Peter & Succession (Understanding the Church Today)

Editor's note: This is the second half of a chapter titled "The Primacy of Peter and Unity of the Church." The first half examines the status of Peter in the New Testament and the commission logion contained in Matthew 16:17-19.

The principle of succession in general

That the primacy of Peter is recognizable in all the major strands of the New Testament is incontestable.

The real difficulty arises when we come to the second question: Can the idea of a Petrine succession be justified? Even more difficult is the third question that is bound up with it: Can the Petrine succession of Rome be credibly substantiated?

Concerning the first question, we must first of all note that there is no explicit statement regarding the Petrine succession in the New Testament. This is not surprising, since neither the Gospels nor the chief Pauline epistles address the problem of a postapostolic Church—which, by the way, must be mentioned as a sign of the Gospels' fidelity to tradition. Indirectly, however, this problem can be detected in the Gospels once we admit the principle of form critical method according to which only what was considered in the respective spheres of tradition as somehow meaningful for the present was preserved in writing as such. This would mean, for example, that toward the end of the first century, when Peter was long dead, John regarded the former's primacy, not as a thing of the past, but as a present reality for the Church.

For many even believe—though perhaps with a little too much imagination—that they have good grounds for interpreting the "competition" between Peter and the beloved disciple as an echo of the tensions between Rome's claim to primacy and the sense of dignity possessed by the Churches of Asia Minor. This would certainly be a very early and, in addition, inner-biblical proof that Rome was seen as continuing the Petrine line; but we should in no case rely on such uncertain hypotheses. The fundamental idea, however, does seem to me correct, namely, that the traditions of the New Testament never reflect an interest of purely historical curiosity but are bearers of present reality and in that sense constantly rescue things from the mere past, without blurring the special status of the origin.

Moreover, even scholars who deny the principle itself have propounded hypotheses of succession. 0. Cullmann, for example, objects in a very clear-cut fashion to the idea of succession, yet he believes that he can Show that Peter was replaced by James and that this latter assumed the primacy of the erstwhile first apostle. Bultmann believes that he is correct in concluding from the mention of the three pillars in Galatians 2:9 that the course of development led away from a personal to a collegial leadership and that a college entered upon the succession of Peter. [1]

We have no need to discuss these hypotheses and others like them; their foundation is weak enough. Nevertheless, they do show that it is impossible to avoid the idea of succession once the word transmitted in Scripture is considered to be a sphere open to the future. In those writings of the New Testament that stand on the cusp of the second generation or else already belong to it-especially in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Pastoral Letters—the principle of succession does in fact take on concrete shape.

The Protestant notion that the "succession" consists solely in the word as such, but not in any "structures", is proved to be anachronistic in light of what in actual fact is the form of tradition in the New Testament. The word is tied to the witness, who guarantees it an unambiguous sense, which it does not possess as a mere word floating in isolation. But the witness is not an individual who stands independently on his own. He is no more a wit ness by virtue of himself and of his own powers of memory than Peter can be the rock by his own strength. He is not a witness as "flesh and blood" but as one who is linked to the Pneuma, the Paraclete who authenticates the truth and opens up the memory and, in his turn, binds the witness to Christ. For the Paraclete does not speak of himself, but he takes from "what is his" (that is, from what is Christ's: Jn 16: 13).

This binding of the witness to the Pneuma and to his mode of being-"not of himself, but what he hears" -is called "sacrament" in the language of the Church. Sacrament designates a threefold knot-word, witness, Holy Spirit and Christ-which describes the essential structure of succession in the New Testament. We can infer with certainty from the testimony of the Pastoral Letters and of the Acts of the Apostles that the apostolic generation already gave to this interconnection of person and word in the believed presence of the Spirit and of Christ the form of the laying on of hands.

The Petrine succession in Rome

In opposition to the New Testament pattern of succession described above, which withdraws the word from human manipulation precisely by binding witnesses into its service, there arose very early on an intellectual and anti-institutional model known historically by the name of Gnosis, which made the free interpretation and speculative development of the word its principle. Before long the appeal to individual witnesses no longer sufficed to counter the intellectual claim advanced by this tendency. It became necessary to have fixed points by which to orient the testimony itself, and these were found in the so-called apostolic sees, that is, in those where the apostles had been active. The apostolic sees became the reference point of true communio. But among these sees there was in turn–quite clearly in Irenaeus of Lyons–a decisive criterion that recapitulated all others: the Church of Rome, where Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom. It was with this Church that every community had to agree; Rome was the standard of the authentic apostolic tradition as a whole.

Moreover, Eusebius of Caesarea organized the first version of his ecclesiastical history in accord with the same principle. It was to be a written record of the continuity of apostolic succession, which was concentrated in the three Petrine sees Rome, Antioch and Alexandria-among which Rome, as the site of Peter's martyrdom, was in turn preeminent and truly normative. [2]

This leads us to a very fundamental observation. [3] The Roman primacy, or, rather, the acknowledgement of Rome as the criterion of the right apostolic faith, is older than the canon of the New Testament, than "Scripture".

We must be on our guard here against an almost inevitable illusion. "Scripture" is more recent than "the scriptures" of which it is composed. It was still a long time before the existence of the individual writings resulted in the "New Testament" as Scripture, as the Bible. The assembling of the writings into a single Scripture is more properly speaking the work of tradition, a work that began in the second century but came to a kind of conclusion only in the fourth or fifth century. Harnack, a witness who cannot be suspected of pro-Roman bias, has remarked in this regard that it was only at the end of the second century, in Rome, that a canon of the "books of the New Testament" won recognition by the criterion of apostolicity-catholicity, a criterion to which the other Churches also gradually subscribed "for the sake of its intrinsic value and on the strength of the authority of the Roman Church".

We can therefore say that Scripture became Scripture through the tradition, which precisely in this process included the potentior principalitas–the preeminent original authority–of the Roman see as a constitutive element.

Two points emerge clearly from what has just been First, the principle of tradition in its sacramental form-apostolic succession—played a constitutive role in the existence and continuance of the Church. Without this principle, it is impossible to conceive of a New Testament at all, so that we are caught in a contradiction when we affirm the one while wanting to deny the other. Furthermore, we have seen that in Rome the traditional series of bishops was from the very beginning recorded as a line of successors.

We can add that Rome and Antioch were conscious of succeeding to the mission of Peter and that early on Alexandria was admitted into the circle of Petrine sees as the city where Peter's disciple Mark had been active. Having said all that, the site of Peter's martyrdom nonetheless appears clearly as the chief bearer of his supreme authority and plays a preeminent role in the formation of tradition which is constitutive of the Church-and thus in the genesis of the New Testament as Bible; Rome is one of the indispensable internal and external- conditions of its possibility. It would be exciting to trace the influence on this process of the idea that the mission of Jerusalem had passed over to Rome, which explains why at first Jerusalem was not only not a "patriarchal see" but not even a metropolis: Jerusalem was now located in Rome, and since Peter's departure from that city, its primacy had been transferred to the capital of the pagan world. [4]

But to consider this in detail would lead us too far afield for the moment. The essential point, in my opinion, has already become plain: the martyrdom of Peter in Rome fixes the place where his function continues. The awareness of this fact can be detected as early as the first century in the Letter of Clement, even though it developed but slowly in all its particulars.

Concluding reflections

We shall break off at this point, for the chief goal of our considerations has been attained. We have seen that the New Testament as a whole strikingly demonstrates the primacy of Peter; we have seen that the formative development of tradition and of the Church supposed the continuation of Peter's authority in Rome as an intrinsic condition. The Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church.

But the New Testament shows us more than the formal aspect of a structure; it also reveals to us the inward nature of this structure. It does not merely furnish proof texts, it is a permanent criterion and task. It depicts the tension between skandalon and rock; in the very disproportion between man's capacity and God's sovereign disposition, it reveals God to be the one who truly acts and is present.

If in the course of history the attribution of such authority to men could repeatedly engender the not entirely unfounded suspicion of human arrogation of power, not only the promise of the New Testament but also the trajectory of that history itself prove the opposite. The men in question are so glaringly, so blatantly unequal to this function that the very empowerment of man to be the rock makes evident how little it is they who sustain the Church but God alone who does so, who does so more in spite of men than through them.

The mystery of the Cross is perhaps nowhere so palpably present as in the primacy as a reality of Church history. That its center is forgiveness is both its intrinsic condition and the sign of the distinctive character of God's power. Every single biblical logion about the primacy thus remains from generation to generation a signpost and a norm, to which we must ceaselessly resubmit ourselves. When the Church adheres to these words in faith, she is not being triumphalistic but humbly recognizing in wonder and thanksgiving the victory of God over and through human weakness. Whoever deprives these words of their force for fear of triumphalism or of human usurpation of authority does not proclaim that God is greater but diminishes him, since God demonstrates the power of his love, and thus remains faithful to the law of the history of salvation, precisely in the paradox of human impotence.

For with the same realism with which we declare today the sins of the popes and their disproportion to the magnitude of their commission, we must also acknowledge that Peter has repeatedly stood as the rock against ideologies, against the dissolution of the word into the plausibilities of a given time, against subjection to the powers of this world.

When we see this in the facts of history, we are not celebrating men but praising the Lord, who does not abandon the Church and who desired to manifest that he is the rock through Peter, the little stumbling stone: "flesh and blood" do not save, but the Lord saves through those who are of flesh and blood. To deny this truth is not a plus of faith, not a plus of humility, but is to shrink from the humility that recognizes God as he is. Therefore the Petrine promise and its historical embodiment in Rome remain at the deepest level an ever-renewed motive for joy: the powers of hell will not prevail against it . . .

Endnotes:

[1] Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 2d ed. (198 1), 147- 51; cf. Gnilka, 56.

[2] For an exhaustive account of this point, see V. Twomey, Apostolikos Thronos (Münster, 1982).

[3] It is my hope that in the not-too-distant future I will have the opportunity to develop and substantiate in greater detail the view of the succession that I attempt to indicate in an extremely condensed form in what follows. I owe important suggestions to several works by 0. Karrer, especially: Um die Einheit der Christen. Die Petrusfrage (Frankfurt am Mainz, 1953); "Apostolische Nachfolge und Primat", in: Feiner, Trütsch and Böckle, Fragen in der Theologie heute (Freiburg im.Breisgau, 1957), 175-206; "Das Petrusamt in der Frühkirche", in Festgabe J. Lortz (Baden-Baden, 1958), 507-25; "Die biblische und altkirchliche Grundlage des Papsttums", in: Lebendiges Zeugnis (1958), 3-24. Also of importance are some of the papers in the festschrift for 0. Karrer: Begegnung der Christen, ed. by Roesle-Cullmann (Frankfurt am Mainz, 1959); in particular, K. Hofstetter, "Das Petrusamt in der Kirche des I. und 2. Jahrhunderts", 361-72.

[4] Cf. Hofstetter.

Subjective testing of spirits = "telling yourself that the Holy Spirit just led you to believe or do what you just decided was the right thing to believe or do."

imho, Language is inadequate at times like this.

"subjective testing of spirits" is NOT telling myself anything. It is tuning in to Holy Spirit telling me WHAT HE WILL.

Sure, just as 100 people listening to a Roman serman would come away with more or less 100 different perspectives and comments, there is an ELEMENT of subjectivity.

I personally believe that's why God --traditionally-- put prophetic types through umpteen years on the back side of the desert. And, in our era, He still tends to put them through umpteen long dark nights of the soul and plentiful fiery furnaces . . . burning the tendendy to do and say their own thing out of them. Not a fun process in the least. And, it's likely not finished in this life. But, God is a great trainer and HE DOES MAKE GREAT PROGRESS over time.

I have not yet seen much of the purity of say a Jeremiah or Moses or St Paul in our era but I've known of some who were approaching the ball park. I think the more 'no-name' obscure folks in our era tend to be more like that than the well known sorts.

But I'm 100% convinced that God is going to wholesale purify HIS CHURCH across the board and particularly HIS PROPHETIC TYPES before He returns. There's too much at stake and too much of HIS GLORY HE HAS CHOSEN TO FLOOD THROUGH SUCH EARTHEN VESSELS. If He doesn't clean us all up more thoroughly, such will kill us.

But, most of the time, as long as folks are earnest, humble, SEEKING GOD AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS FIRST, i don't fault them much for learning and growing in their prophetic gifting. snotty nosed brats the world over have to learn at whatever pace they learn. I know from first hand experience.

GOD DID NOT MAKE US GLASS PIPES.

St Paul's personality shows vividly through HIS ENSCRIPTURATED TEXT. God could have done it differently. God could have dictated each letter of each word. God could have put him in a trance and controlled each move of his hand writing or dictating Scripture. He didn't.

I prefer to submit to HIS WISDOM rather than tell HIM what He can and can't do in such matters.

IF GOD ALMIGHTY IS MORE OR LESS COMFORTABLE ENOUGH WITH THE LEVEL OF SUBJECTIVITY INVOLVED TO CONTINUE HAVING HOLY SPIRIT DO THINGS THE WAY HE DOES--I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH HIM NOR CALL HOLY SPIRIT GNOSTIC.

I've noticed a few things over the years. And, in spite of all our flawedness, GOD DOES ALL THINGS WELL. I submit to HIS WAYS. Tradition and organizations of man have NO standing in the least over GOD AND GOD'S WAYS, as far as I'm concerned.

As proud_2_B_texasgal said in #1011, "Any human person is ... going to interpret differently from the next."

Please see above.

Thank you for your reply, A8 – and thank you for your encouragements, Quix!

A8: Salvation by divine "revelation" is even more akin to the gnostics of the first and second centuries than salvation by knowledge acquired by sense perception, for divine "revelation" per se has nothing to do with matter or the incarnation.

To the contrary, it has everything to do with the incarnation of Christ (I prefer the word enflesh, btw.) The Comforter could not and did not come until Jesus Christ died, resurrected and returned to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father. (John 14:26, John 15:26, John 16:7)

But concerning matter – at least from my perspective – you are spot-on. I have no confidence at all in matter.

The critical density of the universe (all the matter) consists of three types: ordinary matter which represents 5% of the critical density, dark matter (the high gravity center of galaxies, etc.) which represents some 25% of the critical density and dark energy which is the whopping 70%. The dark energy has a negative gravity effect – like a space/time outdent – accelerating the expansion of the universe.

The Standard Model of physics posits the Higgs field/boson as ordinary matter. But neither Fermilab nor CERN have yet either observed or made ordinary matter. And even if CERN succeeds, the remaining 95% remains unobserved and unmade in laboratory conditions.

So significant is this absence of evidence (which in physics unlike biology is the evidence of absence) that many physicists have turned to other explanations of matter per se. A popular one is that matter in four dimensions is actually a shadow of momentum components in a fifth dimension. Another is that matter in four dimensions is multiply imaged from matter in a fifth time-like dimension – as little as a single particle, multiply imaged 10⁸⁰ times.

Or as Einstein said, “reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one.”

One can add to all of this concerning matter the phenomena of non-locality and quantum superposition. On the one hand the measurement of one of an entangled photon pair determines the other regardless of spatial separation, 11 kilometers or across the galaxy. On the other hand, the cat is neither dead nor alive but both dead and alive.

So, no – on Spiritual grounds first and foremost – and also on scientific grounds at a much lower level of my personal epistemology (how I know what I know and how sure I am that I know it) ---– I put no confidence whatsoever in matter.

A8: In fact, talking about "spiritual hearing" or any other species of higher knowledge or spiritual knowledge is even more evidence of gnosticism. For that is exactly what the gnostics of the first centuries claimed, that they were saved by a higher [hidden to the unenlightened], spiritual knowledge.

That theology is in direct opposition to Scriptures quoting Christ, John and Paul:

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things? – John 3:11-12

For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:6-9

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Col 3:1-3

Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. – 1 John 4:4-6

Again, I couldn’t possibly care less about labels. If you want to call me gnostic, then go right ahead - the use of a label reflects more on the speaker than the target.

For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. – 2 Tim 1:12

So Catholics are going to hell?

Catholics, Protestants, Moonies, Mormans and Muzlims are going to Hell...

The apostle Paul was ultimately given the task to build and minister to the Gentile church, the future Bride of Christ...

And salvation as taught by Paul is easy as making a mud pie...

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Faith that Jesus died, was buried and raised again on the 3rd day...Faith that Jesus is God come in the flesh...

And how do you get this salvation???You call on the name of the Lord, and you will be saved...

Counting on ANYTHING ELSE will send you straight to Hell...There is NOTHING you can do to earn salvation...

You seem to forget that Irenaeus was a pupil of Polycarp, who was an auditor of the Apostle John. You live in a society and culture in which something must be written down for it to have credibility. You are seemingly imposing that notion on a time and culture in which many things were passed down orally.Irenaeus is a very trustworthy source, both in his character and given the fact that he spent considerable time in Rome as an envoy (if I remember correctly).

So in other words, Irenaeus has no evidence to include Peter in this statement, but he does have substantial Scriptural and patriarchal evidence to make this statement about Paul.? Right?

Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (c. 166-174 AD), also writes that both Peter and Paul planted both in Rome and in Corinth, and suffered martyrdom at the same time.

Isn't Dionysius untrustworthy as a source? After all he claims that Peter planted the Church in Corinth together with Paul. That's simply not true. Otherwise, Paul would have mentioned him in his letters to Corinth, and Luke in Acts regarding the Corinthians. Isn't it likely that he is confusing "Apollos" in Corinth with Peter.

And there is no competing traditional account of Peter's life. Peter himself gives evidence of his being in Rome in 1 Peter 5:13.

No that's not true either. He is clearly in Babylon there, where Josephus tells us there was a substantial community of Jews [the circumcision to whom Peter dedicated his life to reaching]. If you are going to tell me that "Babylon" was a code word for "Rome", then why didn't Paul use that code word or another one for Rome. What was "Crete" a code word for? Are you going to tell me that Peter at that point in his life was afraid of telling the truth about where he was?

And Papias (bishop of Hieropolis) and Clement of Alexandria both testify that Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome, which Gospel is understood to have been written under the direction and authority of Peter. (See, for example, 1 Pet 5:13) This Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - 215 AD) also tells us that Peter preached at Rome.

If Clement of Alexandria is correct, Mark might have written his Gospel from Rome, but Peter could have told him to do it years before and/or from some other place. Furthermore, if he is correct that Peter preached in Rome, possibly during his sojourn in Asia Minor, that is a far cry from a 25 year bishopric, that he lived there, that he died there, that he was crucified by Nero.

Tertullian also refers to "those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber", and tells us that Clement (of Rome) was ordained by Peter at Rome.

Well Tertullian here is a problem as well. He was a later writer and where would he get this? By hearsay and rumor again? And here Tertullian is at odds with Irenaeus and Eusebius, who claims that Linus was the first bishop of Rome for 12 years, followed by Anacletus for 12 years, then came Clement as bishop in the 12th year of Emperor Domitian --- 93 AD?????. How was Peter ordaining anybody 25 years after his death? So who's right: Tertullian or Irenaeus or Eusebius? They can't all be right, right? Otherwise why would Peter be ordaining Clement when it should have been Linus that he ordained and 93 AD?????.

Remember too that unlike in the case of Paul, there is no evidence of Peter being brought to Rome to stand trial. Nor would Peter, not being a Roman citizen have needed to be brought to Rome to face Nero or to be executed. But there is much evidence that Peter was martyred in Rome. The best explanation of those three facts is that Peter was already in Rome, on his own accord. And there is long-standing and undisputed tradition that Peter went there early, in part to deal with the false teaching of Simon Magus (who apparently had gone to Rome and through his sorcery become so revered that had a statue of himself as a god set up in Rome). St. Cyril (bishop of Jerusalem) testifies to that, and there are other sources for that as well.

There is only one other source for that and that is Eusebius who was Cyril's [Jerome's] source. So the question is: Where did Eusebius get his information: by oral tradition 300 years from the source? And in that 300 years no one wrote it down?.

You can see the credibility problem that the RCC has here. Those patriarchs are not always trustworthy. That Tradition is often full of holes.

What does the Magisterium really believe regarding Eusebius' report of a 25 year bishopric for Peter in Rome? Does it question it?

How is it possible for Peter to have been in Rome for 25 years and there be no credible written evidence until Eusebius in the 4th century who appears to invent it out of whole cloth, and one filled with holes at that?

Plain scripture needs no interpretation.

That itself is an interpretation (a second-order interpretation, but an interpretation nonethless).

Moreover, you are interpreting in your determination of which scriptures are plain and which are not.

You cannot escape interpretation. The question is, who has the authority in the Church to provide the authoritative interpretation? For those who endorse the historical novelty of 'sola scripura', every individual Christian's interpretation is equally authoritative. But the Church has always taught that the Apostles ordained bishops in every church, and gave them authority to govern the various churches. It is for this reason that the Scriptures belong pricipally to them, and only secondarily and derivatively to us, insofar as we are joined in communion with them. And just as they are the ones with the authority to determine the canon of Scripture, so likewise they are the ones with the authority to determine the interpretation of Scripture. No one else has the authority to determine for the Church either the canon or the interpretation of Scripture.

-A8

How was Peter ordaining anybody 25 years after his death?

First of all, it appears to me that you are not a sympathetic investigator. You appear to have an axe to grind. A person can call into question every piece of evidence, if you want not to believe something. But instead of assuming that these fathers are pulling these things out of thin air, or basing them on mere rumours, try giving them the benefit of the doubt. If you want to be a skeptic, then go the whole way and doubt the veracity of the Scriptures.

Regarding Peter's ordination of Clement, there is absolutely no contradiction, and you would know this if you knew more about the Catholic Church. For example, my home parish is the local cathedral, i.e. the seat of the archbishop. But there is another bishop there in residence. There are two bishops here at the same time. Similarly, Clement was ordained by Peter to the order of bishop, but Clement remained under the authority of Linus and Cletus until Cletus died, at which time Clement acquired the responsibility of the Roman see.

-A8

Alamo-Girl: To the contrary, it has everything to do with the incarnation of Christ (I prefer the word enflesh, btw.) The Comforter could not and did not come until Jesus Christ died, resurrected and returned to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father. (John 14:26, John 15:26, John 16:7)

A8: Was there no "divine revelation" before Christ's incarnation? If there was "divine revelation" prior to Christ's incarnation, then, just as I said above, "divine revelation" per se has nothing to do with matter or the incarnation.

Regarding the scientific things to which you refer, you seem to assume that matter, if it exists, must belong to the investigative domain of experimental, instrumental science. But the concept of matter that is revelant to this discussion is *philosophical*, not scientific in the experimental sense. So the outcome of scientific studies on, for example, dark matter etc., is entirely irrelevant to whether we live in a material world.

If you think that "reality is an illusion", then how can you affirm that Jesus Christ came in the flesh? It seems that you could only affirm that Jesus Christ *appeared* to come in the flesh. But that is docetism, which is gnosticism. According to the Apostle John, every spirit that denies that Jesus came in the flesh is the spirit of the antichrist. (1 John 4:2-3)

That theology is in direct opposition to Scriptures quoting Christ, John and Paul

No, it is in direct opposition to your gnostic interpretation of the Scriptures. And you don't have authority to determine for the Church either the canon or the interpretation of Scripture.

-A8

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.