Posted on 08/02/2017 2:07:44 PM PDT by detective
The Venezuelan Episcopal Conference (CEV) has publicly invoked the intercession of the Virgin Mary to free the nation “from the claws of communism,” in a clear reference to the regime of President Nicolás Maduro.
“Blessed Virgin, Mother of Coromoto, heavenly Patron of Venezuela, free our country from the claws of communism and socialism,” the CEV posted on Twitter this Sunday, complete with an image of Santa Maria and a Venezuelan flag.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Let’s circle back around to that passage of scripture.
Can I get your thoughts on God’s reaction to the disciples suggesting three temples and what that might mean to the adoration of another human, Mary, wife of Joseph and mother to several children including Jesus Christ?
Your personal comments are getting out of hand.
Stick with the issues and stop making it personal.
I think both Austria and Brazil successfully fended off Communism by public prayer and penance.
Austria freed from Russian domination in 1955:
http://catholicgo.org/miracles-of-the-rosary-the-rosary-frees-austria-from-communist-rule-in-1955/
Brazil in 1962-1964:
http://catholicgo.org/miracles-of-the-rosary-the-rosary-saves-brazil-from-communism-1962-1964/
How many times do we have to mention “dulia”, “hyperdulia”, and “latria”, and how they are distinguished from each other? Certain posters cannot be deprived of their intentional poverty of language surrounding the English word “worship”. It is a matter of ill will, not intellect.
But getting back to the topic at hand,... maybe the Catholics in Venezuela turning to Mary in prayer, reciting the Rosary, going to mass and confession, doing public penance, maybe a victory here would go a long way to exemplify the power of prayer?
As Catholics belonging to the Communion of Saints, we can join the Venezuelans in prayer and penance.
Our sacrificial love is divine insofar as we are part of the Mystical Body of Christ. He is the trunk and we are the branches, He is the head and we are His members.
Please pray for your brothers and sisters in Christ, that they might escape the scourge of communism in Venezuela, that freedom and justice will be theirs.
Wow, just looked up Our Lady of Coromoto. Circa 1651. The amazing thing about so many of Our Lady’s appearances in world history is the fact that she has the Christ Child on her lap with His crown and scepter. Our Lady of Chartres is the same person. She always points us to her Son as the Way the Truth and the Life.
And that’s how Roman Catholicism depicts them.....Big Mary and Little Jesus. The subtleties are not lost.
Which the Holy Spirit does not show the NT believing, and actually indicts Catholicism as being a deformation of the b NT church.
*Hierarchical structure: the faithful assembled around their bishop
Which in Catholicism is contrary to Scripture, in which, even Jerome attests, the presbuteros [elders] was the same as the bishop [episkopos], and apart from the apostles who commissioned the presbuteros/episkopos to be overseers of the church (Acts 20:28) over and among the deacons and the rest , there was no titular distinctions as in Catholicism, including the laudatory titles such as "most reverend" and ostentatious garments, akin to making "broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments.' (Matthew 23:5)
Nor were NT pastors called by the same distinctive name which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for a separate sacerdotal (sacrificing) class in the New Testament ((“hiereus”/“archiereus" "priest" and "high priest" in English, over 280 times total as in Heb. 4:15; 10:11), corresponding to Old Testament "priests" (Hebrew kohen) as well as those of pagans and the general priesthood of all NT believers.
The English word "priest" is a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros, being referred to in Old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," but which in Catholicism is also used for Old Testament kohen and NT hiereus, thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers.
All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6). But nowhere are NT pastors distinctively titled hiereus, and the idea of the NT presbuteros being a distinctive class titled "hiereus" was a later development, and Catholicism attempts to justify using the same distinctive word for both OT "ko^he^n" and NT presbuteros via an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbuteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as their primary function. Yet neither presbuteros or episkopos are described as having any unique sacrificial function, and hiereus (as archiereus=chief priests) is used in distinction to elders in such places as Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5.
*Eucharistic realism: the Real Presence of Christ -—Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity ,-— in the Sacrifice of the Mass (or Divine Liturgy or however they want to call it)
Which is is never described as the paramount central priestly practice of the NT church, "the source and summit of the Catholic faith," "in which our redemption is carried out," (see here by God's grace) but is only manifestly described in one letter to the churches (aside from "feast of charity" in Jude), and in which (1Cor. 10,11 ) believers have communion with Christ as do pagans with the object of their dedicatory feasts by eating together as "one bread," and it is the church as the body of Christ which they failed to effectually recognize.
And instead of dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, and offering the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin, neither of which NT pastors are ever described as doing in the life of the church (Acts onward, which writings show us how the NT church understood the gospels), instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4; 2 Tim.4:2)) by which they “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) for the word is called spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; ;Acts 15:7-9; cf. Psalms 19:7) In contrast, nowhere in the record of the NT church is the Lord's supper described as spiritual food, and the means of obtaining spiritual life in oneself.
*The Sacramental life
Which besides the corruptions of the Lord's supper and ordaining NT pastors as hiereus, turns baptism into a magic act by which souls are regenerated by the act itself of sprinkling of water (ex opere operato), versus the washing of regeneration with the heart being purified by the faith which is expressed in baptism, as Peter (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) and Paul taught. (Eph. 1:13)
It also turns what in Scripture was a promise of healing into a precursor of death (normatively), in addition to requiring confession of sins to ordained priests, which nowhere exist in the NT, except towards each other in general. (James 5:14-20)
Furthermore, confirmation imagines that the ritual acting out something that God did through holy Spirit-filled apostles in Scripture will result in the same, which it manifestly does not, thus making a mockery of supernatural power. .
*the various Creeds (which preceded the Canon of the NT and determined the Canon of of the NT )-— It is essential to grasp that the Creeds determined what is accepted as Scripture, and not t’other way around: Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, etc.
Which dubious claim is clearly contrary to Scripture, in which an itinerant Preacher and disciples established Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) and oral preaching was subject to testing by Scripture, not vice versa.
*the veneration of holy persons, holy places, and holy things
Which in Catholicism has lended itself to exalting mortals above that which is written, and superstition.
*distinctive doctrines about Mary -— her status as the handmaid of the Lord her Savior, her ever-virginity, her sinlessness, her Assumption (or Dormition or however it is variously termed) whether it is formally defined or undefined
The Assumption was a later development flowing from fables, and was so lacking in early testimony that is was rejected by RC scholars as being apostolic doctrine , as has been shown you.
In addition, the rest of the Marian hyper exaltation, turning the pious holy Mary of Scriptuere into an "omnipotent" (by grace) demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to and always obeys, and that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse," etc , is that of thinking of mortals far "above that which is written" (contra 1Co. 4:6)
*intercessory prayer understood to include the whole Body of Christ, and not just the minority of members who happen to be walking around on the earth right now
*praying for the faithful departed, and asking the blessed in heaven to pray with us and for us.
Which is also utterly unseen in Scripture except by pagans, despite the Spirit of God recording approx. 200 prayers in Scripture, and despite teaching much about access to God and intercession (as in Hebrews) and despite instruction on who to pray to, and despite there always being plenty of heavenly beings to pray to.
Thus the cultic church RCs continuously compulsively promote and defend, despite being continuously reproved as you have been, is not that which is manifested in Scripture, and which they abuse as a servant compelled to support Cath traditions of men.
Speak for yourself.
According to Eadmer (A.D. 1060–1124), an English monk and student of Anselm, “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus...[who] does not at once, answer anyone who invokes him, but only does so after just judgment. But if the name of his mother Mary is invoked, her merits intercede so that he is answered even if the merits of him who invoked her do not deserve it.” Through her “the elements are renewed, the netherworld is healed, the demons are trodden underfoot, men are saved and angels are restored.” — Andrew Taylor, “Three medieval manuscripts and their readers,” University of Pennsylvania press; page 173
"In "Glories of Mary" by Liguori, whose writings were declared free from anything meriting censure by Pope Gregory XVI (1839) in the bull of his canonization, he teaches,
Beware, chosen soul, of thinking that it is more perfect to direct your work and intention straight to Jesus or straight to God. Without Mary, your work and your intention will be of little value. But if you go to God through Mary, your work will become Mary's work, and consequently will be most noble and most worthy of God. - THE SECRET OF MARY, St. Louis de Montfort; http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/SECRET.HTM
Yet rather than teaching that oral tradition would provide such, John was consistent with writing being the means of preservation, stating,
But these are written , that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:13)
Popes do not speak as wholly inspired of God, thus cannot be equal with Scripture
So man named Ratzinger did that also:
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative... Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg¦had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the "apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.
But...subsequent "remembering" (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously ["caught sight of?" Because there was nothing to see in the earliest period where it should have been, before a fable developed] .." (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59; emp. mine). For history, tradition and Scripture is only what Rome says it is in any conflict, which reasoning no less than Manning resorted to:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. . — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation, , pp. 227-228.
Also, Examining the evidence, let us first read what assumption supporter RC Lawrence P. Everett, C.Ss.R., S.T.D. confessed:
In the first three centuries there are absolutely no references in the authentic works of the Fathers or ecclesiastical writers to the death or bodily immortality of Mary. Nor is there any mention of a tomb of Mary in the first centuries of Christianity. The veneration of the tomb of the Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem began about the middle of the fifth century; and even here there is no agreement as to whether its locality was in the Garden of Olives or in the Valley of Josaphat. Nor is any mention made in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431) of the fact that the Council, convened to defend the Divine Maternity of the Mother of God, is being held in the very city selected by God for her final resting place. Only after the Council did the tradition begin which placed her tomb in that city.
The earliest known (non-Apocryphal) mention concerning the end of Mary's life appears in the writings of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia,.. in his Panarion or Medicine Chest (of remedies for all heresies), written in c. 377: "Whether she died or was buried we know not."
...And with the exception of a so-called contemporary of Epiphanius, Timothy of Jerusalem, who said: "Wherefore the Virgin is immortal up to now, because He who dwelt in her took her to the regions of the Ascension,"9(After a very thorough and scholarly investigation the author concludes that Timothy is an unknown author who lived between the sixth and seventh centuries (p. 23). no early writer ever doubted the fact of her death....
In the Munificentissimus Deus Pope Pius XII quotes but three Fathers of the Church, all Orientals. St. John Damascene (d. 749)...St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) ...St. Modestus of Jerusalem (d. 634)...
Apart from the Apocrypha, there is no authentic witness to the Assumption among the Fathers of either the East or the West prior to the end of the fifth century.
The first remote testimony to which Pope Pius XII turns in order to indicate the fact that our present belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Mother was likewise the belief of the Church from the earliest times is the Sacred Liturgy...
...The feast of the Assumption began in the East as did many of the older Marian feasts... However, due to the fact that neither Sacred Scripture nor early Tradition speaks explicitly of the last days of our Blessed Mother on earth and of her Assumption into heaven, the liturgy of this feast did not mention them either. Later, when the apocryphal Transitus Mariae ” in which the death and Assumption of Mary are described in detail ” became popular among the faithful, the facts of her death and Assumption were inserted into the feast... - https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=469
And William Webster documents,
...the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ˜there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...' (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17).
How then did this teaching come to have such prominence in the Church that eventually led it to be declared an issue of dogma in 1950? The first Church father to affirm explicitly the assumption of Mary in the West was Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D. But the basis for his teaching was not the tradition of the Church but his acceptance of an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae which we first hear of at the end of the fifth century and which was spuriously attributed to Melito of Sardis. There were many versions of this literature which developed over time and which were found throughout the East and West but they all originated from one source.
[The eminent Mariologist, Juniper Carol, O.F.M.] gives the following historical summary of the Transitus literature:
An intriguing corpus of literature on the final lot of Mary is formed by the apocryphal Transitus Mariae. The genesis of these accounts is shrouded in history's mist. They apparently originated before the close of the fifth century, perhaps in Egypt, perhaps in Syria, in consequence of the stimulus given Marian devotion by the definition of the divine Maternity at Ephesus. The period of proliferation is the sixth century. At least a score of Transitus accounts are extant, in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. Not all are prototypes, for many are simply variations on more ancient models (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 144).
The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo –Melito' (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149).
Also,
The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary's death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150).
Also, Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, states:
The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).
William Webster further states, Prior to the seventh and eighth centuries there is complete patristic silence on the doctrine of the Assumption. But gradually, through the influence of numerous forgeries which were believed to be genuine, coupled with the misguided enthusiasm of popular devotion, the doctrine gained a foothold in the Church. The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities gives the following history of the doctrine:...
1)The Liber de Transitu, though classed by Gelasius with the known productions of heretics came to be attributed by one...to Melito, an orthodox bishop of Sardis, in the 2nd century, and by another to St. John the Apostle.
2) A letter suggesting the possibility of the Assumption was written and attributed to St. Jerome (ad Paulam et Eustochium de Assumptione B. Virginis, Op. tom. v. p. 82, Paris, 1706).
3) A treatise to prove it not impossible was composed and attributed to St. Augustine (Op. tom. vi. p. 1142, ed. Migne).
4) Two sermons supporting the belief were written and attributed to St. Athanasius (Op. tom. ii. pp. 393, 416, ed., Ben. Paris, 1698).
5) An insertion was made in Eusebius's Chronicle that ˜in the year 48 Mary the Virgin was taken up into heaven, as some wrote that they had had it revealed to them.' - http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/assumption.html
The church fathers of the earliest centuries repeatedly cite Enoch and Elijah as examples of people who didn't die, were translated to Heaven, etc. (Clement of Rome, First Clement, 9; Tertullian, A Treatise On The Soul, 50; Tertullian, On The Resurrection Of The Flesh, 58; Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5:12; Methodius, From The Discourse On The Resurrection, 14), yet they never say any such thing about Mary or include her as an example. Irenaeus, for instance, writes about the power of God to deliver people from death, and he cites Enoch, Elijah, and Paul (2 Corinthians 12:2) as illustrations of people who were "assumed" and "translated", but he says nothing of Mary (Against Heresies, 5:5). A group of some of the leading Roman Catholic and Lutheran scholars in the world concluded:
"Furthermore, the notion of Mary's assumption into heaven has left no trace in the literature of the third, much less of the second century. M. Jugie, the foremost authority on this question, concluded in his monumental study: 'The patristic tradition prior to the Council of Nicaea does not furnish us with any witness about the Assumption.'" (Raymond Brown, et al., Mary In The New Testament [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], p. 266)
At the command of Mary all obey, even God. [St. Bemardine] She is omnipotent, for the queen, according to all laws, enjoys the same privileges as the king [wrong]; and since the son's power also belongs to the mother, this Mother is made omnipotent by an omnipotent Son. [Richard of St. Lawrence] The glories of Mary, by Alphonsus Liguori http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/glories6.htm#38
Note that in the text which Caths invoke as supporting the king giving a blank check to the intercession of the queen, that of Bath–sheba asking king Solomon to give Abishag the the Shunammite to Adonijah to wife, (1 Kings 2:13-22) the king actually responded,
Then king Solomon sware by the Lord, saying, God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah have not spoken this word against his own life. Now therefore, as the Lord liveth, which hath established me, and set me on the throne of David my father, and who hath made me an house, as he promised, Adonijah shall be put to death this day. And king Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he fell upon him that he died. (1 Kings 2:23-25)
Makes you think they have something to hide.
How many times do we have to mention that dulia, hyperdulia and latria are not New Testament concepts but Roman Catholic concepts to justify the worship of Mary?
There is nothing in the NT suggesting we ever bow before an idol of a created thing and pray before it nor rely upon it for prayers or salvation.
Is the faith of the Roman Catholic so weak they have to appeal to an idol of the created thing?
Make it CLEAR to me.
The article is a little loose with the facts.
Why; 'Mary' herself said:
11. You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary.
Yeah! I remember reading this in the Book Rome assembled , so long ago!
And now you guys have pope Francis!
PAyback's a ... well; you know.
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following Early Church Fathers promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II):
Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
Let's try some easy math:
There are approximately 1.2 billion Catholics world wide;
If merely 1% of them 'ask' Mary for help just once each day;
that means that 12 million separate prayers are headed Mary's direction every day.
Given that there are 86,400 seconds per day... (24 hours times 60 minutes times 60 seconds)
...that means that Mary has to handle approximately 139 'requests' per second!
Purty good fer someone NOT 'divine'!
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.