Posted on 05/19/2007 3:06:54 PM PDT by NYer
This council opened on 19 June in the presence of the emperor, but it is uncertain who presided over the sessions. In the extant lists of bishops present, Ossius of Cordova, and the presbyters Vitus and Vincentius are listed before the other names, but it is more likely that Eustathius of Antioch or Alexander of Alexandria presided. (see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner S.J.)
The bold text in the profession of faith of the 318 fathers constitutes, according to Tanner "The additions made by the council to an underlying form of the creed", and that the underlying creed was most likely "derived from the baptismal formula of Caesarea put forward by the bishop of that city Eusebius" or that it "developed from an original form which existed in Jerusalem or at any rate Palestine". "A direct descent from the creed of Eusebius of Caesarea is manifestly out of the question." Vol 1, p2)
The figure of 318 given in the heading below is from Hilary of Poitier and is the traditional one. Other numbers are Eusebius 250, Eustathius of Antioch 270., Athanasius about 300, Gelasius of Cyzicus at more than 300.
We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia] of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten [Gr. gennethenta, Lat. natum] not made [Gr. poethenta, Lat. factum], CONSUBSTANTIAL [Gr. homoousion, Lat. unius substantiae (quod Graeci dicunt homousion)] with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit.
these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.
The bishops assembled at Nicaea, who constitute the great and holy synod, greet the church of the Alexandrians, by the grace of God holy and great, and the beloved brethren in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis.
Since the grace of God and the most pious emperor Constantine have called us together from different provinces and cities to constitute the great and holy synod in Nicaea, it seemed absolutely necessary that the holy synod should send you a letter so that you may know what was proposed and discussed, and what was decided and enacted.
Against all this the holy synod pronounced anathemas, and did not allow this impious and abandoned opinion and these blasphemous words even to be heard.
Of that man and the fate which befell him, you have doubtless heard or will hear, lest we should seem to trample upon one who has already received a fitting reward because of his own sin. Such indeed was the power of his impiety that Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais shared in the consequences, for they too suffered the same fate.
But since, when the grace of God had freed Egypt from this evil and blasphemous opinion, and from the persons who had dared to create a schism and a separation in a people which up to now had lived in peace, there remained the question of the presumption of Meletius and the men whom he had ordained, we shall explain to you, beloved brethren, the synod's decisions on this subject too. The synod was moved to incline towards mildness in its treatment of Meletius for strictly speaking he deserved no mercy. It decreed that that he might remain in his own city without any authority to nominate or ordain, and that he was not to show himself for this purpose in the country or in another city, and that he was to retain the bare name of his office.
It was further decreed that those whom he had ordained, when they had been validated by a more spiritual ordination, were to be admitted to communion on condition that they would retain their rank and exercise their ministry, but in every respect were to be second to all the clergy in each diocese and church who had been nominated under our most honoured brother and fellow minister Alexander; they were to have no authority to appoint candidates of their choice or to put forward names or to do anything at all without the consent of the bishop of the catholic church, namely the bishop of those who are under Alexander. But those who by the grace of God and by our prayers have not been detected in any schism, and are spotless in the catholic and apostolic church, are to have authority to appoint and to put forward the names of men of the clergy who are worthy, and in general to do everything according to the law and rule of the church.
In the event of the death of any in the church, those who have recently been accepted are thereupon to succeed to the office of the deceased, provided that they appear worthy and are chosen by the people; the bishop of Alexandria is to take part in the vote and confirm the election. This privilege, which has been granted to all others, does not apply to the person of Meletius because of his inveterate seditiousness and his mercurial and rash disposition, lest any authority or responsibility should be given to one who is capable of returning to his seditious practices.
These are the chief and most important decrees as far as concerns Egypt and the most holy church of the Alexandrians. Whatever other canons and decrees were enacted in the presence of our lord and most honoured fellow minister and brother Alexander, he will himself report them to you in greater detail when he comes, for he was himself a leader as well as a participant in the events.
The following is not found in the latin text, but is found in the greek text :
We also send you the good news of the settlement concerning the holy pasch, namely that in answer to your prayers this question also has been resolved. All the brethren in the East who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe the custom of the Romans and of yourselves and of all of us who from ancient times have kept Easter together with you. Rejoicing then in these successes and in the common peace and harmony and in the cutting off of all heresy, welcome our fellow minister, your bishop Alexander, with all the greater honour and love. He has made us happy by his presence, and despite his advanced age has undertaken such great labour in order that you too may enjoy peace.
Pray for us all that our decisions may remain secure through almighty God and our lord Jesus Christ in the holy Spirit, to whom is the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Your reference is to Peter’s “kill/eat” dream and the saving of Cornelius’ household.
Certainly you are correct in that this critical moment for Peter, a devoted Jew. He could accept God’s edict in faith, or reject it based upon a lifetime of prior understanding. Peter chose the step forward based upon his faith in Jesus.
It is interesting that Peter’s dream carried dual messages from God: (1) the removal of food restrictions; and (2) the full acceptance of Gentile believers. Perhaps a purpose of the food restrictions was symbolic of the separation of Israel from the Gentile world.
This is a great passage that offers many great lessons. Thank you for bringing it to my remembrance!
... besides if James had authority, why does Paul go to Peter? Clearly it’s James’ people who are influencing people to eat as Jews. Paul doesn’t go to James or his people to tell them not to eat as Jews, but rather goes to Peter, for going along with James.
Why?
Unless Peter has authority over James, Peter could be simply said to be going along to getting along, obeying the passage about not letting any differences cause discord. Paul doesn’t go to James, but instead criticizes Peter for being a hypocrite. A hypocrite, mind you, is someone who proclaims one thing, and behaves in a contrary manner. So in that one word we learn that Peter has proclaimed a doctrine against what would later be called “Judaizing,” and that his offense was his ACTIONS, not heresy (which is the proclamation of false doctrine.)
So Paul sees PETER as the one who is responsible for going along with JAMES, rather than seeing James as responsible. If Peter is responsible, than it is Peter who has authority.
Notice also that Paul doesn’t chastise James’ people, either. It’s not Paul’s place. Paul, instead, urges Peter to do the chastising, because Peter is in charge; Paul is merely serving as an informal advisor to Peter.
Let's not mix our history. There are two stories to consider. The first one was when Paul, Barnabas and Luke were in Antioch, And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1). The dispute became so great that a bunch of them (including Paul and Barnabas) went to Jerusalem (not Rome) to the Apostles and elders to sort the matter out. It was there that all sides gave their testimony, including corroborating testimony from Peter. James offered a recommendation, and the apostles and elders took it.
The incident between Paul and Peter mentioned by Paul in Galatians is an entirely different story. Peter succumbed to the peer pressure of the Jews who still clung to their old ways. He behaved one way when these folks were around, and another when they weren't. He was a hypocrite. Paul confronted him directly, as the Lord advised in Matthew 18. It has nothing to do with Peter as an authority figure, but with Peter as a fellow believer in error.
Still no pope! However, I've quite enjoyed dialog. You've really brought forth some excellent Scripture.
>> However, I’ve quite enjoyed dialog. <<
Thanks. I have, too. In fact, you’ve inspired a Vanity/FAQ.
>> Peter as a fellow believer in error. <<
But Peter wasn’t a believer in the error! Paul calls him a “hypocrite” and “self-condemned” because Peter had promulgated the very doctrine Paul was asserting to him. Peter was just being weak-willed... again. He knew better, and that’s why Paul upbraids him, not James.
>> The incident between Paul and Peter mentioned by Paul in Galatians is an entirely different story. <<
I’m not sure whether it’s entirely different or not. They both are Peter going along with James’ judaizing. Whether they are two separate incidents, or merely different highlights of the same incident, I believe is unknowable. The point stands, however.
>> The dispute became so great that a bunch of them (including Paul and Barnabas) went to Jerusalem (not Rome) to the Apostles and elders to sort the matter out. <<
Did I slip and say Rome?
>> I never said that I believed James had authority beyond possibly being an elder in the church of Jerusalem (BTW, we’re not even sure that this is the same James who was an Apostle. However, I personally believe it is). <<
It would appear to be James the Lesser, brother of Juda (Luke 6:16), brother of John (Matthew 10:2), son of Zebedee (Matthew 10:2, Mathew 27:56) and of Mary (Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40), and therefore also brother of Joses/Joseph (Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40). This Mary was Jesus’ aunt. John says, “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” (John 19:25) (King James added in “the wife of,” which does not appear in any ancient text.)
So, this James the Lesser, was therefore a cousin of Jesus.
(Yes, Jesus did have cousins named James, Juda, Joses, and Simon, who also had an aunt named Mary.)
And that makes him also, likely, the “adelphos” of Jesus who wrote the Letter of James.
placemarker
The non-imposing invitations of Constantine
I have not seen a copy of this "invitation". Have you?
The universal nature of the council, including cultures beyond the influence of the Emperor
* The lack of contest over the assertions of the council, and eventual universal acceptance, with only two dissident Bishops
* The domination of the council by non-Latins, whom Constantine would have less influence over
Actually, this is why it's called the FIRST Ecumenical Council.
How much influence did Rome have?
Canon VI
"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail."
(Philip Schaff's Translation of Nice, Canon VI, The First Ecumenical Council; The First Council of Nice, Canon VI, 325 AD
This Canon establishes conclusively that the "Primacy" of the Bishop Of Rome is limited to a specific territory. Certainly not universal.
Constantine called. They came, all except the Bishop of Rome. Hmmmmmmmm?
There is no basis for this. Unless you take into account the literary conventions of the Greek (the proper name "Peter" - masculine - is transliterated to the Greek "pebble" - masculine - instead of "rock" - feminine). Since Jesus was speaking in a language that had one word for "rock" and one word for "pebble" (Aramaic), and clearly used the word "rock" in both circumstances, that "pebble" dog won't hunt.
As to the "three blessings" you dig up; Scripture only shows a single blessing.
Blessing #1: Peter is assigned Wisdom.
Blessing #2: Peter is assigned a new name (see Abraham, Sarah, Israel, Joshua)
Blessing #3: Peter is assigned authority on earth.
I'm surely not going to change your view, I truly hope you will seek the truth, and allow God to shape you into His image rather than continue shaping a god into yours.
What arrogance! But -- you're my brother, so I don't wish to foster any further acrimony. I'll think of you while I'm rotting in hell for my "papistry" (sic).
>> How much influence did Rome have? <<
It’s an ecumenical council; that means it was one of the times when the REST of the church hashed things out among themselves without being dominated by the pope. The only point is that it wasn’t “UNDER” Constantine.
>> Canon VI <<
Oh come on, Reggie. It’s common knowledge that, on matters of customs, discipline, rites, and privileges that each of the ancient patriarchies has maintained independence from Rome to this day, isn’t it? Surely, you know that there are non-Latins in communion with Rome who have their own rites, their own discipline regarding married priests, for instance, etc., etc., no? Surely you are aware that the Pope is the Patriarch of the Latin Rite, but that there is also the Byzantine Rite, the Melchite Rite, etc., no? C
Are you saying Peter wasn't a believer, or that he wasn't in error? Me thinks we are not on the same train, and clarifications are needed.
I’m not sure whether it’s entirely different or not.
With this one, I'm pretty sure we're on different trains. I was merely pointing out that the two stories are different incidents. Although, now that you've mentioned it, I don't think there's a parallel lesson.
They both are Peter going along with James’ judaizing.
I don't get where you're finding James at fault. In the story from Acts, James demonstrates wisdom in his advice. He is to be commended and respected.
In the second story from Galatians it was the "men who came from James" whom Peter withdrew from the Gentiles to eat with in the manner of a Jew. There is no mention that they acted badly on the order of James. Paul doesn't point a finger at James, he merely mentions the origin of these men. Paul doesn't even point a finger at these "men from James". He blames Peter. Later, he mentions that Peter's (Apostolic) influence spread to the "rest of the Jews". Clearly Peter and these "rest of the Jews" were in error. We might surmise that thes "men from James" were also in error, and that James, himself, is in error. Both of these are inference-based assumptions that might be true, but might be wrong, too. The Scripture just doesn't say.
Paul's inclusion of this matter in his letter to the Galatians certainly lends credibility to Peter's prominent standing with the early believers, but we already knew that. It also demonstrates that even a man as prominent as Peter is capable of sin.
The story demonstrates a third piece of information about Peter. Even though Peter has been empowered by and with the Holy Spirit, walked with the Lord, and was capable of great miracles, he still had the same problems as before (to a lesser extent to be sure). Remember when Peter was warming himself by the fire in the high priest's courtyard and denied the Lord three times? Didn't he also succumb to the pressure he felt from those around him?
One of Peter's basic human flaws was a lack of personal confidence to take a firm stand, come what may. Praise God for His continual work within each of us. And for Peter, that meant the development of the faith and courage to take a stand so firm that he would rather be crucified upside down than to be moved.
Did I slip and say Rome?
I just couldn't resist demonstrating that the core of the early believers was Jerusalem, and not Rome. God's still working with me, too.
It would appear to be James the Lesser, brother of...
We know of three individual Jameses mentioned in the New Testament. It's been a while for me, but I believe that James son of Zebedee had already been martyred. I admit that I don't know which one this is.
Also, I'll refrain from taking the dialog down the "James was Jesus' brother not cousin" road. We're not likely to settle the "Peter wasn't a pope" issue that we started; I see no reason to dive into the whole Mary thing, too.
BARNES' NOTES ON THE NEW TESTAMENT
Verse 18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter. The word Peter, in Greek, means a rock. It was given to Simon by Christ when he called him to be a disciple, John 1:42. Cephas is a Syriac word, meaning the same as Peter--a rock, or stone. The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: "Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock, denoting firmness, solidity; and your confession has shown that the name is appropriate. I see that you are worthy of the name, and will be a distinguished support of my religion.
And upon this rock, etc. This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word ROCK refers to Peter's confession; and that he meant to say, upon this rock-- this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah--and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety; and in such confessions shall my church stand amidst the flames of persecution--the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that he referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said: "Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah--upon myself as the Messiah--I will build my church." Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm in and fit for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honoured; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10:1 and following, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbours, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honour of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles. And this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one on whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed--a thing which could not have happened if Christ, as the Roman Catholics say, meant that Peter should be absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter should have infallible successors who should be the vicegerents of Christ, and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this:
"I will make you the honoured instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."
Will build my Church. This refers to the custom of building, in Judea, on a rock or other very firm foundation. See Barnes "Matthew 7:24". The word church means, literally, those called out, and often means an assembly or congregation. See Acts 19:32; Gr.; Acts 7:38. It is applied to Christians as being called out from the world. It means, sometimes, the whole body of believers, 1:22; 1 Corinthians 10:32. This is its meaning in this place. It means, also, a particular society of believers, worshipping in one place, Acts 8:1; 9:31; 1 Corinthians 1:2, etc. Sometimes, also, a society in a single house, as Romans 16:5. In common language, it means the church visible--ie. all who profess religion; or invisible, i.e. all who are real Christians, professors or not.
And the gates of hell, etc. Ancient cities were surrounded by walls. In the gates, by which they were entered, were the principal places for holding courts, transacting business, and deliberating on public matters. See Barnes "Matthew 7:13". The word gates, therefore, is used for counsels, designs, machinations, evil purposes. Hell means, here, the place of departed spirits, particularly evil spirits. And the meaning of the passage is, that all the plots, stratagems, and machinations, of the enemies of the church, should not be able to overcome it--a promise that has been remarkably fulfilled.
I'm still waiting for the text of the Constantine "invitation".
oy vey. Peter had thus the honour of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles.
Unfortunately, Barnes puts on the brakes before he gets to the part about Peter receiving the keys to the kingdom of heaven. That's indisputably an office of power given to Peter. Leave that out, and sure, Peter looks like some kind of ecclesial wedding planner going out and setting the stage for Paul and James. But included in the scope of Jesus' calling Peter "Rock", receiving the keys to the kingdom is clearly an appointment of power. Peter is the man at the gate. Jesus literally relinquishes his decision-making authority to Peter ("because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.") It's a verse which is ignored at the peril of those who wish to fit Peter into the crowd of other apostles instead of recognizing the very words of Christ as evidence par excellence of his anointed mission ("feed my sheep").
More than all, it is not said here or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter should have infallible successors who should be the vicegerents of Christ, and the head of the church.
An incredible statement. Barnes' thus believes that the will of God was to establish a Church that would be prone to error following the life of Peter? If he can extrapolate that, one could also extrapolate that Jesus only wanted the Apostles to make disciples of "all nations" that existed during their lifetime and just stop there.
God cannot create anything which is privated, except he who suffers the transmission of Original Sin from his parents upon conception. If the Church is truly the body of Christ, there can be ZERO error. Any privation in the establishment of the Church is a declaration that God created something evil (deprived of goodness in some way). Therein lies the infallibility of the Church in teaching on faith and morals.
"I will make you the honoured instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."
Yes - if the "keys to the kingdom" were not explicitly given over to Peter. But they were, and thus, authority over all others. That verse cannot be simply tossed aside. It is indisputably a handing over of power which is guarded by that which the Father reveals to Peter. So, in essence that power is entitled to Peter, but with the guidance of heaven. Why was this necessary? Because Christ willed for a visible Church that would make present His incorporeal Trinitarian life to us lowly humans whose "eyes have not seen" the actual nature (substance) of God.
And if it can be agreed that Peter received wisdom and authority at the outset of the Christian faith - theoretically - in order to guard the Church from error, why would God suddenly pull the rug out from His own people when many articles of faith had yet to be defined? (Triune God, the hypostatic union, the very divinity of Christ) The battle of the Church against the Gnostics, the Montanists, the Aryans, etc. is either proof that the Church was given infallible authority, or the world has been consigned to theological error for almost two thousand years. (Really - it's the word of the Church versus the word of the heretics. If the imbued authority of the Church in the matters of faith and morals is not evident, the possibility exists that the Gnostics were right.)
Barnes' Notes on the New Testament
Verse 19. And I will give unto thee, etc. A key is an instrument for opening a door. He that is in possession of it has the power of access, and has a general care and administration of a house. Hence, in the Bible, a key is used as a symbol of superintendence, an emblem of power and authority. See Isaiah 22:22;; Revelation 1:18; 3:7. The kingdom of heaven here means, doubtless, the church on earth, See Barnes "Matthew 3:2". When he says, therefore, he will give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world--the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. This was done, Acts 2:14-36,; 10:1. The "power of the keys" was given to Peter alone solely for this reason; the power of "binding and loosing" on earth was given to the other apostles with him. See Matthew 18:18. The only pre-eminence, then, that Peter had, was the honour of first opening the doors of the gospel to the world.
Whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc. The phrase to bind and to loose was often used by the Jews. It meant to prohibit and to permit. To bind a thing was to forbid it; to loose it, to allow it to be done. Thus they said about gathering wood on the sabbath day. "The school of Shammei binds it"--i, e. forbids it; "the school of Hillel looses it"--i. e. allows it. When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, he meant that whatsoever they forbid in the church should have Divine authority; whatever they permitted, or commanded, should also have Divine authority--that is, should be bound or loosed in heaven, or meet the approbation of God. They were to be guided infallibly in the organization of the church,
(1.) by the teaching of Christ, and
(2.) by the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
This does not refer to persons, but to things--"whatsoever," not whosoever. It refers to rites and ceremonies in the church. Such of the Jewish customs as they should forbid were to be forbidden; and such as they thought proper to permit were to be allowed. Such rites as they should appoint in the church were to have the force of Divine authority. Accordingly, they forbid circumcision and the eating of things offered to idols, and strangled, and blood, Acts 15:20. They founded the church, and ordained its rites, as of Divine authority.
G-d the Father is rather like the Latin for “Zeus Pater” which is also pronounced “Jupiter”.
He can't be serious. There are numerous interpretations for "kingdom of heaven" (or, Kingdom of God), one of which is, simply, "kingdom of heaven". Barnes simply cherry-picks an alternate notion that "kingdom of heaven" refers to the Church on earth, and then calls it "doubtless"? The Kingdom of Heaven is the heavenly domain of God, as well as the Church on earth, as well as Jesus Christ Himself. All three interpretations apply, but Barnes picks the one that supports his opposition to the papacy. This is part and parcel of the evangelical mindset which can only compartmentalize Scripture as an instrument to defend a particular view, instead of embracing the entirety of Scripture as an instrument of Revelation.
When he says, therefore, he will give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world--the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles.
Absolutely - at one level, this is true. But the interpretation of "kingdom of heaven", as I pointed out above, is represented in a number of equally appropriate ways - the most commonly accepted being, "the heavenly realm" itself.
The "power of the keys" was given to Peter alone solely for this reason;
Fact not in evidence. Author's opinion presented as fact.
The way I understand the terms being used by Jesus “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God” is to refer to His Church. He constantly talks about it being near, or having come upon us. And his parables used to describe it (See Matthew 13 and others) always talks in terms of it being established and growing. The Apostles in their epistles reflect this same understanding (see 1Corinthians 15:24 and others). I don’t think Barnes’ interpretation is a great stretch.
Glad I found this. Thank you for posting it.
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.