Who is Vladimir Moss?? is he an orthodox Christian??

[LBK]

I'm pretty sure he's a member of HOTCA which is an Old Calendarist synod. While I have enjoyed reading some of his writings on church history I don't like most everything I've read of his theological works.

He's with the Russian True Orthodox Church now.

Which version? There are several. 

[Jonathan Gress]

I'm pretty sure he's a member of HOTCA which is an Old Calendarist synod. While I have enjoyed reading some of his writings on church history I don't like most everything I've read of his theological works.

He's with the Russian True Orthodox Church now.

Which version? There are several. 

Not with that title there aren't. To be clear, he's with the synod headed by Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk.

[LBK]

I'm pretty sure he's a member of HOTCA which is an Old Calendarist synod. While I have enjoyed reading some of his writings on church history I don't like most everything I've read of his theological works.

He's with the Russian True Orthodox Church now.

Which version? There are several. 

Not with that title there aren't. To be clear, he's with the synod headed by Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk.

Yup, just another splinter group not in communion with anybody else. 

[searn77]

I'm pretty sure he's a member of HOTCA which is an Old Calendarist synod. While I have enjoyed reading some of his writings on church history I don't like most everything I've read of his theological works.

He's with the Russian True Orthodox Church now.

When did he go to the RTOC?

[LBK]

I'm pretty sure he's a member of HOTCA which is an Old Calendarist synod. While I have enjoyed reading some of his writings on church history I don't like most everything I've read of his theological works.

He's with the Russian True Orthodox Church now.

When did he go to the RTOC?

Does it matter? His writings well reflect the schismatic, one-man-band mentality. Irrelevant at best, dangerous at worst.

[Shanghaiski]

I don't think there's much wrong woth Augustinianism.  It's how Protestants interpret St. Augustine that's the problem.  I think St. Augustine in his cultural context is highly misunderstood.  If we can have a separate discussion about St. Augustine and where people make comments against his doctrine of Original Sin, I can show an alternate interpretation based on St. Augustine himself.

I would think "Western Captivity" would be a lack of a tradition of theosis or even anti-theosis, or the use of juridical language to such an extreme in exclusion of other more ontological understandings of salvation.  But in combatting Western Captivity, I wouldn't exclude Western or Latin tradition of soteriology, as I believe it is complimentary to the East.  In fact, in my opinion, a lot of Western juridical terminology might even be Alexandrian in origin to begin with, i.e. "Eastern".

Amen.

Verily the loathers of Blessed Augustine shall be made speechless as fish.

[Shanghaiski]

Do you know that the church in his homeland, present-day Algeria, became extinct under Islam? Is that the Church, against Hades would not prevail?

What moronic babble is this?

Several parts of Greece had to be re-evangelized, having been overrun by barbarians and Mohammedeans, even before the year 1000. The Church of Africa is bathed in the blood of martyrs, from the beginning to the end. They will witness against you.

[Alpo]

Marxism is Protestantism minus God

I'd like to hear more about this. Last I checked Protestantism was about justification by Faith only, Sola Scriptura, an emphasis on invisible church and priesthood of all believers and all that. What those have to do with Marxism?

[Iconodule]

Marxism is Protestantism minus God

I'd like to hear more about this. Last I checked Protestantism was about justification by Faith only, Sola Scriptura, an emphasis on invisible church and priesthood of all believers and all that. What those have to do with Marxism?

It's a flashy rhetorical gesture that's supposed to impress everyone into marveling how everything evil comes from the West. You're not supposed to actually think about it or question it.

[Jonathan Gress]

I'm pretty sure he's a member of HOTCA which is an Old Calendarist synod. While I have enjoyed reading some of his writings on church history I don't like most everything I've read of his theological works.

He's with the Russian True Orthodox Church now.

When did he go to the RTOC?

Last year I think

[Jonathan Gress]

I'm pretty sure he's a member of HOTCA which is an Old Calendarist synod. While I have enjoyed reading some of his writings on church history I don't like most everything I've read of his theological works.

He's with the Russian True Orthodox Church now.

Which version? There are several. 

Not with that title there aren't. To be clear, he's with the synod headed by Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk.

Yup, just another splinter group not in communion with anybody else. 

Right. Because it's so important to be in communion with everyone regardless of doctrinal confession or canonical regularity.

[Ebor]

I'm pretty sure he's a member of HOTCA which is an Old Calendarist synod. While I have enjoyed reading some of his writings on church history I don't like most everything I've read of his theological works.

He's with the Russian True Orthodox Church now.

When did he go to the RTOC?

Does it matter? His writings well reflect the schismatic, one-man-band mentality. Irrelevant at best, dangerous at worst.

Unfortunately they get used sometimes as has shown up here with things like his egregious mis-understanding/misuse of the "death-bed vision" of St. Edward the Confessor for example.   I would not trust any of his history without checking other reliable sources just for starters.

He has been through several jurisdictions over the years.  As stated in an interview that is still on-line he started in ROCOR, then went to ROAC (Metropolitan Valentine). But he left there some time back for at least one other possibly before the RTOC.

[minasoliman]

I'm pretty sure he's a member of HOTCA which is an Old Calendarist synod. While I have enjoyed reading some of his writings on church history I don't like most everything I've read of his theological works.

He's with the Russian True Orthodox Church now.

When did he go to the RTOC?

Does it matter? His writings well reflect the schismatic, one-man-band mentality. Irrelevant at best, dangerous at worst.

I don't think you should underestimate Moss' writings.  With some reason, one can give Moss the same respect the Church gave Tertullian.  Even though he joined a schismatic group, he still has some valuable writings that are very very relevant and needs to be addressed and respected.

[jah777]

And just to be clear, Dr Moss's writings are not necessarily representative of True Orthodoxy.

And hardly anything that calls itself "True Orthodoxy" is in any way representative of the actual Orthodox Church 

[Gorazd]

I don't think you should underestimate Moss' writings.  With some reason, one can give Moss the same respect the Church gave Tertullian.  Even though he joined a schismatic group, he still has some valuable writings that are very very relevant and needs to be addressed and respected.

Whatever one may think about Tertullian (that question deserves a thread of its own), Tertullian was a member of the canonical church for quite a long time and wrote ome important apologetics, Moss was in the MP for just 3 years, then went to the then uncanonical ROCOR, and finally went on to some small groups ... Also, I do not see Moss' merits for the Church. His writings mostly seem to consist of calling others heretics? So I do not see him as a "respectable writer".

I'd like to hear more about this. Last I checked Protestantism was about justification by Faith only, Sola Scriptura, an emphasis on invisible church and priesthood of all believers and all that. What those have to do with Marxism?

Now take out God... Proletarians are good by social status alone, sola scriptura gets replaced by a belief in marxism with private property as original sin and Communism as a future paradise, worthy sacrifice now, to be built by a revolution, and the priesthood of all believers becomes the revolution of the masses, ridding themselves or the bourgeois and noble elites. (Lenin reintroduced a sort of "priesthood" though by ascribing a leading role to "professional revolutionaries").

[jckstraw72]

I don't think you should underestimate Moss' writings.  With some reason, one can give Moss the same respect the Church gave Tertullian.  Even though he joined a schismatic group, he still has some valuable writings that are very very relevant and needs to be addressed and respected.

Whatever one may think about Tertullian (that question deserves a thread of its own), Tertullian was a member of the canonical church for quite a long time and wrote ome important apologetics, Moss was in the MP for just 3 years, then went to the then uncanonical ROCOR, and finally went on to some small groups ... Also, I do not see Moss' merits for the Church. His writings mostly seem to consist of calling others heretics? So I do not see him as a "respectable writer".

I'd like to hear more about this. Last I checked Protestantism was about justification by Faith only, Sola Scriptura, an emphasis on invisible church and priesthood of all believers and all that. What those have to do with Marxism?

Now take out God... Proletarians are good by social status alone, sola scriptura gets replaced by a belief in marxism with private property as original sin and Communism as a future paradise, worthy sacrifice now, to be built by a revolution, and the priesthood of all believers becomes the revolution of the masses, ridding themselves or the bourgeois and noble elites. (Lenin reintroduced a sort of "priesthood" though by ascribing a leading role to "professional revolutionaries").

he doesnt just call ppl heretics (sure, perhaps he should be more reserved on using that term) - he attempts to show why he thinks they are heretics and thereby give what he believes is the true Orthodox teaching.

[jmbejdl]

Moss was in the MP for just 3 years, then went to the then uncanonical ROCOR, and finally went on to some small groups ... Also, I do not see Moss' merits for the Church. His writings mostly seem to consist of calling others heretics? So I do not see him as a "respectable writer".

I don't know much about Moss except that I don't like his writings and have noted like you his tendency to label all and sundry a heretic, but assuming that you mean he went to the ROCOR that is now reconciled with the MP rather than some other jurisdiction using the same acronym, I think that you're wrong to describe it as uncanonical. It was certainly never out of communion with all the other Orthodox churches - many but not all. I'm not entirely certain, of course, what you mean by uncanconical in this instance but ROCOR's position was never comparable to that of the various True Orthodox groups or HOCNA

James

[jah777]

he doesnt just call ppl heretics (sure, perhaps he should be more reserved on using that term) - he attempts to show why he thinks they are heretics and thereby give what he believes is the true Orthodox teaching.

His articles and books do provide detailed explanations for certain positions of his, and sometimes he is correct theologically.  However, the OP was in reference to remarks about Mr. Robinsons' presentation of salvation as heresy, and so far I do not think anyone has provided a link to Mr. Moss' developed explanation behind this remark, which is why it is hard to comment at length concerning his remark.  If anyone is aware of such a detailed explanation from Mr. Moss regarding Mr. Robinson's brief video, then someone please (re)post it.

[Jonathan Gress]

And just to be clear, Dr Moss's writings are not necessarily representative of True Orthodoxy.

And hardly anything that calls itself "True Orthodoxy" is in any way representative of the actual Orthodox Church 

Sez you

[Jonathan Gress]

Actually, I haven't found anything addressing Robinson in Moss's books, either the one about Fr Romanides or the one about the "new soteriology" (which critiques similar theological trends in both the Russian and Greek churches in the 20th century).

[Gorazd]

assuming that you mean he went to the ROCOR that is now reconciled with the MP rather than some other jurisdiction using the same acronym, I think that you're wrong to describe it as uncanonical. It was certainly never out of communion with all the other Orthodox churches - many but not all.

Well, it is a special case: it was in communion with Serbia and apparently Jerusalem. But it was not one of the canonical churches mentioned in prayer, for example at a patriarchal liturgy or the Sunday of Orthodoxy. The Syriac Orthodox Church, that is the OO Church of Antioch, also is in communion with the EO Church of Antioch. Still, no one would call the Syriac Church a canonical EO Church.


 

I'm not entirely certain, of course, what you mean by uncanconical in this instance but ROCOR's position was never comparable to that of the various True Orthodox groups or HOCNA

I am glad that most of ROCOR made it back into communion with the Church. But there were tendencies, such as refusing to follow the Paris Exarchate and Finland in going under Constantinople, because the New Calendar was considered so heretical, that even if they were allowed to keep the old one for themselves, they wouldn't ever go under a NC, in their understanding, heretical, patriarch. At times ROCOR was in communion with the canonical Serbs, but with uncanonical Greek Od Calendarists... etc. And it is this hardline "anti-modernist" current in ROCOR that Moss comes from. That is why he was one of those in ROCOR who didn't go along with the 2007 reunion.

Strangely enough, he is one of those who condemn the New Calendar, at the same time preferring western captivity theology to the patristic theology of Fr. John Romanides.

[orthonorm]

Who knew this thread would be so great?

Awesome work by Gorazd and Iconodule.

EDIT: Walter this is the best of the all the dozen or so threads you've started since being here.

[Jonathan Gress]

Strangely enough, he is one of those who condemn the New Calendar, at the same time preferring western captivity theology to the patristic theology of Fr. John Romanides.

Not that I necessarily endorse this view, but Moss argues that in fact it is Fr Romanides' theology that is Western. I won't try to reproduce his arguments here, but I'll just say that the premise of your statement is debatable.

[Iconodule]

Now take out God... Proletarians are good by social status alone,

I would be interested to see if you can find in Marx any statement to the effect of "Proletarians are good." Such a sentiment has no meaning in his historical materialism.

sola scriptura gets replaced by a belief in marxism

That's not even close to a parallel, try again.

with private property as original sin and Communism as a future paradise, worthy sacrifice now, to be built by a revolution, and the priesthood of all believers becomes the revolution of the masses,

Original sin, paradise, and priesthood of all believers are general Christian concepts, not Protestant ones.

Actually, for Marx, "original sin" would probably be agriculture. Try again.

Marxism is just Orthodoxy without God. I'll prove it. The Marxists replace Holy Tradition with "class consciousness" and communism as a guiding, latent tendency throughout history, operating mostly unconsciously in various social movements . The Catholic Church is the Internationalist Communist Party, and in the parousia of communism, everyone is in the party, and, as communism is the final stage of history, its kingdom shall have no end. Icons full of bearded men are replaced by socialist realist paintings full of bearded men. I've even had experience with Marxist groups openly talking about "communist mysticism" (read: hesychasm). Tombs of Lenin/ Mao/ Ho= relics of saints. Obviously Marxism is just godless Orthodoxy. Prove me wrong- I DARE YOU.

[Iconodule]

The concept of "Western Captivity" is 95% BS. There, I said it.

[Gorazd]

Iconodule,

Original sin is not an Orthodox concept. Ancestral sin is.

Paradise in the sense of a future life in material wealth is not an Orthodox concept. Beholding the Glory of God is.

The Priesthood of all Believers is an Orthodox concept, but it is complimentary with the ordained threefold ministry. If you take the Priesthood of all Believers without a special priesthood, you get the sin of Korah.

Marx was raised Protestant (United Church of Prussia). His ideas of eliminating the ruling class and masses taking over are unthinkable without the Reformation.

And one more point to show why Marxism could not have sprung from Orthodoxy: In Orthodoxy, there is ascetism and renounciation of the world. In Protestantism, the door is wide open to enjoy the pleasures of this world, since your works don't count anyway. That's how it was in the socialist countries btw, getting good jobs, privileges etc. was by faith alone (i.e. adherence to the official ideology). Whether you did a good job did not matter at all.


PS: I am not surprised. You want to bring us back into Western captivity, so basically you're trying to deny that there is any problem with that at all.

[Iconodule]

Original sin is not an Orthodox concept. Ancestral sin is.

They're the exact same thing. Get your head out of modern pop-theologians and start studying the Fathers. And, if you're going to critique Marx or Luther or Calvin, I recommend actually learning about what their ideas were. This is often best accomplished by actually reading what they and their followers wrote. Just a thought.

Paradise in the sense of a future life in material wealth is not an Orthodox concept. Beholding the Glory of God is.

Protestants also think of paradise as beholding the glory of God. Next...

The Priesthood of all Believers is an Orthodox concept, but it is complimentary with the ordained threefold ministry. If you take the Priesthood of all Believers without a special priesthood, you get the sin of Korah.

But not the sin of Protestants, who generally have ordained clergy. Next...

Marx was raised Protestant (United Church of Prussia).

Lenin and Stalin were raised Orthodox. RUH ROH. Next...

His ideas of eliminating the ruling class and masses taking over are unthinkable without the Reformation.

They are unthinkable without capitalism. Capitalism, being very adaptable, has arisen in places with have nothing at all to do with the reformation.

And one more point to show why Marxism could not have sprung from Orthodoxy:

If you're seriously trying to disprove my argument, give it up. It wasn't meant to be serious. However, it is every bit as valid as your argument of Marxism being "godless Protestantism" ie not valid at all.

In Protestantism, the door is wide open to enjoy the pleasures of this world, since your works don't count anyway.

Proving that you have no conception of Protestantism apart from strawmen. Take a break from the cartoon world for at least a few minutes, please.

That's how it was in the socialist countries btw, getting good jobs, privileges etc. was by faith alone (i.e. adherence to the official ideology). Whether you did a good job did not matter at all.

Basically you have no idea what you're talking about. You haven't the faintest familiarity with the communist movements or the experiences of people in communist states.

Whether the subject is Marxism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism... you don't have a clue. Your disparaging of the North African church and your insulting of their martyrs and saints is a good indicator of how far apart your attitude is from Orthodoxy.

PS: I am not surprised. You want to bring us back into Western captivity, so basically you're trying to deny that there is any problem with that at all.

Yes, I am preparing my tome in defence of Papal supremacy, purgatory, and filioque right now. Stay tuned.

[Iconodule]

The real "Western Captivity" consists of a handful of modern Orthodox who have basically embraced Orientalism to make their own tradition inscrutable and "mysterious". They thereby can avoid the complexities and difficulties of engaging in a nuanced discussion in favor of dazzling generalities about the "Western mindset."

[Gorazd]

It's really not that difficult to understand the differences between true Patristic Orthodox theology and Western capitivity theology:

One teaches that we are all born into a world of sin, the other one teaches that we are sinners because we are born.

One teaches that salvation is healing from sin through cooperation with the uncreated Divine Grace, eventually coming into theosis, that we become by Grace what God is by nature. The other one teaches that salvation is a legal act, reconciling us with a wrathful God.

One teaches that we are to worship in the Spirit and the Truth, and Scriptures, writings of the Fathers, Council texts etc are witnesses of that Truth, which is Jesus Christ. The other one considers the texts themselves to be the Truth.

One is prayer without ceasing, the other one is rationaist brain acrobatics.

One is the faith of the Apostles and Fathers, the other one is Roman Catholicism without pope and filioque, or eastern rite high-church Protestantism (Peter the Great's synod is the best example for that).

[biro]

I don't know how you can judge the quality of another person's prayer. Can you read minds all of a sudden?

[Iconodule]

It's really not that difficult to understand the differences between true Patristic Orthodox theology and Western capitivity theology:

One teaches that we are all born into a world of sin, the other one teaches that we are sinners because we are born.

One teaches that salvation is healing from sin through cooperation with the uncreated Divine Grace, eventually coming into theosis, that we become by Grace what God is by nature. The other one teaches that salvation is a legal act, reconciling us with a wrathful God.

One teaches that we are to worship in the Spirit and the Truth, and Scriptures, writings of the Fathers, Council texts etc are witnesses of that Truth, which is Jesus Christ. The other one considers the texts themselves to be the Truth.

One is prayer without ceasing, the other one is rationaist brain acrobatics.

One is the faith of the Apostles and Fathers, the other one is Roman Catholicism without pope and filioque, or eastern rite high-church Protestantism (Peter the Great's synod is the best example for that).

Thank you for illustrating my point so well.

[jckstraw72]

The real "Western Captivity" consists of a handful of modern Orthodox who have basically embraced Orientalism to make their own tradition inscrutable and "mysterious". They thereby can avoid the complexities and difficulties of engaging in a nuanced discussion in favor of dazzling generalities about the "Western mindset."

God bless you! im glad im not the only one who sees this.

[Jonathan Gress]

V Moss has also written plenty about the evils of Papism. His theology may be Westernizing, but he's not exactly an open sympathizer with the West.

[Gorazd]

Thank you for illustrating my point so well.

And that point is? That we should "scrutinise" our own tradition? I have a better idea: Let us pray.


"He who attains true prayer and love makes no discrimination between things
and sees no difference between the righteous man and the sinner. He loves them
all and condemns no one, just as God lets the sun shine and the rain fall both
upon the just and the unjust."
St. Niketas Stethatos

[Alpo]

It's really not that difficult to understand the differences between true Patristic Orthodox theology and Western capitivity theology:

One teaches that we are all born into a world of sin, the other one teaches that we are sinners because we are born.

One teaches that salvation is healing from sin through cooperation with the uncreated Divine Grace, eventually coming into theosis, that we become by Grace what God is by nature. The other one teaches that salvation is a legal act, reconciling us with a wrathful God.

One teaches that we are to worship in the Spirit and the Truth, and Scriptures, writings of the Fathers, Council texts etc are witnesses of that Truth, which is Jesus Christ. The other one considers the texts themselves to be the Truth.

One is prayer without ceasing, the other one is rationaist brain acrobatics.

One is the faith of the Apostles and Fathers, the other one is Roman Catholicism without pope and filioque, or eastern rite high-church Protestantism (Peter the Great's synod is the best example for that).

I believe in all of these and fail to see the dichotomy.

[augustin717]

It's really not that difficult to understand the differences between true Patristic Orthodox theology and Western capitivity theology:

One teaches that we are all born into a world of sin, the other one teaches that we are sinners because we are born.

One teaches that salvation is healing from sin through cooperation with the uncreated Divine Grace, eventually coming into theosis, that we become by Grace what God is by nature. The other one teaches that salvation is a legal act, reconciling us with a wrathful God.

One teaches that we are to worship in the Spirit and the Truth, and Scriptures, writings of the Fathers, Council texts etc are witnesses of that Truth, which is Jesus Christ. The other one considers the texts themselves to be the Truth.

One is prayer without ceasing, the other one is rationaist brain acrobatics.

One is the faith of the Apostles and Fathers, the other one is Roman Catholicism without pope and filioque, or eastern rite high-church Protestantism (Peter the Great's synod is the best example for that).

I believe in all of these and fail to see the dichotomy.

It looks like Gorazd thinks that a RC can't express their faith in those syrupy terms. Or a Protestant for the matter.

[Alpo]

It looks like Gorazd thinks that a RC can't express their faith in those syrupy terms. Or a Protestant for the matter.

AFAIK present Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism in my country is heading right to the syrupy direction along with the modern EOs.

[Gorazd]

If RCs and Lutherans are heading into an Orthodox direction, I welcome that, of course.

But the point is: There is a basic contradiction here between the Patristic and the Western teaching. If you consider a good and an evil God the Father to be just different terminologies for the same thing, then sorry, I cannot help you.

In addition to that basic contradiction, the RC have dogmatised and the Protestants have included into their confessional documents (such as Luther's catechisms) these wrong and inacceptable teachings. We haven't, thanks God, even though there were (and are - Iconodule and Vladimir Moss are examples for that) come Orthodox Christians who are holding such views. The teaching of the Church remains the teaching of the Fathers.

[minasoliman]

Why don't we examine Moss' writings on Original Sin and point out exactly by quotes what are his problems.  As far as I see it, I tend to agree I don't see a dichotomy, but a harmony of both views.

[Gorazd]

Why don't we examine Moss' writings on Original Sin and point out exactly by quotes what are his problems.  As far as I see it, I tend to agree I don't see a dichotomy, but a harmony of both views.

Now I was speaking about WC in general, though we could of course analyse Moss' writings, if someone would provide me with a link

Are we sinners, because we are born? Yes or no? It's not like yes and no to this question are complimentary.

[orthonorm]

Why don't we examine Moss' writings on Original Sin and point out exactly by quotes what are his problems.  As far as I see it, I tend to agree I don't see a dichotomy, but a harmony of both views.

I prefer to read Gorazd and Iconodule going back and forth.

I'm giving the edge right now to Iconodule primarily for style points, although Gorazd is doing a great job in his step-mother tongue. Great stuff on both sides.

[The least of all]

For what its worth I tend to agree with Gorazd in my own experience but there is something to be said for a level of harmony that could potentially exist between the two. But i tend to agree with Gorazd in that the way the views are set up now between OO/EO and RCC, there is a bit of a dichotomy.

No one shoot me , just my opinion!

[Jonathan Gress]

Here is his critique of "River of Fire". This might be a good place to start.

http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/207/%E2%80%9C-river-fire%E2%80%9D-revisited/

[minasoliman]

Why don't we examine Moss' writings on Original Sin and point out exactly by quotes what are his problems.  As far as I see it, I tend to agree I don't see a dichotomy, but a harmony of both views.

Now I was speaking about WC in general, though we could of course analyse Moss' writings, if someone would provide me with a link

Are we sinners, because we are born? Yes or no? It's not like yes and no to this question are complimentary.

No one is a sinner "because" they are born.  We are simply born in the state of sin.  I don't think any Catholic would say one is a sinner because of birth.

[Shanghaiski]

Why don't we examine Moss' writings on Original Sin and point out exactly by quotes what are his problems.  As far as I see it, I tend to agree I don't see a dichotomy, but a harmony of both views.

Now I was speaking about WC in general, though we could of course analyse Moss' writings, if someone would provide me with a link

Are we sinners, because we are born? Yes or no? It's not like yes and no to this question are complimentary.

No one is a sinner "because" they are born.  We are simply born in the state of sin.  I don't think any Catholic would say one is a sinner because of birth.

Clearly, my friend, you are not subscribing enough evil to the God-hating papists.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Faith Issues (Moderator: Michał Kalina) > Topic: Who is Vladimir Moss?? is he an orthodox Christian??