How Quickly Catholic Heresy Took Over the Church (Immediately)

(A.D. 33 - death and resurrection of Christ)
A.D. 90 - the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice
(A.D. 95 - death of the last apostle, John)
A.D. 95 - apostolic succession
A.D. 110 - real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
A.D. 150 - baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism for salvation
A.D. 150 - basic structure of the Mass as Christian worship
A.D. 155 - veneration of saints and their relics

A.D. 160 - Mary as the New Eve
A.D. 170 - use of the word 'Trinity'
A.D. 180 - primacy of the bishop of Rome
A.D. 200 - 'Trinity', 'Person', 'Substance' formula
A.D. 367 - today's 27 book New Testament canon
(A.D. 1500s - Protestant Reformation)

(Note: Those that are (underlined) are relevant events to help put the other dates in perspective. Those doctrines in bold are accepted by evangelicals and Catholics and are also listed to help put the other dates in perspective. Those doctrines not bolded are accepted by Catholics and are rejected by most evangelicals as corruptions of the faith. All dates listed are of course approximate. The quotes showing the witness to these doctrines in those years are at the end of this post.)

I have seven comments:

1) Notice the large number of doctrines/practices that are rejected by most evangelicals as Roman Catholic corruptions of the faith that are witnessed to prior to explicit development of the doctrine of the Trinity or even the first extant witness to the 27 book New Testament canon. In other words, if all of those beliefs which most evangelicals tend to view as sure markers of the obviously perverted corruption of the Catholic Church were already there, then the same Church that settled the New Testament canon and fought the Trinitarian and Christological fights of the 4th century was already well immersed in corruption, superstition, and heresy.

2) Remember that evangelicals claim that all of those Catholic beliefs listed above - the Lord's Supper as sacrifice, apostolic succession, veneration of saints and their relics, etc - were all invented and did not come from the apostles, even though the Christians immediately following the apostles, including some who knew the apostles personally, did think that those doctrines came from the apostles.

Mr Rogers wrote:

HOGWASH. The Catholic Church DID keep scripture from the hands of commoners.

Do you remember what you said, earlier, about assertions not equalling facts? Do follow your own advice, friend. You've changed your standards repeatedly, and attempted a "bait-and-switch", by claiming that "if the Church did not manage to translate the entire Bible for every last layman, then the Church must necessarily have been trying to hide the Scriptures from the laity entirely!" Surely you see the phenomenal lapse in logic, there? You might as well say that, so long as we don't deliver filet mignon and all other delicacies to Somalia, we're not interested in feeding them!

Yes, I focus on England because I’ve already researched the history. And since you like to post false information and pretend it is true, I’d rather keep the subject focused where I have already done the research. I have no desire to research every country in the world.

My dear fellow, you've not come close to showing that I posted "false information". The mere fact that you insist on a requirement of "giving a full loaf, or else I'll accuse you of starving the poor!" approach is your own mistaken difficulty, not mine. Again: if you wish to assert that the Catholic Church "hid the Scriptures" from people, then you need to explain why even the tiniest jot or tittle was translated into the vernacular (much less the entire book of Psalms, the entire Gospels (you don't find them to be important? You didn't mention them, in your most recent reply), the Hexateuch, and more. Forgive me, friend, but this particular horse (of "Catholics hid the Scriptures") simply wont run!

However, you have been provided evidence that the Catholic Church, as a matter of policy, DID restrict the reading of any vernacular translations for hundreds of years.

I've heard assertions from you to that effect, yes... but no "evidence", as the term is commonly understood. Do you not think that "evidence" might involve more than simply "Mr Rogers said so, vehemently, colourfully and repeatedly"? You might, for starters, indicate that you recognise the difference between "unauthorised vernacular translations" and "approved vernacular translations". The former were certainly forbidden; the latter were certainly not.

And no, there were no vernacular translation of anything in England until the Wessex Gospels in 1000 AD, and the Wycliffe’s translation.

:) I'm tempted to quote the esteemed scholar, Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word ["anything"]; I do not think it means what you think it means." Surely you recognize that the word "anything" does not translate into your repeatedly stated requirement of "the entire 66-book Protestant Bible, or nothing"? It's hardly reasonable for you to say (on the one hand) that "there was no vernacular translation of anything in England until the Wessex Gospels in 1000 A.D.", and then (on the other hand) turn about and dismiss, with a scoff, the work of St. Gothlac (the Psalms, over 100 years before your "deadline"), the works of St. Bede the Venerable (the Gospel of John, and suggestions of other Biblical parts, over 200 years before your deadline), and the like, on the basis that they "were not the whole Bible". Either you're claiming that there wasn't ANYTHING in proto-English in England, or you are not. Which is it?

The Latin Vulgate was NEVER in the tongue of common Englishmen. You cannot point to the Vulgate and claim it as a vernacular translation.

(*sigh*) My dear fellow, you almost tempt me to despair, for you! Surely you know that "vernacular" does not mean "English" exclusively? In France (for example), the vernacular is, in fact, French. In the Roman Empire, the vernacular (i.e. the language of the unlearned man on the street) was Latin (whereas only the scholars knew the original Biblical languages of Greek and Hebrew). Does that clarify? It simply makes no sense for you to dismiss all other vernaculars in the world, simply because you prefer not to bother your head about any other countries! The Catholic Church is not the Church of England, sir; She embraces all nations and all peoples of all times since the time of Christ... and unless you're accusing the Catholic Church of "keeping the Scriptures ONLY from the ENGLISH commoners" (which would still be a bizarre and false claim, but it'd be a bit less nonsensical, given your commentary), you really need to re-think your position! Now, if you'd like to attack the Anglican Church, instead, then perhaps we can get you to apologise for your anti-Catholic criticisms, and then debate a member of THAT communion?

Missionaries to Bulgaria don’t count either.

All right: please explain to me why missionaries to Bulgaria (or any other Slavic region) "don't count", in your eyes.

But yes, I’m glad to see missionaries to Bulgaria in 860 translated the Bible into Old Slavonic. Didn’t do much for Germany, France, or England, did it?

(Lord, grant me patience...)

I'm starting to think, friend, that your commentary is motivated less by thoughtful reflection on the facts (and even on your own past comments), and more on heat-of-the-moment, anything-but-Catholic, knee-jerk reactionism. That is the only explanation I can find which comes close to explaining how your comments contradict your own prior comments with such abandon! To wit:

Comment #254: "There is a reason why the Roman Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations of scripture, and it is NOT because scripture supports the Roman Catholic doctrine!" (Note the lack of any reference to "England alone"?)
Comment #356: "I don’t ask for millions. I would be content with ONE. ONE translation of the entire Bible into the language of some county or region, even, for use by commoners. ONE. And you don’t have ONE to provide." (Note your apparent willingness--at least in the afternoon of November 14--to entertain countries and languages other than England/English? You certainly seem to have changed your mind, since 2 days ago...)
Comment #360 (your latest, to this point) "However, you have been provided evidence that the Catholic Church, as a matter of policy, DID restrict the reading of any vernacular translations for hundreds of years." (Even now, in the same comment in which you insist on clinging to the Sceptred Isle, you also claim, without any qualifiers, UNIVERSAL prohibition of vernacular Scripture-reading/dissemination.)

I ask you again: please calm yourself, take a deep breath (if necessary), and think about this reasonably. If the Catholic Church's policy were to "hide the Scriptures from those who spoke only the vernacular", then it would make no sense, WHATSOEVER, to supply vernacular translations of the Scriptures ANYWHERE. If the release of the Scriptures to commoners were such a threat to the Church, then She would never have allowed them to see the light of day! You claim (later in your comment) that the Douay-Rheims translation was an attempt at "damage control" (presumably because the "secret Scriptures" had already been released by a "heroic spy", of sorts?); how does this gibe with the fact that the Church, on Her own initiative, offered vernacular translation after vernacular translation to virtually the entire known WORLD, before that time? The mere fact that you find the Slavic people to be unimportant, for example, does not show that they are, in fact, unimportant; it shows only your bias and carelessness of the moment... and your willingness to throw both those good people (as well as plain logic) "under the bus", in order to pursue your specific anti-Catholic programme. But that simply won't do; if you wish to criticise something, you need to do so by logical an sensible means... not simply by throwing double-hand-fuls of anti-Catholic nonsense (carbon-copied from thoughtless, irrational sources) into the air.

I repeat what you pretend doesn’t exist - that if the Catholic Church placed as much value on knowing God’s Word as did the Jews of Jesus’ time, it would have happened. If the Jews of Palestine in 20 AD could do it, the folks in England in 800 AD or 1200 AD could have done it.

All right; let me try to put this turnip-ghost to rest, once and for all. Your characterisation in this instance, friend, is mere screed, akin to the nonsensical, "If the GOP cared about the poor, they'd give them what they need, and no child would go hungry or lack health care; if they did it in Jesus' time (cf. Acts 2:44, etc.), we could do it now!" These are mere bumper-stickers, trying invalidly to equivocate two wildly different situations with utter, puerile over-simplifications. Try to disprove the "anti-GOP" screed, above, and try to analyse exactly what errors are hidden in it, and you might see what I mean.

You have pointed to glosses in monestaries,

...who didn't need the vernacular. I also wonder if you understand the definition of the word "gloss", properly...

or psalms for liturgy.

...or the Gospel of John, or the Four Gospels, or the first six books of the OT, or the entire Bible. And again: the monks were in no need of the vernacular, nor did they particularly wish it, for the purposes of chanting the Liturgy of the Hours. Monks of the world chant it in Latin, to this very day!

As I said at the beginning, it was 1000 AD before the Gospels were translated for commoners, and it took Wyciffe and his followers to translate the entire Bible.

(*sigh*) Yes... because in your eyes, only the English are of any importance in the eyes of God, apparently.

Maybe you would be happy to have the psalms, and nothing else. I’d prefer the New Testament.

...but only in English, and only if it excluded the Gospel of John (cf. the Venerable Bede), and only if it excluded all the Gospels (cf. St. Egbert). Friend, I truly don't understand you.

Since you have blown smoke rather than address my argument on translations, I see no reason to engage in debate on sola scriptura, other than to point both Jesus and the Apostles used it.

That is simply nonsensical, friend; the fact that they used Scripture (Catholics do that, as well, you know) does not at all mean that they used Scripture ALONE. That fact is plain to all who look calmly and logically at the matter. I'll repeat this once again: Catholics do not at all object to the good and necessary SCRIPTURA; rather, they object to the nonsensical and unbiblical SOLA.

If the Bible does not require the use of the "Bible ALONE", then neither should you, and neither should anyone, and all arguments based upon it should be scrapped. I fail to see how this is difficult to understand. It's hardly a side-issue; it's absolutely foundational, and it sometimes (in the hands of particular zealots) approaches Biblical idolatry (i.e. worship of a mere book, rather than God)!

When they wanted authority, they quoted the Old Testament.

Ah. Then explain Acts 15, Galatians, etc., which release the Gentile converts from the Mosaic law, please? And explain Jesus' saying: "You have heard it said [...], but I say to you [...]" (cf. Matthew 5)? And explain the fact that none of this mandated that the OT was used ALONE (and proved, rather, that they used other things in addition to it)? Again: the fact that something is necessary does not mean that it is to be used exclusively. Petrol is necessary for an automobile; but it does not follow that petrol would be the only necessary ingredient (say, for oil, coolant, window-washing fluid, etc.). Do you see?

When Jesus confronted Satan, he quoted the Old Testament. They did NOT quote ‘sacred tradition’. ON the contrary, tradition has a bad name in the New Testament. Perhaps you could try reading something beside the Psalms...

Ah. Perhaps you recommend that I read 1 Corinthians 11:2? "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." Or perhaps 2 Thessalonians 2:15? "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Or perhaps 2 Thessalonians 3:6? "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." I don't believe those are from the Psalms, friend. :)

Although Paul taught “the whole counsel of God”,

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Acts 20:27 means exactly, literally what you think it means (i.e. that St. Paul revealed every last scrap of God's revelation pertinent to Salvation to his audience). Do you not see a glaring problem with your example? St. Paul PREACHED it to them; he did not, in fact, recite it for St. Luke to quote in the Book of Acts (at least, I see nowhere in Acts where it is quoted and identified as the quote). Had he handed them a book, your case would have been at least a bit stronger (though still inadequate)... but as it stands, it doesn't advance your case, one jot; in fact, it strengthens the case for Sacred Tradition, transmitted orally!

and that scripture prepares one for “every good work”,

It says that Scripture is USEFUL (Greek: "othelimos") for preparing one for every good work. Prayer is also in that category... as is almsgiving, as is avoiding sin, etc. Nowhere does it say that it is MANDATED for EXCLUSIVE use, nor does it even say that Scripture ALONE is SUFFICIENT (much less the expurgated 66-book Protestant version of the Scriptures, which isn't even complete).

the scriptures know nothing of priests, mass, the continual sacrifice of Jesus, ever ongoing, of Purgatory, indulgences or Popes.

(*sigh*) ...or the Trinity, or the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, or a hundred other things that are implicit in Scripture, rather than explicit (to say nothing of "sola Scriptura", "sola fide", "once saved, always saved", the sinner's prayer, altar calls, the contents of the true Bible, etc.). Friend, you cannot simply cherry-pick the implicit things you like (e.g. the Trinity), while decrying other implicit truths.

(If you doubt that other self-professed Christians deny the Trinity, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, etc., on the basis of Scripture alone, I'd invite you to debate any unitarian on those matters; he woudl be happy to challenge you to prove them by explicit Scripture quotes... which would be rather a challenge, since they do not exist as explicit quotes (but as implicit truths deduced from the entire Deposit of Faith).

The only priests in the New Testaments that were Christians were EVERY Christian,

As an example: perhaps you might read John 20:23, for instance, and tell me the identities of those who were given the power to forgive (or hold bound) the sins of men? Or you might explain why St. Paul goes to such lengths to specify the specific requirements for specific men to be ordained as a bishop (episkopos: see 1 Timothy 3, etc.) or as a priest (presbyteros: see Titus 1:5-7, etc.), which certainly seems to contradict the "every last believer" idea? Of course all baptised Christians are "priest, prophet and king" in the sense of participating in those titles owned by Christ; but there were always "specially ordained" ministers (given the Sacrament of Holy Orders through the laying on of hands--see 1 Timothy 5:22, where St. Timothy, the Bishop of Crete, was given guidance in ordaining other priests, etc.; and 2 Timothy 1:6, referring to St. Timothy's own ordination). No one seriously challenged this idea for over 1500 years, until Luther and company sought to throw off obedience to the Church of Christ, in favour of their own ideas and ways and teachings. No... the ordained priesthood is, and always has been, a fundamental part of Christ's Church.

and Christians offered a sacrifice of good deeds and thanksgiving - not Jesus.

The first part of your statement (up to the hyphen) is good and true and Scriptural; the second is (forgive me) arrant nonsense, if you speak in general. The ordained priests and bishops most certainly DID offer Christ's Own self-sacrifice upon the altar, as Jesus commanded them to do (cf. Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25, etc.).

There is no Purgatory in the NT,

...and there is no Trinity in the NT, and there is no incarnation in the NT. Need we go through this again?

and the very thought is repulsive to hundreds of verses.

Correction: the very thought is repulsive to hundreds of (though by no means all) Protestants who do not understand the terms they condemn, and who are utterly inconsistent in their application of the Scriptures. Either the Bible contains implicit truths (such as the Trinity), or it does not; you need to make your choice, one way or the other.

Same for indulgences.

I'm afraid you haven't the slightest idea of the real definition of the term, if you could say anything of the sort.

You can follow the Pope.

I do, as do all who obey Our Lord who said to St. Peter, "Feed my sheep." I, for one, try not to be too proud to be led by that assistant shepherd.

I’ll follow what the Apostles said: (*wry look*) I rather doubt that you'll follow ALL of what the Apostles said, friend; else you would run with all your might to the Church Who has the Holy Eucharist, as St. Paul (the Apostle) and St. John (the Apostle) made clear; Who has the authority to forgive the sins of men, as St. John (the Apostle) made clear), and Who gave you the very Scriptures you not try to use against Her.

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Nor do Catholics. Some Protestants, however, follow the man-made and Scripture-contradicting traditions of men (e.g. sola Scriptura, sola fide, once-saved-always-saved, etc.) which were fabricated by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. [...] - Peter the Apostle

(*sigh*) Yes, friend, that is all too true. I'd gently invite you, however, to observe that your "identification of the guilty party of these verses" is a result of your own prejudices, and the prejudices of the anti-Catholics from whom you inherited much of the nonsense you've proposed. Let me also close with a quote from St. Peter, the Apostle:

"And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. (2 Peter 3:15-17)"

Mr Rogers wrote, in reply to my comment:

At this point, you’ve entered into deceit.

Er... sir, I think you may have run counter to the Religion Moderator's wishes, here. Would you mind avoiding suggestions that I am a liar/deceiver? If you think a comment of mine is incorrect, do say so; but I'll thank you not to attribute dishonesty to me; I've never accused you of anything of the sort, despite your many provocations... true?

There was no attempt to translate the Bible for commoners into English prior to the Wessex Gospels (1000 AD), and arguably they were not meant for distribution to commoners. In any case, I had already mentioned them.

(?) Are you supposing that the Gospels, translated into English by St. Egbert, were for "use in the Liturgy" (despite the fact that all liturgical readings, save perhaps the readings from the Holy Rule of the Order or the Office of Readings/Vigils, were in Latin)? And again: the English Psalter was not made solely for use in the liturgy, especially since the Divine Office (i.e. Liturgy of the Hours) was prayed exclusively in Latin, well into the 19th and 20th centuries (depending on the location). But I'll address your Anglo-phile tendencies on this subject, below.

Suggesting that a gloss in a monk’s book in a monastery,

Forgive me, dear fellow, but--at least on this particular topic--you are woefully misinformed. A "gloss" is a note, aspiration, reminder or clarification placed alongside a text (especially a sacred text), usually in the margin, but sometimes as a footnote. (Example: "for Thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, now and forever" is a gloss; various parenthetical remarks, such as found in virtually all translations of the Bible when explaining obscure foreign terms or idioms, are glosses.) In no way can an entire translation of an entire Gospel be considered a "gloss"; it's called a "translation"... unless you'd consider the entire Wycliffe Bible to be a "gloss" of earlier versions?

or a handful of Psalters (the Psalms, used for liturgy)

See above.

is evidence that the Catholic Church allowed commoners to access scripture goes beyond ignorance into either gross foolishness or deceit

:) Hm. I suppose I should appreciate you softening your accusation, and saying now that I might be a mere fool (albeit a gross one), instead of a lying knave; but would you be so kind as to keep your comments objective, and non-personal? I've treated you quite civilly, have I not?

I won’t read the rest of your post because I wish to immerse myself in neither.

No one is forcing you to reply to, or even read, anything. But again: if you have the time and ambition to hurl accusations against the Church, is it not incumbent on you to summon the time and ambition to defend them reasonably, or else retract them? Otherwise, you'll give the impression that you're concerned only with throwing ill-conceived, thoughtless "incendiary bombs", only to run away when challenged. That isn't right, friend... and I think you know that. If you'd like to retract your accusations, then I'll certainly let those matters drop; and if you'd like to defend them logically, then I'll certainly consider your replies, and respond (God willing) in kind. But do not, I pray you, hurl vituperative rhetoric without any intention of finding out whether the claims are true!

That Catholic apologists have to go to such lengths proves my point.

With all due respect, friend, this is simply empty theatre, and grandiose rhetoric; anyone could say the same about almost anyone, with equal [and vacuous] basis.

With nothing of substance there - and I’ll reduce my demand down to just ONE copy of a New Testament, or the full Gospels other than the Wessex Gospels I first mentioned - with no substance, the apologist is reduce to saying, “If a monk in a monastery could read a few verses translated inside the Vulgate...”

If you still insist on "England or nothing" while attacking the Universal Church, perhaps St. Egbert would now garner your attention? I have doubts, but I'll happily mention him again...

I don’t require the full loaf, but you have not produced a crumb.

I'm to the point where I'll let the reader decide what I (and you) have--and have not--produced, friend; I've repeated myself enough, on that point, at least for now.

You say I required: “if the Church did not manage to translate the entire Bible for every last layman, then the Church must necessarily have been trying to hide the Scriptures from the laity entirely!” That is dishonest, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Or produce the post where I required it...

All right (and do avoid the accusations of motive and dishonestly, eh?)...

1) First, you stated (without qualification) that there "is a reason why the Roman Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations of scripture, and it is NOT because scripture supports the Roman Catholic doctrine!" (Comment #254) In addition to the fact that this statement is provably false (especially without qualifiers), you clearly suggest that the Church wished to suppress vernacular translations of Scripture because (in your mind) Scripture "did not support Roman Catholic doctrine". Unless you think that Scripture would only fail to support Roman Catholic doctrine in ENGLAND (and I'd dearly love to see the reasoning for that!), this has the inescapable implication that "the Church wishes to suppress Scripture from all commoners".

2) Second: when I supplied examples where the Church did indeed translate the Scriptures into the vernacular (Latin, Cyrillic, etc.), you dismissed them utterly, as being unimportant (where "unimportant" apparently meant "I'm not prepared to debate them": since you'd prepared yourself for a discussion on England (and not of anything else), you were prepared to ignore every last instance of the Church supplying the vernacular Scriptures to any other country, whatsoever). Had you confined yourself to saying, "The Catholic Church seems to have been lax in supplying the vernacular Scriptures to the common people in England, for some reason", then I'd have found it very difficult to argue with you (though I could offer some counter-points, even then); but when you go very much further, and declare (perhaps in order to be in unison with a "classic anti-Catholic battle-cry" of "the Church hates the Scriptures and doesn't want the common people exposed to them, because otherwise the commoners would learn the truth and leave the Church"?) that there is NOT ONE INSTANCE, in any country, in any era before Wycliffe/Tyndale, where the Catholic Church supplied the vernacular Scriptures to the laity. That, sir, is utter balderdash, and easily proven wrong (as I have done, repeatedly).

3) You've utterly ignored my main criticism of your very premise! If the Catholic Church were so desperate to withhold the Scriptures (and their apparent "plain meaning") from the laity, then why did the Church release them at all--to the Roman Empire, to the Slavic peoples (even to the extent of inventing an alphabet and consistent grammar, purely for the purpose of GIVING them the Scriptures! That's the original reason why the Catholic Church CREATED the Cyrillic language--to give them the Scriptures and the Liturgy!), and so on? Why not punish any errant monk who dared to translate even one WORD of the Scriptures, lest it fall into the wrong hands? Why not destroy most (or all) extant Bibles, if the Church finds the Scriptures so unnecessary and dangerous? You're painting a very strange picture, friend, of a "nefarious Church" who "tries so mightily to hide the Scriptures, that She is willing even to invent a new alphabet in order to release and spread them"! Surely even you don't believe such nonsense, if you stop for a calm moment, and think about this!

In summary: your sweeping and grandiose claims of "the Catholic Church suppressing the vernacular translations of Scripture, for the purpose of hiding 'the truth' from its ignorant members [lest they be "enlightened" about the Church's nefarious history and designs, and become Protestant]", you allowed yourself to go far beyond any possible data that you have. Rule #1 in debating (or in any serious science/art), friend: do not outstrip your data.

Perhaps that might, at least, put your mind to rest on the "Paladin is trying to defame me with lies" worry? I meant (and did) nothing of the sort; though I did point out where your argument, as it stands, is in ruins. Do try again, and rebuild it from a solid foundation with reasonable claims, eh?

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.