Posted on 08/18/2012 9:13:06 PM PDT by Salvation
On the other hand, he commanded: "That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another." How did he love us? He gave his whole life for the salvation of all. At the last supper, Jesus said "..do this in remembrance of me." What did Jesus DO? He gave thanks to God for the gifts he had received which sustain life, and he gave them away.
The Eucharist is gratitude to God for the gifts we receive which sustain life, and charity with same. You can make it yourself in every moment of every day. When someone else makes it and gives it to you, the value is primarily for them. The value is in giving it away.
We perform the ceremony with bread and wine to commemorate this teaching. The bread and wine are symbols, but the underlying teaching is very real.
Can you or anyone define exactly who "the Jews" were that this Gospel is referring to? Were they simply residents of Judah, a few Hebrew speakers, or some other identifiable group? (If you can do it from Scripture its extra credit)
"- but they actually stuck around a bit more, didn't they?"
Some did, many did not. Those that stayed were Christians, those that left remained Jews. That is clear from the Scripture.
"The very elements that Catholics consume in the Eucharist are NOT literally changed - no matter how much protest and insistence is made that they are. They REMAIN and retain the same properties that they started out as and the only change is the spiritual perception of the ones partaking."
We continue to speak past each other on this, probably due to the limitations of English to properly convey the actual meanings of the words spoken by Jesus. The accidents of the bread and wine, described as fruit of the earth/vine and works of human hands in the liturgy of the Mass do not change, however the substance is transformed into the Real Body and Real Blood of Christ. It is the Epiousion, the "Panem Supersubstantialium, the "supersubstantial bread", the Eucharist.
"Ton arton hemon ton epiousion"
"Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie."
"Give us this day our daily bread"
Peace be with you
“Have you repented of your false prophets? If not, we have nothing to talk about.”
~ ~ ~
Protestant brothers (mostly in this thread) and sisters, you can’t reject all your prophets. Our Lord speaks to Protestant messengers. He is getting you ready to accept the faith. Please, you can, pray about it.
I’ll post two very serious and current messages from Heaven which say the same because we are in the end times, the Great Tribulation is close. The GT begins soon as near as the end of this year~!
Our Lord is there, present in the Eucharist state men taught by the Apostles and we can know reading the written Word. Jesus said “This IS My body” not “This is a SYMBOL of My body” or the other for denial, consuming bread and wine is a “REMEMBRANCE” of Our Lord’s suffering death on the Cross” which makes no sense.
The first message is to a well known Protestant messenger.
The second, I’ve posted recently, it is so serious. Jennifer is Catholic. They’re saying the same, yes?
The Eucharist is true, when God shows the world soon, all souls, believe. Catholics wish you would believe before the Great Warning happens.
~ ~ ~
THE RED HORSE OF WAR
Thus saith the LORD:
“The grace of peace is about to be removed from the nations. The grace of financial security and stability is about to be removed from the wealthy nations that have hoarded their money and resources from the poor of My people. I will remove the shields of protection and allow the enemies of the West to bring destruction through acts of terror. War is coming in Israel, the Middle East and to the West. Once the Red Horse of War is loosed, it will not cease on the earth for seven years until I return to set up My Kingdom upon the earth. The time of Tribulation is almost upon you, O earth, earth, earth - hear the Word of the LORD!
Look to when I take my servant Billy Graham home. When I do, it shall be a prophetic sign that the Age of grace will end soon after. Wake up and be ready for My appearing in this Midnight Hour, O backslidden church - I am coming for My Bride who has made herself ready. Repent and prepare to meet thy God, or to be left behind to endure the My wrath upon the wicked of the earth who have hardened their hearts against Me. O EARTH, EARTH, EARTH, HEAR YE THE WORD OF THE LORD.”
Maurice Sklar
August 16 2012
http://the-christians-forum.com/topic/4897746/1/
_ _ _ _ _
message to Jennifer
5/22/12
7:43 PM
My child, I say to My children that mankind relies too much upon himself and it is there that you become the victim of your own sinfulness. Heed to the Commandments My children for they are your entrance into the kingdom.
I weep today My children but it is those who are failing to heed to My warnings that will weep tomorrow. The winds of spring will turn into the rising dust of summer as the world will begin to look more like a desert.
Before mankind is able to change the calendar of this time you will have witnessed the financial collapse. It is only those who heed to My warnings that will be prepared. The North will attack the South as the two Koreas become at war with each other.
Jerusalem will shake, America will fall and Russia will unite with China to become Dictators of the new world. I plead in warnings of love and mercy for I am Jesus and the hand of justice is soon to prevail.
http://www.wordsfromjesus.com/2012.html
You are correct. John does not have the account of the Last Supper in his Gospel. But remember that John was writing much later and was writing theology. He had the synoptic Gospels and some of the writings of St. Paul in front of him.
John, supposedly, lived to a ripe old age.
So, Chapter 6 of John is the Discourse on the Bread of Life — explaining the Last Supper to those who were not present. Some listened and their hearts were changed. Some had hard hearts and walked away. Note that Jesus didn’t call them back and say something like I was only speaking symbolically — he lets them leave.
I think you are being too casual or careless in your recounting of this dogma. While the Church teaches that Christ is indeed literally present, it does not claim that the bread and wine literally change. The Church teaches that the bread and wine "substantially" change. Why do you suppose it is referred to as a "host"?
Peace be with you.
There's an important difference though. After the teachings you reference, Jesus didn't turn to his apostles and ask if they would leave too. And Peter wasn't prompted to make a profession of faith.
As the apostles were Jews they would have no problem understanding “this is my body” as the elements referring to representing Christ,
In 1 Cor 5:7, Paul tells us that Jesus is the Paschal Lamb. Jews understood that the Passover lamb was killed, had its blood sprinkled, and then was eaten. Apart from addressing the crowd with the teaching of John 6, Jesus also privately and in the context of the passover seder ate his Last Supper with the apostles, instructing them to "Take, eat; this is my body." (Mt 26:26)
I think your observation about the apostles being Jews is a good one. An important one. And one that underscores that at the Last Supper, they well understood Jesus was instituting something new and that it transcended symbolism.
And which would be unlike any other physical miracle, for in these there was an actual detectable change.
Jesus told us, as I noted in a post above, that the only sign would be the sign of Jonah, i.e. his resurrection. After he arose, he said those who believed without seeing were blessed. Why does faith alone not suffice for taking Jesus at his word at his last meal with his apostles? Peace be with you.
Like I have been saying all along, the "presence" of Jesus in the Eucharist is a matter of perception for the person participating in the ordinance. This is patently obvious because the "elements" do NOT physically change. So, whether someone believes he is literally consuming the body and blood of our Savior or believes that the bread and cup represent the body and blood of Christ broken and shed on the cross for our salvation, should NOT matter as long as the person believes in Christ as Savior. We are blessed, Jesus said, because we believe in Him even though we do not see him physically.
I hope you aren't saying that Catholic believers are ignorant!
No, I am not saying that, only that many people are roped into believing in the Catholic Church because it claims it ALONE has the means of granting eternal life (i.e,; the Eucharist and its propitiatory purpose).
That's not what the Church teaches. My confessor gives me recommendations for growth in the spiritual life. He doesn't insist that I do something. The Church instructs me on the ORDINARY means of salvation (such as regular communal worship at Mass, regular confession;etc) but teaches that these are the ORDINARY means. God is free to work outside the ordinary, and I don't know a single Catholic who believes otherwise.
But that IS what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and it was reiterated in the OP, which said:
- world is full of evil and we NEED to make reparation for our sin. Protestant errors cost people their souls.
It is important to point out that the Catholic Church (along with the Orthodox) is the only place where a true Eucharist - the Real Presence of Christ - can be found. Only the Catholic Church actually teaches the doctrine, as it has unchanged and unceasingly for nearly 2,000 years. And the Church (again, along with the Orthodox bodies, who are in formal schism with the hierarchical Church Christ founded) is the only body where the chain of apostolic succession remains valid: it takes a validly ordained priest to perform consecration. In fact, due to the lack a valid priesthood, savvy Protestants are aware that a valid Eucharist is not possible within their worship structure, even if they would believe in the Real Presence, and it could be said that this may be another reason why their most committed apologists spend so much time attacking the Catholic teaching.
- It's a matter of faith; every Christian must examine the evidence and either accept or prove why they shouldn’t. No excuse for not thirsting for truth. The lukewarm are spit out.
I hope you read the OP because this is what I reject. The RCC also has historically stated that "outside of the Roman Catholic Church no one can be saved". Vatican II backtracked a little from that (so much for everywhere and always believed and the "infallibility" of the Pope) but it STILL states that anyone who knows the Catholic Church is the "true" church and leaves it cannot be saved.
Then respectfully, may I ask why faith alone in His word about His Eucharistic presence isn't sufficient? Why proof is required?
We are saved by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone because of the grace of God. Jesus' words about "his Eucharistic presence" is a product of the RCC's interpretation of what Jesus said and it was a doctrine that developed over centuries - NOT something that the first Christians believed. I believe that Jesus Christ was literally, physically present on earth and that he literally shed his blood and died on the cross for my sins. I do not need to pretend that He is "there" in the elements when I participate in the Communion service at my church, because Scripture teaches Jesus is ALWAYS with us and we are indwelled with the Holy Spirit - sealed until the day of redemption.
I "ate" his flesh and "drank" his blood when I received Him as my Savior. I believed on him and He became my bread of life, water of life, His blood cleased me from ALL my sins and I am redeemed and will never perish because that is what Jesus said. Why do some Catholics not pay attention to what Jesus says elsewhere? Why do they reject that Jesus said we ARE saved by faith in Him? Why does the RCC insist that works must be added to our faith to be saved when Scripture says "NOT by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us" (Titus 2:5)?
That is patently ridiculous. Was the divinity of Jesus during His ministry on Earth merely a matter of perception since the elements of His fully human body were still present?
"I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. - John 6:51-58
Peace be with you
Do you understand the word “transubstantiation?”
Trans = transfer
Substantiation = substance
The bread and wine is completely changed to the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Yes, it still looks like bread and tastes like wine, but it is totally transformed.
“His blood cleased me from ALL my sins and I am redeemed and will never perish because that is what Jesus said. Why do some Catholics not pay attention to what Jesus says elsewhere? Why do they reject that Jesus said we ARE saved by faith in Him?”
~ ~ ~
You’re stuck brother, believing the Protestant heresy of
faith alone and goes with Jesus covers all your sins by
his death on the cross. You’re justified. Neither one are
true. They sure are a lot easier, maybe why they are believed.
Come home boatbums, the Remnant is Catholic. Wait for your mom in Church at Mass. You will receive grace just being there, trust me and it would make your mother very happy. Do not receive Our Lord in the Eucharist until you come home and go to Confession. You can do it boatbums.
Our Lord wants all people to believe in His presence in
the Eucharist. Do not wait until you are shown in the
illumination of conscience. The Great Warning (Rev 6:15-17).
These protests, denials are ridiculous. Protestants have
faith in the Incarnation but want proof Our Lord is in
the Eucharist...actually, they would have to become
Roman Catholic, so holds them back.
No offense, stpio, but there is no way I would ever need nor want to return to the Catholic Church. Jesus gives me all the grace I need to be saved, to keep me saved and to live through me to do the works God has prepared for me to do.
No, the RCC teaches that it is the sole authoritative CUSTODIAN of Christ's revelation. That it has authority to confect the Eucharist and minister to souls (ministerial priesthood) based on apostolic succession not found in nonCatholic denominations. The means of granting eternal life belong to God. None of us have salvation/eternal life thru anything except the sacrifice on the cross, which none of us deserved. The Church teaches it makes Christ present to us via the sacraments and by the priest standing in persona christi, in the place of Christ. We believe our Church mediates Christ's presence to the world, or perhaps radiates is a better word. Any merit or holiness comes from God's action in and through the Church, not from the host of sinners who inhabit it. We believe Jesus' actions in/thru the RCC are the ORDINARY means God uses but that he can and does work outside these means whenever he chooses.
Oops, I just saw what you wrote about Protestant errors costing souls. That didn't seem in line with Church teaching to me, so I looked it up. In numbers 818 and 819 of our Catechism, it states:
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."
The RCC also has historically stated that "outside of the Roman Catholic Church no one can be saved"
As I've said several times now, the RCC teaches it has the ORDINARY means of ministering to souls in Jesus' name. It doesn't teach that those through no fault of their own who do not/cannot access the Church are lost. God can and does work outside the ordinary. This we believe :)
STILL states that anyone who knows the Catholic Church is the "true" church and leaves it cannot be saved.
I addressed this above with Jn 13:20. Jesus sent the apostles on his behalf. Lk 10:16 tells us that people who reject those Jesus has sent reject both Jesus and the Father. Therefore, someone who is aware of Christ's true Church and leaves is rejecting those Christ sent, as well as Christ and the Father. Dont' most Christian religions teach that wilfull rejection of God generally leads to damnation?
Jesus' words about "his Eucharistic presence" is a product of the RCC's interpretation of what Jesus said and it was a doctrine that developed over centurie
As I noted above, Paul refers to Jesus as the paschal lamb, which every Jew understood was killed, had its blood sprinkled, and was eaten. And then there's the matter that Jesus commanded us to eat his flesh at his passover meal with the apostles. If you wish to reject his words, you are free to do so. But please don't misrepresent Catholic teaching. The Church has believed in the Real Presence from the beginning and that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant.
Well, there's much more I could say but alas dinner is burning on the stove. But I will close with a few quick thoughts.
Why do some Catholics not pay attention to what Jesus says elsewhere?
With all due respect, do you understand how bizarre your question is after how much criticism you've lobbed at us for actually believing the words of Jesus and his apostles?
Why do they reject that Jesus said we ARE saved by faith in Him?
We don't reject this. To be honest, you really seem to buy into a lot of antiCatholic myths. Did something happen that caused you to feel such animosity toward the RCC?
Why does the RCC insist that works must be added to our faith to be saved
Again, a strange question from someone who insists the Eucharist should be provable (a work of God) before it's believed (faith). We don't insist on works, but we do engage in concrete actions in attempt to live our faith and know/do what we believe is God's will for our lives. Can you give me a specific example of the type of "work" to which you refer?
Now, I have to rescue that chicken on the stove, ugh! Shoulda done Chik-fil-a instead :)
No offense to you BB, once Catholic, always Catholic. God’s
grace is working in you. How happy it would make your
dear mother besides.
A former atheist was wondering on the day of her daughter’s
Baptism, “how did I end up here?” She opened a drawer and there was her baptismal candle. She had been baptized Catholic.
An exCatholic, eh? Sad that you misrepresent RCC teaching here. Really sad :(
“As I noted above, Paul refers to Jesus as the paschal lamb, which every Jew understood was killed, had its blood sprinkled, and was eaten.”
~ ~ ~
Protestants believe Jesus is the New Covenant paschal lamb of God but they stop there. In the Old Covenant, the Passover Lamb was consumed. Much greater the New Covenant, yes? We consume God Himself! This is God’s plan. How humble of God.
When the Great Warning happens, knock yourself over, the
facts, the Truth we’ve been discussing in thread after
thread, you’ll say, oh my gosh!!!...it’s true.
And if they ignore Romans 13?
No, the demons cannot be saved because Jesus died for mankind. When Jesus says to believe on Him, he is talking about having faith in Him to deliver us. It is receiving Him as our Savior and accepting the gift of eternal life God gives to us by His grace.
The "church" is the called-out assembly of ALL those who follow and believe in Jesus Christ, it is a SPIRITUAL house (I Pet. 2:5). No organized church can be THE true church of Jesus Christ because the Body of Christ contains ONLY those who are the redeemed. A true Christian church would follow the teachings Jesus taught both while he was on earth and what he revealed to those who enscripturated both in the Bible. Just as the Old Testament prophets of the Lord wrote down their Divinely-inspired truths, so the Apostles and a few of their disciples wrote as the were "moved along by the Holy Spirit". The difference between us is that you say you believe your church is THE church Jesus established and I believe that there is not a singular, physical organization that has the corner on that title but that, just as in the first few centuries, there were local congregations that adhered in unison to the teachings of Jesus Christ as spelled out in Scripture - it was truly "universal". That is why there are MANY churches that qualify as of Christ because they contain genuine believers and teach what the Bible says. This spiritual organism designed to be the buttress and support of the truth - and the truth is what God has preserved in Holy Scripture.
So, though the Roman Catholic Church SAYS that it is THE, only true church of Jesus Christ, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, if it is a representative of the Body of Christ, then it MUST continue to teach what the Apostles taught. I disagree that there is such a thing as "Apostolic succession" - as defined as the apostolic authority given by Jesus to his selected twelve and this power being handed down through succession. Rather, I think it is an authority of teaching the truths as they are revealed in scripture. This is a good link that explains, I think in a very good way, what this "succession" was supposed to be all about The Rise of Rome in a Nutshell. In it we learn:
So far, so good? Protestants and Catholics agree to this point. The next step is that the Apostles passed on their faith to others. Easy enough. The Apostles commissioned others to be leaders and authorities in the church. They handed over the faith to followers, like Timothy, who were approved in both their life and teaching. This created a succession of faith and teaching. They would often call this “laying on of hands.” With this “system” in place, the church maintained a safeguard against rogue expressions of the Christian faith. This is why Paul warned about commissioning people too hastily (1 Tim. 5:22).
Again, to this point both Protestants and Catholics agree. We need to pass on the faith. We need to commission others that have been approved. There needs to be accountability. However, the departure comes when we begin to define not only what this succession of authority is, but what it does. Again, we agree that it is the duty of the church to pass on the faith once for all handed to the saints (Jude 3). We agree that the church is the “pillar of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). We also agree that all in this succession are saints and a part of the church. However, Catholics believe that in order for this succession to be valid, it has to be seen as primarily a succession in person. Protestants, on the other hand, believe that the primary issue involved it is a succession in teaching, doctrine, and practice. Therefore, Roman Catholics focus on the one to whom the succession is given, while Protestants focus on the teaching and doctrine itself, believing that the person who receives the succession is instrumental, not integral.
Therefore, in essence, for the Roman Catholic, the persons in succession define the Gospel and make up the institutional church which presides over the Gospel. Hence, Catholics have the Pope and the magisterium of bishops (as represented by the fellows in the graph that follow the apostles). For the Protestant, on the other hand, it is the other way around. Only to the degree that the person is in succession with right teaching are they in apostolic succession. A hasty “laying on of hands” is possible, and can damage both the doctrine and reputation of the church.
This is why Protestants are continually going back to the source – the Bible – for final authority (sola Scriptura) and why Roman Catholics are continually going to the institution for final authority.
But there is one more way in which the chasm is further widened between Roman Catholics and Protestants with regard to the issue of apostolic succession. For the Roman Catholic, in order for this institution to have ultimate authority, it must possess the gift of infallibility. For the Protestant, the person upon whom the hands are laid (along with the institution, which is made up of a bunch of fellas upon whom hands have been laid) is fallible. Only the Apostles’ teaching is not. For the Protestant, apostolic succession is a safeguard to the Gospel, but it must be continually tested by the Scriptures.
I encourage you to read the whole article. Thank you, too, for the respectful dialog and I also look forward to eternity in heaven where we will know even as we are known.
I'm always up for a challenge. ;o)
We know they were "Jews" simply because the passage in John 6 SAYS they are. Here:
At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” (John 6:41-42)
And here:
“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:43-52)
And again:
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. (John 6:53-59)
Got that? He was speaking to Jews "while teaching in the synagogue" and referring to their ancestors in the wilderness. But, if you notice, it is NOT the "Jews" that turned back from following him, but his DISCIPLES. See:
On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. (John 6:60-66)
Jesus was not concerned about the "Jews" like he was about his followers (disciples). There continued to be Jewish people following him around - especially the religious leaders looking to find fault so they could condemn him. That's why I do not think it was Jesus' words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood that so grossed them out they split - they had heard His parables and metaphors plenty of times - but when he told them "yet there are some of you who do not believe" and "no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them", they "turned back and no longer followed him". These were the ones who gave up following him - I think they were convicted in their hearts that their reasons for following Jesus were not sincere. It is after this that Jesus turned to Peter and the other eleven that stuck around and asked, “You do not want to leave too, do you?”, and Peter answers Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” YET, Judas was STILL there, wasn't he? Judas stuck around, but we don't know his heart whether he had turned against Jesus already. John 6:70-71 says, "Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)
Does this pass your test? As for the ones who stayed, they were STILL ethnic Jews, that had not changed, but they WERE Christians - they had started to really believe that Jesus was who He said He was. Yet, we know that when the rubber met the road, even Peter - who was the first to pipe up at this scene in John 6 - denied he even knew who Jesus was and NONE of the others dared to show their faces, only John showed up under the cross. It was after the resurrection that, I think, they became TRUE believers. Blessed are we, Jesus said, that believe even we have not seen.
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.