Is Prayer/Veneration/Worship to Mary Biblical?

self | 12-14-14 | ealgeone

[ealgeone]

The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.

[Mark17]

Aha. Se we are not saved by faith alone.

LOL. There you go again, deliberately misinterpreting it, as you are prone to do. I keep saying it. Your definition of faith, and our definition of faith, are radically different. You can believe whatever you like. That is on you, but you can't say that a whole bunch of people have not tried to point out the error of your ways. I am a former catholic, so I understand. Again, we must agree to disagree.

[boatbums]

The Reformation period saw the rejection of these books, which entails the rejection of the practice of the oldest local churches. By whose authority did they delegitimize the earliest Christian collections? That has never been made clear to me, though I've searched high and low. Can you name the 16th / 17th century King, council, synod, or editorial board which had the authority to reject the criterion of "earliest Christian practice"? And if you can give me that actual name or those names, I have this further question. For Scripture to be inerrant, the selection of the books, 1,000+ years later, would have had to be inerrant. Who made this particular 16th century man, or that particular editorial board, and them alone, inerrant? I'm here to learn.

I will take you at your word that you are here to learn.

You should acknowledge that the canon was STILL in flux up to Trent and beyond. The Reformers were standing upon the shoulders of many ancient fathers who rejected the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals as inspired/God-breathed Scripture. Usage of these books in the early church for encouragement, edification, even in liturgies, isn't what is denied nor argued, it is the inclusion of them as equal to divinely-inspired Scriptures that is rejected and WAS rejected by Jerome and many others long before the Reformation. You can read here Did Jerome Change His Mind About the Apocrypha, and learn that:

There’s an argument going around the Catholic apologetic circles claiming that Jerome changed his position on the Apocrypha later in his life. That he came to accept these books as inspired because of the “judgment of the churches” on this matter. Furthermore, they claim the evidence of this lies in his citing these books using the word “Scripture” to define them. RC apologist Mark Shea provides an example of this in an Envoy Magazine article (found here: http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html). He writes:
"In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."

Shea not only claims that Jerome accepted them, but that he “strenuously” defended them. A word used to intrigue the reader, but there is no evidence that he defended them, let alone “strenuously.” Furthermore, from the citation above, he states that Jerome followed the “judgment of the churches”, which Shea translates as the synods of Hippo and Carthage, but he is mistaken. Contextually, the “judgment of the churches” refers to Theodotion’s translation of Daniel which the churches were using instead of the Septuagint version. To add to this, he couldn’t have followed Carthage considering they met 17 years after Jerome penned the above. Both Hippo and Carthage were regional councils, didn’t speak for the entire church, thus it wasn’t mandated that Jerome submit to their decisions. Yet, it was Theodotion’s version Jerome refers to when he mentions the “judgment of the churches” and not their decision on canon:

"In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, "As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion." Otherwise from the fact that I stated that Porphyry had said many things against this prophet, and called, as witnesses of this, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have replied to his folly in many thousand lines, it will be in his power to accuse me for not baring written in my Preface against the books of Porphyry. If there is any one who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and free that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.

The issue was Theodotion’s (a known heretic) translation of Daniel which was being used by the churches. The translation was faulty, wasn’t based on the Septuagint, and condemned by the “right judgment of the churches”, but the reader can see that this in no way applies to the decision on canon made at the local councils of Hippo and Carthage.

Jerome goes on to say that he is merely stating Jewish opinion against these books. Although this was the view he espoused, he was not the originator, and it put him in the uncomfortable position of arguing with the Jews on this. J.N.D. Kelly expounds:

"Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant that anything not found in it was ‘to be classed among the apocrypha’, not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine." [J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), p. 55].

He was further riled by the fact that the churches followed the translation of a known heretic instead of a Christian such as himself. As an aside, Shea wrongfully associates Pope Damasus as being in agreement with the alleged “decision” at Hippo and Carthage, but Damasus died in 384 A.D, nine years before Hippo (393) and thirteen years before Carthage (397).

Shea continues with the usual RC apologetic misrepresentations against Martin Luther, naming him as the culprit who excluded the deuterocanonicals (Jim Swan did a wonderful job of putting the proper perspective on Luther and the canon here) Yet, I’ve always found this to be odd reasoning considering the Roman Catholic canon wasn’t decided until Trent. Cardinal Cajetan (the same one who opposed Luther) and Cardinal Ximenes, both contemporaries of the era, wrote against the canonicity of these books as well. Further, there was opposition within Trent regarding these books, spearheaded by the group led by Giralamo Cardinal Seripando (for more information on this, read Hubert Jedin’s Cardinal Seripando, Papal Legate at Trent). The mere fact that there was opposition at Trent substantiates that no canon was in effect where the “judgment of the churches” would authoritatively bind the Catholic to the decision at Hippo and Carthage.

Shea reiterates his error here:

"As St. Jerome said, it is upon the basis of "the judgment of the churches" and no other that the canon of Scripture is known, since the Scriptures are simply the written portion of the Church's apostolic tradition."

Again, Shea is embellishing Jerome’s statements regarding the “judgment of the churches” to mean something that it isn’t. As I’ve already shown, contextually, Jerome is saying something else entirely. Yet, Shea isn’t the only one who tries to make Jerome pro-deuteros. Some Catholic apologists play more loosely with Jerome’s words. An apologist who calls himself “Matt1618” asserts in his internet article “Did Some Church Fathers Reject the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture” (found here: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html) that Jerome did indeed show an acceptance of these books because he never denied them inspiration and he called them “Scripture” in his later writings. This is merely “reading between the lines” in an attempt to find something more favorable to his position. He states:

"In fact it is true that none of the Fathers, even St. Jerome, ever deny their inspiration."

I don’t know how “Matt1618” would define this “denial”, but all this amounts to wishful thinking. To put it simply, what Jerome states in his prefaces and commentaries amounts to a denial of their inspiration as well as their canonicity. To put it plainly, if Jerome states that a book isn’t canonical it is only because Jerome doesn’t believe it is inspired. Scripture is “God-breathed” and men wrote as they were inspired of God. Inspired books are in the canon because they came from the very mouth of God. It defeats the purpose of the canon if some “God-breathed” Scriptures are included and others aren’t. If a book is not in the canon, it is because it is not inspired. In essence, “Matt1618” is implying that Jerome didn’t see “inspiration” as the criterion for inclusion into the canon and that a book can be “inspired” and “Scripture” and, for whatever reasons, be outside of the canon. In his commentary on Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, Jerome states:

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."

According to Jerome, these books are ecclesiastical, capable of spiritual teaching, but cannot be used for supporting church doctrine. This begs the question: Since when is known Scripture not to be used for supporting doctrine? Even Scripture itself attests:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Furthermore, Jerome, emphatically states in his preface to the books of Samuel and Kings:

"This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon."

In his preface to the Daniel he states:

"I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon; because, however, they are to be found everywhere, we have formed them into an appendix, prefixing to them an obelus, and thus making an end of them, so as not to seem to the uninformed to have cut off a large portion of the volume."

Four things are to be noted here. The first being that the additions weren’t in the Hebrew Scriptures; secondly, that Jerome calls Bel and the Dragon a “fable”; thirdly, that they were appended to his Vulgate; and fourthly, that they were marked with an “obelus” which is a critical symbol used in ancient manuscripts to mark a questionable passage. Nothing here reveals any indication that Jerome held, at least, the additions to be inspired Scripture.

Again, to Jerome, the extra books were “…not to give authority to the doctrines of the Church” and they “…are not in the canon.” Attempting to draw skepticism by claiming that he didn’t call them “uninspired” is leading the reader at best. Sure, they have some ecclesiastical value within them, but a book doesn’t need to be inspired or canonical to have ecclesiastical value. Although there are other passages from his writings that I can cite, I believe these suffice in showing that Jerome did not believe the Apocryphal books were inspired.

RC apologists, those who argue this way, are merely using sophistry to recreate Jerome and place him on the side of the Deuterocanonicals, but the evidence really doesn’t give them much to stand on. I guess this is due to the fact that Jerome is one of the Doctors of the Church and he happened to disagree that these books were inspired Scripture. It is a source of embarrassment to them so they attempt to salvage whatever they can and find themselves reading “between the lines” of his writings in a futile attempt to win him back. There is no record showing that Jerome had a change of heart regarding these books and the very fact that scholarly clergymen, such as the aforementioned Cardinals, used Jerome’s position as a catalyst for their own disagreements with these books shows an understanding that he never wavered, never changed his position. But some RC apologists choose to blind themselves from the facts.

In conclusion, Augustine, who was a contemporary of Jerome, advocated the Apocryphal books and used his weighty suffrage to influence the African synods (Hippo and Carthage), but his appeal to them was strictly emotional and, as evidenced in the City of God, he used folklore to gain acceptance of these books. Regarding canon issues and languages, it was Jerome who was the canon scholar and not Augustine. In their correspondence on the issue of the Latin translation (dated 404 AD), Jerome chides Augustine for misunderstanding the nuances of his translations (see here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html). Augustine chose not to side with Jerome, but continued to push the Septuagint over the Hebrew, even though the Septuagint itself was translated into Greek from the Hebrew. Augustine’s adherence to the LXX was based on the story of the “Seventy” which were the 72 Jewish translators who translated the Hebrew into the Greek language. Augustine tells the story of how these men worked separately in cells and when they compared their manuscripts, they were uniform in every detail, word for word. Jerome calls the story of the cells “fables” and made up, but Augustine claimed that because they worked under the same Spirit, they were led in this endeavor, thus proving the LXX to be of God. What Augustine either didn’t understand or ignored is that the “Seventy” only translated the first 5 books of Moses, the Pentateuch. In the website “The Septuagint Online” states:

Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st c CE) confirms that only the Torah was commissioned to be translated, and some modern scholars have concurred, noting a kind of consistency in the style of the Greek Penteteuch [sic]. Over the course of the next three centuries, however, other books of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek in an order that is not altogether clear. By observing technical terms and translation styles, by comparing the Greek versions to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and by comparing them to Hellenistic literature, scholars are trying to stitch together a history of the translations that eventually found their way into collections. It seems that sometimes a Hebrew book was translated more than once, or that a particular Greek translation was revised. In other cases, a work was composed afresh in Greek, yet was included in the collection of scriptures (from http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/index.htm)

Only the Pentateuch was translated by the “Seventy” and Augustine truly had no clear reasoning in accepting the Septuagint and the books not found in the Hebrew text. It would seem he influenced men through the use of quaint myths or hearsay, but as for Jerome he was resolute and never changed his mind, never follow a “decision” made by the councils influenced by Augustine and, most obviously, he never felt the need to. Jerome denied both the inspiration and the canonicity of the added books and no amount of historical revision will change the facts.

[boatbums]

An infallible Authority outside of Scripture is required for an inerrant judgement regarding the canon of the Old Testament.

There is no HUMAN infallible authority to tell God which of His divinely-inspired writings are authoritative or binding. What God tell us, He expects us to hear and obey. Human rejection of divinely-inspired Scriptures in no way determines if that work is from God or not. Holy men of God spoke as they were moved/carried along by the Holy Spirit. Human acceptance of writings not given by God as if they were from God neither exonerates man nor holds God responsible.

[boatbums]

We’re having a heat wave compared to last week. It’s 35° right now.

[boatbums]

incoming rationalization in 3....2....1...☺

[boatbums]

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Gal. 2:16)

For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law (Rom. 3:28)

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1)

Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because "the righteous will live by faith." (Gal. 3:11)

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved (Rom. 10:10)

For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not by works, so that no one can boast. (Eph. 2:8,9)

But to him that works not, but believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Rom. 4:5)

And be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith (Phil. 3:9)

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus. (Rom. 3:26)

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us (Titus 3:5)

[Springfield Reformer]

BB, this is a wonderful article! Thanks for pinging me on it.

Peace,

SR

[boatbums]

NOPE! Just because a book, or books, are found in a collection of books, does not conclude that ALL the books enjoy the same status as the others in the collection. You have failed to address the MAIN question which is, if the Septuagint is supposed to determine what books belong in the OT canon, then why weren't ALL the books included in the Roman Catholic canon? Why did they decide 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 3 Esdras, 4 Esdras, Psalms of Solomon and the Prayer of Manasseh didn't get into their canon? They WERE in the Septuagint, too.

Since Catholics consider these books canon, therefore they do not call them Apocrypha but deuterocanonical, meaning later canon. The Council of Trent in 1546, declared the Apocrypha as canon, except for 3 Esdras, 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh which they call apocryphal. In the Catholic Bible, these additional writings within the books themselves, for example, “Susana” becomes Daniel 13, and “Bel and the Dragon” becomes Daniel 14, while the Protestant Bible only has 12 chapters to the book of Daniel.

Arguments against the Apocrypha

1. There is not sufficient evidence that they were reckoned as canonical by the Jews anywhere.

2. The LXX design was literary, to build the library of Ptolemy and the Alexandrians.

3. All LXX manuscripts are Christian and not Jewish origin. With a 500 years difference between translation and existing manuscripts. Enough time for Apocryphal books to slip in.

4. LXX manuscripts do not all have the same apocryphal books and names.

5. During the 2nd Century AD the Alexandrian Jews adopted Aquila’s Greek version of the OT without apocryphal books.

6. The manuscripts at the Dead Sea make it clear no canonical book of the OT was written later than the Persian period.

7. Philo, Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (20 BC-40 AD), quoted the Old Testament prolifically, and even recognized the threefold classification, but he never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.

8. Josephus (30-100 AD.), Jewish historian, explicitly excludes the Apocrypha; numbering the books of the Old Testament as 22 neither does he quote the apocryphal books as Scripture.

9. Jesus and the New Testament writes never once quote the Apocrypha, although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost the entire book of the Old Testament.

10. The Jewish scholars of Jamnia (90 AD) did not recognize the Apocrypha.

11. No canon or council of the Christian church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly four centuries.

12. Many of the great fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha---for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

13. Jerome (AD 340-420) The great scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon.

14. Not until 1546 AD in a polemical action at the counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545-63), did the apocryphal books receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church.

(http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/index.htm)

[daniel1212]

There you go again, deliberately misinterpreting it, as you are prone to do

In those therefore in whom we cannot realize good works, we can immediately say and conclude: they heard of faith, but it did not sink into good soil. For if you continue in pride and lewdness, in greed and anger, and yet talk much of faith, St. Paul will come and say, 1 Cor. 4:20, look here my dear Sir, "the kingdom of God is not in word but in power." It requires life and action, and is not brought about by mere talk.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341-342]

This is what I have often said, if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit. If the tree is green and good, it will not cease to blossom forth in leaves and fruit. It does this by nature. I need not first command it and say: Look here, tree, bear apples. For if the tree is there and is good, the fruit will follow unbidden. If faith is present works must follow.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:340-341]

What Augustine says is indeed true: He who has created you without yourself will not save you without yourself. Works are necessary for salvation, but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life... - [Ewald M. Plass, “What Luther says,” page 1509]

“This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]

There comes a time in which there is insufficient warrant in continuing attempts with certain posters who imagine they are refuting Protestant theology by using strawmen, or a strand not being presented.

And whose egregious extrapolation trying to support unScriptural tradition and prolix sophistry has been exposed and refuted numerous times, and have also contradicted aspects of RC theology, while they have supported the eradication of us in affirming the Inquisition and its means. . And when all else fails, resort to insolent immature comments.

One wonders if they imagine they again an indulgent by taking up much of our time. Even God refuses to answer some people. It is quite an achievement to attain the "not fit to exchange" (NFTE) status, but some have earned it. To their own damnation.

It 1pm here. Current temp: 16 Hi 36° Lo 8° Frozen chosen.

[boatbums]

Well, it is faith, but it is not sufficient for salvation, as James 2:24 teaches. Likewise, in Matthew 8:29 we see the Gerasene demoniac had faith in Jesus calling Him “Son of God”. It does not look like he was saved, surely not the demon speaking through him the main postulate of our faith.

Only James is not teaching we are justified by faith AND works before God. Only God sees our hearts and knows if our faith is the kind that saves (sufficient for salvation), people can only look at the outside, they see the results of the faith we claim to have. We probably ALL know people who seem like very "good" people, who do "good" things/works, yet who do not believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior. Where Catholicism and other works-based religions fail is by not recognizing that it is NOT the works we do that contribute to our salvation. It is ONLY faith in Jesus Christ - in HIS work on the cross - that saves us.

Demons certainly believe in Jesus - they know all about Him and knew it from their very creation as angels. But Jesus didn't die on the cross to save angels - they chose who they would follow before this world existed. Faith in Jesus Christ is what saves HUMANS and this saving faith is the kind that intrinsically changes a person. Genuine faith WILL bring about a changed life. A life that WANTS to do what is right and pleasing to God - not to be saved but because we ARE saved. Those who imagine God needs their measly, filthy rags of righteousness to save then are actually fallen from grace.

[boatbums]

Mine is not "interpretation"; it is the Catholic definitive teaching. That faith without good works is "dead" does not require a fancy interpretation. Dead means dead.

"Dead" means unfruitful, too. Your/Catholicism's interpretation is that "dead" means going to hell. Jesus said whoever believes in Him is NOT condemned but is passed from death to life. (John 5:24)

[boatbums]

[Mark17]

We’re having a heat wave compared to last week. It’s 35° right now.

Double ouch. It is about 84 here now, about 6:15 PM. Ah, life is grand. 😄😃😀😊

[Mark17]

Interesting Dan, very interesting.

[metmom]

That’d be a heat wave for us for sure.

Could you send some of it our way?

[daniel1212]

"Dead" means unfruitful, too. Your/Catholicism's interpretation is that "dead" means going to hell. Jesus said whoever believes in Him is NOT condemned but is passed from death to life. (John 5:24)

To have a dead faith, which does not manifest "things which accompany salvation, esp. a sacrificial love of the brethren, (Heb. 6:9,10) is to not have saving faith.

Which best describes the overall fruit of Rome, which is liberal, and whose works (along with liberal Prot. denoms) in treating even proabortion, prosodomite pols as members in life and in death, making them all brethren, testifies in part to what she really believes versus what is on paper.

Imagining an infant, who cannot obey the stated requirements for baptism, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) is born again because the very act effects this, means they are never challenged to to come to the Lord Jesus as contrite, damned + destitute sinners, and trust Him to save them by His blood-expense and righteousness, not at all by their merit or the power of the church and a postmortem purgatorial work.

If Caths actually did so and realized the profound effects in heart and life of regeneration, as i did while still a Catholic and know the vast essential difference btwn that and institutionalized religion (not that i do not need growth in grace), then we could actually have some fellowship of the Spirit centered on Christ and His word, not an elitist church, to some degree, as we can with evangelicals from various churches.

[daniel1212]

More

[Mark17]

That’d be a heat wave for us for sure.

Could you send some of it our way?

I will package up some of the south sea island heat, and enclose it in a FReep mail. How is that? Actually, up in the northeast, there are so many liberals, I thought the outside air temp would be pretty warm, because of all the hot air coming from them.

[metmom]

LOL!

I’d hate to think that’s really helping. Cold like this is just wrong.

[Mark17]

That is s great picture BB. Humorous, but right on. I got rapped on the hands once by a nun, so I have first hand experience.