Mutual recognition of Eastern/Oriental sacraments?

[Andrew Isaacs]

To what extent do the Eastern and Oriental communions recognize the validity of each others sacraments, particularly with respect to conversion (baptism/Chrismation).

From what I've heard, Roman Catholics typically recognize Eastern Orthodox mysteries, while Eastern Orthodox do not recognize RC sacraments (i.e. an EO could recieve Eucharist at an RC parish, but a RC would need to be re-baptized in order to recieve EO eucharist..correct me if I'm wrong). But how much mutual recognition of sacraments is there between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox?

Would an Oriental Orthodox be able to receive Eucharist at an EO Divine Liturgy and vice verse?

Thank you in advance,

A. Isaacs

[Owen]

Only by local economy. It has been the practice in the GOA for our bishops to permit communion of Oriental Orthodox who have no church of their own nearby to go to. When they do acquire a local parish, we send them on their way happily, if they haven't already converted.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

a RC would need to be re-baptized in order to recieve EO eucharist

The practice varies, but many jurisdictions do not re-baptize RCs. In the OCA, they are received by anointing.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Aidan Kimel]

Of interest is this recent statement by Archbishop Hilarion (http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/archbishop-hilarion-alfeev-on-catholic-sacraments/):

"If a Roman Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy, we receive him as a priest, and we do not re-ordain him. And that means that, de facto, we recognize the Mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church."

[Christophoros]

Of interest is this recent statement by Archbishop Hilarion (http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/archbishop-hilarion-alfeev-on-catholic-sacraments/):

"If a Roman Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy, we receive him as a priest, and we do not re-ordain him. And that means that, de facto, we recognize the Mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church."

This statement by Archbishop Hilarion has caused quite a stir among certain circles in the Russian Church, and should not be taken as authoritative in any way. I suspect what has happened in Russia is the extended and continuous application of economy has clouded the situation. To accept the ordination of non-Orthodox kat oikonomia is not the same as saying their sacraments are recognized per se. As Metropolitan Panteleimon of Tyroloe's canon law textbook, An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law, correctly states:

Mysteries perfomed by defrocked priests, or those ordained by a defrocked bishop, are not valid, however. Likewise, those mysteries performed by heretics are invalid, and anyone accepting them, especially ordination, must repeat them on their entry into the Orthodox Church, unless economy is applied.

In Christ,
Chris

[Michael Stickles]

This statement by Archbishop Hilarion has caused quite a stir among certain circles in the Russian Church, and should not be taken as authoritative in any way.

Not only that, I'm honestly not entirely certain if there is an authoritative statement out there. I found this on the OCA website's Q&A section, in response to a question about whether the OCA recognizes Roman Catholic orders and communion:



Concerning Roman Catholic orders: Within the OCA Roman Catholic clergy generally are received into the Orthodox Church through "vesting"; that is, they are not ordained anew. While there are some Orthodox Christians today who would not follow this practice, there is evidence that this was in fact the practice in Russia several centuries ago. One must also keep in mind that the practice of the Orthodox Church on this issue has been subject to change from time to time and place to place, often depending on situations appropriate to the setting.

Concerning the Eucharist: Many Orthodox Christians do view the Roman Catholic Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ; others today would not subscribe to this. The answer is linked to whether one believes that Roman Catholicism is "with grace" or "devoid of grace."

Concerning the "grace of the priesthood": This is partially answered in point 1 above. The answer to this is also intimately linked on whether the Orthodox view Roman Catholicism as a body that is "with grace" or "devoid of grace." Some Orthodox would say that Roman Catholic priests do possess grace; others would say that they do not. And I have encountered still others who would say that, upon conversion to Orthodoxy, the Holy Spirit "heals all that is infirm," a phrase found in the prayers of ordination and other sacramental prayers of the Orthodox Church. A thorough examination of this question would also require a preliminary discussion on the meaning of "grace," as the Orthodox definition of grace is quite distinct from "grace" as defined in Roman Catholic circles.


Seems like a long-winded way of saying "well, I don't know, we don't really agree with each other on that one."

As far as Oriental Orthodox sacraments, I haven't even found that much commentary. It's like we don't even know whether we know or don't know, y'know?

In Christ,
Michael

[Aidan Kimel]

This statement by Archbishop Hilarion has caused quite a stir among certain circles in the Russian Church, and should not be taken as authoritative in any way. I suspect what has happened in Russia is the extended and continuous application of economy has clouded the situation. To accept the ordination of non-Orthodox kat oikonomia is not the same as saying their sacraments are recognized per se.

I imagine that Archbishop's statement has been controversial, but the invocation of economy to justify the long-standing Russian practice of receiving Catholic priests by vesting and Catholic laymen by chrismation is also controversial. Archbishop Hilarion appears to stand with Fr Georges Florovsky (http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/crete-01-e.html) on these matters:


One can scarcely ascribe to the Church the power and the right, as it were, to convert the ‘has-not-been’ into the ‘has-been’, to change the meaningless into the valid, as Professor Diovuniotis expresses it (Church Quarterly Review, No.231 [April 1931], p.97), ‘in the order of economy.’ This would give a particular sharpness to the question whether it is possible to receive schismatic clergy ‘in their existing orders.’ In the Russian Church adherents from Roman Catholicism or from the Nestorians, etc., are received into communion ‘through recantation of heresy’, that is, through the sacrament of repentance. Clergy are given absolution by a bishop and thereby, the inhibition lying on a schismatic cleric is removed. One asks whether it is conceivable that in this delivery and absolution from sin there is also accomplished silently - and even secretly - baptism, confirmation, ordination as deacon or priest, sometimes even consecration as bishop, without any ‘form’ or clear and distinctive ‘external act’ which might enable us to notice and consider precisely what sacraments are being performed.

Here there is a double equivocation, both from the standpoint of motive and from the standpoint of the fact itself. Can one, in short, celebrate a sacrament by virtue of ‘intention’ alone and without some visible act? Of course not. Not because there belongs to the ‘form’ some self-sufficient or ‘magic’ effect, but precisely because in the celebration of a sacrament the ‘external act’ and the pouring-forth of grace are in substance indivisible and inseparable. Certainly, the Church is the ‘steward of grace’ and to her is given power to preserve and teach these gifts of grace. But the power of the Church does not extend to the very foundations of Christian existence. It is impossible to conceive that the Church might have the right, ‘in the order of economy’, to admit to the priestly function without ordination the clergy of schismatic confessions, even of those that have not preserved the ‘apostolic succession’, while remedying not only all defects but a complete lack of grace while granting power and recognition by means of an unexpressed ‘intention’.

These are interesting and complex questions, aren't they?

I suspect that here, as so often is the case, spiritual intuition and discernment precedes theological explanation and justification. One first decides whether the "re-baptism" and "re-ordination" of Catholics feels and seems right. If it doesn't, then one then must either advance an explanation for chrismation and vesting that seems plausible within one's ecclesiological and sacramental positions or begin to re-think one's ecclesiological and sacramental positions, as suggested by Florovsky.

[Jonathan Michael]

Today in Sheffield we had a liturgy which was attended by a Coptic priest, a deacon of the "British Orthodox Church" (which is an Oriental Orthodox church), and a Roman Catholic priest. None of them received communion. I know my priest is a chaplain at the local university for "Orthodox" Christians, and so receives a few inquiries from Ethiopian and other Oriental Orthodox Christians and gives pastoral care - but again I don't think this extends to giving communion.

Now I think of it, last year we did receive a Coptic priest into the Church through Christmation; he was then ordained as reader, then deacon, and finally - I think - as an Orthodox priest in short order (literally within a few weeks of his reception). As a personal opinion I do believe that if through economy it is decided a priest from another tradition is to become an Orthodox priest, it is best done in this "official" way, rather than forgoing the Sacraments of ordination. If it is done the latter way then it becomes easier to "logically" deduce that other churches eucharists are valid, as Archbishop Hilarion appears to have done.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

One critical shortcoming in much present day commentary and even pastoral practice results from the habit of basing 'recognition' on an absolute standard.

This is incorrect since it overlooks the patristic principle of always looking at the ecclesiological/spiritual state of whatever church or person you are 'recognizing'.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Christophoros]

Relevant to the question of the Sacred Mysteries of those outside the Church is a more recent quote from the same Archbishop Hilarion, who was speaking in Ukraine on those who have joined various non-canonical "autocephalous" Ukrainian Orthodox groups:

"Beware of pastors who leave the Church and set up their graceless communities, thus bringing confusion to the souls of common people. They put a church attire, but Christ does not act through their hands. There are no sacraments in these communities."

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2009/11/27/news9240/

[Kris]

The Oriental Orthodox differ from other groups in that they have never been received by baptism in any jurisdiction as far as I'm aware. This is not true of Roman Catholics, Anglicans or those from the Protestant sects.

[Paul Cowan]

Why might this be? I have attended local OOC liturgies and they are remarkably similar to ours. Much more so than PC or RC services. Why would they not be given the same reception into the OC as another faith? The RC seem to recognize the 7 councils more so than the OOC, but the RC are also more "off the beaten path" than the OOC is. Is it perhaps the OOC dont' convert like the RC and PC and hence don't have to face this issue? Or is it their baptism is a three fold immerson and we recognize it, but require them to recant some of their other beliefs?

Paul

[Olga]

Paul, my understanding is that, in general, OOCs are received into the EOC by confession only, though there may be cases of reception by chrismation as well. I have not heard of routine reception by baptism (triple immersion). I welcome correction on this.

[Seda S.]

From the 95th rule of the Council in Trullo


And the Manichæans, and Valentinians and Marcionites and all of similar heresies must give certificates and anathematize each his own heresy, and also Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Severus, and the other chiefs of such heresies, and those who think with them, and all the aforesaid heresies; and so they become partakers of the holy Communion.I don't know how it is done in other EO Churches, but in the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia when they accept the Armenians, they follow the above rule of Trullo and the Decision of the Holy Synod, 1840.II.20,according to which the Armenians are accepted only through repentance and there is no need to ask for permission for each such case. They are accepted through some order or rite of joining (Чин присоединения армян), in which the priest asks questions like these, "Do you wish to anathematize this and this?", the answer is "Yes, I wish", "Do you wish to join the Orthodox Church?", the answer: "Yes, I wish", and so on.

I think, the same rule must be used also for the members of the other Oriental Churches.

[Ryan]

Isabel Hapgood's Service Book gives the following question for the reception of converts from "the Armenian confession":

The convert from the Armenian Confession is questioned as follows by the
Bishop :

Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that in our Lord Jesus
Christ there are not two natures, Divine and human, but one only;
the human nature being swallowed up by the Divine ?

Answer: I do.

[Seda S.]

Isabel Hapgood's Service Book gives the following question for the reception of converts from "the Armenian confession":

When I read this question and the questions in the old Russian text of the rite I mentioned in the last post, I started to smile. I'll explain why. Because they tell us to deny something which we don't believe, or tell us to refuse those teachers which are neither teachers for us, nor saints. For example, if it were me who was asked the question, "Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that in our Lord Jesus Christ there are not two natures, Divine and human, but one only; the human nature being swallowed up by the Divine ?", I would not know what to answer. Why? Because I do not deny that the Lord has both Divine and human natures, at the same time has one nature from both, and I never confess that His humanity is swallowed up by His Divinity. But I confess that in the union of both natures the latter are not confused or mixed but preserve their properties. Even about the will and actions of the Lord the Armenian Church confesses both two wills and actions, and one. So what to do????? :)

The following sentence is from a hymn from our official Hymnal and in some editions of our Hoursebook it is published to be said in case there is no Hymnal at the hand of the priest.

The Word without beginning....... and in the defined time was born as God and man.

Etc etc...

All three stanzas of this hymn end with the words, "God and man".

This might be like even as Nestorianism, if understood in a wrong way :)

Don't take this my post very seriously, just 2 pennies, nothing more.

[Seda S.]

Even about the will and actions of the Lord the Armenian Church confesses both two wills and actions, and one.

Oh, I noticed that this my sentence is wrong in the way it is written: 'both two and one'- nonsense! I was and am unable to explain correctly with my own words what I wanted and meant :(. Sorry for that.

[Christophoros]

A came across a good response to Archbishop Hilarion's statement regarding the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments from Fr. Andrew Phillips, a ROCOR priest from Great Britain:

http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/rcsacs.htm

In should be noted that the article originally had an introduction which has since been removed by the author, but is still available on the Google archive:

Introduction: Controversy

The interview with Archbishop Hilarion (Alfeyev), published in ‘Der Spiegel’ on 15 December, if true, states his personal belief in the ‘validity’ of Roman Catholic ‘sacraments’. It has scandalised many in many Local Churches and many Orthodox, especially former Roman Catholics, have been very upset. His private views are most certainly not the views of any bishop or priest of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

Although damage has been caused by thesecomments, we will not repeat here what has been said about him, but will remain moderate and respectful. From bad we can always make good. From what has been said we can at least take this opportunity, yet again, to explain what the view of the (Orthodox) Church is of Roman Catholic ‘sacraments’.

In Christ,
Chris

[Grace Singh]

The convert from the Armenian Confession is questioned as follows by the
Bishop :

Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that in our Lord Jesus
Christ there are not two natures, Divine and human, but one only;
the human nature being swallowed up by the Divine ?

Answer: I do.

is this actually what the Armenian Apostolic Church confesses, though?

i had understood that the AAC teaches that Christ is of One nature, both human and divine, the two natures united (miaphysis), as opposed to the monophysitic doctrine described in the above confession.

it would seem that if a bishop is asking the convert to renounce a basic teaching of his old church, which is not even truly reflective of that church's doctrines, that there is not as much grounds for mutual recognition as there could be.

not that Wikipedia is a great source, but there is a small blurb on the issue here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Apostolic_Church#Miaphysitism_versus_mono physitism).

[Seda S.]

is this actually what the Armenian Apostolic Church confesses, though?

i had understood that the AAC teaches that Christ is of One nature, both human and divine, the two natures united (miaphysis), as opposed to the monophysitic doctrine described in the above confession.

it would seem that if a bishop is asking the convert to renounce a basic teaching of his old church, which is not even truly reflective of that church's doctrines, that there is not as much grounds for mutual recognition as there could be.
.


Mutual recognition... It is only important that God may recognize us when the Great Day of 'recognition' comes.
If Paul pleased men, he would not be God's man.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Grace,

We receive people into Orthodoxy through many different ways- by confession, through baptism & chrismation, by chrismation only, or by the services you mention. This is done according to the discretion and discernment of the bishop & priest who receives the person. Any number of different people from one confessional background (let's say Lutheran) could be received in many different ways.

About the service you mention- a priest could use this to be assured of the faith of the person coming into Orthodoxy.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Grace Singh]

Dear Grace,

We receive people into Orthodoxy through many different ways- by confession, through baptism & chrismation, by chrismation only, or by the services you mention. This is done according to the discretion and discernment of the bishop & priest who receives the person. Any number of different people from one confessional background (let's say Lutheran) could be received in many different ways.

About the service you mention- a priest could use this to be assured of the faith of the person coming into Orthodoxy.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Father ~

yet would the conversion to an EOC be undertaken with the understanding that the formerly Armenian Orthodox person was converting from Orthodoxy to Orthodoxy, or from heterodoxy to Orthodoxy?

the specific confession cited asks the layperson if they renounce a certain heterodox position (monophysis), which is not something they would actually have to renounce, coming from the AAC.

[Father David Moser]

yet would the conversion to an EOC be undertaken with the understanding that the formerly Armenian Orthodox person was converting from Orthodoxy to Orthodoxy, or from heterodoxy to Orthodoxy?

Having just received an Armenian mother and daughter who had been living in Iraq (Church of the East), I can tell you that before the reception, we discussed the differences between their former confession and the Orthodox Church. True the two traditions are very close (actually the Armenian and Iraqi traditions are dogmatically further apart than Orthodoxy is to either), however, I was satisfied that they realized there were differences in belief. The reception into the Church was not so much concerned with dogmatics as it was with location (they are refugees from Armenia to Iraq in the last generation and from Iraq to the US in this one), however, they accepted the differences in confession easily. (These are, btw, very educated people and so aware of what they believe and what the differences are).

Fr David Moser

[Grace Singh]

Having just received an Armenian mother and daughter who had been living in Iraq (Church of the East), I can tell you that before the reception, we discussed the differences between their former confession and the Orthodox Church. True the two traditions are very close (actually the Armenian and Iraqi traditions are dogmatically further apart than Orthodoxy is to either), however, I was satisfied that they realized there were differences in belief. The reception into the Church was not so much concerned with dogmatics as it was with location (they are refugees from Armenia to Iraq in the last generation and from Iraq to the US in this one), however, they accepted the differences in confession easily. (These are, btw, very educated people and so aware of what they believe and what the differences are).

Fr David Moser

ok, thank you, Sir. that does answer my question. so as of now, the EOC and OOC do not officially recognize one another's sacrements?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Father ~

yet would the conversion to an EOC be undertaken with the understanding that the formerly Armenian Orthodox person was converting from Orthodoxy to Orthodoxy, or from heterodoxy to Orthodoxy?

the specific confession cited asks the layperson if they renounce a certain heterodox position (monophysis), which is not something they would actually have to renounce, coming from the AAC.

Well, this is something you would have to first sit down with the person to discuss. Some of those whom I have met from the various Oriental churches have held various beliefs that would be a problem. For example not accepting the Council of Chalcedon is fundamental for us and should be non-negotiable for someone wanting enter our church.

However a priest also needs the guidance of his bishop about this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Grace Singh]

obviously, the EO Churches are not the RCC.

i have read on here though that the RCC and EO churches respect and recognize one another's sacrements. is this true?

here is an interesting thread on RCC and OO relations (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=6349428#post6349428), from Catholic Answers Forums. i gather from the answers given that the RCC and OO accept one another's Christologies, and that an Oriental Orthodox may actually participate in Catholic rites?

if this is the case, how far off is a more broad and inter-ecclesial unity? i'm not meaning to imply a kind of blurred, Christian melting pot, but a greater freedom of OO, EO, and RC Christians to fellowship, pray, and take the sacrements at one another's churches.

i realize many other things would have to happen across Churches, but i found the above thread interesting to say the least.

[Andreas Moran]

A came across a good response to Archbishop Hilarion's statement regarding the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments from Fr. Andrew Phillips, a ROCOR priest from Great Britain:

http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/rcsacs.htm

In should be noted that the article originally had an introduction which has since been removed by the author, but is still available on the Google archive:

Introduction: Controversy

The interview with Archbishop Hilarion (Alfeyev), published in ‘Der Spiegel’ on 15 December, if true, states his personal belief in the ‘validity’ of Roman Catholic ‘sacraments’. It has scandalised many in many Local Churches and many Orthodox, especially former Roman Catholics, have been very upset. His private views are most certainly not the views of any bishop or priest of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

Although damage has been caused by thesecomments, we will not repeat here what has been said about him, but will remain moderate and respectful. From bad we can always make good. From what has been said we can at least take this opportunity, yet again, to explain what the view of the (Orthodox) Church is of Roman Catholic ‘sacraments’.

In Christ,
Chris

It has been reported that during Matins on Saturday 13 February at a church in Ordynka, Moscow, Metropolitan Hilarion was subjected to cries of 'heretic!' from some in the congregation.

[Christophoros]

Of interest is this recent statement by Archbishop Hilarion (http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/archbishop-hilarion-alfeev-on-catholic-sacraments/):

"If a Roman Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy, we receive him as a priest, and we do not re-ordain him. And that means that, de facto, we recognize the Mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church."

The German Diocese of the ROCOR has published an official response to these statements by Archbishop Hilarion:

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/onecumi.htm

A summary is provided in the fifth paragraph:

In order to avoid any possible misunderstandings we feel obliged to comment on the recent utterances of Archbishop Hilarion, in an interview with the magazine ‘Der Spiegel’ No 51, 2009, in which he said: ‘The differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism do not have a fundamental character. We recognise the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. If a Roman Catholic priest joins the Orthodox Church, we receive him as a priest’. We are obliged to explain that the word ‘we’ cannot here mean the whole of the Russian Church. It relates personally to Archbishop Hilarion and those who think like him on this matter.

[Christophoros]

From an interview with Mentropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, posted on the official Moscow Patriarchate website ( http://www.mospat.ru/en/2010/10/06/news27421/ ):

- Did you discuss the recognition of ‘sacraments’ administered by schismatics? What is your attitude to this issue?

- This issue has been repeatedly discussed both in private talks of the Commission members and at the meeting. The Church does not recognize and cannot recognize as grace-giving and salvific any ‘sacraments’ including Baptism administered in a schism. This is a common point of view confirmed by many testimonies of the church Tradition. ‘Recognition of schismatics’ sacraments’ is an altogether improper expression which can be only misleading. The point here is not a diplomatic manifestation of politeness but attempts to impose on the Orthodox the recognition of a real presence of saving grace outside the Church. For the Church, the authenticity of Sacraments is a matter of salvation. It is impossible and senseless to speak of ‘recognition of sacraments’ administered by schismatics who stay outside the Church and have no communion with her.

However, as His Beatitude Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine, has stressed, ‘the schismatics’ return to the saving fold of the Church can put life into their graceless actions’. When schismatics come back to the Church, it is a normal practice to embrace holy Baptism. But if the Church deems it necessary and if it is helpful for healing a schism, she can in some cases provide a different procedure, as was the case on repeated occasions in history.

The Church will never recognize schismatics’ ordinations, and all the clergy who come back from a schism should be ordained, though it is not at all necessary to make it in public. As far as the Sacrament of Baptism is concerned, it is impossible to administer it to all the laity coming back from a schism. Indeed, some of them do not even remember in which church they were baptized, canonical or schismatic.

Besides, there are situation where, for instance, a schismatic priest comes back to the Church together with his parishioners. The subsequent ‘re-baptism’ of the parishioners he had baptized earlier cannot be stipulated for his return, just as a ‘re-marriage’ of those whom he had married earlier or ‘re-funeral’ of all the dead over whom the burial service had been said before. It is impossible to force a priest who was now ordained in a canonical Church to return to their parishioners and say to them: ‘Everything I have done here for ten (or twenty) years was a deception, and only now I will begin doing everything in the real way’. People will not understand it and will not believe him. For all I know, they can think he decided to get the money for the second time for the sacraments he had already administered.

It is about such situations that it is stated that the Church can breathe a grace-giving power into the graceless actions of the schismatics and to inform with grace what had been only an empty and graceless form. In other words, the question of recognizing schistatics’ sacraments is not posed at all out of context of their return from the schism. But the question of a procedure of acceptance form a schism can and must be posed. And here, depending on the situation, various approaches can be applied.

[Kosta]

From the 95th rule of the Council in Trullo

I don't know how it is done in other EO Churches, but in the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia when they accept the Armenians, they follow the above rule of Trullo and the Decision of the Holy Synod, 1840.II.20,according to which the Armenians are accepted only through repentance and there is no need to ask for permission for each such case. They are accepted through some order or rite of joining (Чин присоединения армян), in which the priest asks questions like these, "Do you wish to anathematize this and this?", the answer is "Yes, I wish", "Do you wish to join the Orthodox Church?", the answer: "Yes, I wish", and so on.

I think, the same rule must be used also for the members of the other Oriental Churches.

The canon of Trullo also would apply to the Assyrians. The whole basis of this canon, is the mentioned groups have seperated from the body, but still retain the first 2 councils, have the same understanding of the Trinity, and maintain the proper formula of baptism in each name of the Trinity AND triple immersion.