“We can’t wait for him to die. It’s unprintable what we say in private. "So do we, Father, so do we.
I did not read the article. But, one should not be praying for the popes death. That is taught to be a sin in the catechism. In my opinion we should be praying for the popes resignation. I don't recommend we should pray for his betterment as pope. The papacy in my opinion not meant to be a learn on the job position. It is best that he resign and work out his salvation in a monastery. And, all deserve the best, especially the one man on earth who cannot be formally judged.I have not ever seen in the catechism that is a sin to pray for someone's death - be it for a real or pretend pope or otherwise.
| It is well known that Pope Pius IX, who later became a great Pope, was liberal in the first phase of his pontificate. There were no liberal errors in his docuмents, but he adopted a series of very liberal attitudes. At that time, Italy was divided into many small kingdoms, principates and free cities that made up the colorful, picturesque, efficient and stable Italy that we admire. The revolutionaries, however, had a plan to unify Italy and destroy those organic cells. They supported the liberal Pope and used to shout in the streets Viva Pio IX! as a rallying cry for the anarquists, socialists, members of the Mafia and Camorra, and others affiliated to the sect of Mazzini [the leader of the Carbonari, an Italian Masonry]. The cry – Viva Pio IX! – became therefore a symbol of the liberal and Masonic campaign to unify Italy by combating those organic small thrones.
How did he handle the situation? He forbade the pupils in his schools to shout Viva Pio IX!and ordered them to shout Viva il Papa! [Viva the Pope!] I think it was a superbly intelligent solution. Please note that this fact is recorded in the process of canonization of St. John Bosco and did not prevent him from becoming a saint. Nor did it prevent his work from being richly blessed by Divine Providence. So, today also, instead of shouting Viva Paul VI! we may well shout Viva the Pope!, and we will be following the example of a great saint. At the heart of St. John Bosco’s distinction is a very important difference between the Pope and the papacy, on one hand, and the person of the Pope, on the other, who is vulnerable to every human misery. He is also susceptible to error, to the measure that his teaching is not guaranteed by papal infallibility. A clear distinction exists between the man and the institution he represents. For this reason, it is not always the case to shout Viva Paul VI!, but instead we should be silent, weep and pray since this Pope in many ways represents the Revolution. It is always the case, however, to shout: Viva the Pope! and Viva the Papacy! In this regard, this feast of the Chair of St. Peter is a very opportune feast, because it celebrates the infallible chair [cathedra] of St. Peter teaching to the entire world, and the Pope when he teaches infallibly from St. Peter’s chair. [ex cathedra – from the chair]. Therefore, it is the infallibility, the orthodoxy of the Church that is celebrated in today’s feast.
In that same Basilica there is also another statue representing St. Peter. It is made of dark metal, probably bronze as well, and depicts him seated on a chair, holding the keys of the powers of the papacy. One of his feet extends out a bit past the marble base, at the height of the lips of the faithful. The pilgrims to Rome go there and kiss or touch the foot of St. Peter as a symbol of their obedience to the teachings of the Church. As a result of this devotion carried out through the centuries, the foot of St. Peter has worn thin. On one of the feasts of St. Peter – the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul – that statue is dressed in the Pope’s solemn vestments and pontifical symbols including the tiara. The statue is there as if it were a living Pope. What should we do on today’s feast? Spiritually, we should kiss the foot of that statue of St. Peter. That is, we should renew our submission to this great and wise principle which is the infallibility of the authority that governs and teaches the Catholic Church. We should thank Our Lord through the intercession of Our Lady for the institution of that infallibility, which is the column that sustains the world. For without Papal Infallibility the Church, and consequently the world, would be irremediably lost. It is also the way to Heaven, because without the certainty of that infallibility, men would not have the sure knowledge of the right path to salvation. We should also remember that fidelity to the chair of St. Peter does not mean the unconditional acceptance of everything the person who exercises the papacy does. The Church instituted by Our Lord distinguishes the cathedra from the person. Therefore, the supreme fidelity to the Chair of St. Peter is to know this distinction and act accordingly. If the Pope – like Pius IX – does something different from what the chair taught before, where do we stand? We stand forever – even to death – with the Chair of Peter, noting however that the chair is never completely removed from the person who exercises the papacy. The person can sometimes be away from the chair, but the chair does not exist without the person. We do not have just an abstract fidelity to the papacy. We have a concrete fidelity to the present day Pope to the measure that he is infallible and teaches things in accordance with the perennial Magisterium of the Catholic Church. |
https://youtu.be/b7SjW0vFCiI
I'm sure the ʝʊdɛօ-masonics are praying for his health and longevity.
(https://www.vosizneias.com/assets/uploads/news_photos/thumbnails/700_ajobjainmvcin6mssbnixf349burxdjl.jpg)
It doesn't get any better than this...
When the Destroyer pope bows down to the enemies of Christ.
It's ABSOLUTELY NOT a sin to pray for a pope's death. Or anyone's death. People in the middle ages prayed for a bad king's death all the time. As long as you pray that they make it to heaven, you can pray for their death. It's totally catholic.If only you knew how ridiculous you sound. "its totally catholic" my foot. If you don't like my advice, you can alter it a bit. Pray for his resignation, and then sick the inquisition on him. And, if he does not respond faithfully, excommunicate him. That is the only way you can excommunicate the "pope". Pray for his resignation.
It is highly doubtful to pray for the death of a bad pope.
Denzinger 1163,1164, and 1165. condemned errors(probably of the jesuits) on moral subjects from decree 1679.
1163 - If you act with due moderation, you can without mortal sin be sad about the moral life of someone and rejoice about his natural death, seek it with ineffectual desire and long for it, not indeed from dissatisfaction with the person but because of some temporal emolument.
1164 - It is licit with an absolute desire to wish for the death of a father, not indeed as an evil to the father, but as a good to him who desires it, for a rich inheritance will surely come his way.
1165 - It is licit for a son to rejoice over the parricide of his parent perpetrated by himself in drunkenness, because of the great riches that came from it by inheritance.
These three condemned errors(especially 1163 and 1164) clearly cast a shadow of doubt over the practice of praying for the death of a bad pope. I think 1164 is the strongest to come to my defense. The pope is the "father" of the church and very much comparable. I certainly wont be praying for the popes death, especially while we all agree that he is a material heretic. If he was in the state of grace and on his deathbed suffering, then we could pray for his death, which would better mean we are praying for his entry into heaven.
However, in these examples, it is not the case that the person whose death is sought has done great evil, and is in danger or doing even greater evil, so the application to the current discussion is rendered of little meaning.denz 1163 addresses your particular concern best. However, understand that this condemned error also has a lot of distraction in it, making it difficult to understand what is most likely condemned in this error. In my opinion, the essence of this error lies in this passage -
"Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira"
Good article Incredulous, but isn't Prof Plenio, as erudite as he sounds, the founder of a cult? The TFP for the longest time felt Plenio was above the Blessed Mother in Holiness and expected him to rise from the dead ( maybe still?).
OK- the worm can is opened....
Thank you for the slow, softball pitch Josefamendez..
Dr. Plinio's TFP was infiltrated and hijacked.
He had commissioned Atila Guimaraes to research and expose the non Catholic theology of Vatican II.
After Dr. Plinio's death, the new TFP leadership fired Atila and surrendered to the Conciliar schismatics.
The organization's cultish rituals you speak of, began after their VII sellout.
For more on this illustrious Catholic fighter, I defer to the following biography from a gentleman scholar, who really knew Dr. Plinio.Biography of Prof. Plinio Corrêa de OliveiraA Life Dedicated to CombatAtila Sinke GuimarãesPlinio Corrêa de Oliveira (1908-1995) was born into two traditional Brazilian families, his mother’s family from São Paulo – Ribeiro dos Santos – and his father’s from Pernambuco – Corrêa de Oliveira. The former was known for its social distinction, the latter for its intelligence and oratory skills. Plinio inherited the characteristics of both families.(http://www.traditioninaction.org/Collection/Images/E001_Legionario.jpg)When young, Plinio was the leader of the Marian Congregations in Brazil[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
After being formed in the Jesuit school of São Paulo and receiving a degree in Law, he entered the Catholic Movement and became the leader of the Marian Congregations in Brazil. The force of this Movement was such that in 1934 it elected Plinio, at age 24, to the National Congress, making him not only the country’s youngest representative, but also the one who received the most votes. In the House he fought to defend the civil rights of the Church and to pass laws, which for a long time upheld Catholic principles and institutions in the country.
Subsequent to his term in the House, he earned a chair in History of Civilization at the Law Faculty of São Paulo and another in Modern and Contemporary History at the Catholic Pontifical University, also in São Paulo.
In 1933, he was asked by the Cardinal of São Paulo to direct the Archdiocesan weekly journal O Legionário (The Legionary). For many years he was its editor and gathered around him a group of distinguished writers who followed him on a lifetime journey. From a simple Archdiocesan bulletin the paper was transformed in the late ‘30s and ‘40s into the most influential Catholic organ of the country.
The writers of O Legionário became famous for their pugnacious stand against Communism, nαzιsm and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, as well as for defending Christian Civilization and championing a culture coherent with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. In the religious sphere, they combated the nascent Progressivism, which was rising from the ashes of Modernism with the same poison, but new tactics, higher ambitions and a more prudent posturing.
[/font][/size](http://www.traditioninaction.org/Collection/Images/E001_Meyer.jpg)Fr. Castro Mayer alongside Prof. Plinio and theLegionário team of writers[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Those writers considered themselves continuers of the ultramontane movement of the 19th century in Europe. Among others, two priests joined the group: Fr. Geraldo Sigaud and Fr. Antônio de Castro Mayer.
In 1940, Prof. Plinio was chosen to be president of Catholic Action in São Paulo. From this post, he carefully watched the insidious progressivist infiltration into the religious milieu. By 1943 he fully realized its maneuvers and wrote a book denouncing its strategy – In Defense of the Catholic Action(Em Defesa da Ação Católica). Later he described the launching of that book as a kamikazeoperation: he delayed the influence of Progressivism in Brazil, but blew up his own career along with the target.
Indeed, the Cardinal of São Paulo who favored his work died and, after the short term of another, a progressivist took his place in 1944. Prof. Plinio lost the presidency of Catholic Action and the direction of O Legionário. A phase of persecution and ostracism began.
He and the two mentioned priests agreed to continue the Counter-Revolution despite the consequences. Sometime later, Fr. Sigaud was made Bishop, followed by Fr. Castro Mayer. The union of the three was so strong that each Bishop adopted in his coat-of-arms the rampant lion Prof. Plinio had chosen to symbolize his fight.
A new monthly paper, edited and published in São Paulo with the approval of Castro Mayer, now Bishop of Campos, took the name Catolicismo (1951) and recommenced the public fight. The Catolicismo group attracted younger persons, who drew in yet others. With this growing movement, in 1960 he founded the Brazilian Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property – the TFP.
[/font][/size](http://www.traditioninaction.org/Collection/Images/E001_1959_RCR.jpg)Published in 1959 Revolution and Counter-Revolutionbecame the handbook for the TFPs everywhere[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
To provide guidelines for that group, in 1959 Prof. Plinio wrote Revolution and Counter-Revolution (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0038/) – R-CR, which became his masterpiece. In it he analyzed the Revolution’s historical process that started in the Middle Ages. The Renaissance and Humanism were its first manifestations; later it generated Protestantism, the French Revolution and Communism.
He also described its later phases: namely, the Fourth Revolution (the Cultural Revolution of the ‘60s), which tends toward Tribalism (http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/j028htTribalism_PCO.htm) and a Pentecostal religion; the metamorphosis of Communism after the dissolution of the USSR; the infiltration of Progressivism in the Church, which changed the focus of the R-CR fight. Now, it had to be fought inside the Church.
The ideals of R-CR extended to other countries. In 1995, at his death, there were TFPs and similar organizations in 26 countries.
In the early ‘60s, Brazil was threatened by Communism, supported by Progressivism in the Church. Both were proponents of a socialist land reform to destabilize farmers, the backbone of the country's economy. With economist Mendonça de Freitas, Prof. Plinio wrote a book against land reform and invited the Bishops to sign it: Agrarian Reform – a Question of Conscience (1963). A success, the book became the pivot for an enormous public reaction against Communism. An undesired byproduct of this general dissatisfaction was a military coup that deposed the brazenly red president-to-be and installed a socialist dictatorship in the country.
[/font][/size](http://www.traditioninaction.org/Collection/Images/E001_Rome.jpg)Prof. Plinio leaves Rome when he realizes he has done all he could at the Council[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
In 1959, John XXIII announced his intention to convene a Council. Prof. Plinio warned Archbishop Sigaud and Bishop Mayer that they should study and prepare themselves intensively or they would be defeated by the progressivists at the Council. Unfortunately, they did not heed his advice.
Notwithstanding, Prof. Plinio, along with about 20 laymen, accompanied the Bishops to Rome for the First Session with the hope that they would have a positive influence. With these laymen he organized two petitions, signed by hundreds of Bishops: one asking the Council to condemn Communism; the other asking the Pope to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as commanded in Fatima.
He sought out the Bishops of Communism-dominated countries asking them to affirm that the Church-Communism coexistence is against Catholic doctrine. Ukrainian Archbishop Ivan Bucko agreed to state this at the Council. Prof. Plinio wrote an intervention for him, but Msgr. Bucko changed his mind and did not address the topic in the Council. In May 1964, Prof. Plinio published that study: The Church and the Communist State: The Impossible Coexistence.
As the first session came to its end, Prof. Plinio realized that the progressivists were in complete control and suggested that the two Brazilian Bishops unmask their maneuvers. He proposed that they solemnly walk from the door of St. Peter’s Basilica to the main table in the conciliar hall, passing by the 2,300 Bishops assembled there. Then, before the whole assembly, they should expose the progressivist agenda for the Council and state that they were leaving in protest. Outside the doors, journalists would be waiting to interview them and spread the news. This dramatic rupture was meant to abort the entire spectacle of Vatican II. Unfortunately, the Bishops did not follow his advice.
He did not return to the Council, which followed that progressivist path until its end.
In 1965, Prof. Plinio wrote a book denouncing the popular new dialogue with communists: Unperceived Ideological Transshipment and Dialogue. Although the approach of the study was temporal, it also applied to the religious dialogue being promoted by John XXIII and Paul VI insofar as dialogue was used not to convert heretics but to make them comfortable in their errors.
After the Council’s closing, he received in Brazil the two returning Bishops. They had signed all its docuмents and told him, [paraphrasing]: “Now, we need to work on our group so they will accept the Council.” Prof. Plinio opposed the proposition, saying: “Your Excellencies can fry or cook the Council any way you want. I will never eat it.”
[/font][/size](http://www.traditioninaction.org/Collection/Images/E001_Siguad.jpg)Archbishop Sigaud tries to implement the Council - Prof. Plinio disagrees[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
There was no rupture, but this divergence projected shadows on their decades-old relationship.
Eventually, the two Bishops would break their agreement to stand together in the fight. Some years later Archbishop Sigaud distanced himself. He publicly supported the socialist military regime. His reason? “The military regime started the Reign of Mary predicted in Fatima”…
In the mid ‘70s a lawsuit against the TFP called on Bishop Mayer to testify. He made a sworn statement that throughout more than 40 years of close collaboration he had never seen anything in TFP or in Prof. Plinio’s actions or thoughts that went against Catholic doctrine.
However, in 1983, he took a public stand against Prof. Plinio. Why this change?
In the late ‘70s, a certain Fr. Fernando Rifan (http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f017ht_Rifan_02.htm) – an expert in intrigue – was gaining the ear of Bishop Mayer. Rifan, who hated Prof. Plinio and the TFP, induced the Bishop to soften his position against Progressivism to the point that Bishop Mayer in some talks assumed the principles of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. In Rome he was photographed holding hands with JPII. Consequently, his visits to São Paulo ceased.
In the early ‘80s, a rancorous high-school teacher, Orlando Fedeli, left the TFP because he felt his talents were not sufficiently recognized. At his rupture he wrote three letters disclosing “evidence” that Prof. Plinio had transformed the TFP into “a cult to worship himself and his mother.” Soon after he left, he sold his story to one of the largest Brazilian newspapers with close ties to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ – O Estado de São Paulo – which started a boisterous defamatory campaign.
[/font][/size](http://www.traditioninaction.org/Collection/Images/E001_profile.jpg)Facing multiple defamatory campaigns with serenity and firmness[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
Encouraged by Rifan, Fedeli consulted with Bishop Mayer about a litany that two naïve teenagers had made in honor of Prof. Plinio’s mother. As soon as that litany was discovered, it had been forbidden by Dr. Plinio, but Fedeli did not inform Bishop Mayer of this “detail.” He presented the litany as if it were a prayer commonly said throughout the TFP with Prof. Plinio’s approval. Bishop Mayer condemned the litany as going against Catholic doctrine. This was in 1983.
This condemnation and Fedeli’s accusations were duly refuted and the docuмents were reviewed by famous theologians in Spain. They issued a verdict affirming the refutation to be sound and Bishop Mayer’s condemnation “poorly made and difficult to understand.” It judged that some of the litany’s ejaculations were “naïve, others ambiguous and yet others extravagant” and praised Prof. Plinio for having forbidden its recitation. But they considered it “exaggerated to label them as heterodox or blasphemous, not taking into consideration the relative nature of the language being used.” Bishop Mayer judged it prudent not to reply.
The Brazilian TFP published 2,000 copies of that refutation and full-page newspaper ads to inform the public of this judgment favoring Prof. Plinio.
In response, Fedeli went to Spain to try to bribe the principle theologian who made the review. He was duly shown out of the room. Fr. Rifan, who at the time was very close to the Society of St. Pius X, spread the same lies to this organization, which continues to propagate them among its priests and seminarians.
This campaign is just one in a list of many defamatory offensives made against Prof. Plinio.
The Brazilian TFP was also condemned at various times by the very progressivist Brazilian Bishops. Some of these condemnations were duly answered; others not, simply because they were too biased to be credible.
Altogether Prof. Plinio published 15 books.
[/font][/size](http://www.traditioninaction.org/Collection/Images/E001_Divorce.jpg)A TFP street campaign celebrating the defeat of divorce[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
He also spearheaded many petition drives carried out by the TFP including:[/font][/size][size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
- A petition against divorce in Brazil, 1966, 1 million signatures;
- A request to Paul VI to stop the communist infiltration in the Church, 1968, 2 million signatures total in Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay.
- An entreaty for the liberation and independence of Lithuania, 1990, 5.2 million signatures.
It was Prof. Plinio who asked Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira to study Paul VI’s New Mass (1969) as well as the possibility of a heretic Pope. Silveira’s book was published inPortuguese (http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/WebSources/B_612_AX-Port.pdf) (1972) and in French (1975). [An English version is available here] (http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/WebSources/B_612_AX-English.pdf)
After Paul VI launched Liberation Theology in Medellin, Colombia (1968), Prof. Plinio made several campaigns against this new thrust of communist infiltration in the Church.
In 1974 he wrote a position of resistance against the Vatican Ostpolitik, that is, its collaboration with the communist regimes. This Declaration of Resistance (http://www.traditioninaction.org/bestof/bst004plinio.htm), which made him the pioneer of Catholic Resistance, was published in 21 newspapers in 10 countries.
In 1982 he asked me to write and publish a collection analyzing Vatican II, which I did (http://www.traditioninaction.org/Collection/000_Index.html) under his guidance and encouragement.
Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira was the Catholic giant who, for many decades, held Communism at bay in South America. He also held back the advance of Progressivism in the Church as much as he could.
One aspect that official biographies of this Catholic thinker and man of action do not address is the moral and physical sufferings Prof. Plinio endured.
In the mid ‘70s, seeing how worldly and lukewarm TFP members had become, he offered his life to Our Lady to redeem that situation. Some days later, on February 3, 1975, he was in a serious car accident, suffering a broken hand, arm, leg and hip as well as severe injuries to his eyelids, lips and teeth. These graves lesions demanded multiple surgeries, causing him enormous moral and physical sufferings. The arm, leg and hip surgeries had to be made twice, still without success. The effects of that accident remained with him to the end of his days, obliging him to rely on crutches or a wheelchair.
[/font][/size](http://www.traditioninaction.org/Collection/Images/E001_ccidente.jpg)A tragic car accident that won more[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
20 years of fight for the TFPs
This suffering bought 20 more years of life for the TFPs. Toward the end, however, he confided to some friends: “If I were not in a wheelchair, they would expel me from the TFP.” He was referring to the directors who in theory followed his orientation, but in practice moved the TFP to a position of indifference and mediocrity.
When he was dying in the hospital in 1995, those directors lost no time in sending a letter (http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/A004_tfp.htm#Q6)to the Cardinal Primate of Brazil, committing the TFP not to speak publicly against Vatican II, the New Mass or the Pope.
A few years after his death, a split among his followers over the question of authority took place. Today, one faction – which includes the American TFP – upholds that same agreement with the Vatican; the other completely adhered to the Conciliar Church. Many members of the latter became priests and have comfortable ecclesiastical careers.
Sadly, both sides had become weary of the fight against Progressivism, had reduced Prof. Plinio to a museum artifact and merged – in different ways and degrees – with that same enemy against which Prof. Plinio had fought his entire life.
[/font][/size](http://www.traditioninaction.org/Collection/Images/E001_PCOlg.jpg)With his symbol the rampant lion
Did the NO priest in article say they prayed for the pope to die? I thought he said they “can’t wait” for the pope to die....on that note, neither can I....
I got the feeling he had been getting upset with sedevacantist arguments and he was being brief just to irritate them.If so, then He might check his hat to make sure that it isn't a mantilla.
.
.What's the point of a sermon again?
I heard a sermon today along this line. The priest gave a litany of offenses then suddenly stopped with a moral. It took about 5 minutes.
.
He started by saying this current Pope is probably not going to be recognized as one of the better popes in history, after all, we have had bad popes in the past. I suppose that was his way of being gently sarcastic.
.
Then he gave some hypotheticals such as, What if the pope were to deny the existence of a Catholic God, or what if he removed the restrictions for reception of Communion which have been in place against divorced Catholics openly co-habitating without marriage, or what if he were to praise Protestant heresiarchs while he punishes traditional Catholics... It went on for a couple of minutes with about 10 such examples. Everyone knows what he's talking about but it's a little weird to hear it presented in such a roundabout manner.
.
Then he suddenly ended it all with saying: Our Lord said wide is the path that leads to destruction and narrow is the gate that leads to life and few there are who find it; as for me, I'll choose the narrow gate and the straight way. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. The sermon was over.
.
I got the feeling he had been getting upset with sedevacantist arguments and he was being brief just to irritate them.
.You kinda lost me!
I heard a sermon today along this line. The priest gave a litany of offenses then suddenly stopped with a moral. It took about 5 minutes.
.
He started by saying this current Pope is probably not going to be recognized as one of the better popes in history, after all, we have had bad popes in the past. I suppose that was his way of being gently sarcastic.
.
Then he gave some hypotheticals such as, What if the pope were to deny the existence of a Catholic God, or what if he removed the restrictions for reception of Communion which have been in place against divorced Catholics openly co-habitating without marriage, or what if he were to praise Protestant heresiarchs while he punishes traditional Catholics... It went on for a couple of minutes with about 10 such examples. Everyone knows what he's talking about but it's a little weird to hear it presented in such a roundabout manner.
.
Then he suddenly ended it all with saying: Our Lord said wide is the path that leads to destruction and narrow is the gate that leads to life and few there are who find it; as for me, I'll choose the narrow gate and the straight way. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. The sermon was over.
.
I got the feeling he had been getting upset with sedevacantist arguments and he was being brief just to irritate them.
You kinda lost me!
What's the point of a sermon again?God is not the Author of Confusion.
Is it to leave the "flock" with yet more "feelz" and impressions?
Was the objective cleared in the given instance?
Is his objective, the objective?