Tequantlaxopeuh and the Immaculate Conception

Today, December 8, is the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. I've never heard anyone make the connection, but it is fitting that this solemnity be so close to the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, December 12.

The appearance of the Virgin in Mexico in 1531 to the Aztec, Juan Diego, is the only apparition in which the Virgin leaves an image of herself, but more importantly, her name: Tequantlaxopeuh (pronounced “Tequetalope”), which translates: “She who crushes the stone serpent.” The stone serpent was the dreaded Aztec god, Quetzalcoatl, to whom were offered tens of thousands of still beating hearts gouged out of living chests. 

The name correlates directly with the woman of Genesis 3:15: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed, and she will crush thy head while you lie in wait for her heel."

Genesis 3:15 provided the basis for the belief in Mary's sinlessness and was eventually dogmatically enshrined in 1854:

“...so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.” - Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854

Sadly, post Vatican II translators, in order not offend other Christians, retranslated our modern bibles to to read "he" (not she). Here's the reading you will hear rom the pulpit: "he will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” In fact, Satan is not even crushed in this version. 

Regardless of the scriptural revisionists, the Virgin has most often been depicted in every form of art standing on the head of the serpent, crushing the devourer - literal translation of Genesis 3:15 etched in stone, you could say.

The revisions didn't end there though. Post Vatican II translators got rid of the words "full of grace" from Luke 1:24, and replaced them with "favored one" or something similarly innocuous.  In fact, until 1997, when John Paul II made us put them back, the words "full of grace" were not even used in the Gospel of December 8, the very day we celebrate her being "full of grace." 

But the mandate was only for the readings of that day. Your Catholic bible probably still just says "favored one." What a mess we have been given by the church of "We know better than you. " 

Related articles and references:

Quetzalcoatl the Devourer

The Return of the Devourer

Our Lady of Wolf River

INCORRUTIBITER GENUIT

I was going to move on to another topic this week but I happened upon an interesting debate that has prompted me to share further on a critical aspect of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

The debate is over the proper interpretation and presentation of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, the name given to a series of talks given by the Pope on the subject of human sexuality. TOB’s most prominent apostle is Christopher West, who has popularized the Pope’s teaching through a series of books, CD’s, DVD’s, and seminars.

The Pope’s treatment of the subject is deeply philosophical and reverently nuanced, however, West’s approach is much less so. Example: where the Pope might refer to “the conjugal act”, West will sometimes say “have sex”. West’s strategic street lingo approach, as well as his questionable interpretation of some aspects of TOB, has provoked criticism and debate.

The debate is not merely academic. There is real evidence that “sex education” - which Theology of the Body essentially is - if not properly framed and nuanced, can produce the exact opposite of what it aims to prevent: illicit and irresponsible sexual behavior.

Exhibit A would be the easily evidenced fevered increase of sexual activity among young people wherever sex education has been introduced into the curriculum, even when presented in an academic and scientific way.

And while West attempts to retain the theological framework of TOB, the language reduction is nevertheless provocative, e.g. “having sex” stirs images in a way that “conjugal act” does not.

The debate over West’s approach has pitted some big names in Catholic academia against each other. One of those debates involves well-known pro-life author and academic Dr. Janet Smith and the equally well-known and much-revered Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand.

Von Hildebrand is critical of West, and Smith has come to his defense. The debate has several aspects to it but the item that caught my attention was a discussion over whether or not West should have referred to Mary’s “bloody placenta”. Von Hildebrand took issue with the reference, which provoked the following response from Smith:

“She (Von Hildebrand) believes it is incorrect to think that Mary may have expelled a bloody placenta. Pregnant wombs have placentas. Did not Mary’s? Would it be wrong to think it might have been bloody?...Scripture itself makes reference to Mary’s womb and breasts; is the placenta really so objectionable that it could not be mentioned?”

If you are feeling uneasy about such a discussion, you should. As you might guess, the Church has traditionally approached the physiological aspects of the birth of Jesus with sacred caution. In fact, Pope John XXIII forbade any further public speculation about it.

However, the issue jumped into public view a few years ago upon the release of the movie THE NATIVITY STORY. The film portrayed the birth of Jesus as a natural birth - complete with labor pains and presumably an expelled placenta.

Though well-received by the Catholic press and even prominent clergy, others cautioned that the depiction of Mary in labor poses problems to two Marian dogmas: the Immaculate Conception and the Perpetual Virginity.

As you will recall, bringing forth children “in sorrow” (labor) (Gen 3:16), is the penalty to the woman for Original Sin. The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception holds that Mary was preserved from Original Sin and thus she is not subject to its penalty, i.e. Mary did not birth Jesus “in sorrow”.

In regard to Perpetual Virginity, the Church teaches that not only did Mary never have conjugal relations, she remained “incorrutibiter genuit" which means she “begot (Jesus) incorruptibly”. Aquinas puts it thus: “Mary gave birth painlessly in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and without injury to the hymen...” (Summa Theologiae III.28.2).

In other words, not only was Jesus miraculously conceived, he was also miraculously birthed. And the fact that our Church has solemnly defined this since the Synod of Capua in 392 A.D., demonstrates that the Church, early on, saw the danger of speculation about things such as a “bloody placenta” and sought to put a seal on it. Apparently West and Smith didn’t get the message.

ENGAGING THE CHALLENGE TO THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY

In a previous column, entitled THE ATTACK ON MARY, we noted that of all the things that drive anti-Catholics nuts about Catholic beliefs, the thing that drives them most nuts is what we believe about Mary.

The Aeiparthenos (Ever Virgin)

And of those things which we believe about Mary, such as the Immaculate Conception and her bodily Assumption, the most irksome, to non and anti-Catholics, is our belief in her Perpetual Virginity. In fact, the very words “Perpetual Virginity” seem to provoke a cringe similar to that provoked by the sound of fingernails scraping a chalkboard.

The intent in this column is to share a few thoughts on how to engage the “Protestant” disbelief in the Perpetual Virginity, but we should first note that a disbelief in the value of consecrated virginity in general is, at its root, a fundamental Protestant tenet promulgated by “the First Protestant”, Martin Luther.

While Luther may have had some legitimate beefs relative to the so-called “sale of indulgences”, it seems that his real itch involved celibacy. In 1521, Luther wrote: I see myself insensible, hardened, sunk in idleness, alas! seldom in prayer, and not venting one groan over God’s Church. My unsubdued flesh burns me with devouring fire. In short, I … am devoured by the flesh, by luxury, indolence, idleness, somnolence.

A few years later, Luther wrote to a group of nuns: “In such cases (no longer wishing to remain celibate) it is time to run away, leaving the convent and all it entails behind.” Luther went  on to explain: “Though womenfolk are ashamed to admit to this... a woman has no control over herself. God has made her body to be with man...”

Apparently Luther had his own body in mind for he eventually helped himself to the nuns, taking one for his wife and offering another to the Bishop of Mainz (if he would convert) during a Luther-inspired pogrom against celibacy in which scores of German monks and nuns were “liberated” from their monasteries, convents, AND their vows. The story goes downhill from there.

But what about that? What about Luther’s claim that God made a woman’s “body to be with a man.” Ummm, well, yah, and visa versa. However, and without a long dissertation on celibacy: “With God, all things are possible”. So of course, with God’s grace, a man or woman can give his or her body (and soul) entirely to God.

So you might say that Catholics, since we are the only Christians to institutionally place a value on consecrated virginity, are the only true “Full Gospel Church”, i.e. we actually believe that “all things are possible with God”, including consecrated virginity,  and take seriously - for those engaged in particular ministries - St. Paul’s Corinthian exhortation to celibacy (1 Cor 7:8-9). But Luther’s personal peccadillos aside, how do we engage a challenge to our belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

Usually the challenge is based on one of the ten instances in the New Testament wherein “brothers (and/or sisters) of the Lord” are mentioned. A simple response to this is to point out that Aramaic had no word for “cousins”, and “brother” and/or “sister” was used to reference several degrees of kin.

Another challenge is based on Matthew 1:25 which says: “And he (Joseph) did not know her until she had brought forth her firstborn son.” The implication is that the word “until” assumes that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.

This argument is also easily dispatched by simply referencing other instances in Scripture wherein the word “until” is used, but does not mean that anything different followed: e.g. no one knew the location of Moses’ grave “until this present day” (Deut. 24.6). We still don’t know.

And then of course there is the matter of Jesus, on the cross, entrusting his mother to the apostle, John. If Mary had other children, there would have been no need for Jesus to do this.

Perhaps the easiest and most useful reply, though, is to simply ask the challenger to show you in the Bible where it says that Mary had other children. He or she will resort to the memorized lines about the “brothers of the Lord”. But stay with the program: continue to ask where it says that Mary had other children. Of course, the Bible never says that she does.

The reason this works is because of the “Protestant’s” own belief in “the Bible alone”, i.e. “if it’s not in the Bible, it didn’t happen”. “Protestants” use this principle to discredit the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and other doctrines which are not explicit in Scripture. You are simply asking them to use this same principle of “sola scriptura” to prove that Mary was not a Perpetual Virgin. They can’t. End of conversation. (Unless of course you’d like to invite him or her to join the one, true Church!)

THE ATTACK ON MARY

As you may be aware, a local anti-Catholic pastor regularly makes the Catholic veneration of Mary a frequent target on his ubiquitous “drive time” radio spots. He’s not alone of course. Mary-bashing is almost a sport amongst many anti-Catholics, and any recognition of her, other than honorable mention for her role in the Christmas story, seems to drive them mad.

The thinly veiled disgust with which these people speak of Mary is a source of pain for many Catholics who not only regard Mary as the Mother of God, but as their own Mother as well. It's like these guys are saying bad things about your own mom, and there is nothing that quite boils the blood as when some jerk is messing with your mom!

I can remember my own mother crying after a fruitless conversation with a neighbor who had left the Catholic Church for one of those born-again church-in-an-abandoned-gas station deals. The neighbor blasted Mary with all the regurgitated venom she could recall from the anti-Marian diatribe she probably had heard from her “gas station pastor” the night before.  I was just a boy then, but even today, I can still feel the rage that welled up within me, seeing my mother wounded, but also smelling the evil I still smell today when someone attacks and degrades the Mother of God. Perhaps you know the “smell” as well.

But what to make of it? From whence comes this hostile disgust? This knee-jerk attack? What is it that drives these people nuts about the veneration of the Blessed Mother and impels them to degrade, impugn, muddy, and malign the Woman through whom the Son of God took flesh? Is it just a lack of understanding? Misinformation? Invincible ignorance? Perhaps all of the above. But perhaps something else too. And here's my thought.

In Genesis 3:15, God informs Satan of his doom: “I will put enmity between thee and the Woman and thy seed and her seed and she will crush thy head while you lie in wait for her heel.”  In short, it’s curtains for Satan, and Mary is at the center of it.

Some believe this verse (as found in the Vulgate) to be translated in error, that it is not Mary who will crush the head of Satan but her seed: Jesus. Thus later translations change the “she” to a “he”. But translation debates aside, God undeniably chooses to crush Satan through Mary. (Thus the centuries of paintings and statues showing her doing so.)

Without getting too theological here, it is necessary to understand that salvation is ongoing: that Christ has saved us, is saving us, and will continue to save us (should that be our desire) until the end of time; and he does so, he comes to us, as he first did, through his Mother. Thus John Paul II says: [it is] “in Mary and through Mary (that) the situation of humanity (sin) has been reversed...” (The Protoevangelium of Salvation). And this is why Satan hates her.

However, Satan cannot harm Mary directly because she is sinless. God has put “enmity” - total opposition - between Satan and the Woman. Since Satan is pure evil, total enmity in this case means the total opposite of pure evil which is pure good, sinlessness, which is precisely why Mary is the “Refuge of Sinners” and why we “flee to thy  (her) protection”.

As humans, it is impossible to imagine the cosmic proportions of Satan’s hatred of Mary. But I believe we get a glimpse of it when the Mother of God is attacked, either in the pornographic “art” of a Marian image splattered with elephant dung (as displayed in the Brooklyn Museum), or the diseased harangue we hear from the likes of the anti-Catholics already noted.

To Satan, it matters not how or through whom the Mother of God is discredited, demeaned, and disavowed. The fewer sinners that seek her refuge, the more for him to devour. Don’t be one of them.

Dealing with some assumptions about the Assumption of Mary

Published in the Umatuna, the newspaper for the Archdiocese of Agana, Guam on August 21, 2011.

There are four main things the Catholic Church holds to be true about Mary: 1) Mary is the Mother of God (Theotokos), 2) Mary was conceived without sin and remained sinless (the Immaculate Conception), 3) Mary remained a virgin (Perpetual Virginity of Mary), and 4) Mary was taken into heaven, body and soul (the Assumption of Mary). These four teachings are Dogmas. A Dogma is a matter of Faith which Catholics must believe and cannot hold otherwise.

They are also the favorite targets of those who wish to populate their churches with former Catholics.

Why is this? Why do Catholic antagonists almost always first “go after Mary”? Well, because it’s easy, that’s why. Despite the many popular expressions of Marian piety, few of us know how to explain or defend what we believe about Mary.

Part of the challenge in defending Mary is that Mary herself is so “quiet” in the Scriptures, and much of what the Scriptures say about Mary is figurative and implicit (e.g. “the woman” of Genesis 3:15, and “the woman clothed with the sun” in Revelations 12:1).

Thus theologians and apologists, in defining and explaining the Marian dogmas, rely mostly on figurative references, “antiquity of belief”, and the argument that Scripture does not contradict what we believe (e.g. though the Assumption is not found in the Bible, the Bible does not contradict it, so we can believe it).

While these explanations may suffice for Catholics, they are rejected by those who hold the “It has to be in the Bible” view of Christianity (Sola Scriptura). So what to do?

In regards to the challenge that the Assumption of Mary is not found in the Bible, we might first ask:

1. “Do you believe that God is all-powerful?” (Yes.)
2. “Then, do you believe that God could have taken Mary into heaven, body and soul, if He wanted to?” (They will have to answer yes, but will still contend that “it is not in the Bible”.)
3. Continuing: “It is true that the Assumption of Mary is not in the Bible, but then of course, John 21:25 tells us that Jesus did many things that are not in the Bible. Do you think taking His Mother, body and soul, into heaven could have been one of them?”

At this point, the antagonist would have to agree with you on the possibility, but, would most likely stick with “it’s not in the Bible”. We might then make a case for a precedent for the Assumption of Mary by referring to three accounts in the Bible wherein bodily assumption is in evidence.

In Genesis 5:24 we read: "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him."

Here we see that Enoch was "taken". Taken where? We have to assume that he was taken into heaven since Scripture states he "walked with God", and that he was taken bodily because he was “seen no more.”

In 2 Kings 2:11 we read : "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."  

We don't have to assume  where Elijah went, for Scripture says he “went up into heaven.” We also have a confirmation from an eye-witness in the next verse: "And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more…"

So here we have two instances, recorded in Scripture, of God taking two humans, body and soul, into Heaven. So not only COULD God do it, He DID do it. “BUT”, our antagonist argues, “the Bible still says nothing about Mary being taken into Heaven.”

So we now turn to Matthew 17:1-9, where we read the account of the Transfiguration. And who do we see there? Elijah and (wait for it)...MOSES. Now how did Moses get there! There is no record in the Bible of Moses being taken into Heaven, yet he’s at the Transfiguration with Elijah and Jesus.  

At this point, we have determined two key things from the Bible alone:

1. There is a biblical precedent for the Assumption of Mary in the assumptions of Enoch and Elijah; and 
2. Not everything God does is recorded in Scripture (e.g. the assumption of Moses). 

So if God took three old guys into heaven, body and soul, do you think He might have done the same for His very own Mother?

We have many reasons to believe that He did, not the least of which is there is no church or shrine dedicated to the burial place of Our Lady.

There is also one more important matter.

Jude, in his Epistle, alludes to a dispute between St. Michael and Satan over the body of Moses which some ancient writers believed to be recorded in a manuscript entitled the Assumption of Moses. Jude also directly quotes from the Book of Enoch. Neither book is in our Bible, yet both are known to Jude, and in the case of Enoch, directly quoted.

This raises the question of who had the authority to dogmatically define which books got into the Bible?

Answer: the same Church that dogmatically defined (in Munificentissimus Deus, 1950) how Mary got into Heaven. Ave Maria gratia plena.

“Why do you Catholics worship Mary?”

I have great sympathy for those who ask this question.

I realize that for many of our non-Catholic brethren, the public processions honoring Mary, the many Marian statues in our churches and homes, our ever present rosary beads, and the great reverence we Catholics give to her, can certainly give the appearance of worship or even idolatry.

A story is told about an elderly Italian woman who was praying in a dark church in front of her favorite Madonna. And as many elderly Italian women are wont to do she was praying rather audibly begging the Madonna for assistance on some family matter. The Lord, Himself, looked down on her and decided to grant her request. So He called to her from heaven, “Maria”, he said. Startled, the woman paused briefly, looked around and went back to her loud supplications to the Madonna. Again Jesus called to her: “Maria, Maria” The elderly lady again paused, looked about, sighed, and went back to imploring the Blessed Mother. Finally Jesus called out in a voice loud enough to shake the church, “Maria, it is I, Jesus. I will grant your request.” Maria, stops praying, looks up to heaven and says with a tone of exasperation, “Hush-a your mouth, I’m a talking to your mother.”

The story is funny because, like all funny stories, there is a streak of truth about it. To the outsider, the sight of someone kneeling before a statue and even talking to it could certainly appear to be idolatry or at least superstitious.

Let's use the story to answer 3 questions:
• Does kneeling denote worship?
• Is praying to the saints the same as worshiping them?
• Do we, Catholics, in fact worship Mary?

Kneeling
Kneeling or bowing does not always denote worship. Here on Guam it is common to bow down to an elder as a sign of respect. We are not worshiping our grandmother when we do so. A man may get down on his knees before a woman and propose marriage, but it is only a posture of supplication, not worship. So no, kneeling and bowing are not always peculiar to worship.

By way of comparison, a Catholic may see a non-Catholic brother or sister kneeling while reading the Bible, but we would not immediately assume that he or she is worshiping the book.

“Praying to”
Next, let us examine what it means to "pray". "Prayer" can certainly be equated with worship when the prayer is directed toward God. But "prayer" is one of those words that has several meanings depending on the context. You've heard the expression "he doesn't have a prayer". In this context, "prayer" means hope, and does not imply worship.

Essentially, "pray" means to ask or implore. In older forms of English conversation it was employed in such phrases as "Pray thee, come hither" (Please, come here). So to "pray" does not mean "to worship".

But even if the woman in our story is only imploring Mary and not worshiping her, why doesn't she just go straight to God? That's a topic called the Intercession of the Saints and we'll address that in another post.

Do Catholics Worship Mary?
For now let us answer the question we began with: Why do Catholics worship Mary? If you are going to be intellectually honest, the question one must first ask is "Does the Catholic Church teach the worship of Mary?"

Paragraph 971 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in part:

The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit...

The Church here makes a distinction between adoration, which is due only to God, and veneration, or the act of showing honor. So, in short, the Church does not teach us to worship Mary. What it does teach us to do is venerate her in a most special way. And why is that?

Essentially, the special claim that Mary makes on our attention is rooted in the words of Luke, Chapter 1, verse 48:

“All generations will call me blessed”

This is not an ordinary claim to blessedness. My wife and I have 11 children. I am often told that I am blest. I thank them and agree. But what would you think of me if I said, "yes, and all generations will call me blessed"? You'd think I had a mental problem.

Yet there it is in scripture. Mary makes this claim for herself, and we, being a member of those generations to whom she refers, are obligated to address her as "blessed" lest we deny the authority of the Word of God and flaunt the clear directive.

Yes, you may say, I may have to refer to her as "blessed", but I don't have to show her special honor as you Catholics do.

Titles are not just adjectives. The title "Doctor" in front of someone's name is not just an honorific. A particular authority is implied. Thus we go to the doctor not because he is called doctor but because he is one. We respond to him (or her) differently than someone who is not a doctor.

Thus, inherent in the title "Blessed" is the instruction to in fact treat her as such. And so it is in obedience to Luke Chapter 1 verse 48 that the Catholic Church instructs the faithful to venerate Mary in both word and deed. And so we do.

Why Not Believing that Mary is the Mother of God Is Hazardous to Your Marriage

Virtually all Christian religions other than the Catholic Church allow for divorce and remarriage. Their reasons may differ and they may preach vehemently against it, but ultimately they allow it.

Most Catholic apologists will point to the protestant misinterpretation of Matthew 19:9 where Jesus seems to allow divorce for reasons of “fornication” or “adultery” depending on which version you are reading. Whereas Protestants take this passage as permission to divorce and remarry, the Catholic Church, while allowing for the physical separation of the spouses for a variety of good reasons, still does not allow for remarriage.

(Some scholars point out that the original Greek word used in this passage – and still used by some translations- is “pornea”, and that “pornea” does not refer to adultery but to illicit union such as a marriage between two close relatives.)

Dr. Robert Morgan, in his recent visit to Guam, pointed out that the further away one gets from Catholic truth, the further one gets from the true understanding of the person of Christ. As evidence of this he pointed out that most Protestants will not refer to Mary as the “Mother of God”. To not accept Mary as the Mother of God and address her as such is to deny the fundamental truth of the Trinity: that there are three persons in one God, that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Blessed Trinity, and that Mary is His Mother.

So what does this have to do with divorce? The Catholic Church teaches that though a full understanding of the Trinity is not possible in this life, there are some things we do know:

• That God is a community of persons: Father, Son, & Holy Spirit
• That it is the Father eternally loving the Son that begets the Spirit
• That we are made in the image of the Trinity (Gen 1:26-27)
  

There is only one other reference in Scripture to a community of persons comprising a single being and that would be Marriage: “…and the two shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). This union physically manifests itself in the birth of a third person and thus images the Trinity in an earthly way.

Because the Trinity is indissoluble, Marriage is indissoluble. The Godhead cannot be broken and reassembled. Neither can Marriage. Jesus reminds us that this in fact is God’s design when, commenting on the leniency of Moses to allow divorce, He says “from the beginning it was not so”. (Mat 19:8) Emphasis is on the word “beginning” which is the word “genesis”.

It follows then that if one does not accept the Trinity as an indissoluble community of persons, then one can easily allow for the dissolubility of that other community of persons. In fact, this is exactly what happens. The willingness to allow for divorce and remarriage evinces a fundamental denial of the nature of the Trinity.

Protestants will argue otherwise but the litmus test remains whether or not they can address Mary as “Mother of God”. “Mother of God” is more than just another affectionate title, it is our guarantee that Jesus is in fact: “God with us”, God Himself. To deny that Mary is the “Mother of God” is to deny that Jesus is God. To deny that Jesus is God is to deny the Trinity. To deny the Trinity is to deny all that God has revealed to us about Himself…including His Son.

Divorce then is both symptom and cause: symptom in the sense that divorce evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of the Trinity and God’s design for Marriage; and cause in the sense that divorce, because it negates the indissoluble community of persons signified by the words “one flesh” inevitably and logically leads to a negation of the ultimate community of persons upon which Marriage is modeled.

This fundamental error also inevitably leads to the ultimate manifestation of the denial of the Trinity by also admitting contraception which completes the denial of the Trinity by negating a “third person”. Is it any wonder that the same religions that allow divorce also allow artificial contraception? Having denied Mary her rightful title as “Mother of God” they have inevitably denied the Trinity, rendered the marriage vow void, and the nuptial act sterile.

This is why our Church CANNOT change its teaching on the indissolubility of marriage or the sacred openness to life in the nuptial act. She would first have to deny the Trinitarian God.