Can I post this today, as well?
Posted on 07/06/2015 2:23:38 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
The condemnation took place on July 6, 1415, in the presence of the solemn assembly of the council in the cathedral. After the performance of high mass and liturgy, Hus was led into the church. The bishop of Lodi delivered an oration on the duty of eradicating heresy; then some theses of Hus and Wycliffe and a report of his trial were read. He protested loudly several times, and when his appeal to Christ was rejected as a condemnable heresy, he exclaimed, "O God and Lord, now the council condemns even thine own act and thine own law as heresy, since thou thyself didst lay thy cause before thy Father as the just judge, as an example for us, whenever we are sorely oppressed."
An Italian prelate pronounced the sentence of condemnation upon Hus and his writings. Again he protested loudly, saying that even at this hour he did not wish anything but to be convinced from Holy Scripture. He fell upon his knees and asked God with a low voice to forgive all his enemies. Then followed his degradation-- he was enrobed in priestly vestments and again asked to recant; again he refused. With curses his ornaments were taken from him, his priestly tonsure was destroyed, and the sentence was pronounced that the Church had deprived him of all rights and delivered him to the secular powers. Then a high paper hat was put upon his head, with the inscription Haeresiarcha. Thus Hus was led away to the stake under a strong guard of armed men. At the place of execution he knelt down, spread out his hands, and prayed aloud. Some of the people asked that a confessor should he given him, but a bigoted priest exclaimed, a heretic should neither be heard nor given a confessor.
The executioners undressed Hus and tied his hands behind his back with ropes, and his neck with a chain to a stake around which wood and straw had been piled up so that it covered him to the neck. Still at the last moment, the imperial marshal, Von Pappenheim, in the presence of the Count Palatine, asked him to save his life by a recantation, but Hus declined with the words "God is my witness that I have never taught that of which I have been accused by false witnesses. In the truth of the Gospel which I have written, taught, and preached I will die to-day with gladness." There upon the fire was kindled with John Wycliffe’s own manuscripts used as kindling for the fire. With uplifted voice Hus sang, "Christ, thou Son of the living God, have mercy upon me." Among his dying words he proclaimed, “In 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” His ashes were gathered and cast into the nearby Rhine River.
Almost exactly 100 years later, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses of Contention (a list of 95 issues of heretical theology and crimes of the Roman Catholic Church) into the church door at Wittenberg. The prophecy of John Hus had come true!
Confirmed a little more research about the Moravian Church:
It’s essentially a union church, combining Lutheranism with Calvinism, in a manner similar to Deutch Freikirks. They accept theologically the first 21 chapters of the Augsburg confession, the Small Catechism of Martin Luther, the 39 Articles of the Church of England, and the Heidelberg Catechism. They are part of the Lutheran World Federation, and the Evangelische (Frie) Kirche of Germany. Their differences with Lutheranism are from unique practices which have nothing to do with Hus. And whereas Hus insisted that both species (bread and wine) were necessary for salvation, Moravians believe neither are.
Oh, and they are virtually unknown in Bohemia.
Where are the charges against Hus written? I haven't found them yet.
His "trial" seems to have been a farce, He was not allowed to answer the charges (whatever they were) and according to one source, "Hus was repeatedly made the object of mockery, derision, humiliating treatment of the worst sort, and a cruel deposition when he was stripped of all his clerical clothing and publicly defrocked."
http://www.prca.org/books/portraits/hus.htm
Another source has this:
...The final act of Hus's life was played out at the Council of Constance (1414-18), called to bring an end to the Great Schism and to deal with the problem of heresy, especially Hus. Zygmunt, the king of Hungary and brother of Wenceslas, was elected Holy Roman Emperor in 1410. To strengthen his position in Germany, he pressured John XXIII to call the Council. Then, in the spring of 1415, offering a guarantee of safe conduct, Zygmunt invited Hus to attend. At first Hus hesitated, but with the urging of Wenceslas, he accepted.Once in Constance, Hus was lured into the papal residence, then imprisoned in a Dominican dungeon. What followed were months of interrogation and suffering. Zygmunt withdrew his safe conduct in January 1415. It was only due to great pressure exerted by Bohemian noblemen that Hus was given any semblance of a public hearing on June 5, 7, and 8, but he was not allowed to respond to the charges made against him. Presented with a list of 30 articles allegedly drawn from his writings but in fact drawn from the writings of John Wycliffe, Hus was ordered to renounce them upon oath. He refused, unless instructed from Scripture as to where his teachings were in error. The Council rejected his appeal to the Bible as a superior authority.
On July 6, Hus was given a final opportunity to recant. Again he refused, saying that since he did not hold all of the views as stated, to recant would be to commit perjury. He was then declared an arch-heretic and a disciple of Wycliffe. He was ceremoniously degraded from the priest-hood, his soul was consigned to the devil, and he was turned over to the secular authorities for execution. That same day, he was led to a meadow outside the city wall and burned alive.
Although the Council had consigned his soul to the devil, Hus—singing loudly as the flames consumed him— consigned his soul to God: "Jesus Christ! The Son of the living God! Have mercy upon me." His ashes were then gathered up and cast into the Rhine River.
http://biography.yourdictionary.com/jan-hus
So where is the content of the actual charges against him be found?
Cordially,
“Where are the charges against Hus written? I haven’t found them yet.”
Ever look at any books? Seriously, just as a test, where would someone find the charges against Huss? In books on WHAT SUBJECT in other words? To me this is common sense but let’s see how you do.
Thank you for posting this reminder. May I be as faithful as John Hus to the Word of God.
If you Google "charges against John Hus" you will find of the eighty plus charges that Hus was accused of, he was convicted of only a few. Of these charges he was convicted of saying the Pope lives in luxury like an Antichrist and criticized the pomp and ceremony of the Pope. Heck, I've seen similar statements on Freepers. To light the fires under John Hus feet with Wyclyff's bible, simply shows the hatred that existed in the Catholic Church in wanting people to know what the scriptures actually said.
BTW-this was an interesting time in the Catholic Church when there were multiple popes running around.
“To light the fires under John Hus feet with Wyclyff’s bible, simply shows the hatred that existed in the Catholic Church in wanting people to know what the scriptures actually said.”
All of Wycliffe’s books were burned because they contained heresy. I have no idea if any copies of his translation were burned under Huss. Wycliff’e Bibles often had heretical notes.
“BTW-this was an interesting time in the Catholic Church when there were multiple popes running around.”
False. There was only one pope. There were several men claiming to be pope. Today there are no less than a dozen people in the world claiming to be pope. Only one of them is the pope - Pope Francis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope#Modern_claimants_to_papacy
Exactly. If they have to be silenced rather than refuted, it is a sign of corruption.
Just like the corruption we see today re: gay marriage, Confederate flag, etc. They are not refuting our arguments but demanding our silence.
The unique feature of the Council of Constance is that it wasn't primarily focused on Hus. Had he not been later identified as a bridge between Wycliffe and Luther, his trial at the Council would have been a mere footnote.
Hus agitated not for what would be understood by today's theologians as Protestantism, but for a blending of Catholicism and Orthodoxy: he sought to establish a married priesthood, vernacular masses and reception of the Eucharist under the form of both bread and wine, Orthodox practice, while maintaining a more Roman-style openness of the mass.
The Council of Constance was founded to be an attempt at reconciliation between Catholic and Orthodox, and among the represented theologians, was a smashing intellectual success (although it failed politically once the Orthodox bishops went home). In fact, the Catholic Church consented to the demands of Orthodox practice, while the Orthodox recognized the validity of Catholic theology.
(The recision of the concessions to the Hussites/Orthodoxy occurred only after the collapse of the Catholic-Orthodoxy union.)
Thus, while Protestants love to paint Hus as a first martyr, the theological success of the Council of Constance makes it difficult to support the notion that the Catholics somehow had it in for Hussite theology, and concocted false legends of Hus's teachings: the Catholic and Orthodox bishops were trying to achieve the very stated goals of Hus.
The big sticking point, however, was that the Catholic and Orthodox were moving towards an agreement for a join defense of Constantinople in the face of a Muslim onslaught, recognizing that the ecclesial disunity posed an existential threat. Hus, on the other hand, was a declared pacifist, who condemned Crusades as manslaughter.
(While Hus' motives may well have been reform, Wycliffe, incidentally, was commission by the British crown, which sought a basis for refusing to join in the defense of Christendom from Islam. Far from the grass-roots free-thinker he is portrayed as, Wycliffe was actually a propagandist for hire.)
Also, please understand that Hus was not killed for heresy. And again, I offer this not as a defense for his killing, but for an understanding of the theology and ecclesiology involved. Allow me to explain:
During the Middle Ages, nominally Christian kings routinely killed their political opponents while making the excuse that they were punishing heretics. Appalled at this defamation of Christianity, the papacy established that it was up to the Church to determine who were heretics, as a means of protecting political dissidents. Hus was tried by the Catholic Church for heresy. Finding him guilty, the State's charges against him were allowed to proceed.
So why did the State execute him? The Church recorded their contradiction of his heresies as part of the Council of Constance (and yes, the leaders of the Orthodox churches present concurred.) But I do not find the State's case. My guess, however, is that article 30 was found to be treasonous:
30. Nobody is a civil lord, a prelate or a bishop while he is in mortal sin. {If accepted as doctrine, this would allow any slander or calumny to justify an insurrection.}
The other articles:
The condemned statements of Hus are as follows:
Condemned articles of J. Hus]
1. There is only one holy universal church, which is the total number of those predestined to salvation. It therefore follows that the universal holy church is only one, inasmuch as there is only one number of all those who are predestined to salvation. {Note that the Catholic Church does NOT condemn predestination.}
2. Paul was never a member of the devil, even though he did certain acts which are similar to the acts of the church's enemies.
3. Those foreknown as damned are not parts of the church, for no part of the church can finally fall away from it, since the predestinating love that binds the church together does not fail.
4. The two natures, the divinity and the humanity, are one Christ. {This is really subtle Christology. The Catholic Church insists that there are two natures of Christ, but that that which is human is not divine, and that which is divine is not human; from this refutation, perhaps Hus was asserting something similar to a Mormon Christology.}
5. A person foreknown to damnation is never part of the holy church, even if he is in a state of grace according to present justice; a person predestined to salvation always remains a member of the church, even though he may fall away for a time from adventitious grace, for he keeps the grace of predestination.
6. The church is an article of faith in the following sense: to regard it as the convocation of those predestined to salvation, whether or not it be in a state of grace according to present justice.
7. Peter neither was nor is the head of the holy catholic church.
8. Priests who live in vice in any way pollute the power of the priesthood, and like unfaithful sons are untrustworthy in their thinking about the church's seven sacraments, about the keys, offices, censures, customs, ceremonies and sacred things of the church, about the veneration of relics, and about indulgences and orders. {This would require that priests who were in vice would thus render moot the salvation of their flock; Rather the Catholic position is that the faith of the congregants in no way depends on the faithfulness of the priests who administer the sacraments to them.}
9. The papal dignity originated with the emperor, and the primacy and institution of the pope emanated from imperial power.
10. Nobody would reasonably assert of himself or of another, without revelation, that he was the head of a particular holy church; nor is the Roman pontiff the head of the Roman church.
11. It is not necessary to believe that any particular Roman pontiff is the head of any particular holy church, unless God has predestined him to salvation.
12. Nobody holds the place of Christ or of Peter unless he follows his way of life, since there is no other discipleship that is more appropriate nor is there another way to receive delegated power from God, since there is required for this office of vicar a similar way of life as well as the authority of the one instituting.
13. The pope is not the manifest and true successor of the prince of the apostles, Peter, if he lives in a way contrary to Peter's. If he seeks avarice, he is the vicar of Judas Iscariot. Likewise, cardinals are not the manifest and true successors of the college of Christ's other apostles unless they live after the manner of the apostles, keeping the commandments and counsels of our lord Jesus Christ.
14. Doctors who state that anybody subjected to ecclesiastical censure, if he refuses to be corrected, should be handed over to the judgment of the secular authority, are undoubtedly following in this the chief priests, the scribes and the pharisees who handed over to the secular authority Christ himself, since he was unwilling to obey them in all things, saying, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death; these gave him to the civil judge, so that such men are even greater murderers than Pilate.
15. Ecclesiastical obedience was invented by the church's priests, without the express authority of scripture.
16. The immediate division of human actions is between those that are virtuous and those that are wicked. Therefore, if a man is wicked and does something, he acts wickedly; if he is virtuous and does something, he acts virtuously. For just as wickedness, which is called crime or mortal sin, infects all the acts of a wicked man, so virtue gives life to all the acts of a virtuous man.
17. A priest of Christ who lives according to his law, knows scripture and has a desire to edify the people, ought to preach, notwithstanding a pretended excommunication. And further on: if the pope or any superior orders a priest so disposed not to preach, the subordinate ought not to obey.
18. Whoever enters the priesthood receives a binding duty to preach; and this mandate ought to be carried out, notwithstanding a pretended excommunication.
19. By the church's censures of excommunication, suspension and interdict the clergy subdue the laity, for the sake of their own exaltation, multiply avarice protect wickedness and prepare the way for antichrist. The clear sign of this is the fact that these censures come from antichrist. In the legal proceedings of the clergy they are called fulminations, which are the principal means whereby the clergy proceed against those who uncover antichrist's wickedness, which the clergy has for the most part usurped for itself.
20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it.
21. The grace of predestination is the bond whereby the body of the church and each of its members is indissolubly joined with the head.
22. The pope or a prelate who is wicked and foreknown to damnation is a pastor only in an equivocal sense, and truly is a thief and a robber.
23. The pope ought not to be called "most holy" even by reason of his office, for otherwise even a king ought to be called "most holy" by reason of his office and executioners and heralds ought to be called "holy", indeed even the devil would be called "holy" since he is an official of God.
24. If a pope lives contrary to Christ, even if he has risen through a right and legitimate election according to the established human constitution, he would have risen by a way other than through Christ, even granted that he entered upon office by an election that had been made principally by God. For, Judas Iscariot was rightly and legitimately elected to be an apostle by Jesus Christ who is God, yet he climbed into the sheepfold by another way.
25. The condemnation of the forty-five articles of John Wyclif, decreed by the doctors, is irrational and unjust and badly done and the reason alleged by them is feigned, namely that none of them is catholic but each one is either heretical or erroneous or scandalous.
26. The viva voce agreement upon some person, made according to human custom by the electors or by the greater part of them, does not mean by itself that the person has been legitimately elected or that by this very fact he is the true and manifest successor or vicar of the apostle Peter or of another apostle in an ecclesiastical office. For, it is to the works of the one elected that we should look irrespective of whether the manner of the election was good or bad. For, the more plentifully a person acts meritoriously towards building up the church, the more copiously does he thereby have power from God for this.
27. There is not the least proof that there must be one head ruling the church in spiritual matters who always lives with the church militant. {"Church militant" is the Catholic term for living Christians, who must as a result of their fallen nature must combat the devil.}
28. Christ would govern his church better by his true disciples scattered throughout the world, without these monstrous heads.
29. The apostles and faithful priests of the Lord strenuously governed the church in matters necessary for salvation before the office of pope was introduced, and they would continue to do this until the day of judgment if--which is very possible--there is no pope.
Can I post this today, as well?
If you like!
Two things I want to comment on:
In post 8 you said that
He ran afoul of Church authorities on the doctrine of “impanation.” That is that the bread of the Mass remains bread, and the wine remains wine. Catholicism teaches that each the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity.
However, I do not see that charge in the list you posted, and one of the sources I linked says he did not accept Wycliffe's view on the matter:
Jan Hus did not accept carte blanche all that Wycliffe taught. He did not, for example, accept Wycliffe's doctrine of remanence with respect to the Eucharist, or Mass. The doctrine of remanence held that in the celebration of the Eucharist, the bread and wine retain their material substance. Thus it denied the alleged miracle of transubstantiation by which, according to the Roman Catholic Church, the bread and wine became the flesh and blood of Christ. Transubstantiation was the key to the whole edifice of medieval theology. Remove it, and one removed the need for the priesthood and the medieval institutional church as it then existed.
...Hus was tried by the Catholic Church for heresy. Finding him guilty, the State's charges against him were allowed to proceed.
So why did the State execute him? The Church recorded their contradiction of his heresies as part of the Council of Constance (and yes, the leaders of the Orthodox churches present concurred.) But I do not find the State's case. My guess, however, is that article 30 was found to be treasonous:
This does not seem accurate, again from the other sources I've looked at so far. By all accounts he was tried by the Church, not the State, and he was executed by the State because the Church turned him over to the secular authorities for execution.
Once in Constance, Hus was lured into the papal residence, then imprisoned in a Dominican dungeon. What followed were months of interrogation and suffering. Zygmunt withdrew his safe conduct in January 1415. It was only due to great pressure exerted by Bohemian noblemen that Hus was given any semblance of a public hearing on June 5, 7, and 8, but he was not allowed to respond to the charges made against him. Presented with a list of 30 articles allegedly drawn from his writings but in fact drawn from the writings of John Wycliffe, Hus was ordered to renounce them upon oath. He refused, unless instructed from Scripture as to where his teachings were in error. The Council rejected his appeal to the Bible as a superior authority.On July 6, Hus was given a final opportunity to recant. Again he refused, saying that since he did not hold all of the views as stated, to recant would be to commit perjury. He was then declared an arch-heretic and a disciple of Wycliffe. He was ceremoniously degraded from the priest-hood, his soul was consigned to the devil, and he was turned over to the secular authorities for execution. That same day, he was led to a meadow outside the city wall and burned alive.
http://biography.yourdictionary.com/jan-hus
Cordially,
One of the strangest things about Huss is that everyone knew he was a student of Wycliffe but he (as shown by a German historian in the 19th century) copied word-for-word from Wycliffe entire paragraphs but interpreted them entirely differently than Wycliffe. Very much a subjective scholar and inventor of his own versions of heresies.
Cordially,
Strange that they didn't burn Origen's (gnosticism) or Pelagius' (saved by works) writings who also wrote heretical doctrine condemned by the Church. There are all sorts of church fathers that wrote heresy.
But I did do a Google on John Wycliffe heresy documents and the Catholic Encyclopedia claims that they didn't like Wycliffe's view on Transsubstantiation. Please note the following:
With all due respect this is not false. Please note the following history:
Four papal chairs
There is more to this peculiar side of Vatican history and it is found in an old book called Secrets of the Christian Fathers, written in 1685 by Bishop J. W. Sergerus. The author provides evidence from Vatican documents that at some periods in Church history there were four popes occupying the papal chair(s), each in separate buildings, operating independently with his own staff, and he names them. One example is that of the self-declared Pope Benedict XIV (1425) who for years rivalled popes Benedict XIII (1427), Clement VIII (1429), and Martin V (1431). Church historians today ingeniously refer to the fourth member of the quadruple grouping of popes as ‘a counter anti-pope’.4
¹Catholic Encyclopedia, i, 541
²Catholic Encyclopedia, i, 582
³The Criminal History of the Papacy, Tony Bushby, NEXUS Magazine article, 2006
4The Popes, A Concise Biographical History, Burns and Oates, Publishers to the Holy See, London, 1964
Perhaps the Vatican should have burned some of their own documents instead of Wycliff. It's dreadful that we have no documents to back up the Catholic claim that Wycliff was far worst than the genostic Origen or the saved by works Pelagius. Far worst is that we have only the Vatican's word that Wycliff and Hus should have been burned at the stake.
Interesting book. One can’t help notice how Hus was simply parroting the Council of Orange’s position. For this he was executed.
So much for oral tradition. ;O)
No, that is not why he was executed.
Even his modern defenders admit he was a heretic. See Thomas Fudge's book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199988080?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_sfl_title_3&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER Here are two blurbs about the book:
"Thomas Fudge has written an exceptional reappraisal of one of medieval Europe's most notorious heresy trials. Without relinquishing any of his deep sympathy for Hus's sincerity and goals, Fudge concludes that he was indeed heretical and that his trial was legal. Meticulous scholarship is matched with a persuasive prose style, and this passionate but objective study has profound implications for future research into how the late medieval church responded to dissent."--Norman Housley, Professor of History, University of Leicester
"Thomas Fudge casts new light on the trial of John Hus in 1415, examining its context in medieval law. He makes an important contribution to scholarship, showing that Hus failed to understand the laws about heresy applied at the Council of Constance. Hus emerges from this study as brave and dedicated but fatally naïve." --Thomas Izbicki, co-editor of The Church, the Councils, & Reform: The Legacy of the Fifteenth Century
“Strange that they didn’t burn Origen’s (gnosticism) or Pelagius’ (saved by works) writings...”
Who says they didn’t? How many of Pelagius’ major works survive intact? We have some of his letters and statements. Most else is “reconstructed”. See for yourself: http://www.libraryoftheology.com/pelagianismwritings.html
Origen’s books were proscribed and burned multiple times: https://books.google.com/books?id=riEdrWEDFq0C&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=burned+the+works+of+origen&source=bl&ots=jVnoLRVVL4&sig=vTg14nA3bwk-Y_k51A4RM6ghVtc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAzgKahUKEwiIwvy__8nGAhUFIKwKHd5ICMg#v=onepage&q=burned%20the%20works%20of%20origen&f=false
“There are all sorts of church fathers that wrote heresy.”
Origen is usually not counted as a Church Father. His reputation has largely been rehabilitated in the last century, however.
“the allegiance of Christendom was being claimed by two popes.”
No, there was only one. There were two men - and then three - all claiming to be pope. The CE is NOT saying they were both popes only that “the allegiance of Christendom was being claimed by two popes” - meaning two men claiming to be pope. See here for how they put it: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm
“With all due respect this is not false.”
Nope. It is false. There was ONE pope. And people at the time knew it. No one believed there was more than one pope. They just disagreed over who was the valid pope. This is why the same CE you just relied on says: “Was the real pope to be found at Avignon or at Rome?”
“However, there was a time when, according to Catholic documents, there were four sets of Catholics all saying the same thing.”
And anyone who can think would know that doesn’t affect the issue in itself. There are a dozen people AT LEAST in the world today claiming to be pope. Only one is - Pope Francis.
And then we see the usual anti-Catholic blunder:
“Perhaps the Vatican should have burned some of their own documents instead of Wycliff.”
Wycliffe wasn’t burned. He died in his bed at his rural parish. His remains - which couldn’t have been much - were burned about 43 years later. The man Wycliffe was never burned.
Also, just so you know, Origen actually deliberately cited Gnostic views and then REFUTED THEM. See the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. 4a (Gospel of John 1-10), edited by Joel C. Elowsky, page xix, InterVarsity Press Academic, (2007).
It’s the information age. There’s no reason for ANYONE to be ignorant Western world.
That is like saying "anonymous sources". What exactly did he say?
As far as this book is concerned, some of the comments on this book on Amazon are as follows:
> An excellent narration of how the so-called heretics were transformed di State power into common criminals.
But, it's rather odd that a work by a Pentacostal is considered evidence to support the Catholic Church's position.
The Catholic Encyclopedia which states:
Nope. It is false. There was ONE pope. And people at the time knew it.
One cannot change history.
There are a dozen people AT LEAST in the world today claiming to be pope. Only one is - Pope Francis.
Much to the consternation of many.
“At least these two reviewers don’t appear to give the Catholic Church a ringing indorsement nor do they seem to agree with your conclusion.”
indorsement?
“But, it’s rather odd that a work by a Pentacostal is considered evidence to support the Catholic Church’s position.”
No, the facts are clear: Huss was a heretic. His trial was conducted according to understood procedures for the time.
Look, Thomas Fudge has written two books on Huss that I know of. He clearly is, according to what other historians (whom I have read) have said, essentially pro-Huss but he makes it plain that Huss was a heretic and was tried by the procedures of his day. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
I have not read either book. Yet. But I have decided to get one or both of them in a few weeks. I’ll probably just get the one on the trial since the other is over a $100. Either way I am getting rid of three books on the Jan Hus and the Hussites on Thursday (I’m getting rid of almost 500 books so far, no shelf space left). That new book looks worthwhile. There are some books I just can’t afford: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9004290389?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_sfl_title_1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.