This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
|
Locked on 04/14/2014 6:31:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Lunar eclipse tonight.
|
Skip to comments.
Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol
reformation21 ^
| April 2012
| Carl Trueman
Posted on 04/05/2014 5:57:23 AM PDT by Gamecock
Full Title: Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Roman Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol
In the field of Reformation studies, Professor Brad Gregory is somebody for whom I have immense respect. Those outside the discipline of history are possibly unaware of the ravages which postmodernism brought in its wake, making all narratives negotiable and fuelling a rise in interest in all manner of trivia and marginal weirdness. Dr. Gregory is trained in both philosophy and history and has done much to place the self-understanding of human agents back at the centre of historical analysis. Thus, for those of us interested in the Reformation, he has also played an important role in placing religion back into the discussion. For that, I and many others owe him a great debt of gratitude.
I therefore find myself in the odd and uncomfortable position of writing a very critical review of his latest book, The Unintended Reformation (Belknap Harvard, 2011). The book itself is undoubtedly well-written and deeply learned, with nearly a third of the text devoted to endnotes. It is brilliant in its scope and execution, addressing issues of philosophy, politics and economics. Anyone wanting a panoramic view of the individuals, the institutions and the forces which shaped early modern Europe should read this work. Yet for all of its brilliance, the book does not demonstrate its central thesis, that Protestantism must shoulder most of the responsibility for the various things which Dr. Gregory dislikes about modern Western society, from its exaltation of the scientific paradigm to its consumerism to its secular view of knowledge and even to global warming. I am sympathetic with many of Dr. Gregory's gripes about the world of today; but in naming Protestantism as the primary culprit he engages in a rather arbitrary blame game.
Dr. Gregory's book contains arguments about both metaphysics and what we might call empirical social realities. On the grounds that debates about metaphysics, like games of chess, can be great fun for the participants but less than thrilling for the spectators, I will post my thoughts on that aspect of the book in a separate
blog entry. In this article, I will focus on the Papacy, persecution and the role of the printing press. This piece is more of a medieval jousting tournament than a chess game and will, I trust, provide the audience with better spectator sport.
One final preliminary comment: I am confident that my previous writings on Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics indicate that I am no reincarnation of a nineteenth century 'No popery!' rabble-rouser. I have always tried to write with respect and forbearance on such matters, to the extent that I have even been berated at times by other, hotter sorts of Protestants for being too pacific. In what follows, however, I am deliberately combative. This is not because I wish to show disrespect to Dr. Gregory or to his Church or to his beliefs; but he has set the tone by writing a very combative book. I like that. I like writers who believe and care about the big questions of life. But here is the rub: those who write in such a way must allow those who respond to them to believe with equal passion in their chosen cause and to care about it deeply and thus to be equally combative in their rejoinders.
A key part of the book's argument is the apparent anarchy created by the Protestant emphasis on the perspicuity of scripture. In this, Dr. Gregory stands with his Notre Dame colleague, Christian Smith, as seeing this as perhaps the single weakest point of Protestantism. He also rejects any attempt to restrict Protestantism to the major confessional traditions (Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran) as he argues that such a restriction would create an artificial delimitation of Protestant diversity. Instead, he insists on also including those groups which scholars typically call radical reformers (essentially all other non-Roman Christian sects which have their origins in the turn to scripture of the Reformation). This creates a very diverse and indeed chaotic picture of Protestantism such that no unifying doctrinal synthesis is possible as a means of categorizing the whole.
I wonder if I am alone in finding the more stridently confident comments of some Roman Catholics over the issue of perspicuity to be somewhat tiresome and rather overblown. Perspicuity was, after all, a response to a position that had proved to be a failure: the Papacy. Thus, to criticize it while proposing nothing better than a return to that which had proved so inadequate is scarcely a compelling argument.
Yes, it is true that Protestant interpretive diversity is an empirical fact; but when it comes to selectivity in historical reading as a means of creating a false impression of stability, Roman Catholic approaches to the Papacy provide some excellent examples of such fallacious method. The ability to ignore or simply dismiss as irrelevant the empirical facts of papal history is quite an impressive feat of historical and theological selectivity. Thus, as all sides need to face empirical facts and the challenges they raise, here are a few we might want to consider, along with what seem to me (as a Protestant outsider) to be the usual Roman Catholic responses:
Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries.
Never mind. Put together a doctrine of development whereby Christians - or at least some of them, those of whom we choose to approve in retrospect on the grounds we agree with what they say - eventually come to see the Pope as uniquely authoritative.
Empirical fact: The Papacy was corrupt in the later Middle Ages, building its power and status on political antics, forged documents and other similar scams.
Ignore it, excuse it as a momentary aberration and perhaps, if pressed, even offer a quick apology. Then move swiftly on to assure everyone it is all sorted out now and start talking about John Paul II or Benedict XVI. Whatever you do, there is no need to allow this fact to have any significance for how one understands the theory of papal power in the abstract or in the present.
Empirical fact: The Papacy was in such a mess at the beginning of the fifteenth century that it needed a council to decide who of the multiple claimants to Peter's seat was the legitimate pope.
Again, this was merely a momentary aberration but it has no significance for the understanding of papal authority. After all, it was so long ago and so far away.
Empirical fact: The church failed (once again) to put its administrative, pastoral, moral and doctrinal house in order at the Fifth Lateran Council at the start of the sixteenth century.
Forget it. Emphasise instead the vibrant piety of the late medieval church and then blame the ungodly Protestants for their inexplicable protests and thus for the collapse of the medieval social, political and theological structure of Europe.
Perhaps it is somewhat aggressive to pose these points in such a blunt form. Again, I intend no disrespect but am simply responding with the same forthrightness with which certain writers speak of Protestantism. The problem here is that the context for the Reformation - the failure of the papal system to reform itself, a failure in itself lethal to notions of papal power and authority - seems to have been forgotten in all of the recent aggressive attacks on scriptural perspicuity. These are all empirical facts and they are all routinely excused, dismissed or simply ignored by Roman Catholic writers. Perspicuity was not the original problem; it was intended as the answer. One can believe it to be an incorrect, incoherent, inadequate answer; but then one must come up with something better - not simply act as if shouting the original problem louder will make everything all right. Such an approach to history and theology is what I call the Emerald City protocol: when defending the great and powerful Oz, one must simply pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Given the above empirical facts, the medieval Papacy surely has chronological priority over any of the alleged shortcomings of scriptural perspicuity in the history of abject ecclesiastical and theological disasters. To be fair, Dr. Gregory does acknowledge that 'medieval Christendom' was a failure (p. 365) but in choosing such a term he sidesteps the significance of the events of the late medieval period for papal authority. The failure of medieval Christendom was the failure of the Papacy. To say medieval Christendom failed but then to allow such a statement no real ecclesiastical significance is merely an act of throat-clearing before going after the people, the Protestants, who frankly are in the crosshairs simply because it appears one finds them and their sects distasteful. Again, to be fair, one cannot blame Roman Catholics for disliking Protestants: our very existence bears testimony to Roman Catholicism's failure. But that Roman Catholics who know their history apparently believe the Papacy now works just fine seems as arbitrary and selective a theological and historical move as any confessionally driven restriction of what is and is not legitimate Protestantism.
As Dr. Gregory brings his narrative up to the present, I will do the same. There are things which can be conveniently ignored by North American Roman Catholic intellectuals because they take place in distant lands. Yet many of these are emblematic of contemporary Roman Catholicism in the wider world. Such, for example, are the bits of the real cross and vials of Jesus' blood which continue to be displayed in certain churches, the cult of Padre Pio and the relics of Anthony of Padua and the like (both of whom edged out Jesus and the Virgin Mary in a poll as to who was the most prayed to figure in Italian Catholicism). We Protestants may appear hopelessly confused to the latest generation of North American Roman Catholic polemicists, but at least my own little group of Presbyterian schismatics does not promote the veneration of mountebank stigmatics or the virtues of snake-oil.
Still, for the sake of argument let us accept the fideistic notion that the events of the later Middle Ages do not shatter the theology underlying the Papacy. What therefore of Roman Catholic theological unity and papal authority today? That is not too rosy either, I am afraid. The Roman Catholic Church's teaching on birth control is routinely ignored by vast swathes of the laity with absolute impunity; Roman Catholic politicians have been in the vanguard of liberalizing abortion laws and yet still been welcome at Mass and at high table with church dignitaries; leading theologians cannot agree on exactly what papal infallibility means; and there is not even consensus on the meaning and significance of Vatican II relative to previous church teaching. Such a Church is as chaotic and anarchic as anything Protestantism has thrown up.
Further, if Dr. Gregory wants to include as part of his general concept of Protestantism any and all sixteenth century lunatics who ever claimed the Bible alone as sole authority and thence to draw conclusions about the plausibility of the perspicuity of scripture, then it seems reasonable to insist in response that discussions of Roman Catholicism include not simply the Newmans, Ratzingers and Wotjylas but also the Kungs, Rahners, Schillebeeckxs and the journalists at the National Catholic Reporter. And why stop there? We should also throw in the sedevacantists and Lefebvrists for good measure. They all claim to be good Roman Catholics and find their unity around the Office of the Pope, after all. Let us not exclude them on the dubious grounds that they do not support our own preconceived conclusions of how papal authority should work. At least Protestantism has the integrity to wear its chaotic divisions on its sleeve.
Moving on from the issue of authority, we find that Dr. Gregory also argues that religious persecution is a poisonous result of the confessionalisation of Europe into warring religious factions. Certainly, the bloodshed along confessional lines in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was terrible, but doctrinal disagreements did not begin with the Reformation. The New Testament makes it clear that serious doctrinal conflict existed within the church even during apostolic times (I hope I am allowed, for the sake of argument, to assume that the New Testament is perspicuous enough for me to state that with a degree of confidence); and the link between church and state which provided the context for bloodshed over matters of theological deviancy was established from at least the time of Priscillian in the late fourth century. It was hardly a Protestant or even a Reformation innovation.
When it comes to the empirical facts of Catholic persecution, Dr. Gregory only mentions the Inquisition twice. That is remarkably light coverage given its rather stellar track record in all that embarrassing auto da fe business. Moreover, he mentions it first only in a Reformation/post-Reformation context. Yet Roman Catholic persecution of those considered deviants was not simply or even primarily a response to Reformation Protestantism but a well-established pattern in the Middle Ages. No doubt the Spanish Jews and Muslims, the Cathars, the Albigensians, the Lollards, the Hussites and many other religious deviants living before the establishment of any Protestant state might have wished that their sufferings had received a more substantial role in the narrative and more significance in the general thesis. Sure, Protestantism broke the Roman Catholic monopoly on persecution and thus played a shameful and ignominious part in its escalation; but it did not establish the precedents, legally, culturally or practically.
Finally, the great lacuna in this book is the printing press. Dr. Gregory has, as I noted above, done brilliant work in putting self-understanding back on the historical agenda and thus of grounding the history of ideas in historical realities rather than metaphysical abstractions. The danger with this, however, is that material factors can come to be somewhat neglected. His thesis - that Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge and paved the way for its secularization - does not take into account the impact of the easy availability of print. The printed book changed everything: it fuelled literacy rates and it expanded the potential for diversity of opinion. I suspect there is a very plausible alternative, or at least supplementary, narrative to the 'Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge' thesis: the printing press did it because it made impossible the Church's control of the nature, range, flow and availability of knowledge.
Ironically, the printing press is one of the great success stories of pre-Reformation Catholic Europe. One might argue that it was a technological innovation and thus not particularly 'Catholic' in that sense. That is true; but for some years after it was invented it was unclear whether it would be successful enough to replace medieval book production. In fact, its success was significantly helped by the brisk fifteenth century trade in printed breviaries and missals and the indulgences produced to fund war against the Ottomans. In other words, it was the vibrancy of late medieval Catholic piety, of which Dr. Gregory makes much, that ensured the future of the printing press and thereby the shipwrecking of the old, stable forms of knowledge.
The Roman Catholic Church knew the danger presented by the easy transmission of, and access to, knowledge which the printing press provided. That is why it was so assiduous in burning books in the sixteenth century and why the Index of Prohibited Books remained in place until the 1960s. I well remember being amazed when reading the autobiography of the analytic philosopher and one-time priest, Sir Anthony Kenny, that he had had to obtain special permission from the Church to read David Hume for his doctoral research in the 1950s. At the start of the twenty-first century, Rome may present herself as the friend of engaged religious intellectuals in North America but she took an embarrassingly long time even to allow her people free access to the most basic books of modern Western thought. Women in Britain had the vote, Elvis (in my humble opinion) had already done his best work and The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were starting to churn out hits before Roman Catholics were free to read David Hume without specific permission from the Church.
Of course, Dr. Gregory knows about the Index; but he seems to see it as a response to Protestantism, not as an extension of the Church's typical manner of handling deviation from its central tenets and practices which stretched back well before the Reformation. And therein lies the ironic, tragic, perplexing flaw of this brilliant and learned book: Dr. Gregory sets out to prove that Protestantism is the source of all, or at least many, of the modern world's ills; but what he actually does is demonstrate in painstaking and compelling detail that medieval Catholicism and the Papacy with which it was inextricably bound up were ultimately inadequate to the task which they set - which they claimed! - for themselves. Reformation Protestantism, if I can use the singular, was one response to this failure, as conciliarism had been a hundred years before. One can dispute the adequacy of such responses; but only by an act of historical denial can one dispute the fact that it was the Papacy which failed.
Thanks to the death of medieval Christendom and to the havoc caused by the Reformation and beyond, Dr Gregory is today free to believe (or not) that Protestantism is an utter failure. Thanks to the printing press, he is also free to express this in a public form. Thanks to the modern world which grew as a response to the failure of Roman Catholicism, he is also free to choose his own solution to the problems of modernity without fear of rack or rope. Yet, having said all that, I for one find it strange indeed that someone would choose as the solution that which was actually the problem in the first place.
TOPICS: General Discusssion; History
KEYWORDS: hornetsnest
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 1,441-1,459 next last
To: Salvation
Try the Clementina Vulgate annalex posts the Gospel everyday on the Daily Readings thread. Are you obtuse? The issue is the correct translation of Lk. 1:28 and its meaning?
241
posted on
04/06/2014 8:45:27 PM PDT
by
daniel1212
(Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
To: Salvation
To: Salvation
To: daniel1212
Do not play semantically games. >Catholics pray to Mary and the saints. Anyone imploring someone in Heaven by favors would be called praying.So you admit Mary is in heaven, interesting. And that is what troubles you, for if you asked someone in your Protestant church to pray for you, you would be comfortable. I see where you're coming from. You just would be uncomfortable asking Lazarus, Martha, Mary the sister of Lazarus and Martha, or Mary the mother of God with us, to pray for your genuine needs. I get that. because Catholics really believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are real, and that Mary and the saints are real, and in a spiritual communion and unity through the Holy Spirit .. And so forth and so one, but which is rationalization that ignore the utter absence of even one example of anyone praying/making supplication in Heaven to Mary or anyone else, much less to a crowned, enthroned Queen of Heaven. the only text in heaven that comes to mind, and without any prayer but full of majesty, is And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And which means you come up empty.
Why herein is a marvelous thing, I don't feel empty at all. I'm inspired by what Mary said and did.
Meanwhile, is this the official interpretation of your church, so that the notes (in part) in your NAB Bible cannot be correct? The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from ⇒ Genesis 37:9-10) symbolizes God's people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (⇒ Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (⇒ Rev 12:6, ⇒ 13-17); cf ⇒ Isaiah 50:1; ⇒ 66:7; ⇒ Jeremiah 50:12.; http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P12V.HTM#$54O
I don't presume to speak for the Catholic Church as to whether or not there is an official interpretation of Revelation 12 in particular. I do know that Miriam is the Virgin of Israel, foretold by the prophets, a chosen vessel of God, of whom the world is not worthy; I know she is Israel, the very Israel of God and she brought forth the man child who is the Messiah, who will rule all nations. There is nothing anyone can say or do to separate her from Messiah or her from his holy catholic apostolic church. There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord.
244
posted on
04/06/2014 8:54:02 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
To: RegulatorCountry
No games, just the proper translation.
245
posted on
04/06/2014 8:55:41 PM PDT
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: af_vet_1981
And that is what troubles you Mind reading.
To: daniel1212
Yes and no, as some may be in Jesus name, which is not appending His name at the end of a prayer, but praying consistent with His Spirit and word. Well said; what do you think of the long-winded sermons masquerading as a prayer ?
Do you think the Sinner's Prayer is scriptural ?
247
posted on
04/06/2014 8:58:58 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
To: RegulatorCountry
Mind reading Reading comprehension
248
posted on
04/06/2014 9:00:20 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
To: Salvation
Clementine was relying upon the approved Latin Vulgate of Jerome, it contained the same errors.
To: af_vet_1981
Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
To: Alex Murphy
Which Protestant prayers? All Protestants? All of their prayers? That really is a conundrum, is it not ? Perhaps you have compiled a list of all the official Protestant denominations, sects, and splinter groups. Should we limit it to the disciples of Henry VIII, Luther, and Calvin ? Does Fred Phelps' church qualify or is it not Protestant because it is an Independent Fundamentalist Primitive Baptist church ?
251
posted on
04/06/2014 9:05:59 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
To: af_vet_1981
Fred Phelps’ former church is not affiliated with any denomination. Certainly not Primitive Baptists. Whether or not God hears their prayers is determined by whether or not they know Him, not by the name on the church marquee. By their behavior, I suspect they don’t. I suspect the same could be said of any number of nominal Catholics who have behaved badly.
To: af_vet_1981
Well said; what do you think of the long-winded sermons masquerading as a prayer ? You mean like (2 Chronicles 6:14-42: 1028 words)
Do you think the Sinner's Prayer is scriptural ?
Which one?
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (Luke 18:13-14)
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luke 23:42-43)
Since
The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. (Psalms 34:18)
Then why do you think a similar prayer expressing faith in the Lord Jesus to save one by His sinless shed blood and righteousness would not be salvific, if it is a faith that will follow Christ? Just what is your objection, as it seems you have superficial or legalistic idea of prayer?
253
posted on
04/06/2014 9:12:54 PM PDT
by
daniel1212
(Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
To: af_vet_1981
So you admit Mary is in heaven, interesting. And that is what troubles you, for if you asked someone in your Protestant church to pray for you, you would be comfortable. Catholics commonly pray to both angels and departed saints in Heaven, yet in all of Scripture with its over 200 prayers the Holy Spirit does not provide even one single prayer or offering from a soul on earth to a created being in Heaven except by pagans (1Kg. 18:26; Jer. 44:17-19), nor does it teach souls to address anyone else in prayer to Heaven but the Lord.
And instead, Christ is set forth by the Holy Spirit as the only mediator between man and God, between the earthly and heavenly realm, (1Tim. 2:5) and who is the only mediator that we are exhorted to called upon, (Rm. 10:13; 1Cor. 1:2) as the only intercessor who is said to ever live to make intercession for us, (Heb. 7:25) as the uniquely qualified high priest who is uniquely declared to be able to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrews 4:15) For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:18)
The Lord did not teach us to pray saying, Our Mother who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name, but Our Father... (Mt. 6:9) The Holy Spirit does not cry Mama, mama, but Abba, Father, (Gal. 4:6) Paul did not say that I bow my knees unto the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ but the Father... (Eph. 3:14)
The complete conspicuous absence of any positive examples for what is a common practice of Catholics is enough to disallow as being doctrine, in addition to the contrary teaching in what believers are exampled as doing and taught to do.
Lacking actual Scriptural support, RCs must resort to specious extrapolation from Scripture in seeking to support prayer to departed saints (PTDS) and angels. More here .
Time for bed.
254
posted on
04/06/2014 9:13:11 PM PDT
by
daniel1212
(Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
To: Religion Moderator; RegulatorCountry; daniel1212
255
posted on
04/06/2014 9:21:56 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
To: af_vet_1981
of doing Mary to pray for youasking Mary to pray for you
spell checking sw changed words "asking" to "doing"
256
posted on
04/06/2014 9:25:19 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
To: daniel1212
The Lord did not teach us to pray saying, Our Mother who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name, but Our Father... (Mt. 6:9) The Holy Spirit does not cry Mama, mama, but Abba, Father, (Gal. 4:6) Paul did not say that I bow my knees unto the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ but the Father... (Eph. 3:14) True, which churches pray the Our Father as Jesus taught ? Did Jesus teach the disciples to pray to him ? Good night, I really can't read your mind, but trying to comprehend your comnents I think you have a good one.
257
posted on
04/06/2014 9:31:19 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
To: daniel1212
Catholics commonly pray to both angels and departed saints in Heaven, yet in all of Scripture with its over 200 prayers the Holy Spirit does not provide even one single prayer or offering from a soul on earth to a created being in Heaven except by pagans (1Kg. 18:26; Jer. 44:17-19), nor does it teach souls to address anyone else in prayer to Heaven but the Lord.Yes, I was confident I understood your objection; you confirmed it here.
258
posted on
04/06/2014 9:33:57 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
To: af_vet_1981
The mind reading was in post 244: "So you admit Mary is in heaven, interesting. And that is what troubles you.."
To: Religion Moderator
The mind reading was in post 244: "So you admit Mary is in heaven, interesting. And that is what troubles you.." Ah, was it the former or the latter phrase ? His comments clearly show his objection to Catholic practice is asking any created being in heaven for assistance, and he specifically objects to Catholics asking Mary for assistance. If Mary is in heaven, as the Catholic Church believes and teaches, then that is what constitutes the objection. If one holds she is not in heave (view espoused by what's his/her name earlier), then the objection is asking anyone who has fallen asleep for assistance, but that did happen in Scripture with Abraham, although from someone else already dead. Can you see how it is confusing ?
260
posted on
04/06/2014 9:52:06 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 1,441-1,459 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson