DAN writes:

I check into your website daily and admire your thought-provoking and stylish essays/subjects.  I am 50 years old, married with four children.  I recently went through a horrendous trial regarding Francis, who I believe is a heretic, if not an outright apostate.  That is not something I broadcast, given the circles I travel in, but is more my opinion.  I entertain the sedevacantist thesis, and nearly embraced it completely.  But that’s just it, I read everything from Fr. Cekada to Bishop Sanborn, and all the bloggers out there, and I don’t see how you can embrace it with absolute certitude. I must say, it was the most gut-wrenching experience I ever went through, as I believed (still do to a certain extent) that the sede’s may be right.  The Church of the future will need to determine if the post conciliar popes were false popes.  In the meantime, the visible Catholic Church is with anyone while keeping the Catholic Faith, flees from heresy.

By the way, do you attend a sedevacantist Church?  Just curious.

Laura writes:

Thank you. It’s nice to hear from you.

As to your main points, let’s put aside the personal difficulties for the moment. Let’s not worry about the gut-wrenching complications.

What is the alternative to sedevacantism?

Sedevacantism, for those who are new to this discussion, is the belief that the seat of papacy is temporarily empty.

Is the alternative to bury one’s head in the sand and ignore what Francis does and says?  And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. We are not automatons or lemmings. We are obligated to love God not just on an emotional plane. Part of the reason why we are in this jam is that lay Catholics stopped learning and passing on the faith themselves. With a basic knowledge of the faith, which we are obligated to possess, it is easy to see that Francis is guilty of what the author Miles Christi calls “radical heterodoxy” and “notorious impiety.” The evidence is overwhelming. As one blogger puts it,

The sheer volume of modernism coming from the Pope is flabbergasting. He has now been making heretical statements almost on a daily basis. Remember, the media is actually paying attention to Pope Francis and reporting what he says. His statements are being read on a scale never seen before, and with him saying things that are in direct confrontation with both Scripture and the Magisterium, there will doubtlessly be mass apostasy, as those with a weak faith are easily led astray.

Here is a summation by Christi (the translation is a bit weak); it does not include many recent examples, such as Francis’s approval of a funeral mass for the Protestant Tony Palmer. Now some will say that Jorge Bergoglio himself is a victim of indoctrination or that he doesn’t understand or know what he is saying. This argument is close to ridiculous. He has had ample opportunity to learn the faith. He’s the pope, for goodness sake. And he has been corrected many times by now by lay Catholics and prelates.

Given all this, should we resist the pope and reject virtually everything he says while still believing he is the pope? The problem with this position is that it is very difficult to look to the papacy as the true seat of authority and constantly spurn it. It is almost impossible to sustain a sense of wholeness and integration as a Catholic in this state of unrelenting resistance to a legitimate pope. At the very least, it bears the strong semblance of real disrespect, disobedience and infidelity. As well-intentioned as they are, and as important as their efforts have been, traditionalists who vigorously resist the apostasy of Francis while at the same time claiming he is the pope unwittingly create the mentality of the schismatic in their followers over time. A Catholic cannot go around throwing out almost everything the pope says and does for years without losing something fundamental, an inner harmony and sense of fealty that characterizes the faithful. Isn’t this loss of wholeness just as “gut-wrenching” as sedevacantism?

There is no easy way out. Your guts are going to be wrenched. Francis holds to the tenets of an entirely different religion — a religion which is partly Catholic to be sure, but not the real thing. There is a coherence to his views and to the entire Novus Ordo religion. We don’t need to understand it. We need to flee it and trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, we are the defenders of the priesthood and the hierarchy, not the enemies of either.

In answer to your last question, I don’t belong to a sedevacantist parish. I don’t understand how there can be such a thing as a sedevacantist church because all authority flows from above. If there is a void at the top, nothing below can replace it. The arguments that there can be ordinations in any groups disconnected from the Vatican are not convincing to me. I think it is acceptable in this situation to stay home and pray, but I do still go to an indult Traditional Latin Mass chapel which is somewhat anomalous. [Update: Actually, this mass is more accurately termed a “motu” Mass, the Mass of the “Extraordinary Form” permitted under Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum.] It is a difficult issue. It is hard and unnatural to be without the Mass but Catholics have been in similar positions  before in many parts of the world. We can use this time to grow in knowledge and devotion, praying for a restoration of the papacy and organizing outside traditional parish life.

You mention absolute certitude. If there is any absolute certitude in all this, it is the confidence that this false religion cannot be sustained because it is false and is in fact withering before our eyes. I’m not a theologian or a canon lawyer. I’m not a journalist who flies back and forth to Rome. I’m just one Catholic, as are you, who knows what Catholicism is and trusts in the immortality of the papacy, which was created by Christ, not by man. Francis is not Catholic, nor is the Novus Ordo religion.

— Comments —

Sean writes:

Well said. I will take it one further. We are under a chastisement. While it is a terrible thing to be punished by God, we can console ourselves that He is paying attention to us. When will it end? Perhaps when the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is performed correctly. I believe the Church hierarchy has boxed themselves into a corner regarding the elevation of the Second Vatican Council to the status of “Nothing before it existed.” It was and is poor form, bad politics and neglect borne of intellectual pride, in the worst sense.

Pick a Traditional chapel. Keep your head down. Practice your faith and avoid all conversations regarding sedevacantism. At the very least your fellow Catholics who like to engage in these types of conversation will think of you as a humble person. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Laura writes:

Thank you.

It’s going to become increasingly difficult for sedevacantists to keep a low profile. Catholics will no longer be able to defend and justify their beliefs without resorting to sedevacantism. People will say things like, “How can you believe homosexuality is sinful? The Church doesn’t condemn it. Catholics are marching in Gay Pride parades,” or “There’s a gay Mass every week in my neighborhood.”

Dan writes:

I am not sure what you mean by: “The arguments that there can be ordinations in any groups disconnected from the Vatican are not convincing to me.” And you indicate you attend a diocesan/indult Mass. Do you mean you proceed as if the Communion and Holy Orders of the priest is valid? Seems there are many variants of sedevacatism, as there are the Siri Papacy groups, the SSPX Resistance, the main stream/Bp. Fellay SSPX, etc…on and on. Suffice to say the confusion is great. What we all need to do is follow the advice and words of a recently deceased and saintly priest( I believe), Fr. Luigi Villa. If you do not know who he is, many of his works are downloadable here,he wrote the book “Paul VI Beatified?” He was, in fact, instrumental in helping me recognize the sedevacantist thesis.

Laura writes:

You write:

I am not sure what you mean by: “The arguments that there can be ordinations in any groups disconnected from the Vatican are not convincing to me.”

What I mean is, there is no justification for sedevacantist groups to ordain priests, consecrate bishops or set up parishes during an interregnum between valid popes. See this article by Theresa Stanfill Benns, who rejects the term “sedevacantism” even though she believes the papacy is vacant. She refers to “Catacomb Catholics.” I have not fully evaluated her arguments but her point regarding this specific issue is the same one I am making. Some use the principle of “epikeia” to justify ordinations without papal approval.

Dan writes:

I had an email correspondence with Dr. Adessa, Fr. Villa’s personal assistant and good friend. I asked the question about ordinations. Fr. Villa said this about ordinations according to Dr. Adessa: “For your question about ordination’s validity what I can remember for sure is this. One day Father Villa told me, “The solution for a Pope, if He wants, is simple. He can, in a single ceremony, reconsecrate all of them at once!”

I am not familiar with the term “epikeia.”  Do you consider the new ordination rite and bishop’s consecrations valid?

Laura writes:

Benns explains the principle of epikeia, in which a rule may be violated to achieve a greater good, here. Again, I am new to her writings, and need to read this again. I am making no judgment for or against what she is saying, but offer it for your consideration. However, it seems to me that the use of epikeia to justify ordinations independent from the Church hierarchy headed by the pope is wrong.

The argument that the “new” ordinations are invalid is strong, but I am still studying the issue.  I must fully understand before making a further change. There are many traditionalist gurus out there and my main concern has been to be wary of anything that smacks of an alternative Church or sect. I am not looking for a cult to join.

Dan continues:

Based on Fr. Villa’s answer to the previous post, I asked Dr. Adessa if Fr. Villa was implying the rite of ordinations and bishop consecrations were invalid.

He stated:

“I think that his phrase was leaving a door open for a doubt about them to be doubtful, otherwise he wouldn’t have put the re-consecration ceremony as first priority for a Good Pope as a first act of the Pontificate!”

Laura writes:

I am confused by that.

A Grateful Reader writes:

Would the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary be completed if Russians returned to their Orthodox Christian roots? Vladimir Putin seems to be encouraging this path.

Laura writes:

No.

Our Lady at Fatima specifically requested that the Pope, along with the bishops, consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart.

 Tom writes:

Regarding the authority of Bishops without a papacy, it seems to me that those priests and Bishops validly ordained before the Council, have authority given them by the Catholic Church of tradition.

Many of these problems, and the true sedevacantist position, are explained, at least to my satisfaction, by Bishop Donald Sanborn, in his monthly newsletters to his parishioners, which are available here.

I appreciate, as always, your site and your faith.

Laura writes:

Thank you.

Yes, on your first point. But there are few men in that category.

As to Most Holy Trinity Seminary of Bishop Sanborn, this is from the website:

The Seminary offers as its legal justification for its existence, and of the apostolate of those priests who shall emanate from the Seminary, the principle of epicheia. In the absence of the lawmaker, i.e., a true Pope, one may reasonably presume that it is the will of the Church, and therefore lawful and even required of the faithful, especially the clergy, to carry on the mission of the Church to save souls. And since this can only be done by the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the distribution of Sacraments, it is required that the clergy make every effort to accomplish this end.

I don’t understand this rationale. It seems like a variant of Protestantism, in which individual judgment is substituted for the judgment of the Church hierarchy. I don’t see how such a seminary has any jurisdiction in the True Church.

Anthony Gonzales writes:

I would like to address some of the statements and comments in this post.

A brief background: I am a Traditional Roman Catholic Lay Theologian who has participated in the Catholic Church before the Revolution (VII) and During the Revolution 1965-2014. I studied Philosophy and History from Loyola University Los Angeles under the remaining Catholic Jesuits and Lay Professors in the 1970s. I was in the most traditional priory within the revolutionary church; St. Michael’s Norbertine Abbey in Orange, California. I finished my post graduate work at the Angelicum in Rome under the remaining orthodox Dominicans at that time. I have graduated with honors from both Universities and have fought for the traditional Catholic Faith and Practice since I was 15 years old. My Master’s degree in Theology came at a high price in that my traditional Catholicism was absolutely verboten in the Novus Ordo Church and I was blackballed from becoming a priest.

So let me address some of the concerns that have been expressed here since they reflect the concerns of all traditional Catholics throughout the world. How is it possible that it has come to this in the once monolithic and unchanging Catholic Church? I have written and published a book on the subject called ‘Wolves Among the Ruins: The Prince Dethroned.’ I suggest acquiring a copy from Amazon.

First let me give you a perfect example of an actual reality happening here in the United States right now. Barry Sotero was elected President of the United States not once but twice using his original given name of Barrack Hussain Obama. He has signed hundreds of laws into existence to which the American people must now adhere or be outlaws according to the new tyranny coming from Washington, D.C.  I could go on for a month sighting all of the laws this guy has broken since he was in office. I could make a compelling case that he is not even natural born citizen of the U.S. and even if he was he gave up that citizenship when his mother married a man name Sotero in Indonesia and became an Indonesian citizen, Barrack being adopted by Mr. Sotero. Barry even though he was living in Hawaii with his mother’s parents after she divorced Sotero, still presented himself as a foreign exchange student to get special grants to go to several Universities here in the U.S. (You get the picture) No one can become president of the United States unless is a Natural Born Citizen who never lost his citizenship yet Barrack Obama is for all practical purposes President of the United States and all of the legislation he signs will remain standing unless he is prosecuted for fraud and deposed for treason. Do you think anyone, The Senate, the Congress, the Supreme Court, or any other competent institution will expose him as a fraud? NO! Absolutely not! It will never happen! No matter how many things he does that violates the Constitution he will not be exposed for a fraud and they will not impeach him because they are all either in cahoots with him or are cowards who will not stand behind the few brave souls who would try to impeach him. So Barrack Obama for all practical purposes remains and will remain President of the United States.

It is exactly the same with Jorge Bergoglio. He was dually elected Pope by a legitimate Conclave formed by all the voting Cardinals. Now there are many things we could accuse both Bergolio and all the rest of the Cardinals of being and doing but first we do not have the jurisdiction nor the competency to judge any of them especially the one who ‘legitimately’ hold the Petrine Office. He may hate the Catholic Church and be attempting to destroy her but for better or for worse the only one who can legitimately judge a Pope is another Pope. This has been shown over and over again through Church history but the most famous is the case of Pope Agatho I who not only condemned his predecessor Honorius II but dug up his body placed his rotting skeleton on a throne dressed fully in Papal Ceremonials and then proceeded to strip him of every vestige of jurisdiction and authority by symbolically removing each piece of vestment that symbolized that authority. After this they threw his bones into the Tiber. (Those were the days!)

So the advice of all the great Saints and theologians including Pontiffs is that all we MUST DO when a Pope is damaging the Church is to retreat fully into TRADITION and not OBEY anything he commands or does by example that opposes Tradition in any way.

Regarding the invalidity of orders in the Novus Ordo Church: After a deep study of the subject there is no evidence that the change in the Rites has invalidated them. In fact there is evidence that the Holy Ghost has maintained the efficacy and confection of all the Sacraments specifically to retain the dogma of the Church’s indefectibility and to guide Catholic souls of good will back to Tradition but to feed them spiritually as they make the journey. To claim that Episcopal Consecration is now invalid is to have a real ignorance of the different forms of Consecration throughout the centuries in all of the orthodox rites, it lends itself to a truly nihilistic view of Catholicism and basically calls Jesus a liar by implicitly claiming that the gates of hell have prevailed and He has left us orphans.

Because of this and a plethora of other elements of the Sede position it is a DEAD-END where sedes are forced so far from the sacraments that they are no longer Catholic even though they express themselves to be penultimate Catholics. They place the Church in such desperate circumstances that the only possible fix must be a Divine Intervention which has absolutely no precedent in Church history.

Finally there have been several Popes who were heretics and who actually proclaimed heresy in writing and from the altar (John XXII) who were not deposed and the faithful did not take it upon themselves to proclaim the Seat Vacant. To do so now shows a temporal provincialism that sees the Papacy in a light much greater than it has ever been seen.

Laura writes:

Thank you for your comments.

I will give some thought to what you say, especially your last point about making more of the papacy than it has ever been.

Laura continues:

Mr. Gonzales writes:

Now there are many things we could accuse both Bergolio and all the rest of the Cardinals of being and doing but first we do not have the jurisdiction nor the competency to judge any of them especially the one who ‘legitimately’ hold the Petrine Office. He may hate the Catholic Church and be attempting to destroy her but for better or for worse the only one who can legitimately judge a Pope is another Pope.

But sedevacantists don’t claim to make a legal judgment as to the status of the Pope. They recognize they do not have authority to do so. They are merely acknowledging the fact of heresy. Even though a heretical Pope still holds his office legally, he essentially loses his authority by virtue of his persistent, public disavowal of the faith.

I appreciate Mr. Gonzales’s learning and experience, which far exceed my own, and I don’t mean to dismiss these in any way, but he is advocating that Catholics ignore everything the Pope says, violating the very terms of allegiance that make them Catholic in the first place. Doesn’t that set a dangerous precedent? Doesn’t that undermine papal authority?

Mr. Gonzales writes:

Because of this and a plethora of other elements of the Sede position it is a DEAD-END where sedes are forced so far from the sacraments that they are no longer Catholic even though they express themselves to be penultimate Catholics. They place the Church in such desperate circumstances that the only possible fix must be a Divine Intervention which has absolutely no precedent in Church history.

Obviously the more people who embrace the sedevacantist position, the more those in power will listen to them. Francis might even become a Catholic!!

Are sedevacantists farther from the sacraments than those who pass out Holy Communion like poker chips or those who believe the Church is a social work agency, not a divine institution established by God to save souls? And I thought Catholics always trust and believe in the possibility of Divine Intervention! But obviously that’s not the only possible solution.

Mr. Gonzales writes:

Now you say:

               “But sedevacantists don’t claim to make a legal judgment as to the status of the Pope. They recognize they do not have authority to do so. They are merely acknowledging the fact of heresy. Even though a heretical Pope still holds his office legally, he essentially loses his authority by virtue of his persistent, public disavowal of the faith.”

First he is a material heretic until formally proclaimed a heretic by competent authority. It is a process of trail and must be covered through Due Process. But refusing to obey him in his disobedience does not reject his Petrine Authority insofar as he can still order Catholics to fast on a particular day or as John Paul II did clarify a dogma when he said that women can never become priests. When acting within their boundaries they still require our obedience when being disobedient to their God-Pleasing Precessors we are obliged to refuse obedience. I am not saying this is easy but this is and has been the tradition of the Church. The Pope if legally elected is the Pope but just understand that in the past our ancestors did not have any where the level of communication with Rome as we have today. They did not watch everything he did because he wasn’t then and isn’t now the center of our Faith JESUS CHRIST IS!

When Pope Gregory the Great wanted to change one line in the Canon of the Mass in the 500’s there were riots in Rome and he was burned in effigy. That is how our ancestors dealt with Popes even Saints if they dared to even think about changing something SACROSANCT!

You stated:

            “Obviously the more people who embrace the sedevacantist position, the more those in power will listen to them. Francis might even become a Catholic!!

Are sedevacantists farther from the sacraments than those who pass out Holy Communion like poker chips or those who believe the Church is a social work agency, not a divine institution established by God to save souls? And I thought Catholics always trust and believe in the possibility of Divine Intervention! But obviously that’s not the only possible solution.”

You must realize that I fully understand the pain and discontent that the Novus Ordo Church has caused and can appreciate that there are those who just refuse to believe a true Pope is capable of such heterodoxy or heteropraxy and so they simply say “There is no Pope.” But sadly they have fallen into the same trap as the orthodox Novus Ordo Catholics who cling to Peter because they have made an idol of the Papacy so for them the Pope can do no wrong and they accept everything from his mouth as coming from the mouth of God so it must reconcile with tradition even though it doesn’t seem to on the surface. The Sedevacantists have also made an idol of the Papacy to such a degree that if the occupant of the Office fails in any way he cannot be Pope and the seat must be empty. What would they have done during the reign of Alexander VI and any number of the other corrupt Pontiffs that have stood in the shoes of the Fisherman.

And of course, I believe in divine intervention but I do not rely on it especially to save the Church. I do expect the Three Days of Darkness and after this the Triumph of the Church but in the meantime I must live as if these events are a 100 years from now and must live my Faith fully without relying on our corrupt and faithless leaders. They have been placed upon us as a chastisement for our sins and we deserve nothing better.

Finally, you mention the necessity of the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope in Union with all the Bishops of the world. You will notice that in the prophesy Our Lady does not say this will be impossible because there is no Pope and no validly ordained bishops! If we take the Sede position we have to deny that the Fatima Prophesies are authentic or that somehow they have been misrepresented. I prefer not to jump down that rabbit hole, thank you very much.

Laura writes:

Thank you for your response. I realize we could go on and on here. I don’t expect to exhaust the issue and I am not trying to change your mind, only to come to a satisfactory answer myself. I am very open to the counter-arguments.

You write:

First he is a material heretic until formally proclaimed a heretic by competent authority. It is a process of trail and must be covered through Due Process.

But there is abundant evidence that Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was a heretic before he was elected, which would render his election invalid.

From the Rev. Anthony Cekada:

It is to this theological principle (rather than “loss of office”) that sedevacantists must now appeal when discussing Bergoglio’s status. As a public heretic, he could not be validly elected pope.

Moreover, this is a matter of divine law. When treating the requirements for election to the papal office, numerous pre-Vatican II commentaries on the Code of Canon Law lay down just this principle. Thus:

WERNZ-VIDAL: “Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…” (Jus Canonicum 1:415)

CORONATA: “III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine lawfor this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded.”(Institutiones 1:312).

BADIUS: “c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points… Barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, hereticsand schismatics…” (Institutiones, 160)

COCCHI: “For the validity of the election as regards the person elected, it suffices only that henot be barred from the office by divine law — that is, any male Christian, even a layman. The following are therefore excluded: women, those who lack the use of reason, infidels, andthose who are at least public non-Catholics.” (Commentarium in C.J.C, 2:151)

SIPOS: “Any male who has the use of reason and who is a member of the Church may be elected. The following, therefore, are invalidly elected: women, children, those suffering from insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics.” (Enchiridion I.C., 153)

This general principle of divine law is even found in an ecclesiastical law promulgated by Pope Paul IV (1555–1559), who suspected that a cardinal who was a likely candidate for the papacy in the next conclave was in fact a secret heretic.

On 16 February 1559, therefore, Paul IV issued the Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. The pontiff decreed that if ever it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand “deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy,” his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be “null, legally invalid and void.”

So the possibility that a conclave could elect a heretic is not some post-Vatican II sedevacantist fantasy. A real pope actually promulgated a law to prevent this possibility. And his decree laid down the same principle which the canonists quoted above said was divine law: a heretic cannot be validly elected pope.

Note that these canonists are referring to the sin of heresy when they speak of violations against divine law. The sin, as you know, is distinct from the canonical crime of heresy.

This means that the sin of heresy suffices to prevent someone from becoming a true pope. There is no requirement that he first be convicted under ecclesiastical law of the canonical crime of heresy before the impediment applies.

In the case of heresy, warnings and the rest of the canonical rigmarole come into play only for the crime. These are not required as a condition for committing the sin of heresy against divine law.

Some will respond by saying, “Well, even if he was a heretic, and thus not eligible, we still must have a Pope.” Writes Fr. Cekada:

Vatican I taught there would be “perpetual successors” in the Primacy. Response: “Perpetual successors” means that the office of the Primacy is perpetual — was not limited to St. Peter alone, but “a power that will perpetually endure to the end of the world.” (Salaverri, de Ecclesia 1:385)

Laura continues:

You write:

You must realize that I fully understand the pain and discontent that the Novus Ordo Church has caused and can appreciate that there are those who just refuse to believe a true Pope is capable of such heterodoxy or heteropraxy and so they simply say “There is no Pope.” But sadly they have fallen into the same trap as the orthodox Novus Ordo Catholics who cling to Peter because they have made an idol of the Papacy so for them the Pope can do no wrong and they accept everything from his mouth as coming from the mouth of God so it must reconcile with tradition even though it doesn’t seem to on the surface. The Sedevacantists have also made an idol of the Papacy to such a degree that if the occupant of the Office fails in any way he cannot be Pope and the seat must be empty. What would they have done during the reign of Alexander VI and any number of the other corrupt Pontiffs that have stood in the shoes of the Fisherman.

As I understand it, Alexander VI was guilty of private immorality not of using his teaching office to promote religions other than Catholicism. As far as I know, there is nothing quite comparable in the history of the papacy to Francis’s statements broadcasting religious indifferentism, socialism, state secularism and moral relativism, not to mention the whole liturgical nightmare. Also, heresy is a far greater sin than having mistresses, as bad as that is. You mentioned the visibility of the papacy because of modern media. That is why public heresy — which is very different from private sins against chastity — is so serious. It affects so many people. It’s not just a question here of purists who can’t bear to see the Faith misrepresented or of those who can’t stand the idea of a pope failing “in any way.” Do you really think those advocating sedevacantism are so trivial and so eager to find error? I think it is quite the opposite. Millions of people are being seriously misled by the Pope. If that isn’t the gates of hell prevailing against the Papacy, I don’t know what is.