Ghost the Comforter and the earthly authority are the bishops. Every Bishop is complete in himself and they rule collectively through the Councils, the ultimate authority are the Seven Ecumenical Councils. “They have supreme power, that is the Bishops assembled in a General Council may interpret scripture and by their authority suppress all them that shall disobey.” (“Field, Of the Church!”) The Papacy was however head of the Roman Church and also King of a large part of Northern Italy! Why is there to be a line drawn up between him and ,or them and Henry? GKC, has pointed out the short time henry spent with the official title and we have to remember that the Church in England limited his authority ,by inserting the words,“As far as the Law of Christ allows.” (Or some such confection. The matter again raised its headtwo years later, but the initial insertion w asn’t with drawn. The Pope’s monarchical headship went on from about 800 ad, till 1870.

seamus, seamus. We have done this one so oft before.

The limiting words "quantum per Christi legem licet supremum caput were only Convocation’s, in 1532, and Henry took care they were not part of the Supremacy Act, 1534. Which was the law. Henry would be head of all his people. Including the Church. Whatever their scruples were.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

I agree. Nothing the successor of Peter does is a “unilateral decision by the Papacy”. Such a perspective is totally foriegn to Catholic faith. Peter NEVER acted apart from the other apostles “unilaterally”, and the successors of Peter never act “unilaterally” apart from the council of bishops.

This notion of separating and dividing is the purview of the Reformation, not the Apostolic Faith.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think you downplay and underestimate the role of the emperor in the first century of the Church as well as the role of monarchs and politics in the Middle Ages. Constantine was no shrinking violet. He summoned Nicaea, Theodosius I summoned Constantinople I council and he made Christianity the State Church of the Roman Empire. I would say that is taking a leadership role! Heraclius played a key role in the Monothelitism heresy that Pope Honorius played a notorius role in. Emperors had plenty of power in the Church throughout history. It wasn’t until the fall of the Western sector of Rome that we see the Pope become a major political figure with far-reaching powers the comprise secular and religious oversight he never had previously. If you look at Henry VIII, despite being an immoral man in so many ways, his role as head of the Church of England really wasn’t that unlike the Roman emperors. He kept his hands off it. In fact, he kept it fairly consistent, traditional, Latin, and old school. It was under Edward that things really changed.

Constantine may have convened and provided the hospitality for the council but he was not part of the voting. He was never the head of the Catholic Church.

True, and that certainly had to end. But to say that one must make one’s self head of the church for that to end is ludicrous.
And all this may be true but what does have to do with whether it is legitimate to establish one’s self as head of the Church?

 

[Bluegoat]

How about this one from the BBC

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/uk_1.shtml

In that article, it traces the history of Christianity in Britain first from St Columba from Ireland then to the mission of Augustine’s mission in 597.

Either way, the Christianity that came to Britain was united to Rome because the Christianity that arrived in Ireland was Western not Eastern.

He did the work and gave references which everyone can read. The references from wikipedia attest to this unless you do not consider wikipedia a good enough reference.

Tom does know about it. We have been on similar threads together where Protestants have advanced their defense of the reformation.

Explanations of why things happened however does not go to the heart of the matter, that is the desirability and rightness of what happened.

Would such a book prove that the doctrine of the reformation is correct? If not, all it will do is give the motivations of the personalities of the time without actually coming to truth.
And we also gave a lot of quotes. GKC has done a good job of giving the historical background and the motivations of the personalities involved. He has not however proven that what happened was in line with what Christ willed for His Church.

According to GKC he was not trying to justify, he was trying to explain the reasons. And as I said before, explanations do not exculpate the wrong.

From reading his posts he has a lot of clue on the matter. Now this will move forward if you will actually be able to muster a rebuttal of the points he has raised.

Why do you think he is dishonest? Please cite a reason. Why is he manipulative? Please give a reason.

If anything, I find you less than honest because in this post, you could have in fact rebutted some of the points and yet you have not done that.

Instead of crying uncle, rebut with facts. That is all that is required.

And that would be childish. If you are sure of your grounds, you would counter with facts and good rebuttals. That is all that is required of you – sound rebuttals. Show Tom where he is wrong. Since you are convinced of your position then that should be a walk in the park for you.

Quite the contrary, Tom is defending it well. He provided links to his assertions. Now if you truly have issues with his post then you will go like this: “your post is wrong because of such and such proof”.

All that is needed from you is a well reasoned rebuttal.

Here is the thing: I am not here to debate, I’m hre to have a friendly discussion. Even in a very serious or passionate discussion, I don’t ask the guy I’m having a beer with to produce a bunch of documentation, nor do I expect him to ask. I know what I know and don’t, and if I’m interested I can look into what he said when I get home. If there is something specific really outside my knowledge I might ask him to give me the name of a book on the topic.

It’s a good faith discussion. I try not to talk outside of my area of knowledge, and I expect the same from others. And most of the facts of this discussion have not been obscure, anyone could confirm them, though some people have made assertion they shouldn’t.

This wasn’t a debate thread originally: my original statements were simply an answer to a question in the OP which was interested in people’s personal feelings or opinions on a particular topic. That isn’t an invite for others to attack them. I have no problem discussing them, but if someone wants to debate and gain points (I’m sure it doesn’t gain converts) he should start a thread for that purpose.

And secondly - people that are constantly mocking and disbelieving everything others who disagree say don’t have my sympathy. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but tqualey’s posts are full of rolling eye icons and other sarcastic remarks, usually to dismiss ideas he doesn’t want to rebut with any logic or facts. I don’t sit down and have a beer with people that roll their eyes at me, unless it’s maybe my sister, and then she has to buy the next round. I’m sure as heck not spending my evening looking up proof-texts for them.

Edit: by the way, your article says just what I said, and GKC said, so I am not sure why you think it supports any other position.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gurneyhalleck1,

You are so right - Constantine was no shrinking violet … but, then again neither were Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula or Nero considered in the ‘shrinking violet’ category. These were all violent men (Caligula and Nero were notable in their violent excesses) who did amazingly violent things during what I guess could honestly be called violent times.

What your historical narrative misses is that we see transitions taking place as history unfolds before our very eyes. Not all of these transitions are welcomed or wholesome or even bland - but, they are there and form the very fiber of what we can all see as human nature in action.

I am really not entire sure what your point is. Did Constantine did have dominant political power that he tried to transition over to the Church. The real question is: did he succeed? If you are a real student of history, then the answer is no. He had no vote at Nicea, and did not use force to demand the bishops vote in a particular way - at least according to Eusebius Here is a link: columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm It would appear that Constantine tried a lot of diplomacy - and this was all part of what Emperors did to try and birng about a decision. In brief, Constantine was not a ‘fly on the wall’ but he did not craft a decision and then force a vote - like Henry did. And, I think that is he bottom line.

As I see it, judging Constantine and Henry by the same standards - certainly puts Henry in a poor light. Here ‘Hank’ was - a Catholic Prince, grubbing for trinkets on his resume … and apparently a slave to vainglory. Here is Constantine who - through his own force of arms - claimed the Roman Empire - and ended the previous murderous persecutions of Catholics. Here is Constantine trying to calm irate bishops who were at odds with one another - while trying to get a decision made by these bishops. Now, we look at ‘Hank’ and find that he has been frustrated and he explodes by claiming he is the head of his own church - note this is nothing like Constantine.

Seriously, no matter how you arrange the facts of the case - ‘Hank’ winds up looking like the spoiled (and murderous) brat he always was. In my view, claiming that these two men were alike or that Constantine set the example for a political ruler interacting with the Catholic Church misses much of what solid history can tell us about these two.

Benedictus2 did not downplan or undersstimate the role of hte emperor - on the contrary! Based on your post, I would say that you have significantly distorted what actually took place based on the records.

God bless

I think you downplay and underestimate the role of the emperor in the first century of the Church as well as the role of monarchs and politics in the Middle Ages. Constantine was no shrinking violet. He summoned Nicaea, Theodosius I summoned Constantinople I council and he made Christianity the State Church of the Roman Empire. I would say that is taking a leadership role! Heraclius played a key role in the Monothelitism heresy that Pope Honorius played a notorius role in. Emperors had plenty of power in the Church throughout history. It wasn’t until the fall of the Western sector of Rome that we see the Pope become a major political figure with far-reaching powers the comprise secular and religious oversight he never had previously. If you look at Henry VIII, despite being an immoral man in so many ways, his role as head of the Church of England really wasn’t that unlike the Roman emperors. He kept his hands off it. In fact, he kept it fairly consistent, traditional, Latin, and old school. It was under Edward that things really changed.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

I am really not intersted in having a beer with you. LOL

Now, on the serious matters. There are usually one or two references I provide for statements I post. Your posts are usually devoid of any references to sustain your opinions - which quite honestly can be summarized by “The Catholic Church is wrong…” just fill in the blank to identify the opinon you want to promote at that time.

Virtually any effort at documenting what you want to say would be an improvement. Honest. But, it is opinion after opinion followed by efforts at stringing them together with enslaved logic. For example:

The Catholic Church has had the same teaching since its recorded history concerning:

1- the necessity of baptism for salvation
2- that men can have the delegated power of God to forgive sin
3- that Jesus Christ - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - is present in the Eucharist
4- that Peter was placed in charge of the Apostles and the ECF were in agreement with this.

You respond by simply distorting what was said and offering nothing to refute it but your own opinion. There was a time when I thought you could do better - but, maybe that is more wishful thinking on my part.

Maybe it is you who need to establish a thread for those who are interested in drinking e-mailed beer over a bowl salted opinions rather than pretzels. Just hang your hat anywhere and don’t worry about referencing anything you say. Now, that would be a thread. Maybe you could get a neon sign from CAF … “Cold Ones On Ice!” or something else equally inviting. Now, I was tempted to use the old ‘eye roll icon’ …, oh, what the heck!

By the way, did you know CAF does not want posters trying to get converts. The idea is to dialogue - and, considering the nature of the topics, when asked to supply a reference, it is a good idea to do so. This is true that for no other reason it shows that you have more than just your own opinion which, obviously, can’t be easily challenged.

God bless - and feel free to respond to the issue that the Catholic Church has taught these four items consistently. Contrast this with Protestantism that has 30,000+ denominations all preaching something different and something new.

Here is the thing: I am not here to debate, I’m hre to have a friendly discussion. Even in a very serious or passionate discussion, I don’t ask the guy I’m having a beer with to produce a bunch of documentation, nor do I expect him to ask. I know what I know and don’t, and if I’m interested I can look into what he said when I get home. If there is something specific really outside my knowledge I might ask him to give me the name of a book on the topic.

It’s a good faith discussion. I try not to talk outside of my area of knowledge, and I expect the same from others. And most of the facts of this discussion have not been obscure, anyone could confirm them, though some people have made assertion they shouldn’t.

This wasn’t a debate thread originally: my original statements were simply an answer to a question in the OP which was interested in people’s personal feelings or opinions on a particular topic. That isn’t an invite for others to attack them. I have no problem discussing them, but if someone wants to debate and gain points (I’m sure it doesn’t gain converts) he should start a thread for that purpose.

And secondly - people that are constantly mocking and disbelieving everything others who disagree say don’t have my sympathy. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but tqualey’s posts are full of rolling eye icons and other sarcastic remarks, usually to dismiss ideas he doesn’t want to rebut with any logic or facts. I don’t sit down and have a beer with people that roll their eyes at me, unless it’s maybe my sister, and then she has to buy the next round. I’m sure as heck not spending my evening looking up proof-texts for them.

Edit: by the way, your article says just what I said, and GKC said, so I am not sure why you think it supports any other position.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seamusmorh.

Let me make sure I have understood you:

**Henry VIII - a recognized Catholic Prince with a standing army who had just written a defense of the Sacraments, Primacy of Peter and the Pope himself - was fearful of the Lutherans (Germans) taking over England or the Catholic Church in England - so he established his own church, made himself the head of this church while murdering faithful Catholic clergy and laymen. These actions were designed to stop any invasion from Lutherans.
**
If this is a correct restatement of your post - would you kindly provide a reference from a URL that can be accessed.

Thank you and God bless

Kings and Pope were Heads of State, that was their job and there was no one to gainsay them, especially in the early years of the Church. The fact was never queried, henry simply took the matter to its logical conclusion by putting the title in to law, in an effort,(according to Gee,) to protect the Church in England from being taken over by Lutherans, this in case of the King’s demise. European Monarchy, Emperors, Kings or Popes all abused their civil positions. All stole from the Church and milked it for their own dynastic gains.

 

[benedictus2]

The King being head of the Church is not right,

And with that one statement you have just acknowledged that the Anglican Church is illegally constituted.

the head of the Church is the Holy Ghost the Comforter

I don’t think you will find anything in scripture in support of this. If you had said Christ then you would have been able to make a case.
and the earthly authority are the bishops.
True. Now let’s look at that acknowledgement from you.

If the earthly authority are the bishops, then you acknowledge that there office of the apostles were passed on in the bishops.

If you acknowledge that, then you acknowledge that the office of St Peter as prime apostle has been passed. Earlier you have already acknowledged that St Peter was prime apostle. If he was indeed prime apostle, then his see is the prime see which means that his successor is the prime bishop.

 

[benedictus2]

Kings and Pope were Heads of State, that was their job and there was no one to gainsay them, especially in the early years of the Church.

And I never disputed that.

The fact was never queried, henry simply took the matter to its logical conclusion by putting the title in to law,

If you think more before you post you will not fall into this kind errors.

You said in a previous post that it was never right that king be head of the Church. Above, I agreed with you that Popes also exercised secular powers.

Now what Henry did was not “carrying the matter to its logical conclusion” because declaring one’s self head of the Church is NOT a logical conclusion of the Pope arrogating for himself secular powers because this had nothing to do with logic.

If that were so, other kings would have rightly done the same thing, but only Henry did that.

And before you start using Constantine and other emperors again, they never claimed to be head of the Church never exercised powers as head of the Church.

All theological justification for being head of the Church must come from the One who built the Church - Christ.

in an effort,(according to Gee,) to protect the Church in England from being taken over by Lutherans, this in case of the King’s demise. European Monarchy, Emperors, Kings or Popes all abused their civil positions. All stole from the Church and milked it for their own dynastic gains.

And all that is completely beside the point of whether he had theological and spiritual grounds to do what he did.

The problem with some of the posts here is this failure to separate the two issues.

It sounds like this: A woman caught cheating on her husband so she can get some money out of this other man to feed her kids. She tries to justify her adultery by saying “it’s because my sorry-excuse-for-a-human-being of a husband is not doing his duty”.

That may explain what she did but it does not make it right. It does not justify the adultery because God never said that if you are not looked after by your husband you should seek comfort in another man.

 

[benedictus2]

I agree. Nothing the successor of Peter does is a “unilateral decision by the Papacy”. Such a perspective is totally foriegn to Catholic faith. Peter NEVER acted apart from the other apostles “unilaterally”, and the successors of Peter never act “unilaterally” apart from the council of bishops.

This notion of separating and dividing is the purview of the Reformation, not the Apostolic Faith.

Excellent!!

 

[benedictus2]

I think you downplay and underestimate the role of the emperor in the first century of the Church as well as the role of monarchs and politics in the Middle Ages. Constantine was no shrinking violet. He summoned Nicaea, Theodosius I summoned Constantinople I council and he made Christianity the State Church of the Roman Empire. I would say that is taking a leadership role! Heraclius played a key role in the Monothelitism heresy that Pope Honorius played a notorius role in. Emperors had plenty of power in the Church throughout history. It wasn’t until the fall of the Western sector of Rome that we see the Pope become a major political figure with far-reaching powers the comprise secular and religious oversight he never had previously. If you look at Henry VIII, despite being an immoral man in so many ways, his role as head of the Church of England really wasn’t that unlike the Roman emperors. He kept his hands off it. In fact, he kept it fairly consistent, traditional, Latin, and old school. It was under Edward that things really changed.

I am not downplaying the fact that they meddled in Church business nor am I downplaying the fact that the Popes meddled in state business.

However, nothing of what you have written above, makes a case for the statement that the Kings and Emperors were head of the Church. Sure they poked their noses into it but they never had a say on doctrine. Otherwise, he would have had vote in the council. He may have tried to influence the bishops but that is all he could do.

 

[benedictus2]

Here is the thing: I am not here to debate, I’m hre to have a friendly discussion.

That is fair enough. The thing is we are here to do both (depending on the topic).

Friendly discussions usually is just a matter of you stating your opinion and me stating my opinion and that is that. But that gets us nowhere. It is nothing more than relativism - you have your truth I have mine.

If you treat this as a debate, then you will try to think more logically so as to make a rebuttal and if there is none then to acknowledge the other’s point.

Simply just putting our cards on the table makes for a messy table.

Even in a very serious or passionate discussion, I don’t ask the guy I’m having a beer with to produce a bunch of documentation, nor do I expect him to ask. I know what I know and don’t, and if I’m interested I can look into what he said when I get home. If there is something specific really outside my knowledge I might ask him to give me the name of a book on the topic.

I’d probably do that over coffee with a friend but this forum is differnt. And different sections on this board call for different approaches.

It’s a good faith discussion. I try not to talk outside of my area of knowledge, and I expect the same from others. And most of the facts of this discussion have not been obscure, anyone could confirm them, though some people have made assertion they shouldn’t.

And if they have and you claim they have then it is for you to provide proof that they have made a claim that they should not have made.

Suppose someone comes along claiming to be Miss USA 2001 based on such and such documents. You say no she’s not. But if you say no she’s not, you have to say why. That is what is expected of you - the why.

This wasn’t a debate thread originally: my original statements were simply an answer to a question in the OP which was interested in people’s personal feelings or opinions on a particular topic. That isn’t an invite for others to attack them.

Suppose there is something that you are passionate about and someone comes along claiming something wrong about it. Would you not attack that claim and prove that claim false?

Are we all supposed to be just happy in “our” versions of truth? Isn’t this thread supposed to be to come to a better understanding of truth. In the process some false statements have to be demolished and if that is perceived as an attack then that is unfortunate.

I have no problem discussing them, but if someone wants to debate and gain points (I’m sure it doesn’t gain converts) he should start a thread for that purpose.

Is this thread about gaining converts. If we preach the truth then it is the truth that should gain converts. Alice Von Hildebrand was able to bring many people back to practicing their faith and coming into the Church simply by teaching good philosophy - truth.

And secondly - people that are constantly mocking and disbelieving everything others who disagree say don’t have my sympathy. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but tqualey’s posts are full of rolling eye icons and other sarcastic remarks, usually to dismiss ideas he doesn’t want to rebut with any logic or facts.

Perhaps he gets exasperated and adds flower to his post but if you stick to the points he raised then you will find logic and truth in them.

I don’t sit down and have a beer with people that roll their eyes at me, unless

This is probably a difference in perspective. We don’t regard this forum as having a friendly conversation over beer. Purely from my own perspective, there is a time and place for that.

 

[benedictus2]

Edit: by the way, your article says just what I said, and GKC said, so I am not sure why you think it supports any other position.

Oh but it did support my position and not yours and GKC.

You were claiming that the Christianity in Britain was not Romand.

So I gave the link to the BBC document and this explanation:

In that article, it traces the history of Christianity in Britain first from St Columba from Ireland then to the mission of Augustine’s mission in 597.

Either way, the Christianity that came to Britain was united to Rome because the Christianity that arrived in Ireland was Western not Eastern.

So unless, you can refute that point, then sorry, but it does support Tom’s and my point, not yours.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And can you name any significant change to the Church of England that Henry made? The Mass stayed the Mass. It remained in Latin, priest facing the altar, auricular confession remained, Marian devotion was continued, rosaries prayed, liturgy of the hours remained, transubstantiation continued to be the defined Eucharistic explanation, priests and bishops continued business, etc.

Henry plundered the wealth of the monestaries. That was his main gig that upset the powers that be.

Real change didn’t happen until Edward. That’s pretty much historical fact. So calling himself Head of the Church of England didn’t amount to much of a change except the pope couldn’t dictate anymore in the British Realm.

The doctrine of the godly prince was a common feature of the Reformation. Luther, Calvin, Henry, they all believed that.

The monarchies all played tremendous roles in the Orthodox Church’s history as well, most especially in Russia with the tsars!

I am not downplaying the fact that they meddled in Church business nor am I downplaying the fact that the Popes meddled in state business.

However, nothing of what you have written above, makes a case for the statement that the Kings and Emperors were head of the Church. Sure they poked their noses into it but they never had a say on doctrine. Otherwise, he would have had vote in the council. He may have tried to influence the bishops but that is all he could do.

 

[benedictus2]

And can you name any significant change to the Church of England that Henry made?

You think making the king the head of the church not significant enough?

Can you not see that Edward’s and Elizabeth’s changes followed from that change?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m surprised you ask me this, Benedictus, when I most plainly already remarked that significant change resulted from Edward and Elizabeth, not Henry? Didn’t I say that already? Why ask me if I’ve already said as much?

We were talking about Henry, not those that followed anyway.

I don’t find the king having a powerful role to be shocking anyway. The Orthodox have dealt with such experiences for the better part of over 1,300 years now and they’ve beautifully maintained the dignity and consistency of their theology and morality as well as ecclesiastical order.

The Anglicans are a child of the Reformation, different outcome. From my vantage point, the Catholic Church radically changed after the 1054 split anyway. The popes got so intertwined in politics and governance and secular affairs that they really had no business being in in the first place that I can’t say I blame the English people for wanting them out of it. The rancor against the papacy in the 1600’s was so anti-papal that they indeed did throw out the baby with the bathwater so to speak in many ways.

But we were talking about Henry. GKC was talking about Henry. I believe BlueGoat was talking about Henry. Now you switched to Ed and Liz…

You think making the king the head of the church not significant enough?

Can you not see that Edward’s and Elizabeth’s changes followed from that change?

 

[GKC]

Oh but it did support my position and not yours and GKC.

You were claiming that the Christianity in Britain was not Romand.

So I gave the link to the BBC document and this explanation:

In that article, it traces the history of Christianity in Britain first from St Columba from Ireland then to the mission of Augustine’s mission in 597.

Either way, the Christianity that came to Britain was united to Rome because the Christianity that arrived in Ireland was Western not Eastern.

So unless, you can refute that point, then sorry, but it does support Tom’s and my point, not yours.

No, it doesn’t You need to lay the calendar against it, to see why.

However it was that the Church came to England (and scholarship knows not the details) it was present and organized into dioceses, prior to AD 300. Hence, 3 bishops, with known names, of known sees, were at Arles in 314. St Columba’s mission to Scotland was in …you tell me. And you will note that the mention at your link refers to a certain Irish tone to what St Columba brought. This opens a whole other can of worms, as to who and where and when and I will pass. (Hint: it sometimes can involve the word “Celtic” and it doesn’t interest me).

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

I’m surprised you ask me this, Benedictus, when I most plainly already remarked that significant change resulted from Edward and Elizabeth, not Henry? Didn’t I say that already? Why ask me if I’ve already said as much?

So you did not understand my point then?

Let’s put it this way.

Henry made himself head of church which made the monarchs that followed him head of church.

Do you think Edward and Elizabeth would have been able to make the changes that they did were it not for the fact that by virtue of the Henry’s having made the king of England head of Church?

If Henry had not made this change, would Edward and Elizabeth been able to make those changes if all they were were heads of state?