Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Me too! But hasn't the Scripture set the precedent that we are to obey those men whom God has placed over and above us? Like Moses? Or the Apostles? Or even secular kings, as Paul mentions in Romans? We believe, as Christ said to Pilate (you would not have authority over me if it was not given from above), that God places people in authority over us all for His own reasons. These men are not infallible, yet Scripture tells us to obey them. A man doesn't need to be infallible to be obeyed. The reason why Church authority is even more highly regarded is because they ARE infallible ONLY because of the Holy Spirit, not their own abilities.
I must put my trust in men I do not know. The authority of these (non-Biblical) men is a self-claimed authority.
FK, I urge you to continue that line of thought to its logical conclusion...WE both base our trust that the Bible is the WORD of God BECAUSE we trust in those who gave it to us were trustworthy. St. Augustine says "I would not believe in the Scriptures if it were not for the Catholic Church". Anyone can say that there writings are inspired by God (see the Mormons). We don't believe them - but the Bible, we do, because it came from the Church.
Forgive me if I've already asked this, but the Church has never taught error?
Every word out of the mouth of a priest is not infallible. Only solemnly declared dogmatic statements. Only pronouncements made officially that claim to speak for the entire Church with the guidance of the Spirit. Indulgences continue to be an official teaching of the Church. The problem in the 1400-1500's was not the validity of the teaching, but rather the ABUSE of it. When several bishops abuse their authority, it doesn't mean that the universal church is teaching error. It means that some people are abusing their God-given authority. The wolves among the sheep.
Even in the Pope's recent pronouncement on homosexuality, he allows latent existing homosexual priests to remain in good standing
Again, that is not an official statement made from the "chair of Peter". However, frankly, how does that differ from a "latent existing" alcoholic priest who remains in good standing? We ALL have tendencies towards sin that we must fight against. Of course, priests with homosexual tendencies should remove themselves from the possibility of sinning. Perhaps a ministry to the sick, and keep away from kids. But are we to eliminate all priests who are not perfect? If a priest can preach the Church's teaching and keep a lid on his homosexual temptations, he is no different then any other priest who share the same fate as all fallen humans. Of course, that is my personal opinion, not a dogmatic statement, much like the Pope's.
However, after that it all goes back to interpretation. Following a practice and determining its meaning are two different things.
I would posit that those writing Scripture wrote it in a way that was VERY evident to those reading it. WE are confused and disagree (if we go Scripture alone) because we are not aware of the language nuances, the writing styles, the context of the times, and so forth. Thus, you are hard pressed to explain how the people Paul wrote to could be so confused about the Real Presence, considering that Paul LIVED with some of his communities for years! I would guarantee that Paul would make a statement IF the Corinthians were turning the "symbol" of the Eucharist to a "reality".
What you continue to ignore on this issue is for people to "change" from a "symbol" to a "reality" in one generation (it is clear what people from 110 AD believed) would require EVERYONE EVERYWHERE to change to the same "error" of the real presence, without a MURMUR of protest. Quite impossible, FK. We are talking about people who willingly went to lions to defend their faith. Are you saying that the Church became so confused, wimpy and inept on such a key belief in one generation?
You explained to me before that "THE CHURCH" does not equal "The Roman Catholic Church". Therefore, other than the RCC is also within "THE CHURCH". You can't admit that and then say that others are also part of the CHURCH, as long as they agree with RCC teaching. That would wipe out the whole point. Either you claim that the RCC is the only way to God, or you allow for differences
The difference between "is" and "subsists in" is a nuance difference. The Church of Christ subsists in the Roman Catholic Church means that people can be part of the Church but not be an official member of the Roman Catholic Church down the street. However, since the Church of Christ subsists in the Roman Church, a person who follows the Roman Catholic Church's beliefs and practices are part of the Roman Catholic Church in a mysterious way. Protestant communities are NOT part of the Church of Christ. The individual members, such as yourself, are part of the Roman Catholic Church to the degree that you follow its teachings and practices (presuming you were baptized validly).
Thus, when we speak of the invisible Church, it doesn't mean that the Calvinist community is invisibly connected to Rome. It means that those WITHIN the community individually are connected to this Church. There is no other "invisible church", like the invisible Lutheran church. And unfortunately, a person is no longer within this Catholic Church WHEN they learn the truth of what the Catholic Church IS and refuse to join it visibly. We call this invincibly ignorant - God will judge us on our knowledge. If a person realizes that "he who hears you, hears Me" and sees the Catholic church as the "you", but still refuses to enter - they are refusing Christ.
When we speak of the Church in regards to teaching and preaching infallibly, we speak of the visible Catholic Church. A visible Church MUST be the earthly source of infallible teachings - otherwise, anyone could make this claim to be "of the Church". Reaching back to the NT, we see the successors of Paul, Timothy and Titus (which, by the way, today is their feast day in the liturgical calendar - pray for us St. Timothy and St. Titus) being ordained specifically for this purpose. THEY were the next legitimate teachers of the faith, the protectors of correct doctrine. I think if you read the Pastorals, you'd find Apostolic Succession quite clearly explained, such as Titus 1:5 or 2 Tim 2:2. Thus, when a Lutheran pastor claims to be part of the invisible Church, he may be. But he is not an official teacher of the Church. To the degree that he teaches opposite what the Visible Church teaches, he is leading people AWAY from Christ.
You, OTOH, are bound to follow the Church teaching on this, are you not?
We are bound to follow official teachings of the Church because we believe that God speaks through it - as Christ says.
Core issues are things like the identity of Christ, the trinity, method of salvation, reality of sin, need for forgiveness, existence of heaven and hell, inerrancy of the Bible, etc.
Because it is subject to private human opinion rather than the Church, I highly doubt that you will get uniformity on every core subject - on what is necessary to know for salvation. As being subject to private opinion, you are free to ignore another's opinion. You are not bound to it. Thus, a person could state "I don't think Jesus rose bodily" and still consider themselves Christian. We might not consider them Christians, but who cares what we think (to them). That is why a heirarchy is important - to TELL US what is necessary for salvation. To TELL us the specifics of what the Bible means by "faith". And we know that it is passed down in uncorrupted form, because God promised to protect His Church - meaning the Apostolic successors who were tasked to do this very thing. (we as lay people were not given the task to "protect" the revelation given, although we certainly can).
We have more differences than you because we do not automatically submit to the direction of fallible men
You submit to your OWN selves, don't you? You are presuming to know what God means by particular Scripture passages, over and above men from 1800 years removed from today. People who were only a couple generations from Christ. While they were not infallible, what makes me smarter then them? Why do I place myself above their holy opinions? Consider, the following generations noted what the first Christians believed, as well, and agreed with their teachings and interpretations. So am I to disagree with so many generations of Christians? Why? And we haven't even discussed the fact that Christ guides His Church from error.
You do submit because you believe these men have been specially blessed with power and wisdom, etc. That's fine. That is faith
And I believe that Jesus Christ meant for His Church to last for all time - and that He would, MUST, protect it from error. How would He do this? How does God protect His Church from teaching error? Do you think that the Church would have the Nicean Creed as is WITHOUT God's guidance? Again, Christianity is a revealed religion, not one of rationale and logic (although they certainly exist within it). If God said He was 6 persons in one, we would believe Him. The Scriptures DO NOT EXPLICITLY SAY that He is a Trinity. From the Scriptures, tell me who the Holy Spirit is? A force? An angel? A creation? God? It is not quite so clear as you'd make it out to be. That is why we shouldn't ignore the Apostolic Tradition - HOW to read the Bible. Through them, we KNOW that Jesus is of the SAME essence of God, that the Holy Spirit is ALSO of the same essence of God.
The claim you make, that the Spirit guides you, is true to a degree. But it cannot be entirely true, because I believe the Spirit guides me...But yet, we disagree on the Eucharist!!! How COULD the Spirit lead two Christians to believe something entirely different, on a core issue? Thus, the Spirit DOES NOT lead us in THAT fashion. He leads the CHURCH leaders to read the sense of the faithful, to interpret the Scriptures, to interpret what has been passed down to formulate dogmatic definitions when a person refutes an important commonly-held teaching.
I have not yet been led to follow men before God's word.
Every word within the Bible came to us through men. The Judeo-Christian heritage understands that God's Word is brought to us through the instrument of men who the community deems as inspired by God. THE COMMUNITY deems they were inspired. They witness to the truth of the prophet or evangelist's words. I believe you are taking for granted how that Bible came into your hands, AS the Word of God.
I thank you for the opportunites for this discussion and your patience. God Bless.
oh, I'm not talking about the thigns that unite us Christians (all) --> I simply said that if we were to answer a "Protestant" in one post, that could be answering one grouping's beliefs, but another might say -- hey, we Protestants don't believe that.
OK, but this state of disembodied existence is different for a saint than for any one else, excluding, of course, the Holy Mary altogether from this conversation? Since the saints not only hear our prayers but intercede for us and perform miracles?
Again, I do not want to insult any Protestant in what I have to say negative about Protestantism. The genuine sympathy that nearly everyone has for the past two popes, as well as for leaders such as Billy Graham or Falwell is very heart warming and is a testimony to the Christian faith we all have in common. It is typically when we get into the more dogmatic precincts of the faith that we find things to dislike. Moreover, please do not underestimate the respect I have for the political aspect of conservative evangelical Christianity, which is admirably solid in its support for conservative values. I am only speaking of trends that, I believe, arise from the Protestant dogma that are not salutary in their impact on the world.
removal of books
The Christian Canon of scripture was determined in early 5th century, last at the Council of Carthage in AD 419. Since then, and in fact for most of the preceding history of the Christian Church, the following books comprised the Canon of the Old Testament:
The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacue, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.We can disregard the variations in the titles. The important thing is that the Old Testament Canon included seven books that at the time were not in the Hebrew Canon: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; some passages from Esther and Daniel were not in the Hebrew Canon either. They were retained by the Christian Canon because they were part of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the sacred Hebrew books, that was in use till AD 90 by both Christians and Jews, and till today by Christians who read Greek. Let me reiterate, at the time when the Church was formed the "scripture" meant Septuagint. It is therefore logical that Septuagint be the Old Testament part of the deposit of faith left by Christ, despite what later became of the Jewish canon. The Jews had reasons of their own to discard the seven books in question, the so-called "Deuterocanonical" books. By AD 90 the Jews separated from the Christians of Jewish origin and began to consider them apostates; it is reasonable to suspect that rejection of the more recent deuterocanonical books had something to do with their rejection not only of Christianity but of all the modern trends of the time.(Trent)
It is true that inclusion into the canon of some books of both the Old and the New testaments were variously disputed by Christian fathers also, especially Origen. The deuterocanonical books were disputed because of the canon revision by the Jews, but some New Testament books were also questioned, e.g. the Apocalypse of St. John, and other books were considered as candidates, e.g. the letters of pope Clement to the Corinthians and the Protoevangelium of James. But the three Carthage councils, last in AD 419, put an end to the dispute till the Reformation.
Luther argued against several canonical books: the deuterocanonicals and the Letter of James, and may be some others. He was persuaded to keep the Letter of James, but the deuterocanonical books he first separated as an addendum that he called "apocrypha" and then dropped altogether. The different, reduced Protestant Canon of the Old Testament was created.
The reason Luther objected to the Deuterocanonicals that is usually cited is twofold: that references to some form of communion with the departed souls are made throughout these books, thus reinforcing the doctrine of Purgatory, which Luther disliked; and that they were not a part of the Hebrew canon.
The Council of Trent (1546) affirmed the Christian Canon in full. That was in response to Luther's challenge, as was the purpose of the entire council. The fact that Trent was very explicit in stating the inspired nature of the deuterocanonical books is sometimes distorted to support the notion that Trent added these books to some mythically original, conformant with Luther's, canon. This notion is patently false, -- it is sufficient to look at any Bible prior to Luther's, east of west, and see that the deuterocanonicals are there, in their rightful place.
The Catholic bibles today contain the complete Christian Canon. For the English translations see Douay-Rheims Bible, which is the oldest (older than King James) translation perfectly matching the Vulgate. More modern complete translations are also available in Catholic stores.
The Orthodox Bible contains the entire Catholic Canon plus sometime the Third book of the Machabees.
For more detailed treatment of the issue, see Canon of the Old Testament
I will take a break and respond to the rest of your post later.
Everything about humanity is a gift from God. That includes our freedom and dignity. We do not believe that we are enslaved by God as you do.
By all means, but that doesn't change the fact that men, whether righteous or unrighteous, can only ask for His mercy. Surely, they can't demand it.
For we don't know what God knows, and what seems just to us may be unjust in God's eyes. Ours is to simply reiterate our trust that, with God, mercy triumphs over judgment.
We do not pray for the Saints. They pray for us. The Saints are people who have achieved greater likeness to Christ than we have, so it is logical for them to pray for us to succeed than the other way around.
There is nothing that says that the souls can't pray, or hear our prayers. For humans, the natural state is body and soul. For the Saints, perhaps their Christ-like state (theosis) is so blissful and comoforting, being closer to God, that they do not suffer as much in their unnatural state.
As for miracles, Saints do not perform miracles. God does. They may be the conduit or intercession, but the miralces would be God'e energies, not human.
The Greek Fathers of the church always implied that the phrase found in the biblical story of the creation of man (Gen. 1:26), according to "the image and likeness of God," meant that man is not an autonomous being and that his ultimate nature is defined by his relation to God, his "prototype." In paradise Adam and Eve were called to participate in God's life and to find in him the natural growth of their humanity "from glory to glory." To be "in God" is, therefore, the natural state of man.
This doctrine is particularly important in connection with the Fathers' view of human freedom. For theologians such as Gregory of Nyssa (4th century) and Maximus the Confessor (7th century) man is truly free only when he is in communion with God; otherwise he is only a slave to his body or to "the world," over which, originally and by God's command, he was destined to rule.
Thus, the concept of sin implies separation from God and the reduction of man to a separate and autonomous existence, in which he is deprived of both his natural glory and his freedom. He becomes an element subject to cosmic determinism, and the image of God is thus blurred within him.
Freedom in God, as enjoyed by Adam, implied the possibility of falling away from God. This is the unfortunate choice made by man, which led Adam to a subhuman and unnatural existence. The most unnatural aspect of his new state was death. In this perspective, "original sin" is understood not so much as a state of guilt inherited from Adam but as an unnatural condition of human life that ends in death.
Mortality is what each man now inherits at his birth and this is what leads him to struggle for existence, to self-affirmation at the expense of others, and ultimately to subjection to the laws of animal life. The "prince of this world" (i.e., Satan), who is also the "murderer from the beginning," has dominion over man. From this vicious circle of death and sin, man is understood to be liberated by the death and Resurrection of Christ, which is actualized in Baptism and the sacramental life in the church.
The general framework of this understanding of the God-man relationship is clearly different from the view that became dominant in the Christian West—i.e., the view that conceived of "nature" as distinct from "grace" and that understood original sin as an inherited guilt rather than as a deprivation of freedom.
In the East, man is regarded as fully man when he participates in God; in the West, man's nature is believed to be autonomous, sin is viewed as a punishable crime, and grace is understood to grant forgiveness.
Hence, in the West, the aim of the Christian is justification, but in the East, it is rather communion with God and deification. In the West, the church is viewed in terms of mediation (for the bestowing of grace) and authority (for guaranteeing security in doctrine); in the East, the church is regarded as a communion in which God and man meet once again and a personal experience of divine life becomes possible." [from The Doctrine of the Orthodox Church]
Hope this helps shed some light on our perspective and how it contrasts with Protestant and Catholic beliefs, if any.
That's really very, very good, Kosta. It sets out the distinction between "Do this or you will go to hell" and "Do this and you will become like God."
Of course!
But knowing what we know about our Creator and how He has exhibited His love for us through the death of His Son, and the verses from Scripture, we should approach God in confidence that if we are asking for something that will bring us closer to God (to become more humble in a specific situation), we will receive it. I won't say "absolute assurance", but God is pleased to give us gifts so we can return them back to Him.
Again, I think we are saying the same thing from a different angle!
Brother in Christ
That is without warrant. What Christ handed down was oral tradition and the Septuagint illuminated by the oral tradition. His mandate to the Apostles was to teach the Gospel, not write a book. Their first order of business was to establish a liturgical tradition, because it is through fixed rituals and memorized prayers that a doctrine is maintained and propagated in a semi-literate world where books were luxury. Most letters were written to address specific local errors or give personal advice when a meeting face-to-face was impractical. The gospels were written later to fix in generational memory certain guideposts; it is rather clear that the evangelists did not intend to create an encyclopedia of Christ's teaching but rather put on paper the bare facts and verbatim quotes as they remembered them. Even the basic facts, such as who wrote what gospel are not known from any canonical scripture. Much of the teaching of Christ remained oral tradition till one Church Father or another wrote it down centuries later. Some imagery from that period survives in the iconographic tradition. We know how Christ looked from tradition, -- till the shroud of Turin confirmed the iconographic tradition over a thousand years later. It is true of course that the oral tradition is inherently fluid and needs to be taken on faith only inasmuch as it is consistent as a whole; consequently, the writings of the early Church fathers are not canonical and are considered authoritative only in where they have a consensus. If I can find one verse which means something concrete in context in the canonical scripture it pretty much closes the argument. If I can find one phrase in the non-canonical writings of the Fathers, no matter how clearly that father's position is seen, I need to find a consensus among others to prove that this is the teaching of Christ. That is the difference between canonical scripture and oral (i.e. patristic, written to us) tradition. If the Protestant view on the patristic tradition were like I describe, there would have been no reason for us to disagree, but then there would be no "sola scriptura". As it is, the Protestant position is not to be more cautious in the study of the Fathers, but to ignore them unless something suits their agenda (which is, exclusively, fragments from St. Augustine).
Protestantism disobeys the RCC, not the "Church that Christ established".
RCC means Roman Catholic Church. Do you obey the Eastern Catholic Church? Do you obey the Orthodox Church? The Ethiopian Church? Any other continuing-tradition Church? You do not, do you? Aside from the completely unsubstantiated "trail of blood" legend in the case of the Baptists, Protestantism cannot point to any historical patrimony leading to the 1 century. What we know from historical evidence, -- the same fathers you ignore, -- points to a highly rutualistic liturgy centered around the Eucharist and lead by a priest, who is consecrated by a bishop, who in turn obeys, or at least is supposed to obey Rome, in a hierarchical structure, similar if not identical to the hierarchies that exist today in apostolic churches. Councils were called to define doctrine as private interpretations of the scripture not consonant with the consensus of the bishops were condemned and anathemized. I can recognize my Church in the writings of Justin Martyr, Clement, Ignatius or Irenaeus, -- can you?
We just don't agree with you on their [the sacraments'] meaning
But a sacrament has a defined meaning. The Holy Communion is the body and blood of Christ and has to come from a priest. Confession to a priest leads to absolution of sin; confession to a layman does not. These are articles of faith the Protestants do not agree with. But these are the sacraments of the historical apostolic Church. What you have, -- a memorial of the last supper and confession to a layman or to the congregation are nice things to do, but they are not the sacraments of the Church.
Who are these children who are being deprived of baptism in Protestant churches?
Many, -- indeed not all, -- Protestant churches would not baptize a child before the age of reason. This deprives that child of the grace of baptism and endangers his soul should he die unbaptized.
We deny the necessity of man-driven works
But then you deny scripture. When Christ commanded us to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc. He did not say anything about man-driven, He just said, do it. The ending chapter of the Apocalypse is clear on that: "my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works". We agree, incidentally, that it is faith that drives works of charity, but we don't consider it an excuse not to "work out our salvation in fear and trembling" (Phillipians 2:12).
Who is crumbling on any of these things (except one)?
Like I said, some Protestant communities do a wonderful job in the conservative vineyard; others are in complete acquiescence to the liberal agenda. But the movement away from parochial schools was a Protestant project, that has lead to the scandal of publik skulz of today. The idea that one can be justified in reading the Scripture, arriving at a private interpretation of it, and start his own church based on it, has defined modernity with its moral relativism. But this is the fundamental Protestant idea. The notion that a bunch of lawyers and politicians can go and starve an innocent disabled woman to death because an electoral process of law has lead to it, -- I am referring to Terri Schiavo, of course, -- is a direct product of the mentality according to which everyone is his own pope and therefore entitled to autonomous moral judgement.
The one aspect of moral law on which you admit Protestantism has defected en masse (Lambeth Conference, 1930) is contraception. But this is the cornerstone of moral order that was destroyed by the left, -- and now, of course, the Church is waging a lone, despairing battle to steer at least its own flock away from that sin. Once a moral approval was given to sex as a way for people to push Creator God out of the marital bedroom, Chritian marriage was destroyed. Mariage became temporary cohabitative arrangement between any kind or number of partners; love became masturbatory; child became a contraceptive failure. Adultery, perversion, divorce, abortion were to follow by an iron logic: hide from God, and you will find Satan.
We know it is temporary, and the Catholic belief is that the detour varies according to the individual burden. We should however be careful when trying to quantify the length of the stay. The popular notions that a certain prayer releases 1000 souls from purgatory right away is something that we are nto required to believe, -- these are private revelations that do no harm if you believe them, but there is no harm is being skeptical about them. The important thing in the Catholic teaching is that all souls in Purgatory are on their way to Heaven.
The Orthodox belief, as I just learned in this thread, is somewhat different.
I gave you scripture and explained it in 1995, and you respond with sneering? If you have an interpretation of these passages that accounts for every verse as mine does, I'd be curious to see it. I do not mind a comic relief either, if that is what you've got.
We are lucky. As to what would have happened if Eve changes her mind, or Mary, or Judas, the scripture does not tell. Perhaps God does not want us to know?
I do not find anything I recognize as specifically Catholic western in these errors, and errors they are. Nature is a part of the Divine Creation and is a conduit of grace; the original sin is an inherited condition but is not guilt.
Pretty good article overall, though.
I suppose then, that we would disagree on the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount. I would say the reason Jesus does not speak of imputed justification is that He was not talking about salvation in the Sermon. He was talking about righteous living, which we are to seek, and is as you said, possible through God inside us. Even in 5:20, this is a description of the new nature, not a "to do" list.
I actually like the idea of Christ's righteousness being thrown over me like a coat. In my sinful nature I am very cold. :) In order for me to cooperate in righteousness I must add at least an element of my own, do you agree? I would say there is no righteousness in me to add. None. I can't cooperate if I don't bring anything to the table. I see this whole "view" as being meek and humble, and poor in spirit. This is part of what attracts me to it.
Could you imagine God and Luther's idea of man co-existing forever? It is incomprehensible. God is not some foolish old dolt who doesn't recognize the smell of our stinking selves (spiritually) underneath the "cloak" of Christ... I never did understand that mental picture.
I'm not directly familiar with Luther's quote, but I think I get the drift. I believe God knows "who" we are in our sin, and He is not ashamed of what He made. We are just not fit to exist with Him in heaven for all time. (God created lots of things that will not exist with Him heaven.) Christ fixes this problem for us, we did not have the means. God knows our "smell", but does not count it against us because of what Christ did. It is as if God ignores our "smell". Do we not all sometimes ignore glaring faults in those we love? The cloak of Christ's blood trumps the smell and in God's eyes it is wiped away.
Of course, the other way to look at it is that we really don't "smell" so bad at all, since we have a new nature in righteousness. Yes, there are remnants that stink, but the core of our new being is holy. Christ's work caused this to happen. In either case, the result is the same. We are unworthy, Christ loved us and did what we could never do. Here we would disagree on the cooperation issue. I know you have said that cooperation is enabled by God, but the whole freewill idea means the decision comes from us. Is man glorified in his cooperation?
Thank you for your further comments on purgatory.
God bless.
bttt
I did think that the Catholic teaching is more trying to understand the two realities that God would like us to be pure and sinless in Heaven and are we like this -- what about unbaptised babies etc. -- what happens to them? The early Church probably shrugged and said, only God knows (which is true) and we understand them to be in Limbo (in a state/place unknown to us or not understandable by us) -- we just don't know.
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.