Question on contradictory teaching

[susanlo]

In some places at particular time - the practice for very very bad mortal sins (ie murders, idolatry) - was one could receive the Sacrament only once.

The Church has seen that this local practice in some places was not to be continued.

Even the worst sinner can approach the Sacrament more than once and repent and be forgiven.

I think that this was not local, but predominant in Christianity. Tertullian wrote about a chance for 2nd repentance (baptism is the 1st repentance) in a work called On Repentance. newadvent.org/fathers/0320.htm This and others are cited by J.N.D. Kelly in his book Early Christian Doctrines where he writes about the beginnings of penitential discipline here: archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n227/mode/2up
This section of his book deals with the ongoing development of penance in the 4th and 5th centuries. archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n447/mode/2up

The initial point I wanted to make is that in the first 5 centuries the sins that excluded adultery/fornication, murder and idolatry were forgiven regularly by personal prayer. There was no need for penance for these. And if God was able to forgive these sins without confession to a priest then, why must confession to a priest and penance be done now? The development of the system to allow people with large public sins to return to communion changed over the years. I am not sure if this early penance was about forgiveness from God or forgiveness and trust within the church community. Augustine does allude in his Letter 153 chapter 7 that those who sin again after their penance “although that same opportunity of penance is not again granted them in the Church, God does not forget to exercise his patience toward them.” This does sound like he thinks it is possible for God to forgive these sins even though the church would not allow them to ever return to communion. books.google.com/books?id=pwoTGSsiqa4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=From+Irenaeus+to+Grotius&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhi9ynuM7NAhXHJB4KHZiMA0kQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=letter%20153&f=false

 

[Bookcat]

I think that this was not local, but predominant in Christianity.

I understand what you thought but that is not the case.

Yes in the discipline in some periods and places in that period of the Church - had only one time to confess and be absolved for particularly very very grave sins - such as murder, adultery or idolatry. That was the disciple there for those particular very very very grave sins due to their great evil.

One does not know if they were forgiven that second time. God alone knows.

As to why the Sacrament - that is what Jesus gave us. That is his will and his way given to the Church for the reconciliation of grave sinners to him and his Church.

The Church certainly later discerned that the practice in some places that was mentioned just now - was not the way for the Church to go - but judged in her authority to bind and loose that even murders etc could repent and confess and be absolved - even if they fell again.

 

[susanlo]

I understand what you thought but that is not the case.

Yes in the discipline in some periods and places in that period of the Church - had only one time to confess and be absolved for particularly very very grave sins - such as murder, adultery or idolatry. That was the disciple there for those particular very very very grave sins due to their great evil.

Which regions had multiple penances in the first 5 centuries?

 

[Bookcat]

Which regions had multiple penances in the first 5 centuries?

That misses what was just noted. There was a restriction of receiving the Sacrament more than once in some places and times - for those certain very grave sins (ie murder, adultery and idolatry).

 

[susanlo]

That misses what was just noted. There was a restriction of receiving the Sacrament more than once in some places and times - for those certain very grave sins (ie murder, adultery and idolatry).

Which regions allowed multiple penances “for those certain very grave sins (ie murder, adultery and idolatry)” more than once?

Or had penances (one or many) required for minor sins?

 

[Bookcat]

Which regions allowed multiple penances “for those certain very grave sins (ie murder, adultery and idolatry)” more than once?

Those that did not have that restriction…

I know that in certain areas and times there was that restriction for those sins. Unfortunately do not have a map for ya.

Or had penances (one or many) required for minor sins?

You mean the Sacrament of Penance and the Penances associated? No that was not required for “minor sins” but for grave sins. Prayer (or even other penances and other means) sufficed.

Those grave sins that were very very grave - as noted (ie murder, adultery, idolatry) - there was a restriction on how many times one could receive that Sacrament in those particular places and times. That restriction was for them not for other grave sins (mortal sins) - (they were not minor…).

 

[Bookcat]

“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” ~Tertullian AD 203

 

[Bookcat]

“[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” Origen AD 248

 

[Bookcat]

“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” ~John Chrysostom AD 387

(a few lifted from a CA article - not time for more discussion must run -wife is calling me downstairs…but I quickly found a few quotes for ya).

 

[Gorgias]

The initial point I wanted to make is that in the first 5 centuries the sins that excluded adultery/fornication, murder and idolatry were forgiven regularly by personal prayer.

That remains the case to this very day. Venial sins (that is, those that are “not unto death”) are forgiven through prayer, participation in the liturgy, and (worthy) reception of the Eucharist.

There was no need for penance for these.

Not true. I think I would say, rather, that since there’s no formal sacramental event, then there’s no formal assignment of penance. Yet, there is penance that must proceed from our sorrow for our sins; James 2 is replete with examples of the way that our deeds are integral to (and, by the by, also demonstrate) our faith.

And if God was able to forgive these sins without confession to a priest then, why must confession to a priest and penance be done now?

Back then, there was both forgiveness of sins without confession and forgiveness of sins through sacramental reconciliation. It’s not like it popped up after the 5th century, as you yourself noted earlier in the thread!

And, of course, penances were done back then – both subsequent to sacramental reconciliation and non-sacramental reconciliation! When Christians of the early Church performed penances (fasting, almsgiving, prayer), what do you think they were doing? These were acts of charity that both demonstrated their faith and were signs of their ongoing conversion (through reconciliation) to holiness!

In any case, it almost seems like you’re misinterpreting what ‘penance’ is. Throughout the Bible, we see that people are forgiven by God, but that consequences remain for their sins. Moses was forgiven by God for striking the rock (in the second “water from the rock” episode), but there was a consequence: he could not enter into the Promised Land. David was forgiven by God (through the words of a man, Nathan!) for his adultery, but was told that there would be consequences: the sword would not leave his house.

Penance isn’t about the eternal consequences of sin (i.e., damnation), but about the temporal consequences. We do penance not to receive forgiveness (i.e., remission of the eternal consequences of sin) but in the pursuit of satisfaction (i.e., remission of the temporal consequences of sin).

The development of the system to allow people with large public sins to return to communion changed over the years.

Yeah… so? The development of many doctrines happened over time. In the early Church, there was no teaching about the Trinity until it developed. Are you claiming that ‘development’ equates to ‘error’? If so, then you have to hold that Christ isn’t True God and True Man (since that expression was a theological development) and that God is a Trinity (since that expression was a development, too).

I am not sure if this early penance was about forgiveness from God or forgiveness and trust within the church community.

Absolutely, you can be sure! The answer is “neither.” Penance doesn’t earn forgiveness. If it did, then there would have been a formulaic relationship between sin and penance and absolution. That’s not what happened in the early Church. There was a quite rigorous program of penance, but it always concluded with an examination of whether the penitent had repented (not whether he had done enough penance). Penance and absolution do not have a ‘cause and effect’ relationship (although there is correlation between the two: those who are sorry for their sins – that is, those who obtain forgiveness – seek satisfaction through penance).

Augustine does allude in his Letter 153 chapter 7 that those who sin again after their penance “although that same opportunity of penance is not again granted them in the Church, God does not forget to exercise his patience toward them.” This does sound like he thinks it is possible for God to forgive these sins even though the church would not allow them to ever return to communion.

Perhaps you can provide the entire context of that letter? Unfortunately, I don’t have it here, and the link you provided only allowed viewing of half of that chapter. Without seeing where he’s going with this, we can only conclude what he says initially: God allows the sun to rise on the just and the unjust. Perhaps your conclusion can be supported by the rest of the text of chapter 7, to which you might point us?

 

[susanlo]

“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” ~Tertullian AD 203

This is where Tertullian is talking about the chance for a 2nd repentance. On Repentance Chapter 10: newadvent.org/fathers/0320.htm
People were to have a sincere repentance prior to baptism. They were allowed one further chance of repentance after that.

“[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” Origen AD 248

I can’t find the full text of this. I am not sure how many times and what method of penance he is referring to. This is on his Homiles on Leviticus. Kelly refers to a similar quote briefly: archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n229/mode/2up
It is hard to tell from this quote, but Kelly states in the same paragraph as this quote that penance was a public matter done only once in a lifetime.

“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” ~John Chrysostom AD 387

(a few lifted from a CA article - not time for more discussion must run -wife is calling me downstairs…but I quickly found a few quotes for ya).

newadvent.org/fathers/19223.htm

Here he seems to be saying that priests can forgive sins. This seems different from Augustine’s understanding that church forgiveness and God’s forgiveness are different. I don’t know how many times a priest would forgive sins. This seems different than the second repentance from ~150 years earlier by Tertullian (and ~50 years later by Augustine). I wonder if this was a separate idea from the one-time penance. Chrysostom doesn’t mention penance at all in this.

 

[MT1926]

Sins can be forgiven by confessing them directly to God. Jesus is the High Priest of Hebrews and we have direct access to Him now that the veil was torn. A repentant person can be forgiven because of the blood that was shed by Jesus’ sacrifice.

Susan I came across a great answer from Jimmy Aiken for you. Take a look at this:

youtube.com/watch?v=2sl4cQ7UfTs

When the caller asked about the torn veil it reminded me that you mentioned the veil in your previous post. He gives a great description that the tearing of the veil is referencing the end of the need for animal sacrifice, not that we can now confess our sins directly to God. I agree with him when he says "the interpretation of Matthew 27:51 is ambiguous and can be interpreted in various ways. However, it is not a good exegesis to take a passage like this with a more ambiguous meaning and interpret it in such a way that it makes it difficult to interpret the meaning of a straight forward passage like John 20:23.

Give it a listen and let me know what you think?

 

[susanlo]

In any case, it almost seems like you’re misinterpreting what ‘penance’ is. Throughout the Bible, we see that people are forgiven by God, but that consequences remain for their sins. Moses was forgiven by God for striking the rock (in the second “water from the rock” episode), but there was a consequence: he could not enter into the Promised Land. David was forgiven by God (through the words of a man, Nathan!) for his adultery, but was told that there would be consequences: the sword would not leave his house.

Penance isn’t about the eternal consequences of sin (i.e., damnation), but about the temporal consequences. We do penance not to receive forgiveness (i.e., remission of the eternal consequences of sin) but in the pursuit of satisfaction (i.e., remission of the temporal consequences of sin).

Actually, the term penance isn’t in the Bible. (I think metanoia is translated to penance in the Douay-Rheims Version.) Metanoia in Greek means: “a profound, usually spiritual, transformation; conversion.” - dictionary.com/browse/metanoia
Metanoia is translated repent in most other versions.

I think it was around Tertullian’s time that the term penance was first used. The term came about with the 2nd repentance. (That is my basic understanding, but I haven’t researched the actual start of this term in-depth).

Yeah… so? The development of many doctrines happened over time. In the early Church, there was no teaching about the Trinity until it developed. Are you claiming that ‘development’ equates to ‘error’? If so, then you have to hold that Christ isn’t True God and True Man (since that expression was a theological development) and that God is a Trinity (since that expression was a development, too).

Absolutely, you can be sure! The answer is “neither.” Penance doesn’t earn forgiveness. If it did, then there would have been a formulaic relationship between sin and penance and absolution. That’s not what happened in the early Church. There was a quite rigorous program of penance, but it always concluded with an examination of whether the penitent had repented (not whether he had done enough penance). Penance and absolution do not have a ‘cause and effect’ relationship (although there is correlation between the two: those who are sorry for their sins – that is, those who obtain forgiveness – seek satisfaction through penance).

Perhaps you can provide the entire context of that letter? Unfortunately, I don’t have it here, and the link you provided only allowed viewing of half of that chapter. Without seeing where he’s going with this, we can only conclude what he says initially: God allows the sun to rise on the just and the unjust. Perhaps your conclusion can be supported by the rest of the text of chapter 7, to which you might point us?

I couldn’t find the complete text. I have seen the quote on various websites and books, but I couldn’t get the complete text.

 

[Bookcat]

This is where Tertullian is talking about the chance for a 2nd repentance. On Repentance Chapter 10: newadvent.org/fathers/0320.htm
People were to have a sincere repentance prior to baptism. They were allowed one further chance of repentance after that.

Yes I have discussed that already. Certain very grave sins (ie murder, adultery…)

Such was the case in certain periods and certain places.

 

[Bookcat]

It is hard to tell from this quote, but Kelly states in the same paragraph as this quote that penance was a public matter done only once in a lifetime.

Again I have already discussed this. Certain periods and certain places - for certain extremely grave sins.

 

[Bookcat]

Here he seems to be saying that priests can forgive sins. This seems different from Augustine’s understanding that church forgiveness and God’s forgiveness are different.

Yes of course Priest to were given the power to celebrate this Sacrament.

The forgiveness of the Church and of God are all together in the Sacrament.

I don’t know how many times a priest would forgive sins. This seems different than the second repentance from ~150 years earlier by Tertullian (and ~50 years later by Augustine). I wonder if this was a separate idea from the one-time penance. Chrysostom doesn’t mention penance at all in this.

Again the restriction for the Sacrament of Penance - to one time was for extremely serious sins (such as murder) -and was the discipline in certain places and periods.

Chrysostom is yes discussing the Sacrament of Penance:

“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” ~John Chrysostom AD 387

While for such very very serious sins (at that time) the penance was done prior to the Absolution of the Sacrament - penance was involved.

Just because in the quote the word penance is not used does not mean no penance was done. Sort of like reading a quote about Baptism where the word water is not used - one ought to not assume no water was involved…).

The Penance did not “earn” forgiveness -but was part of the repenting there. The forgiveness of absolution is not earned.

 

[Gorgias]

Actually, the term penance isn’t in the Bible.

Actually, that’s because ‘penance’ is a word that derives from the Latin word for ‘repentence’ or ‘to be sorry.’ So, yeah… ‘penance’ is in the Bible, even if the word itself isn’t used in translation.

(I think metanoia is translated to penance in the Douay-Rheims Version.) Metanoia in Greek means: “a profound, usually spiritual, transformation; conversion.” - dictionary.com/browse/metanoia
Metanoia is translated repent in most other versions.

Actually, ‘metanoia’ implies a “change of heart.” Again, that notion appears in the Bible quite often.

In fact, the terms you’re looking for need to be expressed in their Hebrew forms, not their Latin or Greek forms. In the Hebrew, there are a couple of notions that are relevant: a ‘regret for sins’ (nacham), or a ‘turning back (to God)’ (teshuvah). (This ‘turning back’ – shuv – is also expressed in the Greek word strepho.)

So, yeah… ‘penance’ is found all throughout the Bible; but, if you don’t translate through the Latin to get to the English, it’s likely that you won’t find that exact word used.

Let’s add an additional layer of complexity: when you speak of ‘penance’, there are many possible definitions: the repentance from sin in some cases, the Christian sacrament through which forgiveness of sin is obtained in others, and in still others, the prayers or works that are done as signs of our resolution not to sin again and to obtain satisfaction (which is distinct from forgiveness!). So, if you want to talk ‘penance’, it would be necessary to identify which definition you’re addressing and the reasons why you think that the particular definition you’ve identified is the one being used in the text you cite.

I think it was around Tertullian’s time that the term penance was first used. The term came about with the 2nd repentance. (That is my basic understanding, but I haven’t researched the actual start of this term in-depth).

Actually, in the first century document Shepherd of Hermas, there are references to repentance and forgiveness for adulterers; Tertullian himself didn’t like these references, since he wanted forgiveness to be limited.

Regardless when the Latin word ‘penance’ was first used, the concepts which it expresses had been along for a very long time, both in the Christian Church and in Jewish theology.

I couldn’t find the complete text. I have seen the quote on various websites and books, but I couldn’t get the complete text.

OK. So, at the best, we can say that Augustine was referencing the notion of what happens when a person receives the sacrament of reconciliation and then subsequently sins again. We don’t quite know what he was saying, though.

 

[susanlo]

Actually, that’s because ‘penance’ is a word that derives from the Latin word for ‘repentence’ or ‘to be sorry.’ So, yeah… ‘penance’ is in the Bible, even if the word itself isn’t used in translation.

Actually, ‘metanoia’ implies a “change of heart.” Again, that notion appears in the Bible quite often.

In fact, the terms you’re looking for need to be expressed in their Hebrew forms, not their Latin or Greek forms. In the Hebrew, there are a couple of notions that are relevant: a ‘regret for sins’ (nacham), or a ‘turning back (to God)’ (teshuvah). (This ‘turning back’ – shuv – is also expressed in the Greek word strepho.)

So, yeah… ‘penance’ is found all throughout the Bible; but, if you don’t translate through the Latin to get to the English, it’s likely that you won’t find that exact word used.

Let’s add an additional layer of complexity: when you speak of ‘penance’, there are many possible definitions: the repentance from sin in some cases, the Christian sacrament through which forgiveness of sin is obtained in others, and in still others, the prayers or works that are done as signs of our resolution not to sin again and to obtain satisfaction (which is distinct from forgiveness!). So, if you want to talk ‘penance’, it would be necessary to identify which definition you’re addressing and the reasons why you think that the particular definition you’ve identified is the one being used in the text you cite.

Actually, in the first century document Shepherd of Hermas, there are references to repentance and forgiveness for adulterers; Tertullian himself didn’t like these references, since he wanted forgiveness to be limited.

Regardless when the Latin word ‘penance’ was first used, the concepts which it expresses had been along for a very long time, both in the Christian Church and in Jewish theology.

I don’t think that penance and repentance are exactly synonyms. I see that most places a form of the Greek word ‘metanoia’ is used in the NT, it is translated ‘do penance’ in Douay-Rheims and Wycliffe Versions. Most other translations use ‘repent/ance.’ In the early centuries penance was a system of church discipline that kept people from communion from about 5-20 years while they would go through different stages (weepers, standers, kneelers, etc.)

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary -
Penance:

1 : an act of self-abasement, mortification, or devotion performed to show sorrow or repentance for sin

2 : a sacramental rite that is practiced in Roman, Eastern, and some Anglican churches and that consists of private confession, absolution, and a penance directed by the confessor

3 : something (as a hardship or penalty) resembling an act of penance (as in compensating for an offense)

Repent:

intransitive verb
1 : to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one’s life

2a : to feel regret or contrition
b : to change one’s mind

transitive verb
1: to cause to feel regret or contrition

2: to feel sorrow, regret, or contrition for

Metanoia:

: a transformative change of heart; especially : a spiritual conversion

OK. So, at the best, we can say that Augustine was referencing the notion of what happens when a person receives the sacrament of reconciliation and then subsequently sins again. We don’t quite know what he was saying, though.

He was saying that they can’t return to communion, but God could forgive them. It is annoying that the next page is missing from the preview.

 

[susanlo]

Susan I came across a great answer from Jimmy Aiken for you. Take a look at this:

youtube.com/watch?v=2sl4cQ7UfTs

When the caller asked about the torn veil it reminded me that you mentioned the veil in your previous post. He gives a great description that the tearing of the veil is referencing the end of the need for animal sacrifice, not that we can now confess our sins directly to God. I agree with him when he says "the interpretation of Matthew 27:51 is ambiguous and can be interpreted in various ways. However, it is not a good exegesis to take a passage like this with a more ambiguous meaning and interpret it in such a way that it makes it difficult to interpret the meaning of a straight forward passage like John 20:23.

Give it a listen and let me know what you think?

It is an interesting video. Thanks for sharing. I think that the breathing the spirit in John 20 is interesting because the apostles received the Holy Spirit later at Pentecost. They weren’t receiving the Holy Spirit in John 20:22. I read somewhere that the word breathe is the same word used in the Septuagint for God breathing life into Adam in Genesis 2:7. I forget where I read that now.
Here are some additional commentaries on John 20:23 - bibleapps.com/commentaries/john/20-23.htm

Are there records of the apostles taking confessions and absolving sins? Why was this centuries later that this process unfolded?

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think that penance and repentance are exactly synonyms.

Agreed; there is a whole series of words – in a variety of languages – that is in play. So, if you want to address a particular concept, you’ll need to justify why the particular word you’re using is applicable to the particular context you’re addressing. As I’ve shown, there are multiple words in the Hebrew and the Greek and the Latin… all of which make their way to the English in various ways.

I see that most places a form of the Greek word ‘metanoia’ is used in the NT, it is translated ‘do penance’ in Douay-Rheims and Wycliffe Versions. Most other translations use ‘repent/ance.’

Again, your analysis uses only addresses one Greek word and the way that this word is used in translations into English. That doesn’t address the notions in the entirety of the ways in which they appear in the Bible.

In the early centuries penance was a system of church discipline that kept people from communion from about 5-20 years while they would go through different stages (weepers, standers, kneelers, etc.)

As I’ve identified, that’s only one definition of the word ‘penance’.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

I’ve found that using the dictionary – which deals in general contexts – doesn’t always work well in particular contexts which have their own jargon. Theology is one of these particular contexts; attempting to use the dictionary generally works rather poorly. Nevertheless, your recourse to the dictionary shows that a range of definitions is possible. Moreover, you show that there are quite a few words in play in English – but you don’t demonstrate that these definitions map back (in target languages) to related concepts.

He was saying that they can’t return to communion, but God could forgive them. It is annoying that the next page is missing from the preview.

If we had the remainder of the chapter, you could make that claim. As it were, it’s not ‘annoying’ – it’s just that the claim you’re making is simply unsubstantiated.