Posted on 09/05/2015 10:15:40 AM PDT by Salvation
Msgr. Charles Pope OSV Newsweekly, September 13, 2015
Question: A Protestant co-worker said to me recently, “Who needs a pope? We have Jesus and the Bible and don’t need some man to tell us what to do.” How do I respond?
— Name withheld, location withheld
Answer: At the heart of the office of the papacy is the uniting of the faithful around a visible vicar (or representative) of Christ. Denominations and groups that left the Church and severed their ties to the pope demonstrate this very fact by their subsequent disunity.
The fact is that thousands of denominations have emerged in the wake of the Protestant movement that broke from Catholic Church and rejected the pope’s authority. And though they claim that Christ and Scripture are the only sources of authority and unity, the remarkable disunity among these denominations belies their claim. Simply put, if no one is pope, everyone is pope.
It is not enough to say, “the Bible clearly teaches ‘A,’” because too easily another person will say, “No, Jesus and the Bible actually say ‘B.’” Both camps are invoking the Bible and what they sense Jesus and the Holy Spirit are saying to them. So now what?
What usually happens is just what has happened among Protestants: divisions into new denominations or branches of denominations. They all claim the authority of the Bible and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit but cannot agree even on essentials, such has how one is saved, and if once saved, are they always saved? Protestants also have serious divisions regarding the moral issues of our time: abortion, same-sex unions, euthanasia, etc. These are very serious divisions, and there is no real way for Protestant denominations to resolve them. They say Scripture alone is an adequate source of authority. But without an authentic and authoritative interpreter, their own history shows that Scripture can divide as often as it unites. A text, even a sacred text, needs an interpreter that all agree who can authoritatively deal with differences.
And this is a central reason of why we need the pope. Jesus said to Simon Peter in Luke’s Gospel, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers” (Lk 22:31-32). Peter and his successors therefore represent (not replace) Christ, and through the grace of the Jesus’ prayer, accomplish the necessary work of uniting the Church. This ministry of unity is shown in many events in the Acts of the Apostles.
**I’d suggest that you read the Epistles of Paul and you will see that he absolutely down played Baptism for salvation.**
Not hardly!
If you are referring to Paul’s words to the church in the epistles, those folks had already been born again, or at least knew how. So there was no need for Paul to talk water baptism in his teaching of the gifts of the Spirit. He personally baptized at least four in Corinth (probably more, depending on how many made up “the household of Stephanus”). He even mentioned it in 1Cor. 15:29, and pointed out a type and shadow of water and Spirit baptism in 10:1,2.
Now I will list the separate DETAILED accounts of water baptism, starting with: Acts 8
8:12,13 (Samaritans) “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip...”.
Notice they ‘believed, and were baptized’. (sounds like fulfillment of the the Lord’s command in Mark 16:16; “He that believeth, and is baptized..”). They had NOT received the Spirit yet. Peter and John were then called to come to Samaria:
8:16; “(For as yet he was fallen upon NONE of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)”
The Ethiopian eunuch: 8:35-38; “Then Philip....preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See here is WATER; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down INTO the WATER, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” (first detailed witness mentioning water used in baptism, and an example of fulfillment of Mark 16:16).
10:44-48 (Gentiles) “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished....BECAUSE on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid WATER, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the NAME of the Lord...”. (second detailed witness of water in baptism).
In Acts 11 we find Peter back in Jerusalem, after the conversion event at Cornelius’ house in Caesarea, testifying of their receiving the Holy Ghost. With God giving them the Spirit, his hand was forced to obey God’s ordained plan, and baptize them in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. Notice his testamony at that point:
11:17; “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; WHAT WAS I, THAT I COULD WITHSTAND GOD?”.
If that is to be a realization that water baptism is not a command from the Lord, then there was nothing TO withstand.
God expected Peter to do HIS part, and baptise them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission sins. Also, he could have refused to baptize them. But knew he couldn’t withstand God’s command, for notice his words; “Can any man forbid water..”.
The conversion of the keeper of the prison, in Philippi, is a story that is rarely told completely. Quote 16:31, and get out of Dodge.
The story continues with Paul speaking “unto him the word of the Lord, and to ALL that were IN HIS HOUSE. And he TOOK THEM that same hour of the night, and WASHED their stripes; and was BAPTIZED, he and all his straightway. And WHEN he had BROUGHT them INTO HIS HOUSE, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, BELIEVING in God with all his house.” Acts 16:32-34
1. We see that the keeper of the prison has brought Paul and Silas into his house, because they speak “the word of the Lord” to the man and all those “IN HIS HOUSE” (unless you think that they somehow got a message to hustle on down to the prison for church service).
2. “He TOOK THEM” (took them from his house to where, pray tell?). Well, he washed their stripes somewhere besides the house. Some place where there would be plenty of water for the messy job of washing their stripes.
3. While still AWAY from home, possibly at the same location, they were BAPTIZED, he and all his straightway.
(you can insist that that is talking about Spirit baptism only, but you can’t prove it. I believe it is water baptism, or both water and Spirit baptism).
4. He brought them back INTO his house,......he and all his “rejoiced, BELIEVING in God with all his house”.
Re-baptism in Ephesus: Paul finds certain disciples that believe SOMETHING about the Lord, for Paul asks, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed”. To which they replied that they hadn’t even heard about the Holy Ghost. They had only been baptized “unto John’s baptism”. Paul told them that it was a baptism unto repentance.
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” 19:5,6
Now, the list of the brief mentioning of baptisms. You may argue that those are ‘Spirit’ baptisms only. Can you prove that? I say they are water baptisms, or both (and Paul is involved in all but the first of them):
Acts 2:41 about 3,000 were added.
9:18 Saul/Paul’s conversion.
16:15 Lydia and her household.
16:33 keeper of the prison and his household.
18:8 Crispus (one of several Paul admitted to baptizing in Corinth. 1Cor 1:14,16)
22:16 Saul/Paul again.
1Peter 3:20,21 is quite plain, if you are willing to allow it to harmonize with everything presented so far. 20 “...eight souls were saved by water.” 21 “The LIKE figure whereunto even BAPTISM doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
For a little comparison, read what Peter wrote, leaving out the words in parentheses, while comparing it with 1Cor. 15:29 (leaving the words in parentheses in is fine, if you prefer, for it doesn’t change the meaning).
“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” 1Cor 15:29.
That’s Paul (the one who wasn’t suppose to baptize), saying that if Christ (and the asleep in Christ) rise not, then it is all vain. If there is no resurrection, then water baptism into Christ is a waste of time. Of course, we know that is not the case, since Christ is risen, and the Spirit poured out.
Water baptism is not a bath, but is done in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. That is how it saves. That is how one has the answer of a good conscience toward God. Being “buried with him” is where you get his blood on you, but his NAME must not be left out.
One bad idea: The Roman Catholic Church of Global Warming
I can say the same about catholics I’ve known over time. Doesn’t matter what you do, just go confess to the priest, say a couple of hail Mary’s, do your penance and you’re good to go.
Paul’s mission was never to baptise and he said that many times. He misssion was to preach.
Your incoherent reply shows a total ignorance of scripture.
Here’s the truth no matter what the evangelical crowd might believe.
“Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit”. John 3:5”
(Proverbs 8:13) The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
(Proverbs 8:14) Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.
“Your incoherent reply shows a total ignorance of scripture.
Here’s the truth no matter what the evangelical crowd might believe.
“Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit”. John 3:5””
Hey you can believe that water washes all your sins if you want but that does not make it so . Even one of your early Catholic apologist says that it was a common pagan practice to believe that water washed away sins
http://www.tertullian.org/articles/souter_orat_bapt/souter_orat_bapt_04baptism.htm
5. But you will tell me that peoples without the slightest understanding of spiritual things attribute power to their images of gods through the same efficacy in water. These, however, deceive themselves, since the water they use is bereft of spiritual power. For they are initiated into certain sacred rites by a bath, those of some 16 Isis or Mithras; even their very gods they exalt with washings. Indeed, it is a universal custom to carry water round estates, houses, temples and whole cities, for their purification by sprinkling.
You're a prime example of what catholiciism does to the human soul, puffing up the pride in self ... such love you display! /sarcasm
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-necessity-of-baptism
Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).
Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), “We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”
And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]” (CCC 1257).
The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: “Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted” (Large Catechism 4:6).
Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through “baptism of blood,” martyrdom for Christ, or through “baptism of desire”, that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.
Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized” (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).
As the following passages from the works of the Church Fathers illustrate, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.
Hermas
“‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’” (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).
Justin Martyr
“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).
Tertullian
“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and.asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!” (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).
“Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (ibid., 12).
“We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: ‘I am to be baptized with a baptism’ [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost” (ibid., 16).
Hippolytus
“[P]erhaps someone will ask, ‘What does it conduce unto piety to be baptized?’ In the first place, that you may do what has seemed good to God; in the next place, being born again by water unto God so that you change your first birth, which was from concupiscence, and are able to attain salvation, which would otherwise be impossible. For thus the [prophet] has sworn to us: ‘Amen, I say to you, unless you are born again with living water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Therefore, fly to the water, for this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will not come to the water still carries around with him the spirit of insanity for the sake of which he will not come to the living water for his own salvation” (Homilies11:26 [A.D. 217]).
Origen
“It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism” (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30 [A.D. 235]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]he baptism of public witness and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church.” (Letters 72[73]:21 [A.D. 253]).
“[Catechumens who suffer martyrdom] are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord said that he had another baptism with which he himself was to be baptized [Luke 12:50]” (ibid., 72[73]:22).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.
. . . For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, ‘Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized [Mark 10:38]?’ Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]” (Catechetical Lectures 3:10 [A.D. 350]).
Gregory Nazianz
“[Besides the baptisms associated with Moses, John, and Jesus] I know also a fourth baptism, that by martyrdom and blood, by which also Christ himself was baptized. This one is far more august than the others, since it cannot be defiled by later sins” (Oration on the Holy Lights 39:17 [A.D. 381]).
Pope Siricius
“It would tend to the ruin of our souls if, from our refusal of the saving font of baptism to those who seek it, any of them should depart this life and lose the kingdom and eternal life” (Letter to Himerius 3 [A.D. 385]).
John Chrysostom
“Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a baptism, for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is the taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul, and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood” (Panegyric on St. Lucian 2 [A.D. 387]).
Ambrose of Milan
“But I hear you lamenting because he [the Emperor Valentinian] had not received the sacraments of baptism. Tell me, what else could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too had just now this desire, and after he came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago he signified that he wished to be baptized by me. Did he, then, not have the grace which he desired? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? Certainly, because he sought it, he received it. What else does it mean: ‘Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest [Wis. 4:7]’?” (Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392]).
Augustine
“There are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet God does not forgive sins except to the baptized” (Sermons to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15 [A.D. 395]).
“I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person. . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21:28 [A.D. 400]).
“That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, ‘Today you shall be with me in paradise’ [Luke 23:43]. Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart [i.e., baptism of desire] if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism” (ibid., 4:22:29).
“When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body. . . . All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark [by baptism of desire]” (ibid., 5:28:39).
“[According to] apostolic tradition . . . the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal. This is the witness of Scripture too” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]).
“Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’ [Matt. 10:32]” (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).
Pope Leo I
“And because of the transgression of the first man, the whole stock of the human race was tainted; no one can be set free from the state of the old Adam save through Christ’s sacrament of baptism, in which there are no distinctions between the reborn, as the apostle [Paul] says, ‘For as many of you as were baptized in Christ did put on Christ; there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . ‘ [Gal. 3:27–28]” (Letters 15:10[11] [A.D. 445]).
Fulgentius of Ruspe
“From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal” (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).
You ask some really good questions.
How do you know the Church is true? A person has to decide whether what each church proposes for belief is most reasonable to them. Some use the four marks of the true church, others don’t. That’s why our relationship with God is personal. We have to use our intellect and discernment.
Unfortunately, you create a false choice saying people either rely on the Church or the Scripture. Instead, Catholics use both. It is the Scripture and the writings of the Apostles and Disciples BEFORE the Bible was assembled, which form the basis of Catholic belief and teaching.
In the next set of questions, a person must discern whether they believe what is being proposed for belief. The Catechism if pretty clear (in an academic way), and also points out places where the Church takes no position.
A person can rely on his Bishop for proper teaching and interpretation. The Bishops, in union with the Pope, deal with difficult issues. Ultimately, the Pope decides, based on a number of factors, which is the right course. The individual must then decide if they should stay or go. An interesting note, Paul VI, after having several commissions of experts, etc study artificial contraception, wrote Humanae Vitae. This was an outright rejection of the prevailing attitude of the time, and a reassertion of the traditional Catholic teaching.
You create a straw man by suggesting the Truth is the Church. No, Jesus is the Truth. The Church is the physical structure on Earth that teaches what Jesus taught, following the grand commission.
People have a natural right to decide what and how they will believe. An intellect, well-formed conscience, and discernment, and ultimately the Holy Spirit point people to God. Are all religions equivalent? No. Fortunately, God is ever-merciful and decides who will and who will not enter Heaven.
But of course with catholiociism, it is all about the physical institution, not about the spiritual body of believers, since it is the physical institution of the Vatican dictates which determines who is to receive eternal life, eventually, after striving along the catholiciism sacramental trail, serving the catholic church empowerment schemes.
How sad that such sincerity can be so completely wrong and the asserter so clueless tot he Spiritual Truth of being born from above.
(John 3:3) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
(John 3:4) Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
(John 3:5) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(John 3:6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
(John 3:7) Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
BORN OF WATER is natural birth and Jesus makes this clear when he says born of the flesh is flesh
Born of the Spirit is Spiritual rebirth
again born of water is a idiom for natural birth in that day and culture
Actually, in post 54 YOU were the one who made the comment about deciding whether the church was true or not.
It was not my idea. I was just responding to it.
It’s not a false dilemma. Nobody should rely on man or man’s organizations.
Jesus and Scripture are truth. Period.
Because of that, by their very nature, they can be depended on fully and totally.
Our relationship with God is not based on intellect or even discernment. It’s based on regeneration, being born into His family. THAT’S what relationships are about. Not based on intellect, knowing about someone, but experientially knowing them.
The catechism of the Catholic church is not clear at all. It’s just church doctrine with a little Scripture thrown in.
If it mirrored Scripture as closely as Catholics claim, there’d be no need for it cause we could go right to the word, not some men’s interpretations of the Word.
“again born of water is a idiom for natural birth in that day and culture”
Not in the Bible. Water symbolizing washing sin away. Been that way for 2,000 years. You must get away from Jimmy Swaggart and his crazy heretical nonsense.
So once again, and read it slowly because this comes after John 3:3.
“Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. John 3:5
verse 6 follows verse 5 and explains it
You read and even quote, but refuse to comprehend what was offered to you in agape. The Scriptures many times repeat the message so human beings can start to see that TRUTH is offered to them. Jesus did it with Nocodemus, yet you have chosen to twist the repetitions to suit the false religion of catholiciism framework. How sad for youa nd catholics in general, that your religion is doing what Jesus condemned int he Pharisees and Sadducees: “Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” Luke 11:52
**BORN OF WATER is natural birth and Jesus makes this clear when he says born of the flesh is flesh**
No, you are trying to make it match man’s interpretation. Jesus didn’t say “that which is water is flesh”.
Furthermore, He starts out explaining this rebirth with someone already alive, and keeps that position. Even Nicodemas understood that; asking, how can a man enter his mother ‘s womb again.
And the apostles knocked themselves out baptizing souls, because they were commanded to do so.
Rightly dividing the Word is essential. Read my post #81 to see how much the ‘anti-baptism’ position overlooks.
Repent and be baptized does not mean the water washes away sin . Only the blood of Jesus washes away sin
Good post — the facts — the truth.
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.